[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10176-H10182]
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. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of 
October 30, 1997 I call up the conference report 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of October 30, 1997 the conference report is considered as having 
been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at page H9586.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany 
the bill (S. 858) that authorizes funds for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities, and for other purposes, for fiscal 
year 1998.
  All such conference reports are, Mr. Speaker, as this one is, a 
compromise that, unfortunately, represents a significant reduction in 
funding for intelligence activities from our authorization passed by 
this body in June. But these reductions, when combined with some of the 
actions we have taken in appropriations, will mean the intelligence 
community will do without some much needed resources in several areas.
  That said, however, this conference report does set the stage for 
some work we will be doing over the next several years to ensure that 
this Nation has the intelligence capability it needs. Therefore, I 
strongly support the passage of this report.
  I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked hard to 
craft this bill, particularly the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks], the ranking member. I appreciate, as well, the fine efforts of 
our subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. 
In fact, I thank all the members of the committee who played 
constructive roles throughout this process; and, indeed, that was every 
member of the committee.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, special acknowledgment goes to the members of the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for their cooperation as we 
came together to make tough decisions on how best to invest in the 
future of our intelligence community for the benefit of our country.

                              {time}  0945

  Of course, there is no way we could be here today without the 
dedication, professionalism and perseverance of the staffs on both 
sides of the aisle and on both committees. I say that because we have a 
good working relationship, it is bipartisan, and bicameral, and it 
shows.
  Finally, some applause most go to the Members and the staffs of the 
House Committees on National Security and Appropriations for their 
sustaining cooperation throughout this authorization's legislative 
journey. It has been a good working relationship and a good product as 
a result.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill could not be more timely. Over the last few 
days, much time has been spent by Members deliberating very serious 
issues relating to the future relationship that the United States 
should have with Russia and with China. Indeed, we will be debating 
more on China today. Significant questions have been raised regarding 
these countries' roles in the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, proliferation that could result in placing our Nation at 
serious risk, thus comprising a direct threat to our national security.
  I do not intend to get into the policy side of this debate here 
today. Whether we decide that sanctions should be imposed or continued 
on these countries is secondary, but there is a fact here that simply 
cannot be ignored. As a Nation, we will not be able to gauge the 
success or failure of our policies or know the threat without an 
effective intelligence community. We simply have to have the eyes and 
ears to let us know what is going on.
  We are told that there are no Russian missiles aimed at American 
children as they go to bed at night. Mr. Speaker, how do we know that 
for sure? How can we make that statement with certainty? How long will 
it take to retarget such weapons? How can we know how tenuous is the 
chain of command in the Russian strategic rocket forces? And how are we 
to catch profiteers trying to steal and sell suitcase nukes, if indeed 
they exist? And how are we to uncover and disrupt the secret nuclear 
weapons programs underway in hostile rogue states we read about 
virtually every day in the paper and see on television every night? The 
answer to all of these questions is one word, ``intelligence.''
  And then there is China, Mr. Speaker. We will soon begin the debate 
again on the certification of China. Hanging in the balance could be 
United States access to the Chinese nuclear reactor market, reportedly 
a $50 billion trade opportunity. Or is it an opportunity? To do this, 
though, we must have confidence that the Chinese have stopped 
proliferating weapons of mass destruction components, systems and 
technologies, something that the Chinese President has promised to do. 
How good is that promise? But how will we know? How will we know that 
the technology we provide has been secretly diverted to military 
programs or to rogue regimes? Again the answer is simple, intelligence. 
Intelligence is what we count on to answer these questions, and we want 
these questions answered.
  Mr. Speaker, weapons proliferation is a sufficiently grave problem 
for me to argue the need for dynamic intelligence community 
capabilities. But there are other problems also at play. Terrorism, 
narcotics, and racketeering are some of the transnational issues we 
talk about that are endangering our Nation's well-being and for which 
we must have strong intelligence capability.
  Also included in the need for intelligence is its crucial role 
supporting our military forces, our war fighters, mission one, whether 
they are deployed for war or for other less well-defined humanitarian 
or peacekeeping missions where we are doing force protection. 
Intelligence requirements have grown tremendously and intelligence-
related technologies have revolutionized our defense and warfare 
doctrines.
  As we know, it is intelligence that puts the smart in the smart 
weapons. But it goes well beyond that. Intelligence is the centerpiece 
of the doctrine of Dominant Battlefield Awareness, which has been 
endorsed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by our Armed 
Services.
  But, the Defense Department needs to make the hard decision to invest 
more for intelligence if it truly desires to achieve the capabilities 
it says it needs to support our forces. I encourage them to take that 
message during the next year. Indeed, I find it somewhat puzzling that 
if this is the direction that DOD wants to go, why are there continued 
efforts to, ``tax'' defense intelligence agencies and programs even 
more? Why has the Defense Reform Task Force apparently been talking 
about significant cuts to defense intelligence, up to 25 percent?

[[Page H10177]]

 That is a big cut. Why are those in the Joint Chiefs' office asking 
our commands to consider a 10-percent reduction in staffing of joint 
intelligence billets in the field? These types of actions do not 
indicate a sense of seriousness on behalf of the DOD that backs up 
their commitment to intelligence. Giving our war fighters the best 
possible informational edge is not debatable.
  We also need a real commitment from Congress. As we review our 
intelligence capabilities over the coming year and as we look at next 
year's budget submission, we must keep in mind that intelligence is a 
vital part of our Nation's defense, not a cash cow bill-payer for it.
  That brings us up to this conference report, Mr. Speaker. Let me be 
blunt. I do not believe that the intelligence community is sufficiently 
prepared to meet the demands that are being placed upon it now, much 
less in the future. In other words, the community simply cannot deliver 
all that is expected or all that is desired of it today. I think that 
is a shame. The fact that many forget is that we cannot turn 
intelligence on and off like a light switch. We cannot treat this like 
we are cramming for a test on a final exam. It just does not work that 
way. It takes time to build and maintain the proper capabilities. But 
that is something we have got to do.
  Regardless of how this Nation responds to an issue, whether it is 
through diplomacy or whether it is law enforcement or whether it is 
military action, intelligence is the key to success and we simply must 
have it. Good intelligence, I think as we all know, is better than 
insurance. It saves lives. It prevents calamities. It heads off those 
nasty surprises. But like insurance, you have got to have it before the 
crisis happens. So now we must invest for our future.
  In this conference report, we are doing that. We are doing the right 
thing and making the right choices, though coverage in some areas is 
admittedly light and I think dangerously light. I encourage my fellow 
Members to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
the chairman of the committee, for the statement that he just gave. I 
think he hit the nail right on the head. We are not spending enough 
money today on intelligence. A lot of people in this House think we are 
spending too much money on intelligence. But I think the gentleman is 
absolutely right. The cuts that were made unfortunately in the 
Appropriations Committee, and I am a member of it and take some 
responsibility for it, I think are too deep and are cuts that we are 
going to regret because of the consequences within the intelligence 
community. I commend the gentleman for his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the 
intelligence authorization bill. I want to commend again the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] on his leadership in achieving in conference an 
agreement that addresses many of the reservations I and other Members 
had with the bill the House considered in July. As I noted then, I 
believe that changes in the direction of complex activities should be 
undertaken with a clear understanding of their likely consequences. The 
conference report takes a more measured approach toward change, 
particularly in the programs of the National Reconnaissance Office, 
than did the House bill, and represents in that respect a better 
product. I want to point out that when you have these very major 
programs that are crucial to the ability of this country to gather 
intelligence, our national technical means, stability is required. One 
thing that we in the Congress have to be very careful about is not 
causing instability within the NRO. They have got a daunting challenge 
to modernize our national technical means. I hope that we as a Congress 
do not make that job more difficult.
  I want those who are concerned with the amount of money spent on 
intelligence programs and activities to be aware that while the measure 
passed by the House contains slight increases to the amounts requested 
by the President, and authorized in fiscal year 1997, the size of those 
increases were reduced in conference. The legislation now before the 
House is 1.4 percent above last year's authorized level and 0.3 percent 
above the President's request. I do not consider these increases to be 
excessive and want to assure my colleagues that the amounts authorized 
by the conference report are responsive to the legitimate needs of our 
intelligence agencies to maintain their capabilities to collect, 
analyze, process and disseminate intelligence.
  The bill as reported by the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence contained a provision which would have terminated the 
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office [DARO]. Since the version of the 
defense authorization bill reported by the House Committee on National 
Security had a similar provision and that reported by the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services did not, the matter was reserved for 
resolution by the defense authorization conference.
  As a conferee on that measure, I want to emphasize that the defense 
authorization 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 are executed by the military services 
or by the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency [DARPA].
  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.
  I would add that I believe that the pursuit of UAVs and airborne 
reconnaissance are two things that we must continue to work on and 
strongly support. I believe, having talked to a number of intelligence 
officers, that UAVs, like Predator, have tremendous potential and that 
we as a Congress need to do everything we can to support the agencies 
that are working with these unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe that 
they have tremendous promise and that we should not back away from 
them. I know that my colleagues on the other side are as interested in 
that as we are, but we have got to have stability there as well. If we 
did away with DARO and if we did away with moving forward with UAVs, 
what would happen is that we would fall back to the old technologies 
and not make the breakthroughs that I think are required for the 
future.
  During a colloquy when the House considered the conference report on 
the Defense Appropriations Act, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 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 fiscal year 
1998.
  In closing, I want to note an omission from this legislation about 
which I have great concern and disappointment. One of our primary 
responsibilities as members of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence is to ensure as best we can that the intelligence agencies 
have the means by

[[Page H10178]]

which to conduct their important activities, not just in the short term 
but for decades into the future as well. I believe the record of the 
Congress in providing the resources necessary to modernize intelligence 
capabilities has been excellent, and there are a number of examples of 
that in this conference report. There is, however, one important area 
in which a critical investment should have been made, in my judgment, 
in the bill. Both intelligence committees were willing to provide the 
required authorization of funds, but the administration, taking a view 
of the future with which I disagree, refused to commit the necessary 
resources. I believe we will look back at this missed opportunity with 
great regret and that those responsible for this decision will have 
many occasions to wish that they had taken a more far-sighted view of 
the intelligence needs of the next century.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. Speaker, the reservation I just stated is not the fault of the 
conference committee and does not lessen my support for what is 
contained in this conference report. The conference agreement merits 
the support of the House, and I urge that it be adopted.
  I want to join with the chairman complimenting the excellent staff 
that we have both on the Democratic and Republican side. We try to 
function in a bipartisan way; that is the goal that the chairman and I 
both share. We do have outstanding people who work every day for the 
House on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, many 
with long tenure. I just want the House to know that we are well served 
by the professionalism and the ability of these people who keep 
confidential some of the most important information in this Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks] for his very compelling remarks, and I think we can all see what 
an extraordinary job he does on this committee and what incredible 
leadership he gives us, what participation, and what championship of 
projects that he knows about and cares about deeply, and we share the 
same views, perhaps not the same energy level on some of them.
  I think as regard to DARO, the issue is not about the capability, the 
issue is how we make it work best, and I know that the gentleman knows 
that I am committed to that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington briefly.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the point we want to make. 
There have been some problems. I know we are all frustrated about the 
UAV's, trying to bring them on more rapidly, but I do think in this 
particular case that the Department of Defense deserves, and after all 
we said to them, pull all these programs together, create an entity, 
get management oversight of this, we want this to be handled.
  Now we got the agency created, they are starting to do the job. The 
problem is, like in a lot of areas of advanced technology there are 
problems, and not every one of these programs works perfectly the first 
time in many areas because they used to be classified, people did not 
know about it, and finally we get it right, but we would not kill the 
program.
  Now we put it out there in the open, and people see the failures, but 
that is what R&D is really all about. There will be failures, but 
ultimately we are going to get this job done, and it is going to give 
us a revolutionary new capability in the reconnaissance area along with 
our aircraft. And I just think we have got to stay the course and 
support this, support DARO, and make sure they get the job done with 
good oversight which the chairman has provided.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
the chairman of our subcommittee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
chairman yielding this time to me, and I want to take just a moment to 
express my personal deep appreciation for the work of both our chairman 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  I would further like to say that within this committee the atmosphere 
of growing almost nonpartisanship is a very refreshing development in 
the Congress, indeed an area that is so critical to the United States, 
our intelligence programing, to have people working together in a 
fashion that recognizes that the importance and strength of the country 
is what we are about is very, very encouraging to me. I would like to 
compliment our staff on both sides of the aisle for their very fine 
work they have done throughout developing this measure.
  Stepping aside for a moment and reacting to the discussions regarding 
the DARO and airborne reconnaissance programs, I must say I believe 
this committee has done a fabulous job over some time at highlighting 
the importance of these reconnaissance programs, and the work of the 
DARO is the result of the efforts of this committee, and indeed a great 
deal of progress we have made in this area is a direct result of the 
efforts of the committee. And so I am very encouraged by the interest 
on both sides of the aisle and expect that there is little doubt that 
we have gotten the attention, the clear attention, of those in DOD that 
we should have in order to make further progress as we go forward.
  In the area of keeping us on the cutting edge of technical 
capabilities which is so important to our intelligence success, I would 
like to mention just a few things, the first being that investment in 
satellite systems that utilize cutting-edge technology that are smaller 
and operationally more flexible, and they can be acquired within 
greatly reduced time lines, eventually will reduce the overall cost to 
these programs, and yet they are very, very important programs to us. 
If we do this correctly, that is by following the pattern of faster, 
better, cheaper, we certainly will have dividends that in turn can be 
applied to other areas of significance to our work.
  I would mention that reinvesting some of those dividends and items 
that relate to downstream activities, like the processing and 
exploitation, analysis, as well as dissemination of our products, is a 
critical part of effective use of intelligence assets. I must say it is 
one thing to spend a good deal of money developing information; it is 
another thing to be able to use it in a way that means something to our 
interests, and those sorts of investments are very important as we go 
forward with developing more effective intelligence systems as well as 
programs.
  Another area is investment in research and development to keep us on 
that cutting edge. There is not any question in my mind's eye that 
there is not another area of American Government's work that is more 
critical than making sure that we are technologically capable and on 
the edge than in the field of intelligence.
  America, without any doubt, in this changing world remains the 
strongest country in the world, indeed the leader and the hope for 
democratic and free opportunities in the future. No small part of that 
is because of the work of the intelligence community. We always and 
often most hear about problems that we may have in our intelligence 
work because that is when ofttimes those activities and that work 
becomes public. Very few know about the real successes that have made a 
difference for freedom throughout the world, and that is the 
responsibility in no small part of this committee as we carry out our 
oversight functions, and it is my privilege to participate in the work, 
the very fine work, of the committee and the leadership of our chairman 
and our ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], who is a senior 
member of the Committee on Armed Services and a new member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but one of our very, very 
best.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member giving me 
some time this morning.
  The conference report before us does more for military intelligence 
programs and activities than the President requested. While these 
increases are small, I believe they reflect the fact that as the size 
of the Armed

[[Page H10179]]

Forces decreases, the need for timely and reliable intelligence becomes 
more critical. Our military commanders cannot do their jobs, both in 
terms of the achievement of their objectives and the safeguarding of 
the lives of our service men and women without intelligence of the 
highest quality. We simply cannot manage safely the planned drawdown of 
the Defense Department without the kind of investments made by this 
bill.
  I want to congratulate the chairman and congratulate the ranking 
Democrat for the work they have done to make sure that our military 
personnel have the support that they need in this important area. I 
intend to continue to do what I can to make sure that we do not slight 
the future investments that will need to be made to ensure that our 
battlefield commanders have the information necessary to achieve rapid 
dominance so that any armed conflict results in a decisive victory for 
our forces.
  I believe we have taken important steps toward that end in this 
conference report. Much more, Mr. Speaker, needs to be done, 
particularly in the areas of information warfare and aerial 
reconnaissance. These are among the areas to which I hope the committee 
will devote particular attention in the next year.
  It is a pleasure to serve on this committee. I salute both the 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the ranking 
Democrat, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their dedicated 
and bipartisan work. I also want to give particular thanks to all of 
the staff who have devoted untold hours to producing this conference 
report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I am sure my colleagues have all heard that information 
technology is vital to our future both for economic competitiveness and 
for national security. Information warfare, information operations, 
information dominance, information assurance and dominant battlefield 
awareness, they are all familiar phrases often invoked when defense 
budget priorities are discussed. Upon closer examination, however, we 
sometimes find that this is more rhetoric than reality. Since Rome 
Laboratory is in my congressional district, it is the Air Force center 
of excellence for information technology development, I have had the 
occasion to examine the rhetoric and the reality.
  In a broader sense, the entire intelligence budget is geared to 
provide a U.S. worldwide information advantage upon which policymakers 
and military forces will rely heavily, yet partly because of the rise 
in military operations costs and the dearth of military procurement 
money, in recent years the intelligence budget has received only modest 
congressional plus-ups provided to the defense budget. This year, for 
instance, money appropriated for intelligence will be under, under the 
administration request.
  Further, I understand that in the developing budget for fiscal year 
1999, the Air Force initially recommended large cuts to science and 
technology in the magnitude of $250 million, which could fall heavily 
on information technology. Quite frankly, that is totally unacceptable. 
I have made known my strong rejection of that approach to the 
appropriate people, and fortunately I am finding a receptive audience 
in both DOD, the Department of Defense, and the White House.
  One of the reasons I sought this much coveted position on this 
committee is to be able to deal directly with its very important 
subject, and I am pleased to report that our committee this year took 
steps to upgrade the information infrastructure budget of several 
agencies to improve their processing, storage and exploitation of 
intelligence data. For the future we are also requiring a more coherent 
interagency strategy and budget for information assurance, or 
information protection. In this regard the President's Commission on 
Critical Infrastructure recently publicized its conclusions that not 
only the defense infrastructure, but also key parts of the civilian 
economy are highly vulnerable to computer attack. The Commission called 
for greater focus and progressively increased spending to improve our 
protection.
  Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I do not yet see the level of commitment to 
information technology that will maintain the country's technological 
advantage into the future. In fact, although the rhetoric is there, the 
reality seems to be somewhat questionable.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of this committee and the 
chairman and the ranking member and support this conference report and 
deal with this very important subject in a responsible manner.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons], who is a value added member of our 
committee, believe me. As a decorated serviceman, the information he 
has given us has been extraordinary, and we welcome him in his first 
year.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in very strong support of the conference report accompanying 
Senate Bill 858.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], along with their 
counterparts in the other body deserve a great deal of credit for an 
intelligence authorization bill that this Nation can be proud of and 
that all Members of this body should strongly support. Not only does 
this bill authorize the proper amount of authorization for the 
operation of our national intelligence activities, it also specifically 
authorizes funds for those tactical intelligence functions that provide 
direct indications and morning support to our military personnel 
deployed around the world. It is absolutely critical that we, the 
elected officials in this country, fully support those men and women we 
have sent into harm's way with useful intelligence.

                              {time}  1015

  This bill provides the best effort possible to do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is also important to note that in terms 
of tactical intelligence functions, in this bill there was tremendous 
and close coordination between the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and the House Committee on National Security. I have 
firsthand knowledge of this as I proudly serve on both committees.
  This cooperation was so effective, in fact, that the tactical 
intelligence provisions addressed were actually contained in the 
defense authorization bill that was recently voted on by Congress.
  As a former military veteran and fighter pilot, I must say that 
several of these provisions address issues that are very important to 
me personally, issues such as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAV's. These 
unmanned aircraft offer a great potential for reducing the threat and 
danger of enemy activities and threats to our airborne reconnaissance 
aircrews.
  However, in many Members' eyes, the Department of Defense's 
management of these vehicles has not proven to be overly successful. 
The defense and intelligence authorization bills take some bold steps 
in this direction, both in terms of legislation and funding actions, to 
improve the Department's UAV management, thus ensuring that these air 
vehicles have the greatest chance for success.
  Although controversial to some, I believe the very responsible 
positions hammered out during the conference and the conference process 
are all fair, logical, and, most importantly, a step in the right 
direction, to minimize the overhead costs while maximizing the 
Services' responsibilities for equipping their troops. These 
responsible actions are reflective of the entire intelligence 
authorization bill.
  Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the Members on the 
other side of the aisle for their conscious and dedicated effort in 
this regard. I urge all my colleagues to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] who has been largely responsible for the ``buy 
America'' provisions that have been contained in this bill over the 
last several years. He has been very concerned about this.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding

[[Page H10180]]

me time, and I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for the 
bill.
  As you know, I have questioned some of the intelligence-gathering 
capability of our programming here that we fund. Some of it evidently 
is made to the advertisement level, where I questioned why we did not 
learn from the CIA that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait but we 
learned that from CNN.
  I am not going to oppose this bill, because I have confidence in the 
people who have drafted the bill, and I understand that without 
adequate intelligence gathering, our national security is really 
threatened.
  But I want to caution the Congress. When General Schwarzkopf said 
that he relied on intelligence as much from the media and CNN as he did 
from CIA and other sources, that should be cause for alarm. I honestly 
believe that we are spending billions of dollars in this hidden 
intelligence network system, and we are not getting the type of 
intelligence that we need to keep our great Nation free.
  I believe there is a fault. I am hoping that in the next bill we will 
address that, we will address the reasons why a general in the Persian 
Gulf war relied as much on the media as he did on intelligence sources 
and why, in God's name, our media knows more at times about significant 
national and international events that affect our freedom as does our 
intelligence-gathering network.
  So I believe you are on the right track. I appreciate the fact that 
even though it is a hidden budget, we can have a hidden ``buy 
American'' provision, and hopefully maybe we will at least buy a few 
American items that will help keep America free. I am going to support 
the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Ohio, Mr. 
Traficant, that General Schwarzkopf is a very close friend of mine. In 
fact, he was commanding officer of I Corps at Fort Lewis, and I went 
over there several times. He did come to the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence after the war. He said that this was the best 
intelligence that any commanding officer had ever received.
  Now, did he say, yes, there were some things we should be working on 
like broad area search, the dissemination of imagery, being able to 
find targets which could be relocated, like Scud launchers, more 
rapidly? Yes. But I want the gentleman to know that we are working on 
each one of those issues.
  Last year, this Congress created NIMA. I strongly supported that. 
That was an initiative of the administration. We put mapping together 
with imagery. Today, we are able to get imagery out into the field more 
rapidly than we could during the Gulf War.
  I will also say to the gentleman that other areas of intelligence 
gathering provide greater insights into Iraqi plans in the gulf war. We 
knew exactly what was going on.
  So the general had some critiques, but, overall, he said intelligence 
was very, very good. I think if you talked to him about it, he would 
say that. We are, I believe, trying to address the areas where there 
are problems.
  I would also note that the first thing that George Bush, the 
President during the gulf war said at the time was that there had not 
been an intelligence failure with respect to the invasion of Kuwait. 
The intelligence community gave the President notice that it was likely 
there would be an invasion. The administration did not act on that 
warning.
  It was hard to act, because our allies were giving us different 
information. Our allies in the region were saying that Saddam will not 
do it, while the intelligence community said that, it looks like he is 
going to do it. A decision was made to rely on the people in the 
region, and that proved to be wrong. But it was not an intelligence 
failure.
  I like the fact that when you go all over the world you have CNN, and 
it is a good supplement to our intelligence. Having the news available 
all over the world is important. But it does not make up for having in 
place the national technical means, the tactical intelligence, the 
human intelligence that has to be out there in the field. I am worried, 
frankly, that we are downsizing to such a level that we are going to be 
spread so thin, especially in the human intelligence area, that we 
could have problems in the future. That is something we have to 
address. But that is going to require more effort and more resources, 
not less.
  We thank the gentleman for his help and participation and for his 
support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only follow on to my distinguished colleague's 
response to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] by saying, what the 
media did in the Gulf war was to report what was happening and what had 
happened. What is key to intelligence and its effective service is to 
analyze all sources and to try to predict and provide the best possible 
advice to our policy makers.
  I think we have learned a lot from the Gulf war, and I think the 
quality of the intelligence services that we are provided today are, 
indeed, far superior. But the fact is, it is always easy to criticize 
an event after the fact. It is far more difficult to deal with the 
complexities of the world as they exist today and to provide leaders 
with predictions about what is going to happen. That is the key.
  But I really appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak today 
in support of the conference report to accompany the Senate bill that 
authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. 
As a member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and 
Counterintelligence, I am particularly pleased with the bipartisan and 
bicameral work that we have been able to do to augment the breadth and 
depth of all-source analysis, as I mentioned a minute ago, in the 
intelligence process.
  Mr. Speaker, let me describe the future role of the all-source 
analyst by describing the past. Last month, the Central Intelligence 
Agency celebrated the 50th anniversary of its creation, leading us all 
to reflect for a moment on the grand struggles and great victories of 
the OSS in World War II and the CIA in the Cold War.
  Our chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], has spoken 
publicly and eloquently about the work and sacrifices made by U.S. 
intelligence officers from occupied France to the Soviet Union in 
securing these victories, in many instances submitting themselves to 
grave, grave danger.
  Those struggles, Mr. Speaker, are now history, and it is really a 
grand history. In their place has emerged a far more complicated, 
multipolar world with issues and threats that emanate not just from 
Berlin or Moscow, but from places like Kinshasa, Monrovia, and Chiang 
Mai.
  To inform and educate our policy makers in this new world, we require 
an intelligence community with diverse and global foci. To make that 
happen, we require an analytic core that can follow everything from the 
T-72 tank in the sub-Sahara to the price of poppies in the Golden 
Triangle. We also need those analysts to identify and direct 
intelligence collection that is both cost effective and useful to our 
needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support strongly Senate bill 858, and I urge my 
colleagues to support us in passing this conference committee report 
today.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for his help and 
guidance as the chairman of this committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield back, too. Before I do, I want to 
just point out one other thing. Sometimes we overlook the fact that we 
have men and women, dedicated men and women in the intelligence 
community in the United States of America, who are working literally 7 
days a week, night and day, to make sure our national security remains 
nationally secure. I think that is something that sometimes gets 
overlooked and sometimes gets misinterpreted in our sensationalized and 
instantanealized media.
  I think every American should be proud of the folks in the 
intelligence

[[Page H10181]]

community and the work they do, and should be thankful for them, as we 
are.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I urge support of the conference 
report.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1998 
Intelligence Authorization Conference Report.
  As a member of the committee, I would like to commend the chairman, 
the ranking Democrat, and all of the staff for their exceptional work 
on this important bill.
  This report achieves small gains in intelligence spending, at a time 
when other categories of Federal spending are decreasing. Why? Because 
intelligence spending is intelligent spending.
  The post-cold war world is characterized by uncertainty. This makes 
it even more critical that we have a robust intelligence program.
  One source of uncertainty is proliferation. Nations like Russia and 
China are selling high technology weapons and know-how to rogue 
nations--we wouldn't be aware of this without the resources and the 
efforts of our intelligence agencies.
  The Congress had an opportunity to address this issue yesterday, and 
now the administration has an opportunity to take the steps necessary 
to stop it. To monitor our success in the future we need continued 
vigilance and continued efforts to prevent and respond to proliferation 
to rogue states.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Technical and 
Tactical Intelligence, I want to note that too often when we think of 
intelligence gathering, we only think of the spies and information 
sources behind enemy lines. These people and sources are critically 
important to be sure, but we cannot forget our technical collection 
capabilities--the satellites and aircraft equipped with high technology 
sensors to observe and to listen.
  Taken together, these systems comprise an architecture--a system of 
systems--that collects intelligence and distributes it to decision 
makers and military planners.
  Because of these sentinels, our enemies know that their actions do 
not go unnoticed. They know we are watching.
  I am proud to say that many of these technical systems are designed 
and manufactured in my district, and I salute the men and women who 
develop them. They are truly making the highest contribution to our 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are undergoing a revolution in military 
affairs. Our Armed Forces rely increasingly on information so they can 
understand the battlefield and attack with precision and effectiveness.
  It is our technical intelligence architecture--our satellites and 
aircraft with their sensors and processors--which collects the critical 
information that gives our forces an overwhelming advantage over their 
opponents.
  Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support this Intelligence 
Authorization Conference Report, and I urge our colleagues to do so.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in 
support of the conference report to accompany Senate bill 858 that 
authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
for fiscal year 1998. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 
Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I am pleased that this 
report identifies and corrects some fundamental shortfalls in the 
investments we must make to ensure that our Nation's intelligence 
community can provide on the ground intelligence about the narcotics 
traffickers, terrorists, weapons proliferators, and rogue states that 
imperil our national security.


                           human intelligence

  Mr. Speaker, the collectors of on the ground human intelligence, or 
HUMINT, are working hard and working well against the plans and 
intentions of terrorists, traffickers, proliferators, and rogue states. 
In the budget request, however, our committees found a significant 
shortfall in the technical and other support that these collectors will 
need in future years to continue their fine efforts to gather HUMINT on 
these threats; we cannot expect these collectors to overcome the high 
technology employed by traffickers, for example, without technology of 
their own. This committee also found a lack of long-term planning in 
the focus and funding of collection operations; we cannot expect HUMINT 
collectors to perform well when funding plans are made on an ad hoc, 
year-to-year basis.
  As the result of bipartisan and bicameral work and coordination, Mr. 
Speaker, our conference report does indeed begin the process of 
providing adequate support for the eyes and ears of the intelligence 
community against these new and difficult threats. On those same bases, 
Mr. Speaker, our report now directs the intelligence community to 
develop a system for projecting the long-term funding needs of these 
vital collection efforts so that we may continue to provide these 
efforts with adequate support.


                                analysis

  Mr. Speaker, the all-source analyst stands in the center of the 
planning of this committee and of the intelligence community for the 
needs of policymakers in the 21st century. We will look to the all-
source analyst to anticipate future needs for intelligence and to 
provide support to the policymakers and to the military. Where will the 
next Congo be? What are the terrorist threats in a specific country? 
What success is a rogue regime having in developing chemical or 
biological weapons? We will also look to that analyst for direction in 
what information about these crises we may obtain through open sources 
and what we must obtain through human or technical clandestine 
collection.
  In that light, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to report that 
the conference report directs and begins to fund the restoration of an 
analyst cadre pared too lean over past years to cover the projected 
needs of policymakers as we pass into the next century. As our report 
makes clear, our committees will remain engaged in that restoration and 
will look to the all-source analyst to guide the intelligence community 
in future years.


                          counterintelligence

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the reality of the 
counterintelligence threat to our national security continues to play 
on the front pages of our newspapers: Ames, Pitts, Nicholson, Kim, and 
now the recent three arrests. The success of investigations and 
prosecutions in these cases continues to depend upon 
counterintelligence officers within the community who are able to think 
the unthinkable--that is, that Americans could engage in such 
treachery--and to pursue investigations carefully and successfully. Mr. 
Speaker, our conference report reflects bipartisan and bicameral 
recognition of the efforts of these counterintelligence officers and 
supports the means by which their vigilance may be continued.


                               conclusion

  In sum, Mr. Speaker, our conference report acknowledges and supports 
the focused efforts of the HUMINT collector, the crucial role of the 
analyst, and the difficult, but necessary, role of the 
counterintelligence officer. We have made surgical cuts and strategic 
adds necessary to the focus and the effectiveness of the intelligence 
community against the threats that imperil our nation.
  I once again thank Chairman Goss for the direction and guidance he 
has given to both his subcommittees during the course of conference.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for 
S. 858, the Intelligence Authorization for fiscal year 1998. However, I 
remain deeply concerned about allegations that have been raised 
regarding CIA involvement in drug trafficking in south central Los 
Angeles and elsewhere. A year ago next week, then Director of Central 
Intelligence John Deutch made an unprecedented visit to Alain Locke 
High School in my district to directly address the concerns raised by 
my constituents and me generated by these allegations. His visit 
illustrated a new openness to wrestling with the issues raised by press 
reports. Those reports, some of which have been retracted, suggested 
that the crack cocaine trade that has devastated whole communities was 
promulgated by official government activities under the aegis of the 
Central Intelligence Agency.
  Consequently, I and my constituents eagerly await the release of the 
inspector generals of Justice and CIA. I understand the release of the 
Justice Department's inspector general is imminent. I hope that the 
select committee will give their content, methodologies and findings 
the scrutiny they deserve and in a similar spirit of openness, make 
themselves available to my constituents to respond to any questions 
these report generate. I believe such openness is critical to 
restoration of the credibility and public trust necessary to allow 
intelligence gathering activities, which by their nature are secretive, 
to coexist with democracy.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. 
Last July, when this body considered the House version of the 
intelligence bill, I stood in this well and commended Chairman Goss and 
the ranking Democrat, Mr. Dicks, for their efforts in producing a 
bipartisan measure that enhanced our Nation's intelligence collection, 
analytical and dissemination capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I echo those 
remarks today and extend them to the leadership of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Chairman Shelby and Vice-Chairman Kerrey, for 
their efforts in working with us to produce a conference agreement 
fully supportive of the men and women who comprise our intelligence 
community.
  In the unstable world that we live in today, our Nation's military is 
called upon to perform more difficult tasks at an ever increasing tempo 
of operations. Let us not forget that the Department of Defense has 
regrettably drawn down more than any other Federal agency and the 
reductions in personnel and dollars continue today. Intelligence acts 
as a force

[[Page H10182]]

multiplier, and if we are to continue on a downward path in funding our 
Nation's armed services, then we need to take every step to ensure that 
our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to provide policy makers 
with the information then need to make key decisions affecting national 
security. The conference report before us today provides the necessary 
resources to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient 
to meet tomorrow's contingencies.
  Mr. Speaker, debate over the appropriate levels of funding for 
intelligence activities does not always emphasize the important role of 
intelligence in achieving a full accounting of members of the armed 
services who are lost in battle. I want to ensure my colleagues, 
veterans and the families of the military personnel whose fate remains 
undetermined that this conference agreement provides the necessary 
resources to permit the intelligence community to continue to assist in 
efforts to determine the fate of those listed as missing in action. I 
have not forgotten you, the Congress has not forgotten you and this 
legislation will assist in helping to bring you home.
  Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the leadership of the House and 
Senate intelligence committees for their work in fashioning a bill that 
provides critical support to all facets of our intelligence community. 
The military and civilian components of our intelligence apparatus are 
sufficiently provided for in this agreement so that they may continue 
to assist in providing force protection intelligence to our troops 
called upon to conduct noncombatant evacuations when the lives of 
Americans are threatened overseas. Additionally, resources are 
authorized that permit the intelligence community to sustain its 
efforts to assist in the collection and analysis of critical 
intelligence bearing on such difficult and challenging issues as 
counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterproliferation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure and in doing so support 
the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood).
  The previous question was ordered.
  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. GOSS. 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 385, 
nays 36, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 607]

                               YEAS--385

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     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
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--36

     Becerra
     Bonior
     Camp
     Chenoweth
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Lofgren
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rush
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, Sam
     Markey
     McDade
     Neal
     Riley
     Schiff
     Stark
     Stokes
     Yates

                              {time}  1050

  Messrs. DeFAZIO, OBERSTAR, VENTO, and RUSH changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARR of Georgia and Mr. STUPAK 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.

                          ____________________