[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9586-H9610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 858, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 
                               YEAR 1998

  Mr. GOSS submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the Senate bill (S. 858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
1998 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:

                  Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-350)

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.858), 
     to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 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, having met, after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses as follows:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House and agree to the same with an 
     amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

[[Page H9587]]

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified schedule of authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Community Management Account.

 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by 
              law.
Sec. 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 303. Detail of intelligence community personnel.
Sec. 304. Extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence 
              activities.
Sec. 305. Sense of Congress on intelligence community contracting.
Sec. 306. Sense of Congress on receipt of classified information.
Sec. 307. Provision of information on certain violent crimes abroad to 
              victims and victims' families.
Sec. 308. Annual reports on intelligence activities of the People's 
              Republic of China.
Sec. 309. Standards for spelling of foreign names and places and for 
              use of geographic coordinates.
Sec. 310. Review of studies on chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf 
              during the Persian Gulf War.
Sec. 311. Amendments to Fair Credit Reporting Act.

                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Sec. 401. Multiyear leasing authority.
Sec. 402. Subpoena authority for the Inspector General of the Central 
              Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 403. CIA central services program.
Sec. 404. Protection of CIA facilities.
Sec. 405. Administrative location of the Office of the Director of 
              Central Intelligence.

         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 501. Authority to award academic degree of Bachelor of Science in 
              Intelligence.
Sec. 502. Funding for infrastructure and quality of life improvements 
              at Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling stations.
Sec. 503. Unauthorized use of name, initials, or seal of National 
              Reconnaissance Office.
                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 1998 for the conduct of the intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the following elements of 
     the United States Government:
       (1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
       (2) The Department of Defense.
       (3) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
       (4) The National Security Agency.
       (5) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, 
     and the Department of the Air Force.
       (6) The Department of State.
       (7) The Department of the Treasury.
       (8) The Department of Energy.
       (9) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (10) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
       (11) The National Reconnaissance Office.
       (12) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

      SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and 
     the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 1998, 
     for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the elements listed in such section, are those 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     prepared to accompany the conference report on the bill 
     S.858 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
       (b) Availability of Classified Schedule of 
     Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made 
     available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives and to the President. The 
     President shall provide for suitable distribution of the 
     Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within 
     the Executive Branch.

     SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director 
     of Central Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian 
     personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year 
     1998 under section 102 when the Director of Central 
     Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the 
     performance of important intelligence functions, except that 
     the number of personnel employed in excess of the number 
     authorized under such section may not, for any element of the 
     intelligence community, exceed two percent of the number of 
     civilian personnel authorized under such section for such 
     element.
       (b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of 
     Central Intelligence shall promptly notify the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate whenever the Director exercises the authority 
     granted by this section.

     SEC. 104. COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Community Management Account of the Director of 
     Central Intelligence for fiscal year 1998 the sum of 
     $121,580,000.
       (2) Availability of certain funds.--Within such amount, 
     funds identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     referred to in section 102(a) for the Advanced Research and 
     Development Committee and the Environmental Intelligence and 
     Applications Program shall remain available until September 
     30, 1999.
       (b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the 
     Community Management Account of the Director of Central 
     Intelligence are authorized a total of 283 full-time 
     personnel as of September 30, 1998. Personnel serving in such 
     elements may be permanent employees of the Community 
     Management Account element or personnel detailed from other 
     elements of the United States Government.
       (c) Classified Authorizations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Community 
     Management Account by subsection (a), there is also 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Community Management 
     Account for fiscal year 1998 such additional amounts as are 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     referred to in section 102(a).
       (2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the 
     personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the 
     Community Management Account as of September 30, 1998, there 
     is hereby authorized such additional personnel for such 
     elements as of that date as is specified in the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations.
       (d) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in section 113 of 
     the National Security Act of 1947 (as added by section 303 of 
     this Act), during fiscal year 1998, any officer or employee 
     of the United States or member of the Armed Forces who is 
     detailed to the staff of an element within the Community 
     Management Account from another element of the United States 
     Government shall be detailed on a reimbursable basis, except 
     that any such officer, employee, or member may be detailed on 
     a non-reimbursable basis for a period of less than one year 
     for the performance of temporary functions as required by the 
     Director of Central Intelligence.
       (e) National Drug Intelligence Center.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in subsection (a), the amount of $27,000,000 
     shall be available for the National Drug Intelligence Center. 
     Within such amount, funds provided for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation purposes shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1999, and funds provided for procurement 
     purposes shall remain available until September 30, 2000.
       (2) Transfer of funds.--The Director of Central 
     Intelligence shall transfer to the Attorney General of the 
     United States funds available for the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center under paragraph (1). The Attorney General 
     shall utilize funds so transferred for the activities of the 
     Center.
       (3) Limitation.--Amounts available for the Center may not 
     be used in contravention of the provisions of section 
     103(d)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     403-3(d)(1)).
       (4) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Attorney General shall retain full authority over the 
     operations of the Center.
 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal 
     year 1998 the sum of $196,900,000.
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS 
                   AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

       Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, 
     retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be 
     increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may 
     be necessary for increases in such compensation or 
     benefits authorized by law.

     SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not 
     be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any 
     intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by 
     the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

     SEC. 303. DETAIL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the National Security Act of 
     1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:


 ``detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence community 
                           assignment program

       ``Sec. 113. (a) Detail.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the head of a department with an element in 
     the intelligence community or the head of an intelligence 
     community agency or element may detail any employee within 
     that department, agency, or element to serve in any position 
     in the Intelligence Community Assignment Program on a 
     reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis.
       ``(2) Nonreimbursable details may be for such periods as 
     are agreed to between the heads of the parent and host 
     agencies, up to a maximum of three years, except that such 
     details may be extended for a period not to exceed one year 
     when the heads of the parent and host agencies determine that 
     such extension is in the public interest.
       ``(b) Benefits, Allowances, Travel, Incentives.--An 
     employee detailed under subsection (a) may be authorized any 
     benefit, allowance, travel, or incentive otherwise provided 
     to enhance staffing by the organization from which the 
     employee is detailed.

[[Page H9588]]

       ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, and 
     annually thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence 
     shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report describing 
     the detail of intelligence community personnel pursuant to 
     subsection (a) during the 12-month period ending on the date 
     of the report. The report shall set forth the number of 
     personnel detailed, the identity of parent and host agencies 
     or elements, and an analysis of the benefits of the 
     details.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Sections 120, 121, and 110 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 are hereby redesignated as 
     sections 110, 111, and 112, respectively.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of such Act is amended by striking out the items 
     relating to sections 120, 121, and 110 and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:

``Sec. 110. National mission of National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
``Sec. 111. Collection tasking authority.
``Sec. 112. Restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United 
              Nations.
``Sec. 113. Detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence 
              community assignment program.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to an employee on detail on or after January 1, 
     1997.

     SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO 
                   INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''.

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
                   CONTRACTING.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central 
     Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the 
     intelligence community, whenever compatible with the national 
     security interests of the United States and consistent with 
     operational and security concerns related to the conduct of 
     intelligence activities, and where fiscally sound, should 
     competitively award contracts in a manner that maximizes the 
     procurement of products properly designated as having been 
     made in the United States.

     SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED 
                   INFORMATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have 
     equal standing with officials of the Executive Branch to 
     receive classified information so that Congress may carry out 
     its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution.

     SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CERTAIN VIOLENT CRIMES 
                   ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to 
     provide information regarding the killing, abduction, 
     torture, or other serious mistreatment of United States 
     citizens abroad to the victims of such crimes, or the 
     families of victims of such crimes if they are United States 
     citizens; and
       (2) the provision of such information is sufficiently 
     important that the discharge of the responsibility for 
     identifying and disseminating such information should be 
     vested in a cabinet-level officer of the United States 
     Government.
       (b) Responsibility.--The Secretary of State shall take 
     appropriate actions to ensure that the United States 
     Government takes all appropriate actions to--
       (1) identify promptly information (including classified 
     information) in the possession of the departments and 
     agencies of the United States Government regarding the 
     killing, abduction, torture, or other serious mistreatment of 
     United States citizens abroad; and
       (2) subject to subsection (c), promptly make such 
     information available to--
       (A) the victims of such crimes; or
       (B) when appropriate, the family members of the victims of 
     such crimes if such family members are United States 
     citizens.
       (c) Limitations.--The Secretary shall work with the heads 
     of appropriate departments and agencies of the United States 
     Government in order to ensure that information relevant to a 
     crime covered by subsection (b) is promptly reviewed and, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, without jeopardizing 
     sensitive sources and methods or other vital national 
     security interests, or without jeopardizing an on-going 
     criminal investigation or proceeding, made available under 
     that subsection unless such disclosure is specifically 
     prohibited by law.

     SEC. 308. ANNUAL REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, jointly and in consultation 
     with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, 
     including the National Security Agency and the Departments of 
     Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State, shall prepare and 
     transmit to Congress a report on intelligence activities of 
     the People's Republic of China directed against or affecting 
     the interests of the United States.
       (b) Delivery of Report.--The Director of Central 
     Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall jointly transmit classified and 
     unclassified versions of the report to the Speaker and 
     Minority leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority 
     and Minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Chairman and Vice-
     Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 309. STANDARDS FOR SPELLING OF FOREIGN NAMES AND PLACES 
                   AND FOR USE OF GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES.

       (a) Survey of Current Standards.--
       (1) Survey.--The Director of Central Intelligence shall 
     carry out a survey of current standards for the spelling of 
     foreign names and places, and the use of geographic 
     coordinates for such places, among the elements of the 
     intelligence community.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report on the survey 
     carried out under paragraph (1). The report shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (b) Guidelines.--
       (1) Issuance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall issue guidelines to 
     ensure the use of uniform spelling of foreign names and 
     places and the uniform use of geographic coordinates for such 
     places. The guidelines shall apply to all intelligence 
     reports, intelligence products, and intelligence databases 
     prepared and utilized by the elements of the intelligence 
     community.
       (2) Basis.--The guidelines under paragraph (1) shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, be based on current United 
     States Government standards for the transliteration of 
     foreign names, standards for foreign place names developed by 
     the Board on Geographic Names, and a standard set of 
     geographic coordinates.
       (3) Submittal to congress.--The Director shall submit a 
     copy of the guidelines to the congressional intelligence 
     committees.
       (c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 310. REVIEW OF STUDIES ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN THE 
                   PERSIAN GULF DURING THE PERSIAN GULF WAR.

       (a) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than May 31, 1998, the Inspector 
     General of the Central Intelligence Agency shall complete a 
     review of the studies conducted by the Federal Government 
     regarding the presence, use, or destruction of chemical 
     weapons in the Persian Gulf theater of operations during the 
     Persian Gulf War.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the review is to identify any 
     additional investigation or research that may be necessary--
       (A) to determine fully and completely the extent of Central 
     Intelligence Agency knowledge of the presence, use, or 
     destruction of such weapons in that theater of operations 
     during that war; and
       (B) with respect to any other issue relating to the 
     presence, use, or destruction of such weapons in that theater 
     of operations during that war that the Inspector General 
     considers appropriate.
       (b) Report on Review.--
       (1) Requirement.--Upon the completion of the review, the 
     Inspector General shall submit to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the results of the review. The report shall include such 
     recommendations for additional investigations or research as 
     the Inspector General considers appropriate.
       (2) Form.--The report shall be submitted in unclassified 
     form, but may include a classified annex.

     SEC. 311. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.

       (a) Exception to Consumer Disclosure Requirement.--Section 
     604(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)) 
     (as amended by chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Economic Growth 
     and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Exception for national security investigations.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an agency or department 
     of the United States Government which seeks to obtain and use 
     a consumer report for employment purposes, paragraph (3) 
     shall not apply to any adverse action by such agency or 
     department which is based in part on such consumer report, if 
     the head of such agency or department makes a written finding 
     that--
       ``(i) the consumer report is relevant to a national 
     security investigation of such agency or department;
       ``(ii) the investigation is within the jurisdiction of such 
     agency or department;
       ``(iii) there is reason to believe that compliance with 
     paragraph (3) will--

       ``(I) endanger the life or physical safety of any person;
       ``(II) result in flight from prosecution;
       ``(III) result in the destruction of, or tampering with, 
     evidence relevant to the investigation;
       ``(IV) result in the intimidation of a potential witness 
     relevant to the investigation;
       ``(V) result in the compromise of classified information; 
     or
       ``(VI) otherwise seriously jeopardize or unduly delay the 
     investigation or another official proceeding.

       ``(B) Notification of consumer upon conclusion of 
     investigation.--Upon the conclusion of a national security 
     investigation described in subparagraph (A), or upon the 
     determination that the exception under subparagraph (A) is no 
     longer required for the reasons set forth in such 
     subparagraph, the official exercising the authority in such 
     subparagraph shall provide to the consumer who is the subject 
     of the consumer report with regard to which such finding was 
     made--

[[Page H9589]]

       ``(i) a copy of such consumer report with any classified 
     information redacted as necessary;
       ``(ii) notice of any adverse action which is based, in 
     part, on the consumer report; and
       ``(iii) the identification with reasonable specificity of 
     the nature of the investigation for which the consumer report 
     was sought.
       ``(C) Delegation by head of agency or department.--For 
     purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the head of any agency 
     or department of the United States Government may delegate 
     his or her authorities under this paragraph to an official of 
     such agency or department who has personnel security 
     responsibilities and is a member of the Senior Executive 
     Service or equivalent civilian or military rank.
       ``(D) Report to the congress.--Not later than January 31 of 
     each year, the head of each agency and department of the 
     United States Government that exercised authority under this 
     paragraph during the preceding year shall submit a report to 
     the Congress on the number of times the department or agency 
     exercised such authority during the year.
       ``(E) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) Classified information.--The term `classified 
     information' means information that is protected from 
     unauthorized disclosure under Executive Order No. 12958 or 
     successor orders.
       ``(ii) National security investigation.--The term `national 
     security investigation' means any official inquiry by an 
     agency or department of the United States Government to 
     determine the eligibility of a consumer to receive access or 
     continued access to classified information or to determine 
     whether classified information has been lost or 
     compromised.''.
       (b) Resale of Consumer Report to a Federal Agency or 
     Department.--Section 607(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1681e(e)) (as amended by chapter 1 of subtitle D 
     of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act 
     of 1996) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Resale of consumer report to a federal agency or 
     department.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), a person 
     who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the 
     report (or any information in the report) shall not disclose 
     the identity of the end-user of the report under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) if--
       ``(A) the end user is an agency or department of the United 
     States Government which procures the report from the person 
     for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer 
     concerned to receive access or continued access to classified 
     information (as defined in section 604(b)(4)(E)(i)); and
       ``(B) the agency or department certifies in writing to the 
     person reselling the report that nondisclosure is necessary 
     to protect classified information or the safety of persons 
     employed by or contracting with, or undergoing investigation 
     for work or contracting with the agency or department.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect as if such amendments had been 
     included in chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Economic Growth 
     and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 as of the date 
     of the enactment of such Act.
                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

     SEC. 401. MULTIYEAR LEASING AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403f) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (f) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 5.'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking out 
     ``without regard'' and all that follows through ``; and'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon;
       (4) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (6), 
     as so redesignated, and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'';
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding section 1341(a)(1) of title 31, 
     United States Code, enter into multiyear leases for up to 15 
     years.''; and
       (6) by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b)(1) The authority to enter into a multiyear lease 
     under subsection (a)(7) shall be subject to appropriations 
     provided in advance for--
       ``(A) the entire lease; or
       ``(B) the first 12 months of the lease and the Government's 
     estimated termination liability.
       ``(2) In the case of any such lease entered into under 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) such lease shall include a clause that provides that 
     the contract shall be terminated if budget authority (as 
     defined by section 3(2) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(2))) is not 
     provided specifically for that project in an appropriations 
     Act in advance of an obligation of funds in respect thereto;
       ``(B) notwithstanding section 1552 of title 31, United 
     States Code, amounts obligated for paying termination costs 
     with respect to such lease shall remain available until the 
     costs associated with termination of such lease are paid;
       ``(C) funds available for termination liability shall 
     remain available to satisfy rental obligations with respect 
     to such lease in subsequent fiscal years in the event such 
     lease is not terminated early, but only to the extent those 
     funds are in excess of the amount of termination liability at 
     the time of their use to satisfy such rental obligations; and
       ``(D) funds appropriated for a fiscal year may be used to 
     make payments on such lease, for a maximum of 12 months, 
     beginning any time during such fiscal year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to multiyear leases entered into under section 5 of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as so amended, on or 
     after October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 402. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
                   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

       (a) Authority.--Subsection (e) of section 17 of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403q) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Inspector General is authorized to require by subpoena the 
     production of all information, documents, reports, answers, 
     records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary 
     evidence necessary in the performance of the duties and 
     responsibilities of the Inspector General.
       ``(B) In the case of Government agencies, the Inspector 
     General shall obtain information, documents, reports, 
     answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and 
     evidence for the purpose specified in subparagraph (A) using 
     procedures other than by subpoenas.
       ``(C) The Inspector General may not issue a subpoena for or 
     on behalf of any other element or component of the Agency.
       ``(D) In the case of contumacy or refusal to obey a 
     subpoena issued under this paragraph, the subpoena shall be 
     enforceable by order of any appropriate district court of the 
     United States.
       ``(E) Not later than January 31 and July 31 of each year, 
     the Inspector General shall submit to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report of 
     the Inspector General's exercise of authority under this 
     paragraph during the preceding six months.''.
       (b) Limitation on Authority for Protection of National 
     Security.--Subsection (b)(3) of that section is amended by 
     inserting ``, or from issuing any subpoena, after the 
     Inspector General has decided to initiate, carry out, or 
     complete such audit, inspection, or investigation or to issue 
     such subpoena,'' after ``or investigation''.

     SEC. 403. CIA CENTRAL SERVICES PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority for Program.--The Central Intelligence Agency 
     Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403a et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:


                       ``central services program

       ``Sec. 21. (a) In General.--The Director may carry out a 
     program under which elements of the Agency provide items and 
     services on a reimbursable basis to other elements of the 
     Agency and to other Government agencies. The Director shall 
     carry out the program in accordance with the provisions of 
     this section.
       ``(b) Participation of Agency Elements.--(1) In order to 
     carry out the program, the Director shall--
       ``(A) designate the elements of the Agency that are to 
     provide items or services under the program (in this section 
     referred to as `central service providers');
       ``(B) specify the items or services to be provided under 
     the program by such providers; and
       ``(C) assign to such providers for purposes of the program 
     such inventories, equipment, and other assets (including 
     equipment on order) as the Director determines necessary to 
     permit such providers to provide items or services under the 
     program.
       ``(2) The designation of elements and the specification of 
     items and services under paragraph (1) shall be subject to 
     the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       ``(c) Central Services Working Capital Fund.--(1) There is 
     established a fund to be known as the Central Services 
     Working Capital Fund (in this section referred to as the 
     `Fund'). The purpose of the Fund is to provide sums for 
     activities under the program.
       ``(2) There shall be deposited in the Fund the following:
       ``(A) Amounts appropriated to the Fund.
       ``(B) Amounts credited to the Fund from payments received 
     by central service providers under subsection (e).
       ``(C) Fees imposed and collected under subsection (f)(1).
       ``(D) Amounts collected in payment for loss or damage to 
     equipment or other property of a central service provider as 
     a result of activities under the program.
       ``(E) Such other amounts as the Director is authorized to 
     deposit in or transfer to the Fund.
       ``(3) Amounts in the Fund shall be available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, for the following purposes:
       ``(A) To pay the costs of providing items or services under 
     the program.
       ``(B) To pay the costs of carrying out activities under 
     subsection (f)(2).
       ``(d) Limitation on Amount of Orders.--The total value of 
     all orders for items or services to be provided under the 
     program in any fiscal year may not exceed an amount specified 
     in advance by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       ``(e) Payment for Items and Services.--(1) A Government 
     agency provided items or services under the program shall pay 
     the central service provider concerned for such items or 
     services an amount equal to the costs incurred by the 
     provider in providing such items or services plus any fee 
     imposed under subsection (f). In calculating such costs, the 
     Director shall take into account personnel costs (including 
     costs associated with salaries, annual leave, and workers' 
     compensation), plant and equipment costs (including 
     depreciation of plant and equipment), operation and 
     maintenance expenses, amortized costs, and other expenses.
       ``(2) Payment for items or services under paragraph (1) may 
     take the form of an advanced

[[Page H9590]]

     payment by an agency from appropriations available to such 
     agency for the procurement of such items or services.
       ``(f) Fees.--(1) The Director may permit a central service 
     provider to impose and collect a fee with respect to the 
     provision of an item or service under the program. The amount 
     of the fee may not exceed an amount equal to four percent of 
     the payment received by the provider for the item or service.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Director may 
     obligate and expend amounts in the Fund that are attributable 
     to the fees imposed and collected under paragraph (1) to 
     acquire equipment or systems for, or to improve the equipment 
     or systems of, elements of the Agency that are not designated 
     for participation in the program in order to facilitate the 
     designation of such elements for future participation in the 
     program.
       ``(B) The Director may not expend amounts in the Fund for 
     purposes specified in subparagraph (A) in fiscal year 1998, 
     1999, or 2000 unless the Director--
       ``(i) secures the prior approval of the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget; and
       ``(ii) submits notice of the proposed expenditure to the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate.
       ``(g) Audit.--(1) Not later than December 31 each year, the 
     Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency shall 
     conduct an audit of the activities under the program during 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall determine the form and content of annual audits under 
     paragraph (1). Such audits shall include an itemized 
     accounting of the items or services provided, the costs 
     associated with the items or services provided, the payments 
     and any fees received for the items or services provided, and 
     the agencies provided items or services.
       ``(3) Not later than 30 days after the completion of an 
     audit under paragraph (1), the Inspector General shall submit 
     a copy of the audit to the following:
       ``(A) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(B) The Director of Central Intelligence.
       ``(C) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(D) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       ``(h) Termination.--(1) The authority of the Director to 
     carry out the program under this section shall terminate on 
     March 31, 2000.
       ``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the Director of Central 
     Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, acting jointly--
       ``(A) may terminate the program under this section and the 
     Fund at any time; and
       ``(B) upon such termination, shall provide for the 
     disposition of the personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, 
     contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of 
     appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds 
     held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made 
     available in connection with the program or the Fund.
       ``(3) The Director of Central Intelligence and the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget may not undertake any 
     action under paragraph (2) until 60 days after the date on 
     which the Directors jointly submit notice of such action to 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
     of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the Senate.''.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
     101, $2,000,000 shall be available for deposit in the Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund established by section 21(c) of 
     the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as added by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 404. PROTECTION OF CIA FACILITIES.

       Subsection (a) of section 15 of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403o) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking out ``powers only within Agency 
     installations,'' and all that follows through the end and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``powers--
       ``(A) within the Agency Headquarters Compound and the 
     property controlled and occupied by the Federal Highway 
     Administration located immediately adjacent to such Compound;
       ``(B) in the streets, sidewalks, and the open areas within 
     the zone beginning at the outside boundary of such Compound 
     and property and extending outward 500 feet;
       ``(C) within any other Agency installation and protected 
     property; and
       ``(D) in the streets, sidewalks, and open areas within the 
     zone beginning at the outside boundary of any installation or 
     property referred to in subparagraph (C) and extending 
     outward 500 feet.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) The performance of functions and exercise of powers 
     under subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (1) shall be 
     limited to those circumstances where such personnel can 
     identify specific and articulable facts giving such personnel 
     reason to believe that the performance of such functions and 
     exercise of such powers is reasonable to protect against 
     physical damage or injury, or threats of physical damage or 
     injury, to Agency installations, property, or employees.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     preclude, or limit in any way, the authority of any Federal, 
     State, or local law enforcement agency, or any other Federal 
     police or Federal protective service.
       ``(4) The rules and regulations enforced by such personnel 
     shall be the rules and regulations prescribed by the Director 
     and shall only be applicable to the areas referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Not later than December 1, 1998, and annually 
     thereafter, the Director shall submit a report to the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate that describes in detail the exercise of the 
     authority granted by this subsection, and the underlying 
     facts supporting the exercise of such authority, during the 
     preceding fiscal year. The Director shall make such report 
     available to the Inspector General of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.''.

     SEC. 405. ADMINISTRATIVE LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.

       Section 102(e) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 403(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The Office of the Director of Central Intelligence 
     shall, for administrative purposes, be within the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.''.
         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 501. AUTHORITY TO AWARD ACADEMIC DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF 
                   SCIENCE IN INTELLIGENCE.

       (a) Authority for New Bachelor's Degree.--Section 2161 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic 
       degrees

       ``Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, 
     the president of the Joint Military Intelligence College may, 
     upon recommendation by the faculty of the college, confer 
     upon a graduate of the college who has fulfilled the 
     requirements for the degree the following:
       ``(1) The degree of Master of Science of Strategic 
     Intelligence (MSSI).
       ``(2) The degree of Bachelor of Science in Intelligence 
     (BSI).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to that section 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 108 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:
``2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.''.

     SEC. 502. FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND QUALITY OF LIFE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS AT MENWITH HILL AND BAD AIBLING 
                   STATIONS.

       Section 506(b) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-93; 109 Stat. 974) is 
     amended by striking out ``for fiscal years 1996 and 1997'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``for fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999''.

     SEC. 503. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NAME, INITIALS, OR SEAL OF 
                   NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE.

       (a) Extension, Reorganization, and Consolidation of 
     Authorities.--Subchapter I of chapter 21 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 425. Prohibition of unauthorized use of name, 
       initials, or seal: specified intelligence agencies

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except with the written permission of 
     both the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, no person may knowingly use, in connection with 
     any merchandise, retail product, impersonation, solicitation, 
     or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to 
     convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or 
     authorized by the Secretary and the Director, any of the 
     following (or any colorable imitation thereof):
       ``(1) The words `Defense Intelligence Agency', the initials 
     `DIA', or the seal of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
       ``(2) The words `National Reconnaissance Office', the 
     initials `NRO', or the seal of the National Reconnaissance 
     Office.
       ``(3) The words `National Imagery and Mapping Agency', the 
     initials `NIMA', or the seal of the National Imagery and 
     Mapping Agency.
       ``(4) The words `Defense Mapping Agency', the initials 
     `DMA', or the seal of the Defense Mapping Agency.''.
       (b) Transfer of Enforcement Authority.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 202 of title 10, United States Code, is transferred 
     to the end of section 425 of such title, as added by 
     subsection (a), and is amended by inserting ``Authority To 
     Enjoin Violations.--'' after ``(b)''.
       (c) Repeal of Reorganized Provisions.--Sections 202 and 445 
     of title 10, United States Code, are repealed.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter II 
     of chapter 8 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out the item relating to section 202.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I 
     of chapter 21 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out the items relating to sections 424 and 425 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``424. Disclosure of organizational and personnel information: 
              exemption for Defense Intelligence Agency, National 
              Reconnaissance Office, and National Imagery and Mapping 
              Agency.
``425. Prohibition of unauthorized use of name, initials, or seal: 
              specified intelligence agencies.''.

       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I 
     of chapter 22 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out the item relating to section 445.

       And the House agree to the same.
     From the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for 
     consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, 
     and modifications committed to conference:

[[Page H9591]]

     Porter Goss,
     Bill Young,
     Jerry Lewis,
     Bud Shuster,
     Bill McCollum,
     Michael N. Castle,
     Sherwood Boehlert,
     Charles F. Bass,
     Jim Gibbons,
     Norm Dicks,
     Julian C. Dixon,
     David E. Skaggs,
     Nancy Pelosi,
     Jane Harman,
     Ike Skelton,
     Sanford D. Bishop,
     From the Committee on National Security, for consideration of 
     defense tactical intelligence and related activities:
     Floyd Spence,
     Bob Stump,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     From the Select Committee on Intelligence:
     Richard Shelby,
     John H. Chafee,
     Dick Lugar,
     Mike DeWine,
     Jon Kyl,
     James Inhofe,
     Orrin Hatch,
     Pat Roberts,
     Wayne Allard,
     Daniel Coats,
     Bob Kerrey,
     John Glenn,
     Richard H. Bryan,
     Bob Graham,
     John F. Kerry,
     Max Baucus,
     Chuck Robb,
     Frank Lautenberg,
     Carl Levin,
     From the Committee on Armed Services:
     Strom Thurman,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

       JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the Senate and the House at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 
     858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for 
     intelligence and the 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, submit the following joint 
     statement to the Senate and the House in explanation of the 
     effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
     recommended in the accompanying conference report:
       The House amendment struck all of the Senate bill after the 
     enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
       The Senate recedes from its disagreement to the amendment 
     of the House with an amendment that is a substitute for the 
     Senate bill and the House amendment. The differences between 
     the Senate bill, the House amendment, and the substitute 
     agreed to in conference are noted below, except for clerical 
     corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements 
     reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clerical 
     changes.

                    Title I--Intelligence Activities


               sec. 101. authorization for appropriations

       Section 101 of the conference report lists the departments, 
     agencies, and other elements of the United States Government 
     for whose intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     the Act authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 1998. 
     Section 101 is identical to section 101 of the Senate bill 
     and section 101 of the House amendment.


            sec. 102. classified schedule of authorizations

       Section 102 of the conference report makes clear that the 
     details of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     intelligence and intelligence-related activities and 
     applicable personnel ceilings covered under this title for 
     fiscal year 1998 are contained in a classified Schedule of 
     Authorizations. The classified Schedule of Authorizations is 
     incorporated into the Act by this section. The details of the 
     Schedule are explained in the classified annex to this 
     report. Section 102 is identical to section 102 of the Senate 
     bill and section 102 of the House amendment.


                sec. 103. personnel ceiling adjustments

       Section 103 of the conference report authorizes the 
     Director of Central Intelligence, with the approval of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in fiscal 
     year 1998 to authorize employment of civilian personnel in 
     excess of the personnel ceilings applicable to the components 
     of the Intelligence Community under section 102 by an amount 
     not to exceed two percent of the total of the ceilings 
     applicable under section 102. The Director of Central 
     Intelligence may exercise this authority only when doing so 
     is necessary to the performance of important intelligence 
     functions. Any exercise of this authority must be reported to 
     the two intelligence committees of the Congress.
       The managers emphasize that the authority conferred by 
     section 103 is not intended to permit the wholesale raising 
     of personnel strength in any intelligence component. Rather, 
     the section provides the Director of Central Intelligence 
     with flexibility to adjust personnel levels temporarily for 
     contingencies and for overages caused by an imbalance between 
     hiring of new employees and attrition of current employees. 
     The managers do not expect the Director of Central 
     Intelligence to allow heads of intelligence components to 
     plan to exceed levels set in the Schedule of Authorizations 
     except for the satisfaction of clearly identified hiring 
     needs which are consistent with the authorization of 
     personnel strengths in this bill. In no case is this 
     authority to be used to provide for positions denied by this 
     bill. Section 103 is identical to section 103 of the Senate 
     bill and section 103 of the House amendment.


                 sec. 104. community management account

       Section 104 of the conference report authorizes 
     appropriations for the Community Management Account of the 
     Director of Central Intelligence and sets the personnel end-
     strength for the Intelligence Community Management Staff for 
     fiscal year 1998.
       Subsection (a) authorizes appropriations of $121,580,000 
     for fiscal year 1998 for the activities of the Community 
     Management Account (CMA) of the Director of Central 
     Intelligence. This amount includes funds identified for the 
     Advanced Research and Development Committee and the 
     Environmental Intelligence and Applications Program, which 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1999.
       Subsection (b) authorizes 283 full-time personnel for the 
     Community Management Staff for fiscal year 1998 and provides 
     that such personnel may be permanent employees of the Staff 
     or detailed from various elements of the United States 
     Government.
       Subsection (c) authorizes additional appropriations and 
     personnel for the Community Management Account as specified 
     in the classified Schedule of Authorizations.
       Subsection (d) requires, except as provided in Section 303 
     of this Act, or for temporary situations of less than one 
     year, that personnel from another element of the United 
     States Government be detailed to an element of the Community 
     Management Account on a reimbursable basis.
       Subsection (e) authorizes $27,000,000 of the amount 
     authorized in subsection (a) to be made available for the 
     National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). This subsection 
     is identical to subsection (e) in the House amendment. The 
     Senate bill had no similar provision. The Senate recedes. 
     The managers agree that continued funding of the NDIC from 
     the NFIP deserves considerable study, and many remain 
     concerned that the balance between law enforcement and 
     national security equities in the NDIC's operations is 
     skewed in favor of the law enforcement community. This is 
     due, in part, to placement of the NDIC within the 
     Department of Justice.
       The managers urge the President to carefully examine this 
     problem and report to the Committees before April 1, 1998. 
     This examination should be undertaken and reported as a part 
     of the National Counter-Narcotics Architecture Review 
     currently being prepared by the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy. The report should describe current and 
     proposed efforts to structure the NDIC to effectively 
     coordinate and consolidate strategic drug intelligence from 
     national security and law enforcement agencies. It should 
     also describe what steps have been taken to ensure that the 
     relevant national security and law enforcement agencies are 
     providing the NDIC with access to data needed to accomplish 
     this task. The managers agree that upon receipt of this 
     report the intelligence committees will reconsider whether it 
     is appropriate to continue funding the NDIC as a part of the 
     National Foreign Intelligence Program.

 Title II--Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System


               sec. 201. authorization of appropriations

       Section 201 is identical to section 201 of the House 
     amendment and section 201 of the Senate bill.

                     Title III--General Provisions


sec. 301. increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by 
                                  law

       Section 301 is identical to section 301 of the House 
     amendment and section 301 of the Senate bill.


      sec. 302. restriction on conduct of intelligence activities

       Section 302 is identical to section 302 of the House 
     amendment and section 302 of the Senate bill.


          sec 303. detail of intelligence community personnel

       The managers strongly support the inauguration of the 
     Intelligence Community Assignment Program (ICAP). This type 
     of initiative is critical if the Intelligence Community is to 
     prepare itself for future challenges that will require an 
     ever increasing level of coordination and cooperation between 
     the various elements of the community. Section 303 is similar 
     to section 304 of the House amendment and section 303 of the 
     Senate bill. The managers agreed to a provision that is 
     nearly identical to that found in the House amendment. 
     Section 303 of the conference report does not, however, 
     terminate this authority on September 30, 2002.


 sec. 304. extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence 
                               activities

       Section 304 of the conference report extends until January 
     6, 1999 the authority granted by section 303 of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 for the 
     President to stay the imposition of an economic, cultural, 
     diplomatic, or other sanction or related action when the 
     President determines and reports to Congress that to proceed 
     without delay would seriously risk the compromise of an 
     intelligence source or method, or an ongoing criminal 
     investigation. Section 304 is similar to section 305 of

[[Page H9592]]

     the House amendment and section 304 of the Senate bill. The 
     Senate bill extended the deferral authority until January 6, 
     2001, whereas the House amendment extended the authority 
     until January 6, 1999. The managers agreed to adopt the House 
     amendment with minor technical changes.


   sec. 305. sense of congress on intelligence community contracting

       Section 305 expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
     Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct 
     elements of the Intelligence Community to award contracts in 
     a manner that would maximize the procurement of products 
     produced in the United States, when such action is compatible 
     with the national security interests of the United States, 
     consistent with operational and security concerns, and 
     fiscally sound. A provision similar to section 305 has been 
     included in previous intelligence authorization acts. Section 
     305 is similar in intent to sections 306 through 308 of the 
     House amendment. The Senate bill had no similar provision.


    sec. 306. sense of congress on receipt of classified information

       Section 306 expresses the sense of the Congress that 
     Members of Congress have equal standing with officials of the 
     executive branch to receive classified information so that 
     Congress may carry out its oversight responsibilities. The 
     Senate bill contained a provision that directed the President 
     to inform all employees of the executive branch, and 
     employees of contractors carrying out duties under classified 
     contracts, that the disclosure of classified information 
     reasonably believed by the person to be evidence of a 
     violation of law, regulation, or rule; false statement to 
     Congress; gross mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of 
     authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public 
     safety, is not contrary to law, executive order, 
     regulation, or is otherwise not contrary to public policy. 
     The Senate provision would have allowed disclosure of such 
     information to any Member or staff member of a committee 
     of Congress having oversight responsibility for the 
     department, agency, or element of the Federal Government 
     to which such information relates. The Senate bill would 
     also have allowed disclosure of such classified 
     information to the employee's own Representative. The 
     House amendment had no similar provision.
       The managers decided not to include section 306 of the 
     Senate bill in the conference report. Such action should not, 
     however, be interpreted as agreement with the 
     Administration's position on whether it is constitutional for 
     Congress to legislate on this subject matter. The managers' 
     action also should not be further interpreted as agreement 
     with the opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal 
     Counsel, which explicitly stated that only the President may 
     determine when executive branch employees may disclose 
     classified information to Members of Congress. The managers 
     assert that members of congressional committees have a need 
     to know information, classified or otherwise, that directly 
     relates to their responsibility to conduct vigorous and 
     thorough oversight of the activities of the executive 
     departments and agencies within their committees' 
     jurisdiction.
       While the managers recognize the Chief Executive's inherent 
     constitutional authority to protect sensitive national 
     security information, they do not agree that this authority 
     may be asserted against Congress to withhold evidence of 
     wrongdoing and thereby impede Congress in exercising its 
     legislative oversight authority. Therefore, the managers 
     committed to hold hearings on this issue and develop 
     appropriate legislative solutions.


sec. 307. provision of information on certain violent crimes abroad to 
                     victims and victims' families

       Section 307 directs the Secretary of State to ensure that 
     the United States Government takes all appropriate actions to 
     identify promptly all unclassified and classified information 
     in the possession of the United States Government regarding 
     the killing, abduction, torture, or other serious 
     mistreatment of a U.S. citizen abroad. The provision further 
     requires the Secretary of State to ensure that all 
     information is promptly reviewed and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, without jeopardizing sensitive sources and 
     methods or other vital national security interests, or 
     without jeopardizing an on-going criminal investigation or 
     proceeding, made available to the victim or victim's family 
     if they are United States citizens, unless such a disclosure 
     is specifically prohibited by law.
       Section 307 is similar to section 307 of the Senate bill. 
     The House amendment had no similar provision. The managers 
     agreed to a provision that limits the release of information 
     to U.S. citizens. The managers also exempted from disclosure 
     information that may jeopardize an on-going criminal 
     investigation or proceeding. Additionally, the managers 
     acknowledged that there are certain statutes that 
     specifically prohibit disclosure of certain types or 
     categories of information and, therefore, added language that 
     defers to those statutory prohibitions.
       The managers recognized that the term ``information'' is 
     very broad and may be interpreted to include all forms of 
     information in the possession of the United States 
     Government. The managers also recognized that the various 
     agencies and departments of the United States Government may 
     have in their possession non-official information that is 
     readily available to the public via other means, e.g. press 
     clippings. Therefore, the managers intend the term 
     ``information'' to be construed to mean information that is 
     not available to the victims or families unless provided to 
     them by the United States Government.


sec. 308. report on intelligence activities of the people's republic of 
                                 china

       Section 308 directs the Director of Central Intelligence 
     and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 
     consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, to prepare and transmit to Congress a report on the 
     intelligence activities of the People's Republic of China 
     directed against or affecting the interests of the United 
     States. Section 308 is similar to section 309 of the House 
     amendment. The Senate bill had no similar provision.


 sec. 309. standards for spelling of foreign names and places and for 
                     use of geographic coordinates

       Section 309 directs the Director of Central Intelligence to 
     carry out a survey of current standards for the spelling of 
     foreign names and places, and the geographic coordinates for 
     such places. This provision further directs the Director of 
     Central Intelligence to submit the results of the survey to 
     the congressional intelligence committees and issue 
     guidelines to ensure uniform spelling of foreign names and 
     places and the uniform use of geographic coordinates for such 
     places.
       Section 309 is nearly identical to section 308 of the 
     Senate bill. The House amendment had no similar provision.


  sec. 310. review of studies on chemical weapons in the persian gulf 
                      during the persian gulf war

       Section 310 directs the Inspector General (IG) of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency to complete a review of the 
     studies conducted by the Federal Government regarding the 
     presence, use, or destruction of chemical weapons in the 
     Persian Gulf theater of operations during the Persian Gulf 
     War. This review is required to be completed not later 
     than May 31, 1998. Section 310 is similar to section 310 
     of the House amendment. The Senate bill had no similar 
     provision.
       The managers were aware of at lest ten investigations or 
     studies that were in various states of completion. The 
     managers noted that the CIA IG is already in the final stages 
     of two major projects related to chemical weapons and the 
     Persian Gulf War. At the request of former Director of 
     Central Intelligence Deutch, the IG is assessing allegations 
     made by two former Agency employees regarding the CIA's 
     handling of information concerning the possible exposure of 
     United States personnel to chemical weapons. Additionally, in 
     support of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War 
     Veterans' Illnesses, the CIA IG is conducting a special 
     assessment of the Agency's handling of information related to 
     the Iraqi ammunition storage depot at Khamisiyah. Both of 
     these studies are expected to be completed in October 1997. 
     The remaining studies that relate to the possible exposure of 
     United States forces to chemical weapons during the Persian 
     Gulf War include the following:
       1. The CIA's Persian Gulf War Illness Task Force published 
     an unclassified report on Khamisiyah, ``An Historical 
     Perspective on Related Intelligence,'' in April 1997. The 
     Agency's Directorate of Intelligence published an 
     unclassified ``Report on Intelligence Related to Gulf War 
     Illnesses,'' in August 1996.
       2. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
     Intelligence Oversight is preparing a report on what 
     information was available to the Department of Defense 
     concerning Iraqi chemical weapons before and during the Gulf 
     War, and what the Department did with that information.
       3. The Inspector General to the Department of Defense has 
     been tasked to investigate the disappearance of military logs 
     related to chemical weapons alerts during the war.
       4. The Inspector General of the Army is conducting a series 
     of investigations relating to the possible exposure of U.S. 
     troops to chemical weapons.
       5. The augmented Persian Gulf Investigation Team, under the 
     direction of the Office of the Special Assistant to the 
     Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, is continuing a 
     broad inquiry into the Gulf War illness issue, including the 
     role of chemical exposures.
       6. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War 
     Veterans' Illnesses is completing its work on answering 
     questions from the President related to the Khamisiyah 
     ammunition storage depot.
       7. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has hired a 
     special investigator to look into Gulf War issues, and the 
     House Veterans' Affairs Committee remains active on the 
     issue.
       8. The General Accounting Office published a report 
     entitled ``Gulf War Illnesses: Improved Monitoring of 
     Clinical Progress and Reexamination of Research Emphasis are 
     Needed,'' in June 1997. The GAO is also preparing answers to 
     questions posed by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee 
     concerning DoD logs and possible chemical weapons exposure 
     incidents.
       Therefore, instead of requiring the IG to undertake another 
     investigation that would essentially mirror ongoing efforts, 
     the managers agreed to direct the IG to conduct a review that 
     will identify whether any additional investigation or 
     research is necessary to determine the extent of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency's knowledge of the presence,

[[Page H9593]]

     use, or destruction of chemical weapons and any other issue 
     relating to the presence, use, or destruction of such 
     weapons. The results of this review will allow the 
     congressional intelligence committees to direct the 
     appropriate authorities to conduct additional specific 
     investigations without duplicating past efforts. The managers 
     are very concerned about the handling of information relating 
     to the presence, use, or destruction of chemical weapons in 
     the Persian Gulf theater of operations; they remain committed 
     to ensuring a thorough understanding of these matters.


   sec. 311 exceptions to certain fair credit reporting requirements 
              relating to national security investigations

       Section 311 amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to 
     allow for a limited exception to particular consumer 
     disclosure requirements and exempts a reseller of a consumer 
     report, under certain conditions, from disclosing the 
     identity of an end-user of a consumer report as required by 
     P.L. 104-208, Division A, Title II, Subtitle D, Chapter 1, 
     Sec. 2403(b) and Sec. 2407(c), respectively. These provisions 
     became effective on September 30, 1997. There was no similar 
     provision to section 311 in the Senate bill or the House 
     amendment. The managers received a letter from the Chairman 
     of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     supporting this provision. The content of the letter is as 
     follows:

         House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and 
           Financial Services
                               Washington, DC, September 16, 1997.
     Hon. Porter J. Goss,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with regard to the proposed 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) amendments to the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. I 
     appreciate your staff apprising the Banking Committee of 
     these proposed provisions.
       Amendments to the FCRA that were enacted in the 104th 
     Congress and effective September 30, 1997, will require 
     employers to give advance notice to employees prior to taking 
     an adverse action based on an employee's consumer report. In 
     addition, the laws requires sellers of consumer reports to 
     disclose to consumers the end users of the reports. It is my 
     understanding that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and 
     other intelligence representatives are concerned that these 
     provisions could adversely impact the ability of U.S. 
     government agencies involved in national security matters to 
     conduct investigations of employees suspected of posing a 
     security risk or counterintelligence risk. As a result, the 
     intelligence community has proposed two changes to the FCRA 
     which it would like included in the legislation during 
     conference consideration of the bill. Enclosed is legislative 
     language implementing these changes which has been vetted 
     with the intelligence community and which I can support.
       The first proposed change to the FCRA would provide a 
     waiver for agencies engaged in national security matters from 
     the requirement that an employee be notified prior to his/her 
     employer taking an adverse action based on the employee's 
     consumer report. The waiver would apply when a senior 
     department head makes a written finding that credit 
     information regarding an employee is relevant to a legitimate 
     national security investigation and that advance notice would 
     jeopardize the investigation and endanger personnel and 
     classified information. The second proposed change to the 
     FCRA would provide that resellers of consumer reports are not 
     required to disclose the identity of the end user if the end 
     user is a U.S. government agency which has requested the 
     consumer report as part of a top secret security clearance 
     process.
       The FCRA falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Banking and Financial Services. In the interest of time, and 
     based on Banking Committee staff discussions with 
     Intelligence Committee staff and officials representing the 
     intelligence community, the Banking Committee will not 
     exercise its jurisdiction at this time over the proposed FCRA 
     amendments. The Banking Committee does maintain, however, its 
     jurisdiction over the FCRA and reserves the right to referral 
     of all provisions related to the FCRA in the future.
       Again, I appreciate your staff and officials from the 
     intelligence community bringing these proposed FCRA changes 
     to the attention of the Banking Committee. I believe that the 
     attached changes to the FCRA, are reasonable and should be 
     included in the Intelligence Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Leach,
                                                         Chairman.

       CIA employees and most CIA contractors with staff-like 
     access are required to have a Top Secret (TS) clearance with 
     Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access. National 
     Security Directive 63 (NSD 63), requires all executive branch 
     agencies to verify the financial status and credit habits of 
     individuals considered for access to TS and SCI material. 
     Consequently, the agencies obtain a consumer report for all 
     applicants, employees, and contractors. Such applicants, 
     employees, and contractors sign a written consent to release 
     this information as a part of their application process or 
     routine reinvestigation. This consent is attached to the 
     Standard Form (SF) 86 (Questionnaire for National Security 
     Positions).
       In addition to the SF 86, Title 50, United States Code, 
     section 435(a)(3) requires all individuals with access to 
     classified information to consent to the release of financial 
     background information during the period of such access. A 
     section 435 release authorizes investigative agencies to 
     obtain a wide variety of financial information. The release 
     may only be used, however, when an individual is suspected of 
     disclosing classified information to a foreign power, has 
     excessive indebtedness or unexplained wealth, or, by virtue 
     of his access to compromised classified information, is 
     suspected of disclosing such information to a foreign power. 
     Additionally, under Title 50, United States Code, section 
     436(b), the fact that a section 435 release has been executed 
     by an investigative agency to obtain a consumer report may 
     not be legally disclosed to the consumer or anyone other than 
     representatives of the requesting agency. Therefore, the 
     FCRA, as amended, would not require notification of the 
     consumer when the consumer report is obtained under section 
     435.
       The managers understand, however, that an agency or 
     department may need to examine an employee's consumer report 
     to make an early assessment of the employee's consumer 
     spending habits. The need for early access to a consumer 
     report arises in cases where there are indications that an 
     employee presents security or counterintelligence concerns, 
     but the threshold to execute a section 435 release has not 
     been met. Under current law, a consumer report may be 
     obtained in such cases without notifying the employee.
       As of September 30, 1997, however, the Fair Credit 
     Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.), as amended by 
     the ``Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996,'' among 
     other things, requires employers to notify individuals before 
     an ``adverse action'' is taken based in whole or in part on a 
     consumer report and provide the consumer with a copy of the 
     report. ``Adverse action'' is defined very broadly by the 
     FCRA, as amended. This presents a problem to agencies or 
     departments conducting legitimate national security 
     investigations because they may take ``adverse action'' based 
     on information in a consumer report obtained outside of a 
     section 435 release and will have to notify an employee in 
     the earliest stages of an investigation that they have taken 
     such action. Once alerted, the subject of the investigation 
     who is in actual contact with a foreign intelligence service 
     may cease, or more carefully conceal, contacts with foreign 
     agents making it more difficult to detect actual espionage 
     activity.
       Section 311(a) provides a limited exception to the consumer 
     notification requirement for legitimate national security 
     investigations when certain factors are present. The managers 
     are aware, however, of the abuses that prompted the enactment 
     of the ``Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996'' and 
     are sensitive to the need for the consumer protections 
     contained therein. Therefore, section 311(a) requires the 
     head of the department or agency to make a written finding, 
     to be maintained in the employee's personnel security file, 
     as to such factors before an exception may be made. Further, 
     an exception may be made only when adverse action is based in 
     part on information obtained from a consumer report. An 
     exception is not available for adverse action which is based 
     in whole on such information. Also, upon the conclusion of an 
     investigation or when the factors are no longer present, the 
     head of the department or agency is required to provide a 
     copy of the credit report and notice of any adverse action 
     which is based in part on such report. The head of the 
     department or agency will also have to identify the nature of 
     the investigation to the consumer concerned. Additionally, 
     the managers note that protections such as notice and 
     opportunity to respond and correct information are already 
     provided by the CIA to individuals for whom a security 
     clearance has been denied or revoked. The managers also 
     understand that all information obtained from a consumer 
     report will be shared with an appellant contesting an adverse 
     security decision. The CIA also provides the identity of 
     the reporting agency so that an appellant may challenge 
     the accuracy of the report directly with the reporting 
     agency. The managers support these policies and urge their 
     continuation.
       The FCRA, as amended, will also require a reseller of a 
     consumer report to disclose to the consumer reporting agency 
     that originally furnishes the report the identity of the end-
     user of the report. Hence, the CIA will have to be identified 
     as the end-user in the records of the source consumer 
     reporting agency. Therefore, this new requirement will create 
     significant security and safety concerns for CIA applicants, 
     employees, and activities involving classified contracts 
     because the data bases of consumer reporting agencies are not 
     secure and are vulnerable to foreign intelligence services.
       Section 311(b) provides an exemption to the end-user 
     identification requirements of the FCRA, as amended. A 
     department or agency that seeks an exemption under this 
     provision must certify to the reseller that nondisclosure is 
     necessary to protect classified information or the life or 
     physical safety of an applicant, employee, or contractor with 
     the agency or department.
       The amendments is subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect 
     as if such amendments had been included in chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork 
     Reduction Act of 1996. The managers believe section 311 
     strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of the 
     consumer and

[[Page H9594]]

     the need to protect national security information.

                 Title IV--Central Intelligence Agency


                 Sec. 401. multiyear leasing authority

       Section 401 amends section 5 of the Central intelligence 
     Agency Act of 1949 to provide clear statutory authority for 
     the CIA to enter into multi-year leases of terms not to 
     exceed 15 years. Section 401 is similar to section 401 of the 
     Senate bill and nearly identical to section 401 of the House 
     amendment.
       The managers adopted this provision specifically without 
     any reference to section 8 of the CIA Act of 1949. It is the 
     CIA's position that section 8 authorizes the CIA to enter 
     into covert multi-year leases. The managers agreed that if 
     the reference to section 8 remained in section 401 of the 
     conference report it would be tantamount to a statutory 
     endorsement of the CIA's interpretation. The managers left 
     that question open and agreed that the issue requires further 
     analysis. Therefore, section 401 is not intended to modify or 
     supersede any multi-year leasing authority granted to the 
     Director of Central Intelligence under section 8, as 
     presently construed. The managers also concurred with the 
     reporting requirement contained in the Senate report for 
     covert leases and request that the report be provided to both 
     committees.


 sec. 402. subpoena authority for the inspector general of the central 
                          intelligence agency

       Section 402 amends section 17(e) of the CIA Act of 1949 to 
     provide the CIA Inspector General (IG) with authority to 
     subpoena records and other documentary information necessary 
     in the performance of functions assigned to the IG. Section 
     402 is identical to section 402 in the Senate bill. The House 
     amendment had no similar provision.
       The Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government 
     are responsible for identifying corruption, waste, and fraud 
     in their respective agencies or departments. All other 
     statutory Inspectors General have subpoena authority to 
     compel the production of records and documents during the 
     course of their investigations. The CIA IG's enabling statute 
     did not provide subpoena authority. The managers agreed that 
     the CIA IG needed the same authority as other executive 
     branch Inspectors General to adequately fulfill the CIA IG's 
     statutory obligations.


                   sec. 403. central services program

       Section 403 establishes a ``Central Services Program'' and 
     its necessary working capital fund at the CIA. Section 403 is 
     similar to section 402 of the House amendment. The Senate 
     bill had no similar provision. The managers welcome this 
     initiative to make the administrative support services 
     provided by the CIA more efficient and competitive.


                 sec. 404. protection of cia facilities

       Section 404 authorizes the CIA security protective officers 
     to exercise their law enforcement functions 500 feet beyond 
     the confines of CIA facilities and also onto the Federal 
     Highway Administration (FHWA) property immediately adjacent 
     to the CIA Headquarters compound, subject to certain 
     limitations. Section 404 is similar to section 403 of the 
     House amendment. The Senate bill had no similar provision.
       The managers recognized the growing threat of terrorist 
     attacks and the particular attraction of CIA facilities as 
     potential targets of such attacks. The managers were also 
     sensitive, however, to the public's reaction to an unlimited 
     grant of jurisdiction, considering that the 500 foot zone 
     extends onto residential property in some areas. Therefore, 
     the exercise of this new authority is expressly limited to 
     only those circumstances where the CIA security protective 
     officers can identify specific and articulable facts giving 
     them reason to believe that the exercise of this authority is 
     reasonable to protect against physical damage or injury, or 
     threats of physical damage or injury, to CIA installations, 
     property, or employees. This provision also expressly states 
     that the rules and regulations prescribed by the Director of 
     Central Intelligence for agency property and installations do 
     not extend into the 500 foot area established by this 
     provision. Thus, there will be no restrictions, for example, 
     on the taking of photographs within the 500 foot zone.
       The managers do not envision a general grant of police 
     authority in the 500 foot zone, but do envision the CIA 
     security protective officers functioning as federal 
     police, for limited purposes, within the 500 foot zone 
     with all attendant authorities, capabilities, immunities, 
     and liabilities. The managers expect the Director of 
     Central Intelligence to coordinate and establish Memoranda 
     of Understanding with all federal, state, or local law 
     enforcement agencies with which the CIA will exercise 
     concurrent jurisdiction in the 500 foot zones. The 
     Director of Central Intelligence shall submit such 
     Memoranda of Understanding to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. 
     The Director of Central Intelligence is also expected to 
     develop a training plan to familiarize the Agency's 
     security protective officers with their new authorities 
     and responsibilities. The Director of Central Intelligence 
     shall submit such plan to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives 
     not later than 30 days after the enactment of this 
     provision.
       Section 404 also includes a reporting requirement so that 
     the intelligence committees may closely scrutinize the 
     exercise of this new authority.


  sec. 405. administrative location of the office of the director of 
                          central intelligence

       Section 405 is identical to section 303 of the House 
     amendment and section 305 of the senate bill.

         Title V--Department of Defense Intelligence Activities


sec. 501. authority to award academic degree of bachelor of science in 
                              intelligence

       Section 501 is identical to section 501 of the House 
     amendment and similar to section 501 of the Senate bill.


 sec. 502. funding for infrastructure and quality of life improvements 
                at menwith hill and bad aibling stations

       Section 502 is identical to section 502 of the Senate bill 
     and section 503 of the House amendment.


   sec. 503. unauthorized use of the name, initials, or seal of the 
                     national reconnaissance office

       Section 503 prohibits the unauthorized use of the name, 
     initials, or seal of the National Reconnaissance Office and 
     consolidates all preexisting unauthorized use prohibitions 
     for the Intelligence Community under one in section in 
     subchapter I of chapter 21 of title 10, United States Code. 
     Section 503 is similar to section 503 of the Senate bill and 
     section 502 of the House amendment. The managers agreed to 
     require the permission of both the Secretary of Defense and 
     the Director of Central Intelligence before any person may 
     use the name, initial, or seal of the National Reconnaissance 
     Office, Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Imagery and 
     Mapping Agency, or the Defense Mapping Agency in connection 
     with any merchandise, retail product, impersonation, 
     solicitation, or commercial activity.

            Provisions Not Included in the Conference Report

     Sense of the Senate
       Section 309 of the Senate bill expressed a sense of the 
     Senate that any tax legislation enacted by Congress this year 
     should meet a standard of fairness in its distributional 
     impact on upper, middle, and lower income taxpayers. The 
     House amendment has no similar provision. The Senate recedes.
     Title VI--Miscellaneous Community Program Adjustments
       Title VI of the House amendment contained eight sections. 
     Sections 601 through 604, and 606 through 608 addressed 
     various defense tactical intelligence and related activities. 
     The managers are aware that the conference committee 
     negotiating the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1998 is considering these same issues, and note that 
     several of these provisions will likely be included in that 
     conference report. Without waiving jurisdiction, the managers 
     agreed not to include these provisions in the conference 
     report.
       Section 605 established new requirements relating to the 
     Congressional Budget Justification Books (CBJBs). The 
     managers understand that the Community Management Staff is 
     currently revising the structure of the CBJBs and the 
     material contained therein in an effort to make these 
     documents more informative and responsive to congressional 
     needs. The managers urge the Community Management Staff to 
     continue to work with those committees that use the CBJBs to 
     address the concerns raised by those committees regarding the 
     content and structure of the CBJBs. In light of this on-going 
     review, the managers agreed to defer legislative action 
     pending the outcome of those discussions.
     From the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for 
     consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, 
     and modifications committed to conference:
     Porter Goss,
     Bill Young,
     Jerry Lewis,
     Bud Shuster,
     Bill McCollum,
     Michael N. Castle,
     Sherwood Boehlert,
     Charles f. Bass,
     Jim Gibbons,
     Norm Dicks,
     Julian C. Dixon,
     David E. Skaggs,
     Nancy Pelosi,
     Jane Harman,
     Ike Skelton,
     Sanford D. Bishop,
     From the Committee on National Security, for consideration of 
     defense tactical intelligence and related activities:
     Floyd Spence,
     Bob Stump,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     From the Select Committee on Intelligence:
     Richard Shelby,
     John H. Chafee,
     Dick Lugar,
     Mike DeWine,
     Jon Kyl,
     James Inhofe,
     Orrin Hatch,
     Pat Roberts,
     Wayne Allard,
     Daniel Coats,
     Bob Kerrey,
     John Glenn,
     Richard H. Bryan,

[[Page H9595]]

     Bob Graham,
     John F. Kerry,
     Max Baucus,
     Chuck Robb,
     Frank Lautenberg,
     Carl Levin,
     From the Committee on Armed Services:
     Strom Thurman,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Defense 
Department authorization bill and the accompanying conference report. I 
implore my colleagues to join me in voting against that report.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons that this conference report is 
bad for the Nation. First and foremost, this bill severely restricts 
the public-private competitions that are to take place at McClellan Air 
Force Base in Sacramento and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio as 
mandated by the 1995 BRACC law.

                              {time}  1845

  McClellan and Kelly Air Force Base are closing and will be closed. 
But as McClellan closes, 15,000 jobs and the infrastructure that 
supports them will disappear from Sacramento's economy. This, by the 
way, is the third base closure we have had in four BRACC rounds.
  I am here to implore Members to support the BRAC Commission, however, 
and its recommendation, and give DOD the flexibility to use 
competitions as a means to achieve lower costs and greater 
efficiencies. It has been shown that competitions save money for the 
American taxpayer.
  Without, for example, the recent competition for the C-5 work load 
done at Kelly in the past, Warner-Robbins Air Logistic Center in 
Georgia would have used over $100 million in new military construction 
to build new buildings to handle the work load.
  Instead, the contract was awarded on the basis of a public-private 
competition and Warner-Robbins won by coming up with a creative 
solution so their bid would be competitive. That public-private 
competition for the C-5 work load saved taxpayers hundreds of millions 
of dollars.
  With the Federal budget being severely constrained for the next 
several years, it is critical we spend every defense dollar prudently. 
I am not asking DOD to just give the Sacramento work load to a private 
contractor. I am merely asking that the private contractors be given 
the opportunity to bid for the work on a level playing field, just as 
they did in the instance of that C-5 work.
  The depot maintenance language currently in the DOD authorization 
report does not provide that level playing field. Instead, the language 
was crafted to give the public depots an overwhelming advantage. Sure, 
it lets the competitions go forward, but it puts so many restrictions 
on the competitions that it will be impossible for the private 
contractors to win.
  In fact, recently the Sacramento Bee quoted an industry 
representative who said, in response to the language in this report we 
are voting on tonight, ``I can't conceive of a company that would bid 
for McClellan and Kelly under these circumstances.''
  Not only is this so-called compromise language not a compromise, it 
was also negotiated in secret without the knowledge or input of several 
members of the authorization committee, including my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ciro Rodriguez who just spoke. 
This was done in the dark of night by people who had an agenda. That 
was to make this floor think that it had compromised, when in fact they 
had wired the competition for an outcome.
  The President has said over and over again that he would veto a 
defense authorization bill that would restrict the competitions at 
McClellan and Kelly. He has sent his advisers to talk to members of the 
committees about his commitment to vetoing this bill. In fact, I 
received a letter from Secretary Cohen just a month ago that reiterated 
that veto threat. It is obvious that the current language would 
severely restrict the competitions, and on that basis alone I believe 
the President will veto this bill. In fact, there is a letter this 
evening from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget which 
says the following: ``We need to ensure more competition from private 
industry, not less. Billions of dollars in potential savings are at 
issue. These resources should be used to maintain the U.S. fighting 
edge, not to preserve excess infrastructure. The impact on the 
Department's costs and our Nation's military capacity would be profound 
if this report were adopted.''
  He says parenthetically, ``The President's senior advisers would 
recommend that he veto the bill.'' There is no question, that will be 
the result if we continue down this path that we are on tonight. But in 
addition, the conference report includes new restrictions on 
supercomputer exports that will have a profound impact on the Nation's 
high-technology economy. Computer technology advances at such a rapid 
rate that the computers on many desks were once considered 
supercomputers. The U.S. computer industry leads the world in 
production and sales of high-powered computers, and that leading role 
will be harmed by the language in this report.
  Please join me in opposing the defense authorization conference 
report, because it is bad for our national defense and bad for American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Farmington, Utah [Mr. Hansen], who without question is one of the most 
respected Members of this House.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out in regard to what has happened that we 
all know how BRACC went about it, the anguish we all felt as BRACC 
closed many bases, how tough it was, but we all went along with it. We 
knew the President had a few days in which he could look at it. He had 
two choices, yes or no. He could not change it.
  No disrespect to our President, but he came up with a statement in 
this one, and said, I will get around this, and in effect tried to do 
that by privatization inplace.
  Now, we have heard many things flying around here. Let me point out, 
we have only compromised this thing time after time after time. Seven 
times it has been voted on over here; seven times we won. It has been 
voted on in the Senate and it won there. Now the conference report is 
before us.
  One of these charges is, the President will veto this. I think the 
Members should ask the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence 
if a veto message has been issued. I know of no veto message that has 
been issued; also, that the Pentagon was not part of it. Let me tell 
the Members, I can give them personal knowledge that the Pentagon was 
part of many of these compromises, and it has been watered down, and 
the idea that one of the Senators did not like the 60-40 rule, it went 
to 50-50. I think almost all of these charges we have just heard have 
been answered.
  The charge that this is not fair competition, the House has 
overwhelmingly supported restoring integrity to the BRAC process by 
opposing subsidized privatization inplace. The compromise bill requires 
full and open competition on all noncore work loads. Anyone who reads 
this bill will see that it is free and fair competition.
  Another charge on this floor, private bidders should not have to pay 
for Government assets. Closed bases represent hundreds of millions of 
dollars of Government assets owned by the American taxpayers. If a 
private sector company wants to bid on Government contracts, they need 
to account for this cost to the taxpayers.
  Another charge: Depot maintenance provisions are more restrictive and 
require private work to be involved in-house. That is absolutely false. 
The bill changes the 60-40 to 50-50, even including a full accounting. 
I urge people to support this rule and support this conference report. 
It is fair, and if it does anything, it upholds flaw. It amazes me that 
any of my colleagues would argue to violate the law of the land.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], former Speaker of the House of 
Representatives in the State of Maryland, and the present chairman of 
the steering committee.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H9596]]

  Mr. HOYER. President of the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman in exile of the 
Committee on Rules for recognizing my former status in which I had some 
authority. I have since lost that.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, in my opinion, recognizes the enormous 
contributions of our military personnel. It acknowledges the sacrifice 
and commitment required of those who choose to follow a career in our 
military services. This bill seeks to encourage their continued 
dedication and retention in several very important ways. Military pay 
and quality of life is protected by a 2.8-percent pay increase and 
emphasizes the importance of military housing, construction, and 
improvements. It provides for child development centers for our troops 
and their families. It provides $35 million to continue impact aid, 
important in my area and around the country.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it provides our war fighters with the best 
possible equipment, $293.9 million in particular for R&D for the Navy's 
Super Hornet. This is an investment, Mr. Speaker, which keeps this 
critical program on track, reaching the fleet by 2001. The Super Hornet 
is proving to be one of DOD's most successful accusation programs.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, the committee increased funding for the joint 
strike fighter. This will accelerate the program to meet Navy 
requirements and ensure our continued air superiority and pilot 
survivability.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our national security 
interests. It emphasizes our concerns for the most appropriate use of 
our military forces in Bosnia. Unlike the House bill as it left here, 
this bill does not completely tie the hands of our President and the 
Joint Chiefs, in my opinion, inappropriately.
  As we learned so painfully during the 4-year-long conflict in Bosnia, 
the aggressors are bullies and worse. Mr. Speaker, if we and our NATO 
allies are not willing to confront the bullies in Bosnia, the 
aggressors, and who I call bullies. In fact, in many respects many of 
them are war criminals. If we and our NATO allies are not willing to 
confront these criminals in Bosnia and lay the groundwork for long-term 
peace in that region, we will encourage the transgressions that have 
appeared in the past to reoccur and ensure that we will act again 
sometime, somewhere. That, Mr. Speaker, is the lesson of history. We 
must not forget.
  I congratulate the conferees for including in this bill compromise 
language which will not hamstring the President or compromise our 
commitment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Just on the point on Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, part of the 
purpose I brought that legislation to the House floor is that I did not 
make up that day, that was the President's day. We sought to extend the 
time for him to fulfill that commitment.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentleman's observation. Whoever's date it was, I did not agree with 
it. I tell my friend, I think it is a very significant tactical error 
to tell your enemy, and in this case not our enemy but the aggressing 
parties and the parties in question, when you are going to take 
specific action. I think that is tactically a mistake. I did not agree 
with it, whether the President said it or we said it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker I proudly yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], one of the most 
outstanding and respected Members of this body, sent to us 19 years ago 
next month by the people of Lincoln, Nebraska, and surrounding 
environs. He is still with us.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the rule, but I wish to speak now tonight as an 
outside conferee on the House Committee on International Relations 
assigned to this legislation on the issue of supercomputer exports and 
the regulations thereof.
  This Member rises to express his serious concerns about the 
conference committee's proposed statute changes to our current 
supercomputer licensing process. Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on International Relations on this subject was almost totally 
ignored.
  The proposed statute changes have at least two fundamental flaws. 
First, they do not adequately recognize or take into account how 
quickly computer processing speeds become outdated. They, therefore, 
ensure that our regulatory framework for licensing supercomputers will 
always be chronically outdated relative to technological change.
  Second and perhaps more importantly, these proposed changes force the 
U.S. Government and our export control enforcement personnel to focus 
too many resources and personnel on monitoring the export of not so 
super, relatively slow computers that are no longer either controllable 
or, for that matter, sufficiently threatening to our national security 
interests.
  By requiring our export enforcement personnel to complete post-
shipment verification on any 2000 MTOPS level of computer export, this 
legislation diverts precious resources away from monitoring high 
technology exports that are a serious threat to our national security. 
Requiring such a shotgun approach to export control makes it more 
likely that we could easily let serious technology diversion slip 
through our fingers that are real threats to our national security 
interest.
  For these two critical reasons, this Member cannot support this 
aspect of the conference report. However, this Member would like to 
note that several changes to the proposed language in the conference 
report could make it acceptable. For example, simply linking the post-
shipment verification requirements to administration-proposed changes 
in the MTOPS level of control would answer this Member's major concern 
that we could ultimately be wasting tremendous enforcement resources on 
monitoring computer exports that are no longer a threat to national 
security.
  Such a change, if coupled with more reasonable short periods for 
approval of administration-requested changes in MTOPS control levels, 
would ensure that our export control regime would keep up with advances 
in computer technology.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly believes we must be very cautious 
to ensure that our high-technology exports are not available to those 
who threaten our national security interests. But we must be careful in 
a time of limited resources to recognize our limitations on our ability 
to control all potentially dangerous items. One of the best ways we can 
protect our national security is to first monitor and disclose those 
entities in foreign countries that represent a threat to our interests.

                              {time}  1900

  Then we can demand that U.S. exporters simply not export to those 
entities and, if necessary, initiate criminal proceedings against U.S. 
exporters if they fail to comply.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to read the rest of my remarks in 
the Record.
  This Member has insisted on such an approach to officials of the 
Bureau for Export Administration in the Department of Commerce. In 
part, because of this Member's insistence and that of the Chairman 
Gilman that the Administration must be more proactive on this issue, 
the Administration has now identified end-users of concern in these 
countries and has agreed to update that list on a periodic basis.
  In conclusion on this subject, Mr. Speaker, this Member is convinced 
that the House International Relations Committee was moving in the 
proper direction to remedy the unlawful sale of supercomputers to bad 
or dangerous end-users. Building on the Senate study initiative to 
determine exactly what level of computer technology should be 
controlled, we had expressed our intentions to compel the 
Administration to develop a comprehensive and efficient policy that 
places the appropriate high priority on protecting U.S. national 
security. Such a policy, however, cannot--without substantial costs--
attempt to reimpose a ``one-size-fits-all'' licensing policy on 
computer technology that nearly all exports recognize is simply not 
permanently and completely controllable. Instead, such a policy should 
focus on identifying bad end-users and making certain

[[Page H9597]]

that such entities do not acquire any technology that is damaging our 
national security interests.
  And lastly, on another subject, Mr. Speaker, this Member gratefully 
acknowledges and commends the support of Chairman Spence  and the 
ranking member, Mr. Dellums, as well as the conferees for their support 
of this Member's language supporting the commitment to retain 100,000 
U.S. military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region. This is an 
important symbolic message, reiterated at the initiative of Chairman 
Spence and this Member that the United States will remain militarily 
engaged in the Asia-Pacific region for the long term--specifically that 
we should not reduce our military and naval presence in the region.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the ranking member in waiting of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], my friend, to say that this particular 
language on the computers not only will squander America's security 
resources on a product that is rapidly generally available, and is even 
today generally available, but it will be the attempt to control our 
laptop and desktop computers within a year or two. The computers that 
we will have on our desks by the year 2000, 2002, will be traveling at 
1 or 2 MTOPS.
  Beyond that, if my colleagues watch the news, what just happened? Two 
developments in computer technology, going to copper and having 
multiple levels of recognition in each cell, is going to change the 
speed at which new generations occur.
  This is an industry where 18 months was a lifetime. If Members want 
us to stay out in front for our defense and economic needs, then we 
have to be able to market products as soon as they come up, if they do 
not threaten American national security.
  Mr. Speaker, these products do not threaten our national security. We 
are soon going to have a shelf life of less than a year. If we put the 
process in this kind of manner, we are going to end up with computers 
that are outdated operating the American system. It is the same thing 
that was done in machine tools. My colleagues did it to machine tools. 
They stopped American companies from exporting them because they said 
it was national security. Now we buy our machine tools from Japan.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, ``Do not do to the machine 
computer industry what you did to the machine tool industry.''
  This is a very bad time to try to slow down the process of exports. 
The speed at which new generations and faster computers develop is 
going to be cut in half from 18 months to as little as 9 months. If we 
tie up the sale of these computers, we will only cripple America's 
future and thereby endanger its defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is well-intentioned, but the 
gentleman is causing mischief here that will hurt American national 
security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Santa Clarita, CA [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the 
conference report to H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Although it has taken a long time to get to this point, I want to 
encourage my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense needs this bill to be enacted 
so that it can implement reforms and manage its vast resources as 
effectively as possible.
  This conference report funds important modernization and research 
initiatives that are vital to our Nation as our military continues to 
downsize. While I cannot say that I totally agree with all of the 
provisions contained in the report, I am supporting it because it 
reflects the hard work of our chairman and embodies the strong 
commitment for the defense of our Nation, given the parameters with 
which we had to work with the budget agreement with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the 
conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, approximately 4,206 Army Reserve and 
National Guard members were deployed to Europe as a part of our second 
rotation for Operation Joint Guard. These brave men and women were 
caught in the middle of an administrative policy change concerning the 
payment of the shipment of their personal property. We thought this 
inequity would be taken care of in the conference report. It was not, 
because it was determined to be out of scope of the bill.
  However, it received wide bipartisan support. I plan, therefore, to 
introduce a freestanding bill to facilitate reimbursing the 4,206 
soldiers as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this so that the families can have equity and we can support our 
National Guard and Reserve troops by sponsoring this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate so far 
and I listened to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] talk about 
the fact that China has an opportunity to establish a beachhead on our 
shores. I knew, because the Democrats had told me in advance, that they 
would knock my provision out of the Defense authorization bill to 
provide more military troops to the border.
  Mr. Speaker, I want the Democrats to listen to this. For 12 years 
they would not hold a hearing on the burden of proof in a civil tax 
case. The Republicans have just added it to the IRS reform bill. For 12 
years they would not hold a hearing on military troops on our border. 
Here is what I would like to say to my Democrat colleagues. We will 
probably stay the minority the way we are doing business around here.
  Mr. Speaker, young students aged 12 to 17 years old, the use of 
heroin is, quote-unquote, ``at historic levels.'' Experts tell us that 
the major point source for heroin and cocaine is coming across the 
Mexican border.
  Our troops are guarding the borders in Bosnia and the Middle East. 
They were, in fact, administering rabies vaccinations to dogs in Haiti. 
There has been a recent earthquake in Italy, and our troops are 
literally building homes in Italy. And while the staff is laughing 
about it, we are saying we cannot bring it down by having our troops 
help to secure our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to resubmit that bill with a couple of 
concerns the Republican Party has, and I am going to ask for some 
chairmen to sit down and look at the common sense. Our Nation is going 
to hell in a hand basket. Other than China, the biggest national 
security threat facing America is narcotics, and they are coming across 
the border and we have no program.
  It is a joke. And, yes, I am admitting as a Democrat, the Democrats 
killed it. I am going to ask the Republicans to take a look at a 
national security initiative that this Nation needs. Maybe the majority 
party will once again realize what the Nation is looking for and needs.
  The military does not want it. That is true. The military wants 
appropriations. I think it is time that the civilian government 
straightens out our borders and straightens out our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues one last thing. The Drug 
Enforcement Administrator said that these new sophisticated organized 
criminal groups in Mexico make the Colombia group look like Boy Scouts.
  So, yes, my Democrat colleagues killed it this time; we will resubmit 
it and maybe we will get some hearings on the Republican side so the 
Republicans could continue to stay in the majority. Beam me up. How 
dumb we are as a party.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Monticello, IN [Mr. Buyer], a veteran of the gulf war. The gentleman is 
doing an outstanding job as the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Personnel for the Committee on Armed Services
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask everyone to support this rule. My 
concerns have been addressed not only in this bill, but I also 
appreciate the leadership of Chairman Solomon.
  Mr. Speaker, many in this body know that I took on the issue of 
sexual misconduct in the U.S. military. This bill addresses a lot of 
those issues. In this bill it addresses a range of these issues that 
emerged during the Subcommittee

[[Page H9598]]

on Personnel's examination of sexual misconduct in the military.
  The conference report provides for a review of the ability of the 
military criminal investigative services to investigate crimes of 
sexual misconduct and mandates a series of reforms to drill sergeant 
selection and training.
  The bill also addresses my concerns with the loss of rigor and 
warrior spirit that is occurring in our basic training. This bill 
requires an independent congressional panel to assess reforms to 
military basic training, including a determination of the merits of 
gender-integrated and gender-segregated basic training as well as the 
method to attain the training objectives established by each of the 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have taken on the issues of military pay, 
increased housing allowances in high cost areas, retained the statutory 
floors on end strength and many other areas.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill and I encourage all Members to 
support it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue that 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] brought up with regard to Bosnia. 
The reason that we are in Bosnia, there are two reasons. One is to save 
lives, and the second is American leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact that we did not get involved in Bosnia when we 
could, and I think we should have, trying to defer to Europe, 
ultimately resulted in the loss of a quarter of a million lives. We are 
in Bosnia to save lives. I think when we have the capability to do 
that, I think we have some moral responsibility to do so.
  The second issue is one of American leadership. We have the capacity, 
the military capability, and I think the moral resolve to do the right 
thing throughout the world where we are needed. That is what this bill 
is all about. It is about sustaining America's global military 
leadership. That is why I support this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
conference report due to the inclusion in the bill of unnecessarily 
restrictive export controls on computer products.
  Two years ago, the administration determined in an uncontested study 
that computers of at least 5,000 MTOPS, that is millions of theoretical 
operations per second, were currently widely available worldwide and 
that computers up to 7,000 MTOPS would be available the next year; that 
is, this year.
  Based on that study, the current policy allows exports of computers 
between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS without a license for civilian end-use. 
The U.S. Government made this policy after the Department of Defense, 
the State Department, and the Commerce Department concluded it would 
not jeopardize national security.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the conference report would repeal this 
sensible policy and try to limit exports of technology that has already 
been widely available for purchase abroad for over 3 years. Since 
competitive products are already available from our foreign 
competitors, such a policy would hurt U.S. computer companies without 
improving our national security in any way.
  This year, U.S. sales of these computers to Tier III countries will 
total about $500 million. By 2000, this number is expected to grow to 
between $1.5 billion and $3 billion in a total worldwide market of $7 
billion to $12 billion. That is why I believe that the U.S. Export 
Administration in their fax to me on Friday indicated, quote,

       The waiting periods in the bill are an affront to normal 
     decisionmaking processes, are unnecessary, and make no 
     technological sense,

  Furthermore, the U.S. Export Administration fax to me, said:
       The requirement to conduct postshipment checks will become 
     an extraordinary resource burden, is unadministrable, and is 
     unnecessary.

  Mr. Speaker, supporters of this amendment will invariably bring up 
anecdotal stories about inappropriate computer sales. Certainly we must 
prevent powerful computers from ending up in the wrong hands. Current 
U.S. law restricts such sales. We should absolutely discuss ways to 
improve communications between exporters and the agencies that track 
dummy civilian end-users.
  However, restrictions on domestic exporters will not stop anyone from 
getting 7,000, or even greater, MTOPS computers because they are 
already available across the globe. Moreover, current law includes 
strong penalties for companies that sell to military users or sell 
restricted technologies. Several companies are currently under 
investigation under these laws. We do not need new legislation to 
maintain national security.
  Violations of current laws can result in a 20-year prohibition on all 
exports, prison terms of up to 10 years, and fines of up to $50,000 per 
violation.
  The Spence-Dellums amendment included in the conference report will 
add layers of bureaucratic impediments, and I would urge my colleagues 
to vote against the rule.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Del 
Mar, California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Many C-SPAN viewers will remember the movie ``Top Gun.'' The next 
speaker's military life was patterned after that movie. He is a fighter 
pilot from the Vietnam war.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I feel like bottom gun tonight because I 
am upset with this bill.
  First of all, in the light of Communist China trying to influence the 
White House and the DNC, the President gives $50 million to a coal-
burning plant in China. Then he shuts down Idaho coal burning in the 
district of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. Then he gives 
sweetheart deals to Lippo Bank with Trie, Riady, Huang and billions of 
dollars for Lippo Bank.
  It is okay for China to take over a national security base now at 
Long Beach Naval Shipyard. One person shut down Kelly. One person shut 
down McClellan and Long Beach Naval Shipyard. That is the President of 
the United States in the BRACC process. Then he entered into a 
political deal during the political election to try and privatize those 
two bases.
  COSCO, right after Hutchinson took over both ends of the Panama 
Canal, the President said, it is okay for a Communist-Chinese-run 
organization to take over a national security base at Long Beach. I do 
not mind if they are a tenant like they have been. But intel says that 
COSCO has currently, and in the past, been involved in espionage, in 
intelligence work for both the military and industry. They will ship in 
and ship out those issues.
  COSCO, this is the same COSCO that rolled out the pier, knocked out 
the pier in New Orleans. This is the same COSCO shipping yard that took 
two boat loads of illegals off the shore of California. This is the 
same shipping company that shipped in chemical and biological weapons 
to Iran, Iraq, and Libya. This is the same COSCO that shipped in 
nuclear components to Libya, the same COSCO that shipped in AK-47s. 
This is the same group that the Chinese had said, when Taiwan was being 
shelled by China, do you prefer Los Angeles or do you want Taiwan?
  Now, the President is going to allow them to take over a national 
security base in California, just south of Los Angeles? No. We cannot 
allow this to happen. The House gave in to the Senate position, Mr. 
Speaker. That is wrong. We ought to fight this. We should not let 
Communist Chinese take over our bases in this country. We ought to 
fight tooth, hook and nail to stop it. I fought, and they are going to 
take it over my dead body.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA [Mr. Hunter]. Back in 1980, a man I deeply admire came to 
this Capital. His name was Ronald Reagan. He was accompanied by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great friend on national 
security, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me 
this time. Let me say a couple things about this bill.
  First, we are on a downswing with respect to defense spending. The 
force structure that we have now has gone

[[Page H9599]]

down from 18 Army divisions that we had during Desert Storm to 10. We 
have gone down from 24 fighter airwings to only 13, roughly half the 
air power that we had. We have gone down from 546 naval vessels to 346. 
We are at what I would call the bottom of a dangerous downswing.
  In this bill, we have tried to pull up the modernization levels a 
little bit and we have done that. We have not done it as much as we 
would like to. I think we have been too constrained by the budget. I 
think we are going to pay for that in later conflicts. But this bill is 
better than what we had before.
  With respect to supercomputers, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] talked about this saying it was just totally off base. We 
have had about 80 supercomputer transactions in which the Chinese and 
the Russians have received American high performance supercomputers 
over the last couple of years. Right now we allow American companies to 
engage in a fiction. If they are told that the supercomputer is going 
to go to the Agriculture Department in China, they can ship it. If they 
are told it is going to go to the People's Liberation Army, the 
military complex, nuclear weapons complex, they cannot ship it. So the 
bad guys have caught on. They simply stamp ``agriculture'' on the 
invoices and our people ship it off to them.
  All we did, this was a well-reasoned provision that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums], and the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] put in this thing, almost unanimously supported by the 
committee. It simply says if you trust the Secretary of Defense and you 
want to make a supercomputer sale, show it to him. Let the Secretary of 
Defense look at your supercomputer sale and review it and make sure it 
is going to a benign use. It is not going to a nuclear weapons complex. 
It is not going to military use, and it is not going to accrue later to 
the detriment of our men and women in uniform. This is a well-thought-
out provision. I would hope that Members would support this bill and 
nobody would vote against this bill because of the supercomputer 
provisions that are in it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for their generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, as far as this gentleman is concerned, there has been a 
great deal of hyperbole around the issue of high performance computer 
export policy. Let us state, first of all, the facts. What is the 
current policy?
  All computers of performance above 2,000 million theoretical 
operations per second, known as MTOPS, that are exported to so-called 
Tier III countries must have a license. All transactions must have a 
license unless the sale is to a so-called civilian end user for 
civilian end use and the performance level is below 7,000 MTOPS.
  Now, what is the legislative change that we propose? That the U.S. 
Government must review civilian end users, civilian end use exports 
between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS in Tier III countries.
  The review by the Secretary of Defense, Commerce, Energy, State and 
the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency must be 
conducted within 10 days.
  Mr. Speaker, 10 days is reasonable. So people who want to sell 
computers cannot stop for 10 days to allow the government to look at 
the efficacy of the transaction. Ten days. We are the government. We 
have some responsibility here.
  I have spent 27 years of my life as an arms control person here. I 
will not be rolled by hyperbole that does not address the reality of 
what it is we are trying to do here.
  Lack of any objection authorizes export. So if you look for 10 days, 
there is nothing there, the export goes. Objection by any of the five 
requires a license review. That protects us as a government for a 
variety of reasons.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues the second significant piece. One 
argument is, this is an industry that moves fast and 7,000 MTOPS may be 
obsolete tomorrow, whatever. This bill allows the President to change 
the performance threshold and that change will go into effect after a 
10-day period of congressional review, allowing us to do our job.
  Mr. Speaker, I argued during the context of the debate that whatever 
level Members want to raise the MTOPS, raise them. If we want to make 
them 7, 10, 20,000, whatever we raised them to, we give the President 
the flexibility to do it, but we as a government ought to be able to 
control export. Otherwise why are we here. So all this hyperbole that 
talks about allowing the industry to go forward selling, the reason why 
we set policy is because our foreign policy should not be driven solely 
by commercial interests.
  We have a fiduciary responsibility to our people in this country for 
a variety of different reasons. For those reasons I would argue 
strenuously that the provisions in this bill dealing with high 
performance computer export policy is reasonable and it makes sense.
  For those who think that it does not, we are simply talking about 
commercial interests. I think that our arms control interests, that our 
governmental interests ought to balance out some kind of way. That is 
our responsibility. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues, whether 
they support the conference report or not, support this particular 
policy. It does make sense. It is reasonable.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Now you know why I have such great respect for the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  Let me finish on a high note, just to call attention to the fact that 
this conference report does contain my amendment on the Bosnia troop 
medal. My provision was approved in the conference that awards all U.S. 
troops who have served in Operation Joint Endeavor and Operation Joint 
Guard in Bosnia with the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
  The significance of that medal is that it is a campaign level badge 
unlike the service award that was going to be awarded by the DOD. Even 
better, the campaign level badge makes these American troops that have 
served in Bosnia eligible for veterans preference and Federal 
employment. That is the way to follow through on rewarding those who 
devote themselves to service in our all-voluntary military.
  I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and the House negotiators 
for sticking with it and to the Senate for accepting this proposal. It 
is very important to our men and women who serve in the military in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 353, 
nays 59, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 533]

                               YEAS--353

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey

[[Page H9600]]


     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--59

     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gordon
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Capps
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     McIntosh
     Mollohan
     Payne
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Stark
     Weldon (FL)
     Yates

                              {time}  1948

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 278, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Snowbarger]. Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 23, 1997, at page H9076.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization 
bill emerged from committee earlier this year with strong bipartisan 
support, and I am glad to be able to say the same thing about the 
conference report. Despite weeks of give and take and often difficult 
compromise, 33 of the 36 National Security Committee conferees signed 
the conference report, as did all Republican and Democrat conferees 
from the other body.
  Like the House-passed bill, the conference report takes a balanced 
approach to addressing a number of quality of life, readiness and 
modernization problems confronting our military. Although we had to 
compromise on a number of significant Pentagon reform provisions 
adopted on the House floor earlier this year due to strong 
administration opposition, this conference report nonetheless compels 
further reforms in how the Department of Defense is structured and how 
it conducts much of its business.
  On the major issues the conferees had to address, issues such as the 
B-2 bomber, the funding cutoff for Bosnia, depots and more, this 
conference report clearly represents a compromise among many interested 
parties. I would simply refer anyone who doubts this back to the 
bipartisan conference report signature sheets. On balance, this 
conference report strikes a fair balance between numerous competing and 
conflicting interests, and it deserves the support of all Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I am able to present this conference report to the House 
today due only to the tireless efforts of all the House and Senate 
conferees as well as the staff. It is the product of teamwork, which is 
the only way a bill of this size and complexity gets done. In 
particular, I want to recognize the diligence, dedication and 
cooperation of the subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Skelton], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz], the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Taylor], the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. Had it not been for their efforts, 
this conference report would not have been completed.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], the committee's ranking member, for his cooperation and 
support. As always, his diligence and involvement made the process work 
better and is a central factor underlying the bipartisan support this 
conference report enjoys.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff of the National 
Security Committee. They have once again demonstrated their 
professionalism and have done an outstanding job putting together this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation that enjoys 
strong bipartisan support. I urge each and every one of my colleagues 
to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] for engaging in a

[[Page H9601]]

process which did indeed include the minority. It was both bipartisan 
and congenial. That notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, I personally will not 
be supporting this conference report for the following reasons:
  One, the spending levels do not coincide with the national security 
requirements of this country in this gentleman's opinion. Two, it 
ignores the near-term and mid-range geopolitical realities of the post 
Cold War world. And, three, it represents a missed opportunity to 
right-size our military forces and tailor our weapons to these 
realities.
  Spending on wrong systems is a reality in this conference report. For 
example, Mr. Speaker, this conference report pushes us toward the 
weaponization of space by authorizing the now line-item vetoed projects 
for KE-ASAT programs and Clementine II, another potential ASAT program, 
which have the possibilities of stimulating an entire new arms race, as 
well as adding millions for a space-based laser program. This is all 
being done in advance of appropriate underlying policy formulation, 
interagency review and appropriate coordination with our friends and 
allies. These activities are destabilizing and threaten to ignite, as I 
said, a new arms race to weaponize as opposed to militarize space. In 
fact, the direction in the statement of managers language for space-
based lasers may indeed violate the ABM Treaty, again in this 
gentleman's opinion.
  I could go into numerous other examples, but with the limited time, I 
believe this gives Members who were not on the conference a better idea 
of what this gentleman finds objectionable and why I cannot support 
this conference report.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I might also advise my colleagues that as of 
today it has been communicated to me that the President has indicated 
he will indeed veto this conference report for one of several different 
reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1998. This is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a 
good bill. From my perspective as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Installations and Facilities, it continues the commitment of 
the House in addressing the serious shortfalls in basic infrastructure, 
military housing and other facilities that affect the readiness of the 
Armed Forces and the quality of life for military personnel and their 
families.
  The conference report, if adopted, would be a forceful expression of 
the continuing bipartisan concern in Congress over the inadequate 
budget plans put forward by the administration.

                              {time}  2000

  For example, in constant dollars, the administration requested 25 
percent less in funding for military construction for the coming fiscal 
year than it sought just 2 years before. While the bill does not buy 
back all of the cuts proposed by the President, it goes a long ways 
toward doing so.
  The recommendations of the conferees would authorize an additional 
$800 million for military construction and military family housing, 
over $440 million in additional funding will go directly toward housing 
and quality of life programs. I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage support for this conference report. 
Not long ago, there were nine men from the 305th Air Mobility Wing 
recently reported missing and last seen in the skies over the south 
Atlantic. For reasons unknown, these crew members aboard the Air Force 
C-141, in route from Windhoek Airfield, Namibia, to Ascension Island, 
never fully completed their assigned mission of providing de-mining 
assistance to the Namibian people.
  After delivering Army personnel and mine-clearing equipment, their 
arrival at Ascension never materialized. Evidence indicates a mid-air 
collision. People from five nations spent several weeks looking for 
them.
  I ask all of the Members to look at this bill in light of those who 
wear the uniform, who are committed, who are courageous, and, sadly, 
from time to time, lose their lives.
  I ask all Members to look at this bill, because it does help those 
personnel and their families. It increases the personnel pay, it raises 
military construction levels for housing and barracks and command 
centers. It augments health and child care and other family oriented 
benefits to improve the quality of life. It adds nearly $3.6 billion 
for important procurement programs such as air traffic collision 
avoidance systems.
  Mr. Speaker, we must do our very best for the young men and young 
women in uniform, day in and day out, wherever they are, whether it be 
at Fort Hood, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force 
Base, Norfolk, VA, or whether it be in Namibia, Bosnia, Europe or 
Japan, they are performing their duties, defending our interests and 
defending our liberty.
  I urge the Members of this House to support this bill, because it 
does so much for the young men and young women in uniform.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do so for the purpose of telling this body that I 
neglected to mention the fact that the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie], the ranking member on the maritime panel, has also done 
yeoman's work in putting together this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain troubled by the high performance computer 
provisions in the conference report that penalize Israel, imposes 
unadministerable burdens on the administration, fails to protect 
business proprietary information, and requires a one-size-fits-all 
approach to post-shipment verifications that the authors of the 
legislation acknowledge cannot be fully implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue that deserves more oversight 
and research by the GAO before we take legislative action with 
significant foreign policy implications.
  The Senate approach remains a much preferable alternative to this 
mandatory and inflexible set of provisions which will clog the export 
control process with little prospect of advancing our long-range 
interests. As presently drafted, countries such as Israel, Russia and 
China cannot be removed from the Tier III list of affected countries 
even if they take every action we request of them in monitoring the use 
of these high performance computers.
  Clearly, this is an unwise and self-defeating policy. In the case of 
Israel, let's not penalize an ally when it has done nothing wrong. In 
the case of Russia, it goes without saying it should immediately comply 
with all of our existing export control laws and regulations and return 
to the manufacturer any illegally obtained high performance computers. 
But a more permanent government solution on this issue must be set 
aside until we can ensure full Russian cooperation in putting an 
immediate end to the ongoing role of Russian companies and other 
entities in providing Iran with medium and long-range missile 
capability.
  While I will not oppose this conference report, I intend to bring the 
Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act to the House floor within the 
next week. As important as the supercomputer issues, we need to give 
first priority to ending this growing threat to our allies and American 
troops in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
1998 defense authorization bill. As always,

[[Page H9602]]

there were a host of issues before the conference, and I am proud of 
the way we worked through each one of these issues. Most importantly, 
this bill represents an overview of our defense needs in the post-cold 
war period, and it prepares us for this next century.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Installations 
and Facilities, and a member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, 
I am delighted that the bill strongly addresses many of the quality-of-
life issues that speak directly to how we provide for those who wear 
our Nation's uniform.
  Housing for our military personnel has been falling apart for the 
last several years. This bill recognizes that fact and funds housing 
and barracks, child care centers, health care, and provides a well-
deserved pay raise for our service members. The national readiness of 
our military has long been a prominent concern of mine, and this bill 
addresses some of the fundamental problems that could weaken our 
readiness.
  One of those readiness issues with which I have been involved is the 
issue of depot maintenance. The depot provisions in this bill remove 
politics from BRAC and ensure that no bidder on maintenance work on 
closing bases will be given preferential treatment. This is a good 
agreement which represents an honest compromise of ideas, without 
compromising the national defense of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, remember, this conference report includes a pay raise.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this defense 
conference report. It is a responsible approach to our defense needs 
that lives within the budget that we all agree must be balanced.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains critical quality of life initiatives 
and continues to address modernization shortfalls. It implements real 
defense reform and it restores the integrity of the BRAC process.
  In sum, this bill provides our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines 
with the technological edge to dominate on the new world battlefield. 
Support our troops; vote for H.R. 1119.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment made by my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
Chair of the Committee on International Relations, regarding Tier III 
countries and whether they could get off the list.
  First of all, let us establish the facts. Mr. Speaker, there are five 
countries on the Tier III list. They are India, Pakistan, Israel, 
Russia and China. As a matter of fact, Israel, Pakistan and India can 
get off the Tier III list by signing the Nonproliferation Treaty, so 
the gentleman from New York is not correct in his observation. With 
respect to China and Russia, these two countries are in another 
category and have to be dealt with in a very different way.
  As I said earlier in my remarks, if one is going to oppose the high 
end computer part of this bill, oppose it, but do it on factual 
grounds, not on grounds that are illusory.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that by the time we come to vote on 
the authorization bill, that we take into account that this bill, 
particularly this year, is the result of the efforts of numerous 
people, giving their best effort to come to a conclusion, come to a 
resolution.
  Not everybody is happy with the contents of the defense authorization 
bill. Very few people are happy in any given year with the bill because 
it covers such a wide range of items. In this particular instance, I 
cannot think of a time when more people devoted not just hours or days, 
but months, trying to come to a fair resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I have indicated before, this is not theology, this is 
legislation; this is not a cathedral, this is the House of 
Representatives. That means that we are not coming to final conclusions 
and ultimate resolutions here. We are trying to act in concert on the 
basis of 435 agendas as to what is best for the people of this country.
  I ask everyone's support for the Department of Defense authorization 
bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to compliment the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, on the expertise that 
he has shown and the leadership he has shown in bringing a very complex 
and complicated bill to the floor.
  This bill deals with issues ranging from procurement of sophisticated 
weapons systems all the way to the quality of life issues that are so 
important to our men and women in our armed services. We deal with 
everything from the purchase of F-22s and FA-18s to a 2.8 percent pay 
raise for our military men and women. Without that 2.8 percent pay 
raise, the 11,000 members of our armed services who today are on food 
stamps will not get off of food stamps.
  Mr. Speaker, we need this bill enacted into law. We need it passed 
today, and we need it signed by the President. It is a good bill for 
the men and women of our Armed Forces, and it is a good bill for 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing this bill to the 
floor in its current form.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner].
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on National 
Security, I would like to take a minute to pay tribute to both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the committee for the remarkable job 
that they did in bringing this conference agreement to the floor today.
  By any measure, this was a marathon run by two of our most skilled 
negotiators on national security, and I am deeply grateful to both the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for retaining a House-
passed provision which is of particular importance to this Member of 
the committee.
  Specifically, the conference agreement retains a House-passed 
provision to allow the Army's Construction, Engineering and Research 
Laboratory to collaborate with the Texas Regional Institute for 
Environmental Studies at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, 
TX, on a critically important computer-based land management 
initiative. This project will enable the Army to address environmental 
problems on our military installations.
  This authorization of $4 million, coupled with an identical 
appropriation in Public Law 105-56, will allow CERL and TRIES to carry 
out this important Army national resources/conservation project 
beginning this year.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I learned a lot in this particular conference. I want to 
thank the chairman for his great leadership in trying to get these 
things through this conference, which is often like pushing a 
wheelbarrow full of frogs. Your issues continue to jump out or get 
pulled out by the other side, and you do the best you can to keep as 
many of the issues that you think are important for national security 
in that particular wheelbarrow.

                              {time}  2015

  Let me say to the fine gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman 
Spence, he did a great job of protecting our interests. We did not get 
a full loaf on everything, but that is what happens when you go into 
conference.
  But we have emerged in the modernization area with more modern 
equipment, with more money for modernization, both in fixed-wing and 
rotary aircraft. Also, with respect to our shipbuilding budget, we got 
a few extra dollars in that shipbuilding budget. With respect to 
ammunition and other items that reflect on readiness, we did increase 
that budget to some degree. It was largely because of his efforts.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], my 
ranking member, the ranking member of

[[Page H9603]]

the Subcommittee on Military Procurement. He and I worked together. We 
put a lot of hearings on. We are going to put more hearings on before 
this session adjourns. I want to thank him for his great work and the 
ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], who did a particularly excellent job working with the 
chairman and others on a very important aspect of security, which is, 
do not let the bad guys have high technology when it might come back to 
bite you.
  That is manifested in the provisions on the supercomputer bill. That 
was one of the most important things we did was put in the 
supercomputer provision that says, if you are going to sell high-tech 
to countries that might use it against you at some point on the 
battlefield, run it by the Secretary of Defense before you do that, run 
it by the administration, let them see what you are doing, and when 
necessary, hold up that particular sale.
  So my commendations to all of our colleagues. Everybody worked hard. 
We did a lot of hearings on this bill, and I would recommend passage of 
the bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez].
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to read a 
letter that was sent by the Executive Office of the President. It is 
signed by Franklin Raines. It talks about the existing legislation that 
is before us. I am going to read some aspects of it:
  The bill includes provisions which intended to protect public depots 
by limiting private industry's ability to compete for the depot-level 
maintenance of military systems and components. If enacted, these 
provisions would run counter to the ongoing efforts by Congress and the 
administration to use competition to improve the Department of 
Defense's business practices and it would severely limit the 
Department's flexibility to increase efficiency and save the taxpayers' 
dollars.
  It also adds that the bill could reduce opportunities to allow the 
industry to participate in future weapons systems. In addition, it also 
dictates how the Department of Defense should treat certain competitive 
factors, and I quote, that the bill seeks to skew its competition in 
favor of public depots.
  One of the things that I want to read in the back, I think this is 
very critical, it says, If the numerous problems cited above cannot be 
overcome, the impact on the Department's costs and our national 
military capacity would be profound; the President's senior advisers 
would recommend that the bill be vetoed.
  The opportunity that we have now before us is to be able to hopefully 
clear this area so we will not have a veto. Unfortunately, we do. I 
have received word that the bill is going to be filibustered both by 
Senator Hutchison and Senator Gramm as well as some of the Senators 
from California, because of the fact that it does not allow for the 
opportunity to compete in an appropriate manner.
  I want to go back to the letter and emphasize the fact that these are 
words that are also coming from the Department of Defense, which says: 
``We need to encourage more competition from private industry, not 
less. Billions of dollars in potential savings are at issue. These 
resources should be used to maintain the U.S. fighting edge,'' and not 
to hinder it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 1998 
defense authorization conference report. Provisions contained in this 
bill are essential to our national defense and the quality of life of 
our young men and women in uniform, including a military pay raise of 
2.8 percent, greatly needed by the 11,000 active duty military who are 
currently on food stamps; authorization of additional funds for 
procurement and research and development, to help assure our continued 
U.S. military modernization and superiority; increased continuation 
bonuses for military aviators, to help the services retain their 
pilots; restoration of integrity to the BRAC process, through fair and 
open competitions for noncore depot work at closed facilities; and 
authorization of $883 million for the construction of military family 
housing, when over 60 percent has been deemed substandard.
  We must pass this DOD authorization bill in order to pursue these and 
other vital national security initiatives. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the extremely able 
ranking minority member of this committee for his leadership in this 
and in other ways.
  I hope the House will vote this down. First, we are dealing with a 
budget which we adopted recently which Members know will severely 
constrain our ability to spend on a variety of purposes a few years 
from now. Passing this authorization guarantees if we follow through 
with it that 2 and 3 years from now we will not have the money to 
continue to put police on the streets with Federal help, we will not 
have the money to provide health care to people who need it, we will 
not have the money to deal with environmental situations, every 
domestic purpose now hurting.
  Transportation, we are in a terrible dilemma right now because we 
cannot afford to go forward with our transportation needs. Pass this 
authorization and we greatly exacerbate that dilemma, because we take 
some of the money we have available for other purposes, and the logic 
of this authorization, if we mean it honestly, will be to eat into 
that.
  In particular, the conference committee backed away from this House's 
clear statement that we should put a limitation on the amount of money 
we spend for NATO by totally dismissing the overwhelming vote of this 
House to put some limit on what the American taxpayer is expected to 
spend for the expansion of NATO. We once again guarantee that there 
will be an increase in funding.
  Members who vote for this conference report now will be estopped 
later on from complaining when billions of American tax dollars beyond 
what we have been told earlier are asked for NATO, because this is a 
blank check for NATO expansion. One need not be opposed to NATO 
expansion to be opposed to a blank check for it.
  Passing this authorization is a disregard of the fiscal discipline we 
said we would be adopting, and we will live to regret it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. J.C. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking 
member and also Chairman Spence for their long suffering and getting us 
to this point, to where we can vote on this authorization conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just highlight some things in this 
legislation that I think the American people need to know about. It 
provides a 2.8 percent military pay raise, as has been talked about. 
What that does, for 11,000 men and women that are on food stamps, that 
should be unconscionable to anybody in this House to allow that to 
happen.
  This adds more than $300 million for construction and renovation of 
family and troop housing, it adds more than $600 million to key 
readiness accounts, badly needed; it adds $3.6 billion to modernization 
accounts, consistent with the unfunded priorities of the military 
service chiefs, and it compels further business practice reforms that 
are much, much needed.
  On this legislation, I am encouraging a ``yes'' vote on the DOD 
authorization conference report. Again, I commend the ranking member 
and the chairman for getting us to this point.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the conference report. It 
is defective for many reasons, as has been described by my colleagues. 
But I want to point out the error in the provision relating to exports 
of computers.
  I think it is important to outline that no one is saying that there 
is not a level of sophisticated computers that should not be 
controlled. In fact, there

[[Page H9604]]

should be. The problem is, from concept to concrete, we run into an 
error and problem in this bill. The 2000 MTOPS is not a computer that 
needs to be controlled. In fact, by next year the Pentium II 450 
megahertz version will be, in all likelihood, 2000 MTOPS on one chip.
  To change the 2000 MTOPS, because obviously a Pentium II should not 
be controlled, it is readily available, there is a very lengthy process 
in the bill that involves multiagency review, and then a 180-day period 
for Congress to review. I would note that this is an industry where it 
used to be a law, that it was 18 months. We are down to 9-month product 
cycles. So by the time the review provision has occurred, the market 
will have moved further and we will never catch up.
  That is why I think that this is, although I am sure it is well-
intentioned, I think it is out of kilter with the technology that we 
face, and therefore, seriously flawed. I believe that is why the 
Commerce Department, and I quote, said, ``The waiting periods make no 
technological sense.''
  I believe that those who have proposed this mean and intend to do a 
sensible thing to protect our country. I honor those intentions and 
those well meanings, but I must point out that between good intentions 
and sensible results there has been a glitch, in this case. I believe 
we ought to defeat this conference report, we ought to relook at this, 
and make sure that we actually take those steps that will actually 
protect our country, rather than this flawed result.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Riley].
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1119. 
First, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman 
Spence, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Dellums, for all their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes a much deserved 2.8-
percent raise for our servicemen and women, over $1.5 billion for 
family and troop housing, and finally and most importantly, Mr. 
Speaker, it restores the full faith and integrity to the base closure 
process. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the 
defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. The conference 
agreement strikes a reasonable balance among the needs for 
modernization, strategic forces, readiness, and quality-of-life 
programs for our military people.
  As a member of the research and technology panel of the committee of 
conference, I was very concerned about whether we are making adequate 
provision to ensure that our forces have the technological edge on the 
battlefield of the future. I am satisfied that this conference report 
moves us in the right direction.
  Today we are witnessing steady aging of equipment. Many weapons 
systems and platforms that were purchased in the 1970's and 1980's will 
reach the end of their useful lives over the next decade or so. 
Congress must make certain that tomorrow's forces are every bit as 
modern and capable as today's. Consistent, adequate spending on the 
modernization of U.S. forces is required to ensure that tomorrow's 
forces are equipped and ready to dominate the battlefield across the 
full spectrum of military operations.
  The conference agreement follows the House lead to increase funding 
for missile defense programs. This is true both for the theater missile 
defense and national missile defense. The agreement also does a 
commendable job of straightening out the tactical aviation program that 
will ensure air superiority into the future.
  People continue to be the most important component of our military. 
Quality people are the key to a successful military. Downsizing and 
deployments have created a high level of turbulence among our military 
people. They have increasing cause to be concerned about health care, 
about housing, about retirement, and about other benefits such as the 
military resale system.
  This conference agreement goes a long way toward making certain that 
our military people and their families are taken care of. More must be 
done, but this is a major step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, 
this conference agreement provides a reasonable and balanced program 
for our military. I urge its adoption.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Ryun].
  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] for his hard work and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], the ranking member, for all of his work on H.R. 1119. I rise 
in support of H.R. 1119, the 1998 National Defense Authorization 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the President submitted a budget request that 
does not match our national security goals. Whether it is weapons 
modernization, health care for military families, military 
construction, or end-strength levels, the President's request falls 
woefully short, an inadequate effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the House's efforts to increase the defense 
spending above the President's request and ensure that the United 
States remains the world's premier fighting force.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, when is a compromise not a 
compromise? Well, this conference report is a classic example of one.
  The language in this report, negotiated behind closed doors, does not 
move an inch in the right direction toward what the Department of 
Defense's interests are, what is best for the American military forces, 
and what is best for the taxpayers' dollar. That is competition to 
determine the best place to overhaul and repair military workload.
  This conference report moves in the wrong direction. This so-called 
compromise language, written without the knowledge or input of several 
members of the authorizing committee itself, restricts competition. 
Instead of creating a level playing field, it tilts it even further in 
favor of public depots, which may not be as cost-effective as the 
private sector in all cases. But rather than let competition determine 
the winner, this report, I think, skews the outcome in favor of one 
type of competitor without concern for the impact on the taxpayer.
  If that is not enough, there is a new wrinkle in this report that 
ought to raise the eyebrows of some other Members. That is the 
restriction on supercomputer exports, which will have a chilling effect 
on our Nation's high-tech industry, threatening America's status as the 
world's leading exporter of technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report 
because it is ``veto bait.'' I emphasize that. It will not become law 
unless it is further modified to accommodate a level playing field on 
competition. This is a bad deal for America's taxpayers. I think it is 
not a good deal for our high-tech industry, and I know in my own 
district it is doomsday for thousands of Americans who have worked for 
the Defense Department, and I think it is true also in San Antonio 
where we only hope to save a few jobs, if we can win the competition to 
do the public's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please join me in voting ``no'' 
on this report. The President will veto it. We can get a better one 
with our colleagues' help.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, despite some of the shortcomings that 
some people may see in this bill, overall it makes us stronger and it 
deserves to be supported.
  In the key area of our own nuclear arsenal, it makes sure that our 
nuclear weapons are safe and reliable in the future, despite a number 
of shortcomings and deficiencies that are increasingly getting 
attention. I would commend to my colleagues' attention a CRS report 
which was just released last week that discusses some of these key 
deficiencies that this bill begins to address.
  In the very important area of our cooperation with the nations of the

[[Page H9605]]

former Soviet Union to take apart delivery systems that were once aimed 
at us and to prevent nuclear terrorism and smuggling, this bill is a 
much better bill than the bill that originally left the House.
  I would also add, Mr. Speaker, in the most important asset of all, 
and that is our people, this bill makes some needed corrections to 
improve that area so that we can get and keep the very best people 
throughout our military and that will serve us well in the future.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence], chairman of the committee, and, of course, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums], ranking member, for a job well done.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been at this conference, and this was no easy 
conference, something like over three months. Did we get everything we 
liked? No. I can tell my colleagues that on the depot issue I am not 
very fond of it. But we never get everything we want when we 
compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I was startled to hear, believe it or not, that we 
dropped the cap on NATO participation. I think we can correct that next 
year. I know I will try as best I can to do that.
  But all in all, the bill is the right bill. It is not satisfying to 
everyone. I would really ask my colleagues to be sure to vote ``aye'' 
on the bill. The readiness of our troops, and we have spent a great 
deal of time on the readiness of our people with OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO. 
I visited particularly Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in August and I was 
extremely impressed with our young soldiers and warriors there that 
belong to the 101st Airborne Division whose morale was extremely high 
getting ready to go overseas and trusting in the Congress to supply 
them with the materials that they want.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report, but wish to express my limited concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report reduces the Army National Guard 
end-strength by 5,000 soldiers. This reduction is made to reflect end-
strength reductions determined by the Quadrennial Defense Review and 
agreed upon at an Army offsite meeting on force structure. But in this 
same agreement the Army was also supposed to take a cut of 5,000 
soldiers in fiscal year 1998. However, I am disappointed that this bill 
only reduces the National Guard end-strength and does not reduce the 
end-strength of any other component.
  Mr. Speaker, this type of policy hurts future efforts to modernize 
our military, penalizing all our forces at the direct expense of the 
Army National Guard.
  With those concerns, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this conference report.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] if he would engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if I am correct in 
understanding that the conference report provides $40.2 million for 
upgrades and modifications to the Army's M-113 armored personnel 
carrier? And is there any amount of funding authorized for reactive 
armor tiles for the M-113 vehicle?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Although the 
conference report specifically directs $35.2 million of the $40.2 
million for vehicle upgrades and modifications, it does allow the Army 
to procure either reactive armor tiles or driver thermal viewers or 
both with the remaining $5 million.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on 
National Security, in a brief colloquy on employee stock ownership 
plans in Section 844 of the conference report.
  With respect to the ESOP provision, Section 844 which reflects a 
Senate amendment to the original House provision, I ask for assurance 
that the conference outcome is consistent with existing law as set 
forth in Public Law 94-455, establishing that Congress wants to 
encourage ESOPs, not choke them to death with unreasonable rules and 
regulations.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentleman that there is nothing 
in the conference report that alters the existing law that the intent 
of Congress is to encourage ESOP creation and operation, as clearly 
spelled out in Public Law 94-455. In fact, Section 844 would further 
that intent.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the chairman on a job well 
done. I rise in support of this measure. It includes a very well-
deserved pay raise for those that protect us. It makes us stronger.
  A very important aspect of this that sometimes does not get the 
attention that it deserves, but it provides for additional funds for 
modernization and that is very important as we prepare for the 21st 
century.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for a 
very well done job.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the debate and discussion on 
the conference report. I would simply like to first thank the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for his 
efforts. As I said earlier in my remarks, he has been congenial; this 
has been a bipartisan effort.
  Second, the fact that I cannot support this conference report, that 
notwithstanding, I think that it is important that this committee bring 
this conference report to the floor. We do not choose to end up a 
debating society. It is terribly important that Members of Congress 
know that when we pass a bill, go to conference, that eventually we 
will bring back a significant work product.
  There are a number of factors in this bill that some Members like. 
There are other factors that some Members do not. That is the nature of 
the legislative process. But I am pleased that we are bringing back a 
report, a conference report to the floor of this body so that my 
colleagues may work their will.
  Finally, I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that for the reasons that I 
enunciated earlier in this bill I will not personally be supporting the 
report. I have my substantive reasons why that is the case. For any 
Member who is interested, they can peruse my remarks that were made 
earlier and with those summarizing remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, in the interest of comity and brevity, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a conference report. As is the case with all 
conference reports, we do not ever get all we want. As I said the other 
day, we win some, lose some, and in some cases end up in ties. No one 
is completely 100 percent happy with the product of this conference 
report or any other produced by this body.
  That is the nature of a conference report. Give and take. We have to 
compromise to get a bill back before this body for us to vote on. The 
same thing is happening in the other body. They have the same problems 
we have.
  Mr. Speaker, if I had my personal opinion to express at this time, I 
would say in summation that the conference report does not provide 
enough for the defense of our country. Most people do not realize the 
condition we find ourselves in today. The cold war is over and most 
people think that the threat of war has been removed.

[[Page H9606]]

  But I am here to tell my colleagues that it is not a matter of ``if'' 
there will be another war, it is just ``when'' it is going to be and 
``where'' it is going to be. And at this point in time, I am afraid we 
are not prepared sufficiently to defend against the threat this country 
faces.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, before I we yield all time back, I would 
just like to make a comment. I would like to finally thank all the 
members of the staff on both sides of the aisle. For many of my 
colleagues who are not aware, many of these young people spent numerous 
weekends away from their relatives, family, and friends, in order to 
make sure that this extraordinarily complicated bill came together.

                              {time}  2045

  With great personal sacrifice and, in this gentleman's humble 
opinion, the financial remuneration that goes to these staff people 
does not offset the intrusion into their private lives, I think we are 
very fortunate to have a competent and capable staff who are able to 
work many of these issues late into the night and day in and day out 
for weeks and weeks. I would feel that I was derelict in my 
responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, if I did not express my sincere 
gratitude and thanks for all the staff people who helped put this bill 
together.
  I appreciate the gentleman's generosity.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I, again, would like to thank the gentleman 
for what he has done to make this conference report possible to bring 
it before the body at this time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express support for 
one provision of H.R. 1119, Section 2826. Although this provision 
prohibits conveyance of the property at Long Beach Naval Station to the 
China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO], it includes elements of a 
recommendation I made to this House that allows the President to waive 
this restriction if it is determined that the transfer would not 
adversely impact our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I still have reservations about the language in the 
Conference report, however, because I do not believe it goes far enough 
to protect the national security of the United States. The language I 
recommended to the House addressed this issue. The restrictions limit 
the provisions of this section to Long Beach and to the China Ocean 
Shipping Company [COSCO]. The language fails to address the impact of 
transfers of property at other bases to state owned shipping companies 
which may pose a risk to national security or significantly increase 
the counter intelligence burden on the U.S. intelligence community.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to the conference report on the FY 98 National Defense Authorization 
bill. This bill goes $2.6 billion over the President's request and $1.7 
billion over last year's spending. During a time of fiscal restraint 
and balanced budgets, there is no room for this kind of unrequested 
expenditure in our federal ledger. If this Congress continues to treat 
itself to massive defense spending increases, we will starve our 
health, education, and elderly programs. This conference report does 
not reflect our budgetary constraints, nor does it reflect the 
realities of today's world. In this bill, we are continuing to 
authorize cold war weapons, such as B-2 bombers and nuclear attack 
subs, instead of taking this important opportunity to tailor our 
military capabilities to respond to the new challenges that we will 
face in the 21st century. Further, this legislation threatens to start 
an arms race in space. And to pay for this new hardware, we are cutting 
funds for readiness.
  I am pleased that Congress has agreed to expand the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program, that we can agree to help our National Guard, 
and that we have worked to boost funding for research on Gulf war 
syndrome. We must maintain the superiority of our Armed Forces and 
ensure that we provide for the brave individuals and families in 
military service. But this bill takes us only half way there--as it has 
been crafted, it threatens to bankrupt our entire budget. This bill 
shows that we have not thought about the kind of military and the kind 
of weaponry we will need to defend this nation and her allies in the 
next century. Members of Congress should take the time to sit down 
again to craft a bill that takes care of our personnel and better 
matches our future needs.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  The recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
[BRAC] Commission regarding McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases are 
absolutely clear. When the Commission recommended the closure of these 
facilities, it directed DOD to either ``consolidate the workloads to 
other DOD depots or to private sector commercial activities . . .''. 
Unfortunately, the negotiators of this bill were unwilling to 
compromise with the President and DOD, insisting on the insertion of 
language that would prevent this mandate from going forth in an 
equitable manner.
  Let no one in this chamber be misled. McClellan and Kelly Air Force 
Bases will close. As of July, 2001, they will no longer be Air Force 
facilities and nothing in this bill will change that in any way.
  What this legislation will do, however, is burden the private sector 
competitors with new requirements without placing any corresponding new 
requirements on the public depots. This language severely undermines 
the depot maintenance outsourcing process, turning it into a mockery of 
fair play and open competition.
  Without the ability to judge the public depots and private firms on a 
level playing field, the Air Force will be unable to determine which of 
its options under the 1995 BRAC law makes the most sense for our 
national security. Without fair competition, DOD will be unable to 
determine which option clearly proves to be the best value for the 
American taxpayer.
  If the goal of privatization, as the BRAC Commission reported, is to 
``. . . reduce operating costs, eliminate excess infrastructure, and 
allow uniformed personnel to focus on skills and activities directly 
related to their military missions,'' then Congress should not 
interfere and prejudice this process with biased language. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of fair and open competition and vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1998, for its recommitment to the fate of American POW's and MIA's.
  H.R. 1119 includes most of the House provision which sought to 
strengthen the process by which our past, present and future POW-MIA's 
are accounted for. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1997 
repealed several provisions of law that provided due process for the 
families of missing service members seeking information about their 
loved ones' fates, and that encouraged prompt investigations into 
missing personnel. The conference report restores many of the 
provisions stricken by the 1997 authorization bill, and makes 
additional changes to the law to improve the process for accounting for 
missing persons. These new provisions apply not only to our military, 
but to different civilian support personnel who may be serving 
alongside our armed forces far from home. In reaching an agreement in 
the conference report, I had very constructive negotiations with 
Senator John McCain, whose history with this issue is well known. 
Senator McCain was a good-listener, and fair-minded in his approach, 
allowing us to reach an agreeable compromise between the two Houses' 
positions. As a result, the conference report on H.R. 1119 contains a 
reasonable outcome that substantially advances the interests of those 
who seek to ensure the fullest possible accounting of our POW-MIA's.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 1119 keeps the faith, not 
only with our people in uniform, but with other equally dedicated 
citizens who voluntarily venture into harm's way in support the 
nation's vital interest. It reiterates the theme that should constantly 
play on the hearts of the American people--that our POW-MIA's are, 
indeed, not forgotten. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee representing the Intelligence 
Committee on this legislation, I want to note particularly the 
resolution of an issue affecting the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance 
Office, or DARO. The Intelligence Committee originally voted to 
terminate this office and transfer some of its functions to the 
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. This recommendation was 
controversial in the Committee--I for one did not support it--but it 
was endorsed by the House National Security Committee and was likewise 
reflected in the House defense appropriations bill. The Senate took no 
action against DARO.
  I am pleased that this conference report does not include the DARO 
termination recommended by the House. The conference agreement compels 
no change in DARO nor will it require that DARO cease the exercise of 
its critical responsibilities for strong oversight of airborne 
reconnaissance. The conference report does clarify that DARO's role 
does not include program management or budget execution. It should be 
understood clearly that this provision does not alter DARO's current 
role or responsibilities since, Department of Defense officials have 
stressed, DARO has not, does not, and will not manage programs. 
Instead, all airborne reconnaissance programs

[[Page H9607]]

are executed by the military services or by the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency.
  The conference report provides for a review of DARO by the ongoing 
Defense Reform Task Force, which I support. This task Force could well 
make a recommendation, and the Secretary of Defense could decide, to 
place the airborne reconnaissance oversight function in another 
organizational structure or to alter the manner in which the office 
reports to senior DoD officials. I have every expectation, however, 
that the Task Force and the Secretary will strongly support 
continuation of a centralized and powerful oversight function at a 
senior level within the Department.
  During a colloquy when the House considered the conference report on 
the Defense Appropriations Act, Chairman Young assured me that the 
reduction to DARO's operating budget reflected in the Act was made 
without prejudice and that the Committee would consider a reprogramming 
request from the Secretary to restore all or part of the funding 
requested for supporting the airborne reconnaissance oversight function 
for fiscal year 1998. The defense authorization conference report 
followed the budgetary allocations of the Appropriations conference in 
this as in most other matters. I hope that the leadership of the other 
committees which would have to consider a reprogramming for DARO will 
likewise defer to the judgment of the Secretary of Defense on funding 
for this activity in the coming year.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
and wish to note the hard work of all members of the conference 
committee to deliver legislation that will ensure the security of our 
country and adequately provide for the members of our Armed Forces.
  As a conferee on various provisions of this legislation which 
impacted the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, I am generally 
satisfied with the work which has been accomplished over the past 
several weeks. We have been able to reach agreement on a number of 
issues, and I appreciate the effort of Chairman Spence and other 
conferees to remain sensitive to the concerns of my Committee regarding 
a number of provisions on which the Commerce Committee was not 
represented by conferees.
  However, although I signed the conference report and support the 
overall bill, I continue to have serious reservations concerning 
several parts of the final work product. Specifically, I do not believe 
that section 351 of Title III of Division A of H.R. 1119 should be part 
of this legislation.
  This section was not included in the House version of H.R. 1119. 
Instead, this measure was added by the other body without thorough 
review and without specific comment by the Executive Branch. Thus, 
simply on procedural grounds alone, I do not believe that section 351 
should be part of the final conference report.
  But my concerns regarding this provision are far more than 
procedural. In this regard, I am attaching a letter signed by myself, 
Health and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis, full 
committee Ranking Member John D. Dingell, and subcommittee Ranking 
Member Sherrod Brown. This letter outlines the Commerce Committee's 
serious concerns regarding section 351 and the reasons why this section 
should not have been adopted in conference.
  In brief, section 351 establishes a policy for the sale of Clean Air 
Act emission reduction credits by military facilities. This policy is 
only applicable to defense facilities and is not applicable to other 
facilities or emission sources operated by the federal government. 
Thus, the provision risks creating a patchwork of policies within the 
federal government which could be at variance with the most efficient 
implementation of emission trading programs.
  Emission trading programs will become increasingly important as this 
nation strives to meet Clean Air Act standards. Such programs hold the 
promise to achieve needed reductions at the least cost and to increase 
flexibility in the implementation of Clean Air Act programs. Thus, what 
is needed in lieu of section 351 is a comprehensive review of the 
participation of all federal facilities and operations within new 
emission trading programs.
  The question of how federal facilities participate and what economic 
incentives may be available to individual facilities is an important 
question which should not be determined without informed analysis of 
the available alternatives. In this regard, during the coming months, 
the Commerce Committee will be actively reviewing this matter and may 
consider and evaluate policies at variance with those specified in 
section 351. In brief, the full committee and subcommittee leadership 
of the Commerce Committee have not endorsed section 351 or the pilot 
program it will establish and the Committee specifically reserves its 
rights and prerogatives under the Rules of the House to amend or 
terminate the pilot program established by this section.
  On another provision included in the conference report, I would like 
to clarify our understanding that the language in section 3404, 
Transfer of Jurisdiction, Naval Oil Shale Reserves Numbered 1 and 3, 
transfers only ``administrative jurisdiction'' over the Naval Oil Shale 
Reserves, and does not impact the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
Committee. The Commerce Committee has long shared jurisdiction over the 
Naval Oil Shale Reserves with the National Security and Resources 
Committees. In order to assure that Americans get the best value for 
their investments we have agreed to these provisions which allow two of 
the Naval Oil Shale Reserves to be leased for oil and gas exploration 
and production. The Commerce Committee expects to be a part of any 
future legislative efforts to modify these provisions or make any other 
changes with respect to the operations or disposition of these national 
assets.
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, House National Security Committee,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Spence and Chairman Thurmond: We are writing 
     to express our opposition to Section 338 of H.R. 1119 and to 
     ask for your assistance in deleting this provision during the 
     conference committee consideration of this matter.
       Section 338 seeks to establish a program, solely within the 
     Department of Defense, to provide for the sale of emission 
     reduction credits established under the Clean Air Act. The 
     section additionally directs that proceeds from such sales 
     will be available to the Department of Defense, not only for 
     the costs attributable to the identification, quantification 
     and valuation of such emission credits, but for allocation 
     within the Department of Defense and to military facilities 
     for activities that are ``necessary for compliance with 
     Federal environmental laws.'' This section was not part of 
     H.R. 1119 as approved by the full House of Representatives.
       The House Commerce Committee holds several strong 
     objections to this provision. First, the provision seeks to 
     establish federal policy, applicable ton only one department 
     of government, concerning several environmental trading 
     programs which have different objectives. The provision 
     specifically applies to ``any transferable economic 
     incentives'' which would include, at a minimum, trading 
     programs involving criteria pollutants regulated under Title 
     I of the Clean Air Act, marketable permits established under 
     Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act, and other programs 
     which seek to provide flexible, alternative implementation of 
     the Act.
       While the Commerce Committee would seek to encourage the 
     full participation of the federal government in emission 
     reduction and trading programs, it does not believe that this 
     participation should occur on a segmented or department-by-
     department basis. Moreover, it is unclear whether the return 
     of funds (over and above the amount of costs associated with 
     identification, quantification and valuation of economic 
     incentives sold) should necessarily be made available to the 
     specific facilities which generated the economic incentives. 
     Requiring that such funds be allocated ``to the extent 
     practicable'' to specific facilities risks ignoring important 
     Clean Air Act goals or other federal priorities.
       Second, the provision seeks to establish a policy which may 
     be at variance with present attempts to promote flexible 
     implementation of new Clean Air Act standards. On July 16, 
     1997, the President directed the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency ``in consultation with all 
     affected agencies and parties, to undertake the steps 
     appropriate under law to carry out the attached 
     (implementation) plan'' for the new ozone and particulate 
     matter standards. Section 338 predates this policy, and thus 
     predates any consultation or coordination between the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense 
     regarding implementation of new clean air act standards which 
     contemplate broad and unprecedented utilization of emission 
     trading programs.
       Given the costs associated with full implementation of the 
     new standards, it is clear that offsetting these costs 
     through the sale of allowances and other incentives is 
     essential. The corresponding distribution of the economic 
     benefits resulting from the sale of allowances is thus a 
     significant policy decision. Such a decision should not be 
     made in the context of legislation unrelated to the goals of 
     Clean Air Act programs and policies.
       Finally, the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction 
     over the law which served to create the economic incentives 
     which are the subject of Section 338, has received no 
     testimony, evidence, or other information from the Department 
     of Defense or other departments or agencies of the federal 
     government which specifically supports the final legislative 
     language of section 338. Thus, the Commerce Committee has had 
     no opportunity to evaluate the propriety of the policies 
     advocated by section 338, the validity of the information and 
     assumptions which underlie its incorporation into this law, 
     or the ability to subject advocates of this provision to 
     normal committee process and questioning. At a minimum, the 
     Commerce Committee must

[[Page H9608]]

     insist on its right to fully examine this provision within 
     the normal oversight and legislative duties delegated to the 
     Committee by the full House of Representatives.
       Thank you for your assistance in striking this provision 
     for the final conference report. Should you require any 
     further information on this provision, please do not hesitate 
     to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Bliley,
                               Chairman, House Commerce Committee.
                                                Michael Bilirakis,
                    Chairman, Health and Environment Subcommittee.
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                 Ranking Minority Member House Commerce Committee.
                                                    Sherrod Brown,
      Ranking Minority Member Health and Environment Subcommittee.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the conferees 
did not reflect the clear will of the House in the Conference Report's 
provision dealing with Bosnia [sections 1201 through 1206].
  The mission of the U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia has been characterized 
by a failure to define achievable objectives, a unilateral shifting of 
deadlines, and a refusal on the part of the administration to clearly 
explain its goals either to Congress or to the public at large. If the 
American people are to have any confidence in our national security 
policy, that policy must be honestly and forthrightly presented to 
them.
  I am troubled by the unclear focus of the mission and the apparent 
lack of an exit strategy. The underlying premise of the original 
mission was to separate the warring factions, then turn the 
peacekeeping role over to our European allies within one year. In 
November 1995, in his address to the Nation regarding our proposed 
commitment of our forces to Bosnia, President Clinton stated that, ``* 
* * our Joint Chief's of Staff have concluded that U.S. participation 
should and will last about one year.''
  However, in November, 1996, the President announced that our military 
presence in Bosnia would be extended for another eighteen months, until 
June 30, 1998. Although Secretary of Defense Cohen has emphatically 
stated his understanding that U.S. forces would be withdrawn by the end 
of June, 1998, more recent statements by administration officials, such 
as those of National Security Advisor Samuel Berger on September 23, 
1997, have cast serious doubt on this second deadline.
  These shifting deadlines have been accompanied by rhetorical 
sleights-of-hand, such as the assertion that by renaming the military 
force in Bosnia from the Implementation Force (``IFOR'') to the 
Stabilization Force (``SFOR''), a new mission, and therefore a 
different deployment, was created. Somehow, this was believed to 
mitigate the fact that U.S. troops are still in Bosnia, nearly a year 
after the initial withdrawal deadline has passed.
  It was against this background that on June 24, 1997, the House voted 
278-148 to prohibit funding for U.S. ground forces in Bosnia after June 
30, 1998. Moreover, this strong show of support for setting a date 
certain for withdrawal came just after the House narrowly rejected an 
amendment to end the U.S. ground force mission in Bosnia by December 
31, 1997. Together, these votes demonstrate a consensus in the House to 
wrap up the Bosnia deployment in the near future and bring the troops 
home.
  The conferees' decision to abandon a firm withdrawal date in favor of 
language merely requiring Presidential certifications for the Bosnia 
mission to be extended for an indefinite period of time after June 30, 
1998, not only weakens the firm position of the House, it offers 
further scope for yet another extension of the Bosnia mission. As 
everyone must surely realize, the President's certification to the 
terms of the provision is virtually a forgone conclusion. By permitting 
President Clinton to unilaterally extend the deployment of U.S. Armed 
Forces in the potentially hostile environment, Congress would be 
undercutting its obligation to the American people and to the young men 
and women the President has sent to Bosnia.
  It is a generally accepted premise that the President is the ``sole 
organ of the federal government in the field of international 
relations,'' and that Congress generally accepts a broad scope for 
independent executive action in international affairs. But Congress has 
long been concerned about U.S. military commitments and security 
arrangements that have been made by the President unilaterally without 
the consent or full knowledge of Congress.
  Throughout our Nation's history, prior Presidents have sought 
Congressional consent for extended deployments of United States Forces 
overseas, either through declarations of war or by Acts of Congress 
authorizing the specific deployment. The latter category has ranged 
from authorizations to deploy forces overseas (such as the 1949 North 
Atlantic Treaty and the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Korea) to the 
use of military force in specific situations (such as the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution in 1965, or the Persian Gulf Resolution of 1991).
  Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the ``Power to raise 
and support Armies * * * to provide and maintain a Navy * * * to make 
Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval forces * 
* *'', and grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. These 
powers were explicitly given to Congress in order to prevent the 
President, in his role as Commander in Chief, from using the armed 
forces for purposes that have not been approved of by Congress on 
behalf of the national security interests of the American people.
  Nowhere in the Constitution is the President empowered to deploy 
United States Armed Forces for war or beyond our borders without the 
consent of Congress. It is generally agreed, however, that situations 
of imminent or immediate danger to American life or property may arise 
that require the President to act without Congressional consent, but 
the extended deployment to Bosnia hardly qualifies for such unilateral 
action.
  President Clinton, by ordering the deployment of our military into 
Bosnia without the consent of Congress, has assumed that the making of 
war is the prerogative of the Executive Branch. But the raising, 
maintenance, governance, and regulation of the deployment and use of 
the Armed Forces of the United States is the prerogative of Congress.
  Not only does the conferees' weakening of the House position undercut 
Congress's legitimate authority to work its will on a vital foreign 
policy matter that involves the commitment of substantial U.S. military 
forces, it comes precisely at a time when SFOR is clearly drifting 
deeper into the quagmire in the Balkans, rather than preparing to 
disengage from it.
  During the last three months, SFOR has become more and more entangled 
in efforts at nation building, a flawed objective as well as an 
inappropriate use of combat forces. For example, SFOR troops are 
increasingly becoming involved in Serbian interparty politics, the 
takeover of police stations, and the censorship of television 
broadcasts. These recent actions compromise our status as neutral 
peacekeepers and jeopardize the primary mission of separating the 
former belligerents. More important, they endanger American lives in 
much the same way as our poorly thought-out policies in Somalia and 
Lebanon.
  Commenting on the administration's increased engagement in nation 
building, former secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote the 
following: ``America has no national interest for which to risk lives 
to produce a multiethnic state in Bosnia. The creation of a multiethnic 
state should be left to negotiations among the parties--welcomed by 
America if it happens but not pursued at the risk of American lives.''
  The administration has compounded the difficulty of a confused, 
evolving mission in Bosnia by the lack of a clear exit strategy. This 
problem became very evident during the Senate's hearing to confirm 
General Henry Shelton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 
September 9, 1997, when General Shelton admitted that he had not been 
informed of the exit strategy for Bosnia. It is likely that to the 
extent an exit strategy exists, it is so firmly tied to hazily defined 
future political events that there is always sufficient reason to leave 
U.S. troops in place: there is always one more local election, always 
one more arbitration, always one more refugee transfer that would, in 
the administration's opinion, require the presence of U.S. troops. 
Making our departure a hostage to these events is a virtual guarantee 
that U.S. troops will be in Bosnia for a long time to come.
  Finally, our mission in Bosnia raises troubling questions about 
allied burdensharing. I firmly believe that Bosnia is not a vital 
national interest. It is, at most, a peripheral interest of the United 
States to end a regional civil war in an area outside of NATO 
territory. It may be a vital interest to Europe, but it does not follow 
that U.S. ground troops must be tied up there for years. If the 
Europeans truly have the will to maintain peace in Bosnia, they will 
find a way; the administration should press the Europeans to begin 
planning now to assume full responsibility for the ground mission. If 
our allies have deficiencies, for example, in logistics capability or 
command and control, we must identify them and offer help to correct 
them.
  The conference agreement on Bosnia, by permitting what is essentially 
an open-ended extension of the mission, effectively nullifies the 
consensus of a record vote in the House and opens the door to further 
mission creep. I am deeply disappointed that the conferees could not 
find a mechanism to reassert Congress's legitimate Constitutional 
authority when our men and women in uniform are deployed in harm's way. 
Instead, the conferees appear to have countersigned a blank check to 
continue deployment in the Balkans.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act. This 
conference includes a very important provision on

[[Page H9609]]

an issue that I have been working on for over ten years.
  Several programs have been enacted over the years to allow regular 
and reserve retired members to ensure that, upon their deaths, their 
survivors will continue to receive a percentage of their retired pay. 
However, two categories of ``forgotten widows'' have been created by 
omitting any benefits for survivors of members who died before they 
could participate in the new programs.
  The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), enacted in 1972, replaced an earlier 
unsuccessful program. It offered an 18-month open enrollment period for 
members already retired. This SBP open enrollment period inadvertently 
created the first category of ``forgotten widows.'' These individuals 
are widows of retirees who died before the SBP was enacted or during 
the open enrollment period before making a participation decision. 
There are 3,000 to 10,000 pre-1974 widows.
  In 1978, the law was changed to allow Reservists the opportunity to 
elect survivor benefit coverage for their spouses and children when 
completing 20 years of qualifying service. However, it did not provide 
coverage for widows of Reserve retirees who died prior to its 
enactment. Thus the second category of ``forgotten widows'' evolved--
the pre-1978 reserve widows. There may be 3,000 to 5,000 widows in this 
category.
  In 1948, when the Civil Service Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted, it 
also created some civil service forgotten widows. In 1958, Congress 
authorized an annuity of up to $750 per year for the widows of civil 
service employees who were married to the employee for at least five 
years before the retiree's death, were not remarried, and were not 
entitled to any other annuity based on the deceased employee's service.
  Today, all military ``forgotten widows'' have to show for their 
husbands' careers are memories. The 1958 civil service benefit of $750 
equates to more than $3,600 in 1994 dollars.
  Military ``forgotten widows'' deserve at least the minimum SBP 
annuity allowed under current law. Therefore, I introduced legislation, 
H.R. 38, that would provide these widows with a monthly annuity of $165 
per month. H.R. 38, has received bipartisan support and has more than 
50 cosponsors.
  I was pleased that the Senate included a similar provision in its 
authorization act. The conference report that we are considering today 
retains this important provision from the Senate's legislation. The 
inclusion of forgotten widows in the Survivor Benefit Plan is long 
overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 1119.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for adding 
language to the House-passed version of the Defense Authorization Act 
that would commission a study to help resolve outstanding U.S. 
commercial disputes against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There remain, 
however, slight technical modifications to the directive report 
language I would like to clarify in this statement.
  The purpose of the study is to re-open the claims process established 
under the FY93 Defense Appropriations Bill and to require the 
Department of Defense to conduct a broad and comprehensive search into 
any remaining claims not resolved under the Act. As many in this body 
are aware, eighteen suits were filed against the Government of Saudi 
Arabia in the 1980's following their failure to pay for hundreds of 
millions of dollars worth of construction projects. To date, one 
important claim remains unresolved--the case of Gibbs and Hill, an 
engineering firm hired by the Saudi government to design a power and 
desalinization plant in the late 1970's.
  Following the completion of the facilities, the Saudi government 
refused to pay Gibbs and Hill the $55.1 million owed for their 
services. Almost twenty years later, the claim is still being pursued 
by Hill International, Inc., a firm located in my district. Although 
substantial Congressional support has been organized to pressure the 
Saudi government to settle this final claim, there has been little 
action. I am confident, however, that the upcoming report of the 
Secretary of Defense will help move the process along by identifying 
the Gibbs and Hill claim, and any other outstanding claims, resulting 
in a public record of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's failure to pay its 
debts to American businesses.
  With the support of the Senate Armed Services Committee for the House 
directive report language, I am hopeful the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretaries of State and Commerce, will issue 
this report in a timely matter.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Without objection, the Chair will reduce to not less than 5 minutes 
the time for a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of suspending 
the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 139, postponed earlier 
today, which will immediately follow this vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 286, 
nays 123, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               YEAS--286

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--123

     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gordon
     Gutierrez

[[Page H9610]]


     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Andrews
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Burr
     Capps
     Cubin
     Duncan
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     Kelly
     McDade
     McIntosh
     Mollohan
     Payne
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Yates

                              {time}  2109

  Mr. SAWYER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CLYBURN, NORWOOD, BARR of Georgia, and NEY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________