AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STOKES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89T00234R000300370008-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 31, 2013
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: April 23, 1987
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Ft. 0 , , - ail 4? I 4_
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/31 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000-300370008-7-
(V fl le* ?assed nouse (5 Cl CU
?
April 94 1987 L. RECORD ? HOUSE H215
Mr. ODTGRICIL I yield to ray col-
league, the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fact
that the Soviets- can produce more
than we can, if that is so? that *really
a tragedy and we ought. to do. some-
thing about it besides taking refuge in
page 14 of this bi/L
Mr. DICKS. lifr. Chairman, it the
gentleman will yield, we ought to do a.
lot about it, as the gentleman knows,
Ms. HYDE. This gentleman has the
time.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman yields:
M. HYDE. Second, the argument
for redundancy, what happens to
that? I have heard for years, we can
bomb them to the Stone Age. They
can bomb; us. We do net need any
more bog. All of a sudden we are
taking some apprehension at the feet
that they can outproduce us in
bemin, What happens to the
ntent of redundancy?*
Third, if the ABM Treaty was such a
wonderful document 5 years ago or fr
years age and President. Reagan said
he was going to informs* observe it,
that Is. fine, but it. has been shredded
and turned into confetti, by the Soviet
Union. It seems to me that changes
the equation.. Our response to that has
to be the ability to break out of this
unratified massively violated already
by its. terms. expired treaty when and
where we want to, not when the Soviet
Union wants to. That is. my complaint
with the gentleman's position.
Mr. GING.RICEL Mr. Chairman, let
nte read one paragraph, and then I
will yield. I cannot imagine any
Member of this House, outside of the
very Select Subcommittee on, Appro-
priations and the Committee on
Armed Services, who has any notion
whether or not the United States
should have on page 1.5:
An aggregate of more than 1,320 launch.-
era described in paragraph 2 and heavy
bombers equipped for air launch cruise milt-
siles capstan of a range in exams?, 69S kilo-
meters
My point is lust that it in madness'
for the U.& Rouse of Representatives
to get involved at this level of self-lint-
Ration of our potential of change,
given the length of time legislation
takes.
Mr DICKS. Mr. Clsainnsur, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I ant glad to yield
to my friend,, the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Clubman, one
thing I want to make certain the gen-
Unitary aside:stains is that this in a
nmtual restriction. If the Preskdeut
certifies that the Soviets have mine
beyond any of those sulacellirga,
he has to do is send MI a certification
to the Congress and he Is freed from
these limns, se it Is a gentiaa of
mutual restrain& We will go the extra
mile, ma President Reagaga seed duping
his first fills. years. We- will menthe
mutual restraint.
I this* it is, in our smirk* Miens*
to do it. The. Soviets, have greater car
Debility to break out and to add both
warheads, and launthers. So why
would we, do it, especially when we
have had I thirds the hat four or ftve
Chairmen of the Joint Chiell; all say
that Wm agreement in in our security
interest.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chsdratan, if the
gentleman whl yieldr because our re-
sponse to their breaking the treaty by
encrypting or by producing a new
weapons: system, Our 86-25, is not to
go to the empty unproductive standing
consultative commiseion, but it may be
to add another 8-52 with some cruise
missile on it but the gentleman will
not let um do that. We Pane testart en-
crypting or building new weapons' sys-
tems. Give us the flexibility to re
-
mond to their buildup.
AIKENDSIENT ono= BY us. STOKES
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.,
The Clerk read as follows;
Amentintent offered by Mr. groans On
page It, after line ia, add the following new
section:
"IINACTEOEIZED APEROSS/ATIONS
"SEC, 7. (a) Notwithstanding section 9128
or section 9133. of the Department. of De-
fense Appropriations Act,. 1981 (as con-
tained M section /01(c) of the Joint resolu-
tion entitled 'Joint Resolution making con-
tinuing appropriations for fiscal year 1987
and for other Purposes' Purge Law 90-500
and Public Law 55-501), only hinds specifi-
cally authorised by the Congress ha accost-
ance with section 500' of the Nationar Secu-
rity Act. of 1947. may be obligated or expend-
ed for intelligence or intelligence-related ae-
tivities.
"LOY EXcepi. as provided in subsection (c).
alit intelligence and Intelligence-related ac-
tivities Mr which funds- were appropriated
in the Defense Appropriations Set, istrr
shall be considered specifiesilY autholland
by Congress pursuant be freedom 502 ot the
National, Security Act of 194%
'(c). It is the sense of Congress that cer-
tain intelligence or intelligence-selated, as
tivities referred to in subseciton (b) and
Identified by the Ctemnittee on Appropris
titers and the Permanent Select Committee
osIntelligenec or the Noose of Representa-
tives should be the subject of reprogram-
ming action, agreed uses by the appropri-
ate Committeesef Congress!'
Mr. STOKES Cluing the reacitztg).
Mr. Chairman,. 1 ask unanimous con-
sent that the amenthosenk be come&
ered as read and printed hs the
RECORIX.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request at the gentleman from
Ohio?
Therewas 1:10g objection.
Mr.- STOKES,Mr. Chairmen, the de-
lete, portion of the continuiag nesahr-
tiler for heat year Int eastained, two,
general provisions-nether 1112$ and
seat:lament?which amens the* other
effects waived the reardsement of sec-
tion 502 of the Nations/ Recur* Act
of 1947. Section 502 reedier that all
funds spent for intelligent* sr Intel&
genze-relabld andtrition noun, ham
been authorized and appeopriatestfOr
the Dureases far wlsich they aro es-
pendett ApparentIZ the earderees, felt
such waivers were necemary because
the continuing resolution appropri-
ated funds fisr intelligence and intelli-
gence-related activities in excess of au-
thorized levels in some cases, and in
the absence of an authorization
In-
others.
When the Permanent Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence became aware
of section 0128 and section 9132, it
mediately began, a dialog with- the De-
fense Appropriations Subcommittee in
an effort to make several representa-
tions of great interest to the Intelli-
gence Committee:
First, that section 50210 an essential
element of congressional oversight of
intelligence;
Second, that sections 9120 and 11132
had the effect, which were- unintended
by the conferees, of waiving the provi-
sions of section, 502 for all intelligence
and in activities
during fiscal year 1987, whether or-not
they were authorhed;
Third, that this result was of serious
cancans to the, hitelligenee Commft-
tee, and should-be corrected; and
Fourth, that except for two activi-
ties, the committee had no quarrel
with the unauthorized appropriations
adopted by the conferees. -
Mr. Cherinall; the gentleman from
Florida, the chairman- of the Defense
Appropriations- Subcommittee, has-
been very appreciative- of the Intelli-
gence Committees concerns: He has
agreed to restore the application of
section 502. TOgether, we have agreed
to the authorization- of all ?beat year
1987 unauthorized appropriations
except, the two activities of great con-
cern to the Intelligence Committee.
As- to, those two activities', the De-
fense Sotemarnittee and the Intelli-
gence Committee have agreed that
they should be restructured in one
case of an aircraft reconnaissance
system and, realliseated in the ease of a
technical collection system. Both sys-
tents, are listed in the classified sched-
ule of arithorisationo for- H.R. 2112,
the Intelligence Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1988, under the title, "Un-
authorized Appropriations for Repro-
gramming, Pfscar Year 19877 RR.
2I12, width was ordered reported-
today by the Intelligence Ciammittee;
contains a provision similar to' the
amendment I have offered:
Mr. Chairman, both these aetivitlea
should be the arbfect of reprogram-
ming& The particulars of how the two
agree these reprogram-
minas should be struetured are reflect-
ed in the dimensions they have had
with appropriate intelligence Wit-Isis.
1450
Mr. Chairman, / yield to the gentle-
man front Florida (Mr. Cirewraxl for
any comments that he may have on
the amendiment.
Mr. CHAPPELL Mt Chairman, I
concur in, the comments of the gentle-
man from Ohio. / want ter express ray
appreciatitat and that of o'er subcotni-
mittee for Inspirit of evroperatiett and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/31 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000300370008-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/31: CIA-RDP89T00234R000300370008-7
IP
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
112216
? his willingness to work with us in
trying to work out a very difficult
matter.
The chairman of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and
my colleague on the Committee on Ap-
propriations has offered a proper
amendment, I support the amend-
ment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, the minority members- of the
subcommittee are very much aware of
the amendment, as the chairman has
stated, and we have no objection at all
to this amendment.
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. HYDE], the
ranking minority member of the Intel-
ligence Committee.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join in
saying that we have no objection to
this amendment, and we do support it.
Mr. STOKES I thank the gentle-
man, and I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. STONF.S1.
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose
of engaging the gentleman from Flori-
da (Mr. CHAPPELL) in a colloquy con-
cerning the McAlester Army Ammuni-
tion Plant.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman
from Florida knows, we have just
learned the Army Ammunition Com-
mand has plans to take away the Mark
84 bomb production workload from
the McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant.
You've been there, Mr. Chairman, so
you know that the Mark 84 workload
on the plant's "B Line" is their-bread-
and-butter workload.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is re-
ported that the Army is also consider-
ing taking away the 5-inch projectile
work from the McAlester AAP.
Does the gentleman from Florida
agree that the Army should not pro-
ceed with any plans to reduce or
remove the Mark 84 or 5-inch projec-
tile workloads at the McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant?
Mr. CHAPPELL. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, the gentle-
man from Oklahoma has raised a very
legitimate concern about the proposed
reductions in workloads at the McAles-
ter AAP. I agree that the Army should
suspend any such plans to alter work-
loads at the McAlester AAP until we
have had time to review the matter.
Mr. WATKINS. Is it the intent of
the gentleman from Florida that none _
of the funds in this bill, nor the regu-
lar Department of Defense Appropria-
tions Act for fiscal 1987, should be uti-
lized to reduce or remove the present
workload at the McAlester AAP?
Mr. CHAPPELL. The gentleman
from Oklahoma is correct. None of the
funds in this bill, or any other act pre-
viously enacted into law, should be uti-
lized to reduce the workload at the
McAlester AAP.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it might
be well to return to the discussion of a
few minutes ago about the section of
this bill that deals with the arms limi-
tation language, because I think that
some of the majority need to under-
stand why some of us on this side of
the aisle feel a little concerned about
the way that we legislate around here,
particularly in matters as weighty as
this, and I do not think that either
side of the aisle can doubt that when
we put language into a bill that essen-
tially establishes a brand-new foreign
policy position for the United States,
that that is in fact a very weighty sub-
ject.
Yet what we have brought to us
today is a bill that not only takes that
position, but then allows no amend-
ments whatsoever to the product that
has come out of the Democratic
caucus.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
woman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman,
my question is, Why did the gentle-
man not move to strike it out then? He
could have striken that entire section
if it disturbed him so much. Why did
he not move to strike it out?
Mr. WALKER Because that is an-
other factor of the way the majority
legislates. In other words, we are given
a chance only to either accept it all or
reject it all, never to modify, never to
have a chance as a body to work with
this language and find out whether or
not there may be acceptable ways to
deal with it.
My guess is that the reason why
they do not allow us to have any
chance to deal with this language is
because the last time they brought
these kinds of bills to the floor, they
ended up kind of embarrassed, because
there was language that was brought
onto the floor and there was debate on
the floor that ended up showing that
they do not have a very viable posi-
tion, so that this. time when they come
to the floor, what they now say is,
"We won't even allow any amend-
ments to the section." It seems to me
that that is a major concern.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentle-
man yield further?
Mr. WALKER. I am glad to yield to
the gentlewoman.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I will get my
own time a little later, but I just
wanted to say that the last time we
brought this to the floor we were not
embarrassed at all. These won by very
strong majorities, and in fact we would
April 28, 1987
have pursued them further, except we
felt that it was important for the
President to be able to go to Reykja-
vik, and in good faith and bipartisan
good spirits we withdraw these. But
they were not embarrassing to this
side. In fact, it was with strong biparti-
san support that they passed. We were
offering the opportunity to strike the
entire thing out if it were so desired,
and these read exactly as they did
after we amended the bill last year.
Mr. WALKER. Well, I realize that
the Democratic caucus?and the gen-
tlewoman is very, very generous?I
mean, they really do feel strongly that
the minority ought to be given real
rights. I mean, we are given about the
same rights here as Soviet Union
rights, because what we are granted is
the opportunity to vote up or down on
one subject, much as they have a
Chance in their processes to vote up or
down on one candidate from one
party.
I would suggest if we were really
going to be fair around here and we
were really gc)ing to dO this right, that
we would simply allow the minority to
have its chance to deal with this lan-
guage. If this language is so great that
it cannot even be subjected to any
debate, then I suggest that maybe it
has some merit to it not to allow
amendments, but I suggest that there
are some things in here that we might
want to discuss a little bit, and maybe
perhaps we ought to have some
amendments too.
Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oregon.
Mr. AuCOIN. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
this inquiry of the gentleman; Did the
gentleman, if he objected to the rule
and the manner in which he was able,
or if he says so, unable to deal with
the arms control provisions of this bill,
did he go to the Rules Committee and
ask for any different rule with regard
to these provisions that he finds objec-
tionable? Did he ask for greater lati-
tude in terms of amending this bill? I
think the record is that the gentleman
did not.
Mr. WALKER. I think that that is
exactly right on this particular bill. I
would also say to the gentleman, how-
ever, that I go to the Rules Committee
often, and I find very often that the
Rules Committee does not bother to
take minority considerations in, and I -
do not think that there was any
chance that the minority was going to
be given the right to amend this sec..
tion of the bill.
Mr. AuCOIN. But the point is that
the gentleman did not go.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
WALKER] has expired.
(On request of Mr. YOUNG of Florida
and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/31: CIA-RDP89T00234R000300370008-7
(