[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5424-H5431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. I think that the U.S. public 
wants us to cut where we can and spend wisely. It is their money. It is 
taxpayer money, and they want us to spend it wisely.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about four security budgets that 
are being cut at the same time we are increasing the CIA budget. These 
four security budgets, I would suggest, are the budgets for law 
enforcement, local law enforcement; budgets for protection for 
children; for protection of seniors; and I would like to speak a little 
bit about the Coast Guard, because in my district, the security threat 
is on our streets. It is on the sea, where our fishermen go through 
dangerous waters. It is for our children, who are in dangerous homes or 
in schools that are dangerous. Then I also think our threat is for our 
seniors' health care.
  Mr. Chairman, our law enforcement officers in the district I 
represent would be ecstatic, in fact they would be unbelieving, if 
somebody said we are going to increase your budget by about 4 percent. 
Their budgets are being cut. Yet, we have a problem of security on our 
streets.
  In the State of Oregon, we are extremely concerned, because last year 
38 children died in Oregon because of neglect or abuse. One of the 
reasons, it is my belief, that those children died, is that there was 
not a place for them to go from dangerous homes. There were not enough 
social workers to follow their care. Why not? Because we keep cutting 
those kinds of budgets. We should be protecting our children. Our 
children are the most important thing for us to protect.
  Mr. Chairman, then our seniors. I want to talk a little bit about 
their health care. It is vital that the health care of seniors be 
protected, yet we see cuts being proposed, large cuts in Medicare, 
because we do not have enough money.
  I represent a district that has a coastal area. It has the most 
dangerous place where the river comes out into the ocean. That bar is 
perhaps the most dangerous in the world. We have a wonderful Coast 
Guard station. Every day the Coast Guard protects our security, the 
security of fishing women and men who cross that bar. They also do 
tremendous work in drug interdiction. But guess what? Their budget has 
been cut. That budget is a real security budget. It is a budget that 
real men and women need.

  Mr. Chairman, we have heard that the CIA budget has actually 
decreased, but in fact if we look at the figures since 1980, true, 
there has been a decrease since 1989, but if we look from 1980 to 1996, 
we see an overall increase of 80 percent. Imagine, just imagine, an 80-
percent increase in education, health care, law enforcement.
  I think it is our absolute duty here to spend the public's money 
wisely. The most wise and commonsense way to spend it is to look at 
every budget and figure out, are we giving them enough? Could we cut 
something? But to increase this budget 3.9 percent this year does not 
make common sense. The American people want common sense. They want us 
to spend their money wisely. Let us hold it at last year's rate, and 
let us have a commonsense approach to security.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just point out to my colleagues that I am as 
sympathetic as they are to the fact that we have reduced some of the 
most important domestic programs in this country. In fact, I supported 
both the Blue Dog budget and the Clinton budget, which I think in 
overall budgetary terms were more balanced than the alternative which 
was adopted by the House.
  But I have to remind my good friends and colleagues who have 
suggested that we can just take this money from defense and 
intelligence and move it over to the domestic side; that, 
unfortunately, is not the way the budget works here. If we make the 
reductions in intelligence, the money is going to go over and be spent 
on defense, because it is all within the same budgetary item.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about the NRO. This committee 
has dealt effectively and supported John Deutch in his efforts to get 
control over the NRO. We have significantly reduced the carryforward 
funds and used it for other crucial defense priorities.
  Having said that, we are in the midst of a very important 
modernization of our signals and imagery collection systems. What we 
are trying to do is to modernize so we will have fewer but more capable 
systems and that they will ultimately save money, because we are able 
to shut down equipment and facilities that will save us money over the 
longer term and still give us a very capable system.
  Again, I want to remind my colleagues, everybody gets up here today 
and talks about the CIA. The CIA is just a small fraction of the 
overall intelligence budget. I voted with my colleagues to make that 
number known, the aggregate number known. The vast preponderance of 
funds that we have in the intelligence budget are used to assist the 
men and women who are serving us today very effectively in the military 
all over the world. It is the ability to give them rapid intelligence 
so they can go in and find a relocatable Scud launcher and destroy it 
that will save American lives in the future.
  In the gulf war we were vulnerable to that situation because we could 
not find those relocatable Scud launchers. Now we have improved 
intelligence capabilities that will allow us to do that and to target 
them rapidly and to protect and save American lives.

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues today to oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for whom I have enormous respect.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to 
the gentleman, when he says if we make this cut it goes not to domestic 
but to defense programs, that is so because the House voted it that 
way. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that would require 
that. We would have the option.
  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations on the House side has 
just gone through the difficult process of doing the allocations of 
funds among subcommittees. If we were to reduce that by $1.5 billion 
plus, he could then take that out of the national security allocation 
and give it to others. Indeed, interestingly, $1.5 billion is a figure 
that, as I understand it, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has said he needs to distribute to other domestic programs to 
prevent real carnage, so this one amendment would ease that.
  It is true if we reduce this authorization and made no other change, 
they would gobble it up; but we have, by the same vote that we reduce 
this authorization, the ability to reduce overall appropriations and 
allow the reallocation. It is entirely within our decision.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

[[Page H5425]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 235, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bliley
     Cubin
     Istook
     Molinari
     Scarborough
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1545

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Torricelli for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Messrs. PALLONE, WYNN, GUTKNECHT, and LoBIONDO changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs, FRELINGHUYSEN, TANNER, HOKE, and MARTINI changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs Schroeder: At the end of title I, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and the 
     amounts specified in the classified Schedule of 
     Authorizations referred to in section 102, the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the National 
     Reconnaissance Office is the aggregate amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the National Reconnaissance 
     Office for fiscal year 1996.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, this is one more attempt to try and cut 
back just a little bit. The gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment was 
just defeated. My amendment builds on his, and instead of cutting all 
across the board or holding at the fiscal year 1996 level, it only cuts 
and holds to the fiscal year 1996 level the funds that go to the 
National Reconnaissance Agency. So it is just very narrowly targeted to 
the NRO.
  Let me tell you why. I want to read to all of you, and I think this 
is very important. This is May 16, 1996. This is just recently, right?
  They are talking about how Mr. John Nelson, who was appointed last 
year as the Reconnaissance Office's top financial manager, said to the 
press that there had been in Defense Week an agency that had gone a 
total fundamental financial meltdown. He admitted that when he got into 
his office and started looking at the accounts, he discovered that this 
agency had put away $4 billion, and that it had not reported that 
accurately to the Congress, to the Secretary of Defense, to the head of 
the Intelligence Agency, or anyone else.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that if this agency, if we discovered 
this last week about this agency, if they had been totally in our face, 
in the Secretary of Defense's face, in the head of the CIA's face, and 
everyone else, if Mr. Nelson, who is there now trying to get the books 
in order, if all of that happened, which apparently it did, certainly 
we should not give them an increase for next year. We are just going to 
hold them level to what they got this year.
  Does that not make sense? No one is taking these extra funds away. No 
one has done any of that. We are only saying, ``OK, let's hold them to 
that level that they have this year.''
  This is not a cut, this is a freeze. Freeze them. And only freeze 
that agency, that agency that we just heard had played all sorts of 
games with us and had really not leveled.
  Mr. Chairman, I could stand here and read all sorts of editorials 
from newspapers across the country decrying the mismanagement. I 
certainly salute John Nelson. He has been very candid. He has come 
forward. He told us what he found, and that is wonderful. There have 
been editorials in all sorts of newspapers across the country pointing 
out that if any civilian agency in this government had come forward 
and found out that there was such a fraud and they had played such a 
game, this body would go out into orbit.

[[Page H5426]]

  I cannot believe 1 week after all of this, 1 week after the rash of 
different editorials and news on this, that we are going to give them 
an increase for next year, when we know they did not even level with us 
about the surplus they put away years before.
  People will stand up and they will fight my amendment by saying 
``Well, they didn't spend the money and they used it on other things,'' 
and so forth and so on.
  Every bit of money that you put away, that is interest that we are 
borrowing this money for. That is not how the game is supposed to be 
run around here. It is really saying to Congress, you cannot touch us.
  That kind of attitude is what makes everybody terribly angry. I 
certainly hope people will vote for this amendment.
  Let me frame it one more time: All this amendment does is say to the 
one agency that has really admitted, its new fiscal officer has 
admitted, they had a financial meltdown, it says they are not going to 
get an increase in the next fiscal year.
  Now, in my prior speech I talked about sacred cow disease, and I said 
that sacred cow disease seems to be almost as prevalent as mad cow 
disease is in Great Britain. When we come to defense and intelligence, 
it makes no difference what we do, we cannot help ourselves. We 
increase it. Some of the biggest budget hawks in the world that are out 
there trying to fight that deficit, they just cannot stand it. They 
cannot spend enough in this area.
  But if we do not reward a deal with this kind of mismanagement, I 
think we really look like we are not serious about this at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge people to vote for this little, tiny, tiny 
amendment, and send a message that we will not tolerate that kind of 
mismanagement in the future.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is both fiscally and constitutionally 
required. Fiscally, because it would give us at least some reduction in 
the 5-percent increase that is otherwise being voted; but it is also 
important as a matter of constitutional government.
  The following facts are not in dispute: About a year ago, some 
newspaper reports came out that the National Reconnaissance 
Organization, the entity that is the subject of this amendment, had 
squirreled away $1 billion. There was $1 billion we did not know they 
had.
  People said well, they had a bad accounting system. I reject the 
notion that the people who know all, see all, are everywhere, from whom 
the world has no secrets, did not know how much money they had. Of 
course they did.
  What they counted on was the laxity of this body's supervision. They 
counted on being able to put that money away so they could in effect 
supplement their own appropriation. These people have invented the new 
parliamentary device, the autonomous supplemental appropriation. They 
can supplement their own, by hiding the money as it goes along.

  What this means, of course, is it turns out that some of the money we 
voted for them was not necessary. They were able to accomplish certain 
objectives or for other reasons they were not able to spend some money. 
They did not turn it back. They did not come and say reprogram it. They 
just kept it.
  At first we were told there was $1 billion. Then we heard there was 
$2 billion. Then the committee intervened. Riding to the rescue of 
fiscal integrity came the Intelligence Oversight Committee, and they 
adopted some rules to prevent this from happening. And it worked, 
because thanks to them, we no longer had a $2 billion surplus hidden 
away. We had a $4 billion surplus. Thanks to the effective oversight, 
the committee said ``We took some steps a year ago.'' They took some 
steps, and as a consequence of the steps, or perhaps irrelevant to the 
steps, the $2 billion became $4 billion.
  Now, as I suggested earlier, maybe what we should do is simply 
withhold here, because we seem to have a great, surefire deficit 
reducing device. First they found $1 billion. Then the $1 billion 
became $2 billion. Then the $2 billion became $4 billion. I do not have 
my calculator, but it seems to me in a very few years, if we let these 
people go at the rate they are going, they would make a very 
substantial reduction in the deficit. They are able to produce the 
greatest surplus in a shorter period of time than anybody I have ever 
seen. But they should not be able to do it without this body voting on 
how to spend that money.
  We were told they have been disciplined. Somebody was fired. But as 
an entity, this is undeniable, they have benefited from that. They have 
gotten more money to spend.
  People said well, we are trying, Mr. Deutch is trying. I believe Mr. 
Deutch is trying. I believe the committee was trying. But Mr. Deutch 
has a broad set of responsibilities. The members of this committee have 
very broad sets of responsibilities.
  No, if you have got people who are specialists, particularly when 
they are working in a technically sophisticated area where secrecy is 
involved, no one will be able to out-account them, no one will be able 
to stop this kind of game playing, except if we say to them, we 
penalize you.
  There is one way to put an end to this, and that is to pass the 
gentlewoman's very thoughtful amendment so we say to these people there 
is a penalty for this kind of game playing and avoidance of the rules, 
and it is you will not get the full benefit from this.
  There is no danger they will be hurting financially. An entity that 
was able to squirrel away $4 billion while doing everything they were 
supposed to do is hardly going to be hurt when they get their share of 
a 5-percent increase and still have kept some of what they had.
  None of it has gone back to the deficit. Let us at least in this 
amendment give the American taxpayers some benefit from the $4 billion 
in savings. I hope the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is 
adopted.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the discussions here, we have been talking about 
this $4 billion. What we have done in the Congress is we have taken the 
$4 billion away and we are using it for other things. It has been used 
for Bosnia, it has been used for other defense priorities.
  So if the money were still there, then maybe I could see some wisdom 
in this amendment. The reality is, we are 5 percent below, for the NRO 
budget this year, 5 percent below the Clinton budget request. We have 
made some reductions in this particular area.
  I would also say to my colleagues that we are trying in the NRO, we 
have got a new financial officer who, John Deutch, a Democrat, Mr. 
Clinton's DCI put in. He took out the leadership of the NRO. He took 
out the Director and the Deputy Director. He put in Keith Hall, who is 
doing a fine job.
  So the amendment tries to punish someone who has already been 
punished. They have had their carryforward account taken away, their 
leadership has been replaced, a new financial manager has been put in 
place.
  John Deutch deserves support here. He would tell you if he were here 
on the floor of the House today that we are in the midst of a 
modernization effort to build new satellites that will allow us to 
reduce the overall infrastructure of this program and reduce spending 
in the future. But if he does not get the NRO money this year to make 
those investments, then we are going to wind up spending more on 
intelligence than we need and we are going to have less capable 
systems.
  So the DCI has taken the steps necessary to reform this. What we are 
doing today is repudiating John Deutch by saying even though you did 
that, Mr. Director, it was not enough. Now we are going to slap your 
hand again and take away a very significant amount of money.

                              {time}  1600

  I cannot say the numbers, but we are talking about a significant 
amount of money. This is as big an amendment as we are talking about 
today.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. First of all, if the gentleman is saying we are going 
to have a very significant amount of money taken away if my amendment

[[Page H5427]]

passes and we freeze it at this year's level, what we are really 
admitting is we are really giving that agency a huge increase but we 
cannot say that money.
  But second, my question is, Is the gentleman telling us the entire $4 
billion that we just found and talked about in the press a week ago, 
has that all been expended already?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentlewoman that that money has been taken back, in the 
administration's budget request and we have used it for other purposes 
in the Defense bill, which made it possible not to have to appropriate 
new money.
  So the problem has been addressed. And, again, the DCI has replaced 
the leadership of the NRO, he has put in a financial manager and we now 
have this thing under control. If there is additional money, and if it 
is not all taken, we have set a certain number of months that they can 
have carryover funds for use in each of these programs. If they go 
above that, we will take that money away as well. So it is an ongoing 
process.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
though, first of all, it is pretty astounding to me that they could 
have gotten rid of this this fast when we just learned about it this 
past week, learned of the magnitude of it.
  The way I read this is that they said originally they thought there 
were $2 billion in the carryover fund and they now find there is $4 
billion. But there also was not supposed to be any.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentlewoman that this is not the first time we have known about this. 
The members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
Committee on Appropriations have known about this but we could not 
disclose it. Somehow it got in the press, but decisions had already 
been made to take a significant part of that money last year and in 
this year's budget.
  What they are saying is that the total amount that they now have 
calculated was this. We knew that they were up there, and we took a lot 
of the money away from them earlier because it was not needed. It was 
not wasted. No waste, fraud or abuse. It was not used for anything 
other than authorized purposes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
find it surprising, then, that the newly appointed fiscal officer, John 
Nelson, would say there is a total financial meltdown, which is exactly 
what he said to the press when this was all uncovered.
  So if the new guy is saying there is a financial meltdown, I think 
that is an admission that they had this $4 billion and a game was sort 
of being played, and I find it astounding we would give them that big 
an increase.
  Mr. DICKS. I would say to the gentlewoman that we did exactly what I 
think my colleague would have wanted us to do once we found out that 
there was in fact a meltdown. He then told us what the amount of money 
was that was in excess to their requirements and we took it away from 
them.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. But the gentleman just said he spent it. The 
gentleman indicated it was taken away and spoke somewhere else.
  Mr. DICKS. It was spent for Bosnia and it was spent for other 
legitimate ventures so we did not have to appropriate new money.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
think what the American people would want us to do is not spend it and 
invest it to help bring down the debt, and I would hope we would not 
give them an increase.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of those interesting situations that one 
finds themselves, I guess constrained. I and the members of the 
committee were outraged at about this time last year when it was 
discovered that there was a carryforward account that we were not aware 
of; that the Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of.
  We demanded that there be something done. As has been mentioned, the 
two top officials at the NRO were relieved of their duty. A chief 
financial officer was put into place, and he was tasked with coming up 
with what was the amount. Originally, it was purported to be a billion, 
a billion and a half. It was uncertain, because as the gentlewoman from 
Colorado has pointed out, when the chief financial officer, Mr. Nelson, 
publicly made his report last week, he talked about how egregious, and 
I do not remember his exact words, but they were not kind in terms of 
some of the financial management of the NRO.
  We have tried to follow on the committee throughout the past several 
months, as we have had constant updates on the investigation by the 
chief financial officer of the NRO carryforward account. There were 
substantial monies taken out in the appropriations process last year, 
after it was discovered, from the carryforward account. The Director of 
Central Intelligence as well took out an additional amount of that 
money, all inclusive totaling in excess of billions of dollars, to use 
in other functions that the administration wished to pursue.

  We have continually asked and we have continually been updated on the 
carryforward account. Mr. Nelson, rather than keeping it secret and not 
discussing it, has a public interview in which he mentioned the $4 
billion amount.
  Now the accounting process stunk, but I think it is very important to 
note that this was money that had been authorized and appropriated for 
programs that were authorized by the Congress, for future program as 
that are managed and run by the National Reconnaissance Office. They 
were moneys that had not been expended because some of the programs had 
been working better than had been anticipated.
  These are programs that if the Congress wants to cancel, the Congress 
should cancel, but it does not take away from the fact that these are 
programs that at one time the Congress has approved to move forward 
with.
  Now, I also find it a little difficult in defending this because of 
how outraged I was when I first became aware of the carryfoward 
account. I also find it somewhat ironic that in the mark, and I would 
invite Members to come up and look at what we have done in the section 
for the NRO, we are 5 percent below what the administration requested 
for the NRO. And some of us have been accused of micromanaging the NRO 
accounts. My comment to that was if someone had been micromanaging for 
several years we would not be in the problem we are in.
  So on one side some of us are being criticized for micromanaging, 
trying to straighten out the problem, and on the other side we are 
being criticized for not doing enough. So I would encourage Members to 
come up and look, and I wish I could tell Members what we are doing 
with all of the programs. There has been no program left unscathed. We 
have brought every program program that that organization runs, put it 
on to the table, and we have been looking at delaying some of those 
programs, we are looking at potentially canceling some of those 
programs, and we are being strongly criticized by the agency, by the 
administration, and by other Members of Congress.
  But the purpose of doing that is to bring into bearing what it is the 
gentlewoman is complaining about, and very rightly so. But I would urge 
her to come up and look and talk to some of the Members on the other 
side that have been complaining so hard about the fact that we are 
putting them under a microscope. They are going to have to come up with 
and defend and satisfy the committee that every one of the requests 
that they have made in the President's request, which is above what we 
have authorized is, in fact, justifiable.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Colorado had asked me 
to yield, and I am happy to yield to her.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding. Is the gentleman from Texas saying that the entire $4 billion 
has been allocated somewhere else already?
  Mr. COMBEST. No. First of all, there is not an entire $4 billion. 
Virtually half of that amount was taken out last year.

[[Page H5428]]

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. And so has the rest of it been expended this year?
  Mr. COMBEST. Part of that is in the continuing carryforward account. 
What we required last year in the authorization was that they lower 
their carryforward account to no more than 1 month. They could not run 
programs in a carryforward account, they could not keep those moneys 
for more than 1 month.
  But they have to manage that, Mrs. Schroeder. They have to move that. 
They cannot take that amount of money and all of a sudden just throw it 
away. We do not want them to do that, and they are managing that now. 
So what we are requiring that they do is to take that money that was 
originally authorized and appropriated for certain programs and expend 
it on those programs and work that carryforward account down. They are 
in that process now to where they have no more than 1 month's 
carryforward at any time.
  We have only become aware, as the gentlewoman mentioned, of the 
amount of the money just in the past week to 10 days, because they have 
continually, over this period of time, tried to do a very accurate 
accounting in which they were going to tell us how much that was there 
for. And it was not wasted or thrown away or squandered. It is not 
being spent on programs that are not authorized. It is that they were 
trying to work that out.
  But last year, recognizing even at the time we were only talking in 
the neighborhood of a billion to a billion and a half, we agreed that 
that was not acceptable and that we were going to bring that under 
scrutiny.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. COMBEST. That was to be brought under scrutiny and they were to 
begin to manage that account. We then have, in this year's 
authorization, as I have mentioned, and I would encourage the 
gentlewoman to look, brought every program that organization runs under 
scrutiny. Every one.
  I wish the gentlewoman would look at what we are recommending on some 
of those. I cannot go beyond that on the floor of the House.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, the next question I have, then, the gentleman is saying that if 
my amendment passed, which would hold this agency at this year's 
funding level, it would be a disaster because how much of an increase 
are we giving the agency? Can we say that in open session, what the 
percentage increase is?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what we can say is it is 5 percent below the 
Clinton budget request.
  Mr. COMBEST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
correct, this authorization bill is 5 percent below what the 
administration requested.
  Mr. DICKS. And if the gentleman will yield further, that is on the 
NRO portion.
  Mr. COMBEST. Yes; that is correct, on the NRO portion.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. But we cannot say how much of an increase it is over 
what we are spending this year; is that correct?
  Mr. COMBEST. I guess we might, but I am not for sure. I would have to 
check to see what that is.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Could I ask the chairman further, if my amendment 
were to pass, and there is still some money left in this carryforward 
account, could they not use that this year to make up any critical 
shortfall?
  Mr. COMBEST. Those funds in the carryforward account are obligated 
and were authorized and appropriated for specific purposes of which the 
new authorizations that we are looking at now would not include.
  Those are still going to have to be expended. They would have had to 
have been expended at some point in time. And that is the point I was 
making earlier, was that if the Congress wants to go back and cancel 
some of those programs that have already been approved that this money 
was there for, that is a totally different subject. But as long as 
those are still to be moving forward in the new satellite architecture, 
all those funds in the carryforward account at some point have to be 
expended on those programs. And the moneys we are looking at now are 
not going in the carryforward, they are going into additional 
expenditures for those programs above what the carryforward accounts 
accounted for.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I hope he 
understands.
  Mr. COMBEST. I do understand.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. To the average person this sounds absolutely nuts, 
that we are giving an increase to an agency that we just learned had 
this surplus.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to say that we are actually cutting the NRO by 
5 percent.
  Mr. COMBEST. Reclaiming my time, I want to say to the gentlewoman 
that I understand the frustration, I truly do understand it, and it 
makes it seem so ridiculous for this to have happened, that we can 
allow a bad accounting program like this to go unpunished. but I do not 
know how we go back and punish. The only way to do that is to cut out 
what I think are some very significant programs, and, hopefully, the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency's efforts to try to deal 
with this problem are what are bringing this all to fruition and to a 
head.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Let me point out I think we have disciplined an agency 
pretty well when we take away at least 50 percent immediately of the 
carryover funds. As soon as we found them out, we took those away. The 
Director appointed a special task force. He appointed a new financial 
officer, fired the Director and the Deputy Director, and said we are 
going to get this thing cleaned up and straightened out.
  Now, the problem is that what we are doing here is coming in with a 
punitive approach and saying even though we have done all those things 
we have to do something more. I would argue that if both my colleagues 
would come up, we could go through this program and show them that what 
we are talking abut here are NRO satellites that are vitally important 
to the military.

                              {time}  1615

  It is the men and women that we have deployed all over this world who 
are going to be denied important intelligence if we do not modernize 
and improve our imagery and satellites. It is not some bureaucrats 
whose hands we are slapping. It is not an accountant over at the NRO. 
What we are doing is denying important intelligence to our military 
people.
  So I would urge my colleagues not to do this. This is not the right 
way to go. It is too significant an amount of money. Mr. Deutch has 
done the right things here. We have got to give him an opportunity to 
clean up this mess, and he is doing it. But what we are doing here is 
punishing him because we are undermining the architecture that he has 
set up for the modernization of our satellites and that was also set up 
by Mr. Woolsey, another Democrat and appointee of this administration. 
They both would say that this would undermine and hurt the efforts to 
improve our satellite capability.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today I introduced an amendment which would 
reduce intelligence spending by 10 percent. It received, I believe, 115 
votes. Just a few minutes ago the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] introduced an amendment that would freeze intelligence spending. 
It received 193 votes.
  My sincere hope is that we can receive another 20 votes to pass the 
Schroeder amendment. I will tell my colleagues why. Month after month 
and day after day, Members from both sides of the aisle come here on 
the floor of the House, and they talk about the $5 trillion national 
debt. They talk about the deficit, and they talk about

[[Page H5429]]

how important it is and how necessary it is to cut program after 
program after program. My friend from Washington a moment ago talked 
about his fear that we would be ``disciplining this agency.''
  Mr. Chairman, by overspending on intelligence, by spending more money 
than we need for the National Reconnaissance Office, an agency that has 
misplaced, that has lost $4 billion of taxpayers' money, what we are 
doing is disciplining hungry children in America. We are disciplining 
families who would like Federal funding in order to send their kids to 
college. We are disciplining senior citizens who get by on $7,000 or 
$8,000 a year Social Security but do not have the help from the Federal 
Government to purchase prescription drugs.
  We are disciplining tens of millions of people who would like some 
help from the Federal Government. But we are saying, not only can we 
not afford it, we are going to cut back on what we are currently 
providing because we think we need to spend this money on the 
intelligence agencies, despite the end of the cold war.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that many Members in this body are terribly 
sincere, both sides of the aisle, terribly sincere about deficit 
reduction. I know that they have been reluctant and with pain have made 
cuts that they know are going to hurt millions of middle-class working 
class, low-income families. I beseech those same Members who have made 
those cuts that impact negatively on people who are hurting today to 
have the courage to stand up and say that, when we have an agency that 
has misplaced $4 billion, the very least we can do to protect our 
credibility is to say to that agency that we are going to level fund 
you.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] did not say we are 
going to cut their funding in half. That is not what she said. She came 
forward with a very conservative amendment. Level fund an agency that 
has misplaced $4 billion. We need 20 votes more to finally say to the 
American people that we are serious about deficit reduction. Please 
support the Schroeder amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the armed services, quite often, for example, if you 
have a budget and you have so much fuel allocated in that fiscal year, 
that fiscal year's allocation that you have to burn it during that 
period of time and quite often we would come to the end of the year 
because we did not know how much we would use in Vietnam, in Somalia, 
in Bosnia, and if you did not use the amount you thought, then you 
would end up with a bunch of it toward the end of the year. so you 
tried to manage it and prepare for a contingency.
  Quite often we would have to fly up that fuel because we would not 
get as much next year. We knew that we needed the fuel over a long 
period of time for management for those contingencies also. We were 
forced to burn it when it really was not used in the best way. 
Intelligence has managed its dollars over a period of time looking to 
when it sees.
  Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community works in the antidrug 
program. It works in anticrime, not only here but abroad, in DEA, in 
CIA, in FBI. If you want to come after ATF, come to me and I will help 
you. But if you take a look at the broad nature of where our 
intelligence services go and how they help the security of this 
country, not only aiding our military, I looked, during the bill, the 
antiterrorist bill, I made a statement that my concern was that people 
will not support our troops in the field through intelligence.
  Even though the cold war is over, I believe that our need for 
intelligence has actually increased. If you take a look, and the reason 
that we were so opposed to what the President did in the arms shipment 
by going through Iran and getting the Iranians involved in the Middle 
East, if you take a look at the French and the British and the 
different portions in Europe to where they increased on fundamental 
terrorists of the Islamic groups actively engaged, there is an 
increased need for intelligence there, just for the security of those 
countries and the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues, in the World Trade Center 
bombing, that was Islamic fundamentalists that were here also illegally 
in this country. The need for intelligence in that has increased in 
this country. We look at Ruby Ridge that was just on, and we look at 
other areas of the country where that increase in intelligence is so 
important to protect American citizens.
  In areas of defense and areas of national security, in which these 
forces, they are not used, I think, to waste and squander dollars, but 
it is to help the American people in those areas and to help our troops 
when they are engaged in combat.
  If we take a look, for example, right now today in the Ural 
Mountains, my friend from Washington is aware of this, within the Ural 
Mountains, Russia today is building an underground first strike nuclear 
capability as big as the entire area inside the Beltway. That is pretty 
important to know for this country.
  I remember in San Diego, when Iraq was trying to smuggle nuclear 
triggers out of San Diego. It is pretty important to the American 
citizens to have that kind of intelligence. If we try to micromanage 
and cut back, yes, there are areas, I am sure there are areas in the 
military, to the gentlewoman from Colorado, that, yes, things have been 
spent too much.
  Mr. Chairman, but that is the problem generally with any Federal 
organization. That is why we want to send a lot of it to the States. We 
think that is a better way to manage and balance the budget and to 
eliminate the programs.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me. The gentleman is making a good point. We want good intelligence. 
But we are talking here about just limiting this to a freeze to this 
year's level, and this is for satellites.
  A lot of the intelligence the gentleman is talking about, language 
skills being able to have people on the ground understand Farsi, 
understand all of those types of things, or dealing with intelligence 
about whether you are talking about Ruby Ridge or something else, most 
of that you are not picking up off satellites. Satellites do not 
delineate a terrorist from a regular citizen. We are just targeting it 
to satellites.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you 
about the satellites. When I was at Navy Fighter Weapons School, we 
were able to look down and read the serial numbers on the missiles on 
the side of aircraft to determine what our real threat was. The 
Russians have recently developed the AA-10, which is superior to our 
AMRAAM. We need to know those kinds of things, that is taken off the 
satellites.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the Congress and the American 
people are not left with a misimpression that Iranian arms only began 
being shipped to the former Yugoslavian Republic during this 
administration. Through the entire course of the Bush administration, 
Iranian arms were going into the former Yugoslavian Republic at a time 
when the Bush administration had no policy to deal with the slaughter 
that was going on in Yugoslavia. It is particularly ironic that having 
executed a policy that has at least for now stopped the fighting, 
stopped the civilian slaughter and the genocide, that the other side 
would criticize and try to make an issue of the President who finally 
took a stand and actually concluded a policy that stopped the genocide.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct that one, I am sure, innocent 
misimpression that was left by the previous speaker. The Iranians were 
shipping arms into the former Yugoslavian Republic during the time of 
the Bush administration.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's clarifying that 
point. I would like to also say that we are not just talking about 
stopping

[[Page H5430]]

these satellites. When you talk about the satellites, they are able to 
gather information that gives our country a warning about terrorists 
and various terrorist organizations and what they are doing and their 
plans. So when we have things like the World Trade Center, I think it 
is a sobering thought that terrorists are now able to do things like 
this in the United States. That is another reason why in my judgment we 
ought to protect this budget.
  This budget is not only important to our military deployed abroad, 
but it also gives us the ability to find these various terrorist 
organizations and what their plans and intentions are, some of which 
are not good for the United States.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the point is we are only going after 
this one part of the budget. This is the one agency that had the fiscal 
meltdown. We are holding it level at this year's amount. Yes, of 
course, we need satellites but we also need language skills, people on 
the ground, all sorts of different kinds of information; and that is 
not cut or held even by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is just real important. I think that the 
debate that would have gone on if the civilian agency had done this 
would have been of an entirely different tenor on this floor. People 
would have been jumping to the mike, demanding the head of the agency 
be delivered down here and everything else. I am really amazed that all 
the tap dancing that we have done around this. I think this is a simple 
amendment, and I certainly hope it passes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me as I was watching the debate 
and listening to the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from 
Vermont talk about misplacement of $4 billion and fiscal meltdowns, I 
wonder what those two colleagues of mine would say if we had the same 
response to the mismanagement that has been shown by the inspector 
general of the United States for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 
the Food and Consumer Services Agency.
  The IG did an audit, as I am sure my colleagues know, showing that 
$13.5 billion out of $37 billion of the food and consumer services 
budget could not be found. Talk about mismanagement. Talk about 
unaccountability. And I do not here anybody on the other side being 
outraged by that kind of mismanagement or that kind of fiscal meltdown.
  The point is, there is fiscal mismanagement at an agency that the 
gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Vermont I think want 
to ignore.

                              {time}  1630

  An audit was done; they cannot prove that it was lost, but they 
cannot prove that this was spent for the proper purpose. The I.G. said 
there is no accounting of it, it cannot be proved what happened to the 
money.
  So that agency came before the Committee on Appropriations, on which 
I serve, and said, ``Give us $4 billion more.''
  So I think we have to put this all in perspective and realize that we 
are talking about the national security interests of the United States, 
and on that basis I think we have to be careful about saying, as my 
colleagues know, about trying to punish agencies because that hand can 
bite if we are not careful.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I will be equally as 
outraged when we get to that item on the floor. I promise the 
gentleman. I do not like misspent money anywhere. I think that is why 
Americans are so angry with us, is that we come in and we become 
apologists for it, and they think that we have all bought into the 
Potomac fever syndrome when we do that.
  The reason I do not have an amendment on the floor to deal with that 
today is we do not have that bill on the floor today.
  But I promise the gentleman, if there is one up there, I will not be 
trying to reward that agency with a large increase over this year's 
budget because they cannot find money from the last year, and that is 
my whole point.
  So I hope the gentleman joins with me today, and then we can both 
stand here and be outraged when that one comes up, and any other budget 
anywhere.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will pay attention to what has happened in 
the food and consumer services agency. That money goes to kids. It is 
supposed to go to kids, and we are spending it on all other kinds of 
things in that agency, but I do not hear the outrage.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, another point I would make on this is that 
in a sense this money was never misspent at the NRO. Apparently there 
was big money misspent over at the Agriculture Department on things 
that were not supposed to be. The NRO money ultimately would have been 
spent on programs that had been authorized and appropriated by the 
Congress, and the irony of this is that we are going to have to restore 
this money at some future date. We will have to do that because of the 
amount of money that is required to build these very elaborate, 
complicated intelligence system.
  So we took the money away in the short term, but it is going to have 
to be restored in the long term.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Let me just say in response to the gentleman from 
Washington, who makes a very, very good point, this is a dangerous 
world. We have limited resources. We cannot gamble on the intelligence 
services of the United States of America, and I think, as my colleagues 
know, we are talking a little bit about apples and oranges although the 
concept that the gentlewoman from Colorado makes, or the point she 
makes with regard to mismanagement, applies equally on the domestic 
side, but we do not have the national security interests of the country 
at stake.
  So I think the point of the gentleman from Washington, my colleague 
and friend, Mr. Dicks, is a very good one.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I mean I love this. These two gentlemen 
from Washington are here saying, as my colleagues know, ``The best 
defense is a good offense.''
  Look, we cannot be outraged about the agriculture budget, because it 
is not here today. If it is here today, we will offer an amendment, 
and, yes, it is terribly wrong to take money from little kids, but it 
is also terribly wrong to waste money here and to play the games that 
were played, and I would hope the gentleman would join me in dealing 
with this issue that we can do something about.
  So something about what we can do something about, which is this 
issue in front of us today, and vote for my amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will just simply 
close my portion of time in saying that this amendment should be 
rejected. I fully support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] in their position on this 
bill and this amendment. We should move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 137, 
noes 292, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--137

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp

[[Page H5431]]


     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Woolsey

                               NOES--292

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bliley
     Hoke
     Molinari
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1654

  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. SCHUMER, WALSH, BENTSEN, and CUMMINGS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. THURMAN and Messrs. RANGEL, DOGGETT, SHAYS, and FOX of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hobson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3259), to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the 
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 437, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by he Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________