Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)

[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.

[[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.

____________________