Policy Luncheon, September 22, 1992

Item

Other Media

lead_404_034_all_tr.txt

lead_404_034_all.docx

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

12 Pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

lead_404_034_all

Title (Dublin Core)

Policy Luncheon, September 22, 1992

Date (Dublin Core)

1992-09-22

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1992-09-22

Congress (Dublin Core)

102nd (1991-1993)

Policy Area (Curation)

Congress

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee

Record Type (Dublin Core)

schedules (time plans)

reports

newspaper clippings

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=26&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 007, Box 404, Folder 34

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Republican Leadership Collection, 1985-1996

Full Text (Extract Text)

Page 1:
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, September 22, 1992

Schedule:
· 2:15 p.m. vote: Conference Report Cable Bill
· Danforth
· Bond
· Packwood
· Immediately following:
· Vote on Motor Voter Veto Message
· McConnell

Pending: D.O.D. Appropriations

To Follow -- Urban Aid/Tax Bill:
· Senator Mitchell has indicated his intention to remain in session this week until we finish these two items.

Other Issues:
· Leadership Elections -- set for November 9 and 10.

Page 2:
SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPT. 21, 1992
TODAY, TUESDAY, SEPT. 22
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND BEGIN 2 BACK-TO-BACK ROLL CALL VOTES ON THE CABLE CONFERENCE REPORT, AND THE VETO MESSAGE ON THE MOTOR VOTER BILL. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VOTES, THE SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE D.O.D. APPROPRIATIONS BILL, AND PENDING IS THE HELMS AMENDMENT REGARDING THE BOY SCOUTS. A VOTE IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR ON THAT AMENDMENT, AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE OFFERED, THEREFORE, A LATE SESSION IS ANTICIPATED.

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 23 - FRIDAY, SEPT. 25
RESUME AND COMPLETE ACTION ON THE D.O.D. APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THEREFORE VOTES WILL OCCUR AND LATE SESSIONS ARE ANTICIPATED. FOLLOWING THE D.O.D. BILL, IT IS EXPECTED THE SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE TAX BILL. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR, AND A SATURDAY SESSION IS A POSSIBILITY, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE ACTION ON THE TAX BILL.

Page 3:
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director

Legislative Notice
Editor, Judy Gorman Prinkey

No. 100

September 21, 1992

H.R. 5504 - The Department of Defense
Appropriation Bill, 1993

Calendar No. 677
Reported: From the Appropriations Committee on September 17, 1992. H. Rept. 102-408.

NOTEWORTHY
· At approximately 2:30 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 1992, the Senate will begin action on H.R. 5504, the Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1993. At 3:00 p.m., Senator Bumpers will be recognized to offer an amendment to reduce funding for intelligence activities. The Majority Leader has stated that any votes on the DOD Appropriations bill will occur after 6:00 p.m.

· The DOD Appropriations bill funds most major programs at the levels provided in the Senate-passed DOD Authorization bill for FY 1993, S. 3114. For instance, the Committee: funded the Strategic Defense Initiative at $3.8 billion; fully funded four B-2 bombers at $2.7 billion; provided $24.3 million for improvements to the B-1B bomber; terminated the National Aerospace Plane (NASP); appropriated $1.1 billion for 24 F/A-18 aircraft; increased funding to modify the AH-64 Apache helicopter; and approved an end strength level of 1,766,500 active duty personnel.

· H.R. 5504, however, departs from the Senate-passed authorization bill by: providing $800 million more for defense conversion efforts and zeroing funding for the V-22 Osprey.

· The Committee deletes funds for specific tactical aviation program research and development accounts - the Comanche helicopter, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter and AH-64 modifications, the F-18E/F upgrade, the AX attack aircraft and the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and establishes a separate appropriations account entitled Tactical Aviation Modernization, Defense, funded at $3.5 billion.

Page 4:
HIGHLIGHTS
. H.R. 5504 appropriates funds for the military functions of the Department of Defense for FY 1993, including: pay, allowances, and support of military personnel; operation and maintenance of forces; procurement of equipment and systems; and research, development, test and evaluation. Appropriations for military assistance, construction, family housing nuclear warheads and civil defense are provided in other bills.

· H.R. 5504 provides $250.3 billion in new obligational authority, which is within the 602 (b) allocation for defense.

BACKGROUND
The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations began hearings on the FY 1993 budget request on March 26, 1992; 15 separate sessions were held, with the final hearing concluding on May 21, 1992.

MILITARY PERSONNEL
· The Committee funded an end strength for the Guard and Reserve forces that supports 100,555 more reservists than recommended in the President's budget. In addition, a general provision is included in the bill that prohibits cuts to the National Guard and Reserve below the end strength as funded in the act. The Army Reserve cannot be reduced below 298,230, while the Army National Guard cannot be reduced below 434,000.

· The Committee increased funding for National Guard drug interdiction and drug demand reduction programs by $20.7 million.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
· To encourage greater allied contributions, the Committee recommends a reduction of $175.0 million for U.S. operation and maintenance of and foreign nationals employed by U.S. bases in Europe, and prohibits an additional $175.0 million of funds remaining from these accounts to be obligated until the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that negotiations with our allies will produce increased contributions from our allies.

2

Page 5:
· $2.0 billion is provided to support defense conversion, while fully funding the DOD's environmental program, and providing an additional $60 million for disaster relief activities and studies.

· The Committee reduced funding for the purchase of supplies and spare parts by $3.0 billion, and recommended a series of initiatives to make the management of the supply system more efficient.

· The Committee directs that at least $10.0 million of the funds to assist Russia in nuclear weapons disposal be used for studying nuclear waste disposal by the former Soviet Union in the Arctic region.

· Funds programs for environmental restoration at $1.5 billion, which is $328.7 million above the FY 1992 appropriation. The Committee level is $1.5 million below the FY 1993 budget request but $610.5 million above the House level.

· H.R. 5504 provides $1.2 billion for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.

PROCUREMENT
· The Committee recommends $91.8 million to modify AH-64 Apache helicopters, an increase of $42.7 million above the budget request and $82.7 million above the House allowance.

· $2.7 billion is provided for four B-2 bombers, the same as the budget request and the House allowance.

· In line with S. 3114, the Committee provided $1.1 billion for production of 24 F/A-18 aircraft, which is $580.0 million and 24 aircraft less than the budget request and $492.0 million and 24 aircraft less than the House.

· The Secretary of the Army is directed to provide $5.2 million in O&M funds to upgrade the M-1 tank to the M-1A2 configuration. In addition, $130 million was added, along with legislative authority to fund upgrade of the M-1 tank to the M-1A2 configuration.

· The Committee fully funds the Navy request of $763.8 million to procure 21 Trident II (D-5) missiles in FY 1993 and $223.0 million in advance procurement for FY 1994 missiles, which is $200.0 million more than the House allowed.

· Four DDG-51 Aegis destroyers are funded at $3.2 billion.

· The Committee recommends no funds for continuation of the F-16C/D fighter production program, which is $683.0 million below the President's request, and $614.8 million below the House recommendation.

· $1.8 billion is provided to procure six C-17 aircraft.

3

Page 6:
· H.R. 5504 provides $127.1 million in procurement and $21.2 million in research and development funding to provide for a 450-missile advanced cruise missile program, projected program closeout costs, and FY 1993 supportability requirements.

· $75.2 million is appropriated for continued modification of the Patriot missile system, which is $12.7 million above both the budget request and the House allowance.

· The Committee added $1.1 billion for the LHD-1 amphibious assault ship.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION (RDT&E)
· Due to affordability, pace, content, and annual funding requirement concerns, the Committee deletes funds for specific tactical aviation research and development program accounts - the Comanche helicopter, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter and AH-64 modifications, the F-18E/F upgrade, the AX attack aircraft and the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and establishes a separate appropriations account entitled Tactical Aviation Modernization, Defense, which is funded at $3.5 billion. The House bill does not contain such a separate account.

· Improvements to the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile are approved at $49.4 million.

· In conjunction with the Armed Services Committee recommendation, the Appropriations bill terminates the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). The House bill approves the President's budget request of $175.4 million.

· The Committee approved $24.3 million, as recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee, to improve the capabilities of the B-1B bomber. This amount is $66.4 million less than the budget request, which was fully funded in the House bill.

· A total of $3.8 billion is recommended for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, including theater missile defenses. Of this funding, $3.7 billion is for research, development, test and evaluation and $75.2 million is for procurement. The full SDI allocation is $1.6 billion below the budget request for RDT&E and $512.7 million below the House level for SDI.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The Administration position was unavailable at press time.

4

Page 7:
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
Bumpers. To cut funding for classified programs.
Johnston. To fence some SDI funds until March 31, 1993.

DOD APPROPRIATIONS, 1993
Appropriation Account FY 1992 Level Pres. Request House Allowance Senate Committee % change FY 92
(in millions)
Title I – Military Personnel $78,266.3 $76,982.0 76,986.2 76,368.6 -2.42%
Title II – Operation and Maintenance $83,358.6 $73,093.5 $71,710.2 $70,279.8 -15.69%
Title III – Procurement $64,377.8 $55,764.5 $53,743.3 $51,967.2 -19.28%
Title IV – Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $39,401.9 $38,812.7 $38,770.1 $35,823.8 -9.08%
Title V – Revolving and Management Funds $3,424.2 $2,325.2 $16.6 $2,325.2 -32.10%
Title VI – Other Department of Defense Programs $1,679.2 $11,423.3 $11,278.4 $11,172.8 565.36%
Title VII – Related Agencies $192.9 $199.6 $168.9 $213.4 10.63%
Title VIII – Economic Conversion -- -- $-1,000.0 $2,000.0 --
Title IX – General Provisions $-486.6 -- $-752.0 $-352.2 27.62%
TOTAL – Department of Defense $270,214.3 $258,600.7 $251,831.7 $249,798.6 -7.56%

Staff Contact: Yvonne Bartoli, 224-2946

5

Page 8:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1992

Dear Senator Dole:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Conference Report to accompany S. 12 (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992), which the House and Senate will consider in the next several days.

This legislation will hurt Americans by imposing a wide array of costly, burdensome, and unnecessary requirements on the cable industry and the government agencies that regulate it. The heavy-handed provisions of the bill will drive up cable industry costs, resulting in higher consumer rates, not rate reductions as promised by the supporters of the bill.

The bill will also restrain continued innovation in the industry, cost the economy jobs, reduce consumer programming choices, and retard the deployment of growth-oriented investments critical to the future of our Nation's communications infrastructure.

My vision for the future of the communications industry is based on the principles of greater competition, entrepreneurship, and less economic regulation. This legislation fails each of these tests and is illustrative of the Congressional mandates and excessive regulations that drag our economy down.

Congress would best serve consumer welfare by promoting vigorous competition, not massive re-regulation.

For these reasons I will veto S. 12 if it is presented to me, and I urge its rejection when the House and Senate consider the Conference Report.

Sincerely,
(illegible signature)

The Honorable Robert Dole
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Page 9:
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN S.12 AND THE CABLE TELEVISION REREGULATION CONFERENCE REPORT

On September 9, 1992, House and Senate conferees agreed to a conference report on legislation to reregulate the cable television industry. The conference report adopts many of the most regulatory provisons in the House-passed cable bill (H.R. 4850) and thus differs in significant respects from the bill that passed the Senate last January (S.12). The following is a brief summary of the key differences between S.12 and the conference report.

- Anti-Buy-Through Provision. The conference report contains a so-called "anti-buy through" provision that was in the House bill, but that has never been considered by the Senate. This provision requires cable operators to install sophisticated "addressable" converters in all subscriber homes, thereby significantly increasing the cost of providing cable service (up to $5.8 billion dollars by some estimates). The impact of this provision will expecially be felt by smaller, rural systems (and their subscribers) that have no market-driven incentives to install this expensive equipment.

- Program Access. The conference report adopts the House provision on "program access." Unlike the Senate provision on program access, which echoed familiar antitrust law concepts, the House language adopted by the conferees contains a novel and ambiguous legal standard that will chill cable operators and cable programmers from engaging in legitimate business practices while it is interpreted, explained, and refined in expensive adversarial proceedings at the FCC.

- Telco/Cable Cross-Ownership. S.12 attempted to promote competition to cable in rural areas by permitting telephone companies to offer cable service in areas with under 10,000 inhabitants, notwithstanding the Cable Act's prohibition on cable/telco cross-ownership. The conference report eliminates this provision completely, leaving intact the existing exemption (which covers communities with under 2500 inhabitants).

- Customer Service Standards. The conferees adopted the House provision on customer service. While both the House bill and the S.12 authorize the FCC to adopt national customer service standards, the House approach undermines this effort to achieve national uniformity by giving local officials unrestricted power to exceed the FCC standards.

- Anti-trafficking. The conference report adopted House language restricting the purchase and sale of cable systems. These restrictions, which were not considered in the Senate, subject transactions involving private cable companies to more stringent regulation than transactions involving federally- licensed broadcast stations.

Page 10:
- Rate Regulation/Regulatory Costs. The conference report O eliminates a provision, found in both the House and Senate bills, that would have required "bad actor" complaints (challenging the reasonableness of expanded basic tier rates) to present a prima facie case. By eliminating this provision, the conferees have substantially increased the regulatory burden on the FCC and on cable operators. Overall, the cost of implementing the legislation agreed to in conference is likely to be substantially higher than the cost of implementing S.12. The CBO estimated that the House bill would cost the federal government at least $100 million over five years, while the estimated cost of S.12 was only $33 for the same period of time.

Page 11:
1992 CLASSIFIED D1

The Washington post
BUSINESS

Text in box on left side of page:
WHO GOT THE MONEY…
TOP SENATE RECIPIENTS OF PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

FROM BROADCASTING
Daniel Inouye (D – Hawaii): $10,000
Don Nickles (R – Okla.): $10,000
Robert Packwood (R – Ore.): $10,000
Wendell Ford (D – Ky.): $8,000
John McCain (R – Ariz.): $8,000

FROM CABLE
Robert Packwood: $45,000
John Breaux (D – La.): $27,000
Richard Shelby (D – Ala.): $26,500
Wyche Fowler (D – Ga.): $19,649
Robert Graham (D – Fla.): $18,000
Arlen Specter (R – Pa.): $18,000

FROM HOLLYWOOD
John Seymour (R – Calif.): $16,750
Thomas Daschle (D – S.D.): $9,750
Daniel Inouye: $9,000
John Breaux (D – La.): $6,250
Robert Dole (R – Kan.): $6,000

SOURCE: Federal Election Commission

Main Page:
Foes of Cable Bill Outspend Its Supporters
Opponents Gave $1.2 Million to Lawmakers in 10 Months, 3 ½ Times as Much as Backers

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer

If money talks in Washington, opponents of a cable television bill pending before Congress should have the floor all to themselves.

The opponents-Hollywood producers and companies in the cable industry-have funneled more than $1.2 million in contributions to members of Congress in the past 18 months, according to Federal Election Commission records. That is nearly 31/2 times the amount FEC records show has been given by the National Association of Broadcasters, the key supporter of the bill.

In particular, the cable industry, which has argued most vociferously against the bill to re-regulate its business, has been an aggressive contributor. Campaign donations

from cable owners have more than doubled since the last election cycle.

This mix of big money, big media and big-time politics comes to a head today when the Senate votes on whether to send the cable bill to President Bush for his signature or veto.

Both sides expect the Senate to pass the bill, but the question is by how much: If opponents can gain 34 votes, they may succeed in killing the bill, since it would show there isn't enough will in the Senate to override the president's anticipated veto.

The Senate passed a somewhat different cable bill in January by a 73-18 vote, but the early line is that support for the current legislation is slipping. And as the margin narrows, say the measure's supporters, campaign contributions may be a telling factor.

"It is quite conceivable that on a [close] vote some will suggest that money made the difference. espe-

cially for any member who switches his or her position" from the last Senate vote, said James C. May, executive vice president of the Nation- al Association of Broadcasters.

Supporters of the bill, such as the Consumer Federation of America, have tried to frame the matter as a consumer issue since it addresses complaints about skyrocketing cable rates and poor service by placing cable operators under a new system of rate regulation, and it adds new customer service requirements.

But the money flowing from the industry groups illustrates how the cable bill also has become a squabble among the giants of the media business.

Broadcasters, including the Big Three networks, are pushing the bill mainly because it will give local TV stations the right to demand pay-

See CABLE, D6, Col. 1

Text in box on right side of page:
… AND WHERE IT CAME FROM
BROADCASTING: FOR THE BILL
National Association of Broadcasters: $372,087

CABLE: AGAINST THE BILL
National Cable Television Association: $474,150
Viacom International: $109,500
Comcast: $105,990
Time Warner: $90,000
Tele-Communications: $73,700
Turner Broadcasting Systems: $52,270

HOLLYWOOD: AGAINST THE BILL
MCA: $131,400
Paramount Communications: $80,500
Walt Disney Co.: $77,950
Fox: $42,950

SOURCE: Federal Election Commission

Page 12:
THE WASHINGTON POST

D6 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 … THE WASHINGTON POST

Opponents of Cable Bill Outspend Its Supporters

CABLE, From D1
ment from cable operators whenever the operator airs the broadcaster's programming-a potential windfall for the broadcast industry.

The cable industry opposes this scheme, as do the major Hollywood studios, which argue that as the creator of the broadcast industry's programming, they-not the broadcasters-should receive royalties.

Reports filed by political action committees (PACs) associated with companies and trade groups involved in lobbying the cable bill show that contributions have increased as the issue has neared its culmination in Congress.

By far, the biggest single contributor has been the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), which gave $474,150 to congressional incumbents and candidates. The NCTA gave the maximum $10,000 contribution to senators on

both sides of the aisle, but primarily to those on committees with jurisdiction over cable legislation, such as Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) and John Breaux (D-La.), all of whom sit on the Commerce Committee, which initiated the bill.

The cable lobby, consisting of the NCTA and five big cable companies, including Time Warner Inc., Tele-Communications Inc. and Turner Broadcasting System, spent $905,610, more than twice what these PACs spent during the last election period. The top recipient of cable's largess was Packwood, a staunch opponent of the bill.

A spokeswoman for the NCTA said, "I'm not comfortable commenting on the motives of it." She added, "The [campaign] filings speak for themselves."

Some senators-Inouye, Pack- wood and Don Nickles (R-Okla.)- got the maximum contribution from

both the NCTA and its ideological rival, the National Association of Broadcasters. Nickles is important because he is chairman of the Re- publican Policy Committee, which formulates the party's congressional strategies.

"He takes contributions from a lot of people," said a spokesman for Nickles. "He is not representing one side of the issue or another in this case. I don't think he's made up his mind yet."

The broadcast and consumer lobbies say that besides trailing the cable business in contributions, their opponents have a personal connection to the White House. President Bush's son, Neil, works for a subsidiary of Daniels & Associates, a large cable industry company based in Denver.

Daniels is owned by Bill Daniels, a major contributor to the Bush campaign in 1988. Daniels declined to comment for this article, but both he

and the White House have said previously that the hiring of Bush's son in 1990 bore no connection to the president's opposition to the cable bill.

Both sides also have singular access to a powerful lobbying tool: TV commercials. For weeks now, the broadcast lobby has aired TV spots on stations around the country that argue the bill will lower cable rates; meanwhile, cable companies have flooded cable stations with precisely the opposite message.

The lobbying scramble has highlighted some media conflicts. Broadcast and cable stations have refused to run their rivals' ads. And two Washington-area broadcast stations owned by movie studios, WTTG (Channel 5, owned by Fox Inc.) and WDCA (Channel 20, owned by Paramount Communications Inc.), have refused to run the broadcast industry ads, in apparent deference to Hollywood's interest.
Page 1:
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, September 22, 1992

Schedule:
· 2:15 p.m. vote: Conference Report Cable Bill
· Danforth
· Bond
· Packwood
· Immediately following:
· Vote on Motor Voter Veto Message
· McConnell

Pending: D.O.D. Appropriations

To Follow -- Urban Aid/Tax Bill:
· Senator Mitchell has indicated his intention to remain in session this week until we finish these two items.

Other Issues:
· Leadership Elections -- set for November 9 and 10.

Page 2:
SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPT. 21, 1992
TODAY, TUESDAY, SEPT. 22
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND BEGIN 2 BACK-TO-BACK ROLL CALL VOTES ON THE CABLE CONFERENCE REPORT, AND THE VETO MESSAGE ON THE MOTOR VOTER BILL. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VOTES, THE SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE D.O.D. APPROPRIATIONS BILL, AND PENDING IS THE HELMS AMENDMENT REGARDING THE BOY SCOUTS. A VOTE IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR ON THAT AMENDMENT, AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE OFFERED, THEREFORE, A LATE SESSION IS ANTICIPATED.

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 23 - FRIDAY, SEPT. 25
RESUME AND COMPLETE ACTION ON THE D.O.D. APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THEREFORE VOTES WILL OCCUR AND LATE SESSIONS ARE ANTICIPATED. FOLLOWING THE D.O.D. BILL, IT IS EXPECTED THE SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE TAX BILL. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR, AND A SATURDAY SESSION IS A POSSIBILITY, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE ACTION ON THE TAX BILL.

Page 3:
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director

Legislative Notice
Editor, Judy Gorman Prinkey

No. 100

September 21, 1992

H.R. 5504 - The Department of Defense
Appropriation Bill, 1993

Calendar No. 677
Reported: From the Appropriations Committee on September 17, 1992. H. Rept. 102-408.

NOTEWORTHY
· At approximately 2:30 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 1992, the Senate will begin action on H.R. 5504, the Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1993. At 3:00 p.m., Senator Bumpers will be recognized to offer an amendment to reduce funding for intelligence activities. The Majority Leader has stated that any votes on the DOD Appropriations bill will occur after 6:00 p.m.

· The DOD Appropriations bill funds most major programs at the levels provided in the Senate-passed DOD Authorization bill for FY 1993, S. 3114. For instance, the Committee: funded the Strategic Defense Initiative at $3.8 billion; fully funded four B-2 bombers at $2.7 billion; provided $24.3 million for improvements to the B-1B bomber; terminated the National Aerospace Plane (NASP); appropriated $1.1 billion for 24 F/A-18 aircraft; increased funding to modify the AH-64 Apache helicopter; and approved an end strength level of 1,766,500 active duty personnel.

· H.R. 5504, however, departs from the Senate-passed authorization bill by: providing $800 million more for defense conversion efforts and zeroing funding for the V-22 Osprey.

· The Committee deletes funds for specific tactical aviation program research and development accounts - the Comanche helicopter, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter and AH-64 modifications, the F-18E/F upgrade, the AX attack aircraft and the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and establishes a separate appropriations account entitled Tactical Aviation Modernization, Defense, funded at $3.5 billion.

Page 4:
HIGHLIGHTS
. H.R. 5504 appropriates funds for the military functions of the Department of Defense for FY 1993, including: pay, allowances, and support of military personnel; operation and maintenance of forces; procurement of equipment and systems; and research, development, test and evaluation. Appropriations for military assistance, construction, family housing nuclear warheads and civil defense are provided in other bills.

· H.R. 5504 provides $250.3 billion in new obligational authority, which is within the 602 (b) allocation for defense.

BACKGROUND
The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations began hearings on the FY 1993 budget request on March 26, 1992; 15 separate sessions were held, with the final hearing concluding on May 21, 1992.

MILITARY PERSONNEL
· The Committee funded an end strength for the Guard and Reserve forces that supports 100,555 more reservists than recommended in the President's budget. In addition, a general provision is included in the bill that prohibits cuts to the National Guard and Reserve below the end strength as funded in the act. The Army Reserve cannot be reduced below 298,230, while the Army National Guard cannot be reduced below 434,000.

· The Committee increased funding for National Guard drug interdiction and drug demand reduction programs by $20.7 million.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
· To encourage greater allied contributions, the Committee recommends a reduction of $175.0 million for U.S. operation and maintenance of and foreign nationals employed by U.S. bases in Europe, and prohibits an additional $175.0 million of funds remaining from these accounts to be obligated until the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that negotiations with our allies will produce increased contributions from our allies.

2

Page 5:
· $2.0 billion is provided to support defense conversion, while fully funding the DOD's environmental program, and providing an additional $60 million for disaster relief activities and studies.

· The Committee reduced funding for the purchase of supplies and spare parts by $3.0 billion, and recommended a series of initiatives to make the management of the supply system more efficient.

· The Committee directs that at least $10.0 million of the funds to assist Russia in nuclear weapons disposal be used for studying nuclear waste disposal by the former Soviet Union in the Arctic region.

· Funds programs for environmental restoration at $1.5 billion, which is $328.7 million above the FY 1992 appropriation. The Committee level is $1.5 million below the FY 1993 budget request but $610.5 million above the House level.

· H.R. 5504 provides $1.2 billion for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.

PROCUREMENT
· The Committee recommends $91.8 million to modify AH-64 Apache helicopters, an increase of $42.7 million above the budget request and $82.7 million above the House allowance.

· $2.7 billion is provided for four B-2 bombers, the same as the budget request and the House allowance.

· In line with S. 3114, the Committee provided $1.1 billion for production of 24 F/A-18 aircraft, which is $580.0 million and 24 aircraft less than the budget request and $492.0 million and 24 aircraft less than the House.

· The Secretary of the Army is directed to provide $5.2 million in O&M funds to upgrade the M-1 tank to the M-1A2 configuration. In addition, $130 million was added, along with legislative authority to fund upgrade of the M-1 tank to the M-1A2 configuration.

· The Committee fully funds the Navy request of $763.8 million to procure 21 Trident II (D-5) missiles in FY 1993 and $223.0 million in advance procurement for FY 1994 missiles, which is $200.0 million more than the House allowed.

· Four DDG-51 Aegis destroyers are funded at $3.2 billion.

· The Committee recommends no funds for continuation of the F-16C/D fighter production program, which is $683.0 million below the President's request, and $614.8 million below the House recommendation.

· $1.8 billion is provided to procure six C-17 aircraft.

3

Page 6:
· H.R. 5504 provides $127.1 million in procurement and $21.2 million in research and development funding to provide for a 450-missile advanced cruise missile program, projected program closeout costs, and FY 1993 supportability requirements.

· $75.2 million is appropriated for continued modification of the Patriot missile system, which is $12.7 million above both the budget request and the House allowance.

· The Committee added $1.1 billion for the LHD-1 amphibious assault ship.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION (RDT&E)
· Due to affordability, pace, content, and annual funding requirement concerns, the Committee deletes funds for specific tactical aviation research and development program accounts - the Comanche helicopter, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter and AH-64 modifications, the F-18E/F upgrade, the AX attack aircraft and the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and establishes a separate appropriations account entitled Tactical Aviation Modernization, Defense, which is funded at $3.5 billion. The House bill does not contain such a separate account.

· Improvements to the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile are approved at $49.4 million.

· In conjunction with the Armed Services Committee recommendation, the Appropriations bill terminates the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). The House bill approves the President's budget request of $175.4 million.

· The Committee approved $24.3 million, as recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee, to improve the capabilities of the B-1B bomber. This amount is $66.4 million less than the budget request, which was fully funded in the House bill.

· A total of $3.8 billion is recommended for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, including theater missile defenses. Of this funding, $3.7 billion is for research, development, test and evaluation and $75.2 million is for procurement. The full SDI allocation is $1.6 billion below the budget request for RDT&E and $512.7 million below the House level for SDI.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The Administration position was unavailable at press time.

4

Page 7:
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
Bumpers. To cut funding for classified programs.
Johnston. To fence some SDI funds until March 31, 1993.

DOD APPROPRIATIONS, 1993
Appropriation Account
FY 1992 Level
Pres. Request
House Allowance
Senate Committee
% change FY 92
(in millions)
Title I - Military Personnel
$78,266.3
$76,982.0
76,986.2
76,368.6
-2.42%
Title II - Operation and Maintenance
$83,358.6
$73,093.5
$71,710.2
$70,279.8
-15.69%
Title III - Procurement
$64,377.8
$55,764.5
$53,743.3
$51,967.2
-19.28%
Title IV - Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
$39,401.9
$38,812.7
$38,770.1
$35,823.8
-9.08%
Title V - Revolving and Management Funds
$3,424.2
$2,325.2
$16.6
$2,325.2
-32.10%
Title VI - Other Department of Defense Programs
$1,679.2
$11,423.3
$11,278.4
$11,172.8
565.36%
Title VII - Related Agencies
$192.9
$199.6
$168.9
$213.4
10.63%
Title VIII - Economic Conversion
--
--
$-1,000.0
$2,000.0
--
Title IX - General Provisions
$-486.6
--
$-752.0
$-352.2
27.62%
TOTAL - Department of Defense
$270,214.3
$258,600.7
$251,831.7
$249,798.6
-7.56%

Staff Contact: Yvonne Bartoli, 224-2946

5

Page 8:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1992

Dear Senator Dole:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Conference Report to accompany S. 12 (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992), which the House and Senate will consider in the next several days.

This legislation will hurt Americans by imposing a wide array of costly, burdensome, and unnecessary requirements on the cable industry and the government agencies that regulate it. The heavy-handed provisions of the bill will drive up cable industry costs, resulting in higher consumer rates, not rate reductions as promised by the supporters of the bill.

The bill will also restrain continued innovation in the industry, cost the economy jobs, reduce consumer programming choices, and retard the deployment of growth-oriented investments critical to the future of our Nation's communications infrastructure.

My vision for the future of the communications industry is based on the principles of greater competition, entrepreneurship, and less economic regulation. This legislation fails each of these tests and is illustrative of the Congressional mandates and excessive regulations that drag our economy down.

Congress would best serve consumer welfare by promoting vigorous competition, not massive re-regulation.

For these reasons I will veto S. 12 if it is presented to me, and I urge its rejection when the House and Senate consider the Conference Report.

Sincerely,
(illegible signature)

The Honorable Robert Dole
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Page 9:
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN S.12 AND THE CABLE TELEVISION REREGULATION CONFERENCE REPORT

On September 9, 1992, House and Senate conferees agreed to a conference report on legislation to reregulate the cable television industry. The conference report adopts many of the most regulatory provisons in the House-passed cable bill (H.R. 4850) and thus differs in significant respects from the bill that passed the Senate last January (S.12). The following is a brief summary of the key differences between S.12 and the conference report.

- Anti-Buy-Through Provision. The conference report contains a so-called "anti-buy through" provision that was in the House bill, but that has never been considered by the Senate. This provision requires cable operators to install sophisticated "addressable" converters in all subscriber homes, thereby significantly increasing the cost of providing cable service (up to $5.8 billion dollars by some estimates). The impact of this provision will expecially be felt by smaller, rural systems (and their subscribers) that have no market-driven incentives to install this expensive equipment.

- Program Access. The conference report adopts the House provision on "program access." Unlike the Senate provision on program access, which echoed familiar antitrust law concepts, the House language adopted by the conferees contains a novel and ambiguous legal standard that will chill cable operators and cable programmers from engaging in legitimate business practices while it is interpreted, explained, and refined in expensive adversarial proceedings at the FCC.

- Telco/Cable Cross-Ownership. S.12 attempted to promote competition to cable in rural areas by permitting telephone companies to offer cable service in areas with under 10,000 inhabitants, notwithstanding the Cable Act's prohibition on cable/telco cross-ownership. The conference report eliminates this provision completely, leaving intact the existing exemption (which covers communities with under 2500 inhabitants).

- Customer Service Standards. The conferees adopted the House provision on customer service. While both the House bill and the S.12 authorize the FCC to adopt national customer service standards, the House approach undermines this effort to achieve national uniformity by giving local officials unrestricted power to exceed the FCC standards.

- Anti-trafficking. The conference report adopted House language restricting the purchase and sale of cable systems. These restrictions, which were not considered in the Senate, subject transactions involving private cable companies to more stringent regulation than transactions involving federally- licensed broadcast stations.

Page 10:
- Rate Regulation/Regulatory Costs. The conference report O eliminates a provision, found in both the House and Senate bills, that would have required "bad actor" complaints (challenging the reasonableness of expanded basic tier rates) to present a prima facie case. By eliminating this provision, the conferees have substantially increased the regulatory burden on the FCC and on cable operators. Overall, the cost of implementing the legislation agreed to in conference is likely to be substantially higher than the cost of implementing S.12. The CBO estimated that the House bill would cost the federal government at least $100 million over five years, while the estimated cost of S.12 was only $33 for the same period of time.

Page 11:
1992 CLASSIFIED D1

The Washington post
BUSINESS

Text in box on left side of page:
WHO GOT THE MONEY...
TOP SENATE RECIPIENTS OF PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

FROM BROADCASTING
Daniel Inouye (D - Hawaii): $10,000
Don Nickles (R - Okla.): $10,000
Robert Packwood (R - Ore.): $10,000
Wendell Ford (D - Ky.): $8,000
John McCain (R - Ariz.): $8,000

FROM CABLE
Robert Packwood: $45,000
John Breaux (D - La.): $27,000
Richard Shelby (D - Ala.): $26,500
Wyche Fowler (D - Ga.): $19,649
Robert Graham (D - Fla.): $18,000
Arlen Specter (R - Pa.): $18,000

FROM HOLLYWOOD
John Seymour (R - Calif.): $16,750
Thomas Daschle (D - S.D.): $9,750
Daniel Inouye: $9,000
John Breaux (D - La.): $6,250
Robert Dole (R - Kan.): $6,000

SOURCE: Federal Election Commission

Main Page:
Foes of Cable Bill Outspend Its Supporters
Opponents Gave $1.2 Million to Lawmakers in 10 Months, 3 (1/2) Times as Much as Backers

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer

If money talks in Washington, opponents of a cable television bill pending before Congress should have the floor all to themselves.

The opponents-Hollywood producers and companies in the cable industry-have funneled more than $1.2 million in contributions to members of Congress in the past 18 months, according to Federal Election Commission records. That is nearly 31/2 times the amount FEC records show has been given by the National Association of Broadcasters, the key supporter of the bill.

In particular, the cable industry, which has argued most vociferously against the bill to re-regulate its business, has been an aggressive contributor. Campaign donations

from cable owners have more than doubled since the last election cycle.

This mix of big money, big media and big-time politics comes to a head today when the Senate votes on whether to send the cable bill to President Bush for his signature or veto.

Both sides expect the Senate to pass the bill, but the question is by how much: If opponents can gain 34 votes, they may succeed in killing the bill, since it would show there isn't enough will in the Senate to override the president's anticipated veto.

The Senate passed a somewhat different cable bill in January by a 73-18 vote, but the early line is that support for the current legislation is slipping. And as the margin narrows, say the measure's supporters, campaign contributions may be a telling factor.

"It is quite conceivable that on a [close] vote some will suggest that money made the difference. espe-

cially for any member who switches his or her position" from the last Senate vote, said James C. May, executive vice president of the Nation- al Association of Broadcasters.

Supporters of the bill, such as the Consumer Federation of America, have tried to frame the matter as a consumer issue since it addresses complaints about skyrocketing cable rates and poor service by placing cable operators under a new system of rate regulation, and it adds new customer service requirements.

But the money flowing from the industry groups illustrates how the cable bill also has become a squabble among the giants of the media business.

Broadcasters, including the Big Three networks, are pushing the bill mainly because it will give local TV stations the right to demand pay-

See CABLE, D6, Col. 1

Text in box on right side of page:
... AND WHERE IT CAME FROM
BROADCASTING: FOR THE BILL
National Association of Broadcasters: $372,087

CABLE: AGAINST THE BILL
National Cable Television Association: $474,150
Viacom International: $109,500
Comcast: $105,990
Time Warner: $90,000
Tele-Communications: $73,700
Turner Broadcasting Systems: $52,270

HOLLYWOOD: AGAINST THE BILL
MCA: $131,400
Paramount Communications: $80,500
Walt Disney Co.: $77,950
Fox: $42,950

SOURCE: Federal Election Commission

Page 12:
THE WASHINGTON POST

D6 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 ... THE WASHINGTON POST

Opponents of Cable Bill Outspend Its Supporters

CABLE, From D1
ment from cable operators whenever the operator airs the broadcaster's programming-a potential windfall for the broadcast industry.

The cable industry opposes this scheme, as do the major Hollywood studios, which argue that as the creator of the broadcast industry's programming, they-not the broadcasters-should receive royalties.

Reports filed by political action committees (PACs) associated with companies and trade groups involved in lobbying the cable bill show that contributions have increased as the issue has neared its culmination in Congress.

By far, the biggest single contributor has been the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), which gave $474,150 to congressional incumbents and candidates. The NCTA gave the maximum $10,000 contribution to senators on

both sides of the aisle, but primarily to those on committees with jurisdiction over cable legislation, such as Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) and John Breaux (D-La.), all of whom sit on the Commerce Committee, which initiated the bill.

The cable lobby, consisting of the NCTA and five big cable companies, including Time Warner Inc., Tele-Communications Inc. and Turner Broadcasting System, spent $905,610, more than twice what these PACs spent during the last election period. The top recipient of cable's largess was Packwood, a staunch opponent of the bill.

A spokeswoman for the NCTA said, "I'm not comfortable commenting on the motives of it." She added, "The [campaign] filings speak for themselves."

Some senators-Inouye, Pack- wood and Don Nickles (R-Okla.)- got the maximum contribution from

both the NCTA and its ideological rival, the National Association of Broadcasters. Nickles is important because he is chairman of the Re- publican Policy Committee, which formulates the party's congressional strategies.

"He takes contributions from a lot of people," said a spokesman for Nickles. "He is not representing one side of the issue or another in this case. I don't think he's made up his mind yet."

The broadcast and consumer lobbies say that besides trailing the cable business in contributions, their opponents have a personal connection to the White House. President Bush's son, Neil, works for a subsidiary of Daniels & Associates, a large cable industry company based in Denver.

Daniels is owned by Bill Daniels, a major contributor to the Bush campaign in 1988. Daniels declined to comment for this article, but both he

and the White House have said previously that the hiring of Bush's son in 1990 bore no connection to the president's opposition to the cable bill.

Both sides also have singular access to a powerful lobbying tool: TV commercials. For weeks now, the broadcast lobby has aired TV spots on stations around the country that argue the bill will lower cable rates; meanwhile, cable companies have flooded cable stations with precisely the opposite message.

The lobbying scramble has highlighted some media conflicts. Broadcast and cable stations have refused to run their rivals' ads. And two Washington-area broadcast stations owned by movie studios, WTTG (Channel 5, owned by Fox Inc.) and WDCA (Channel 20, owned by Paramount Communications Inc.), have refused to run the broadcast industry ads, in apparent deference to Hollywood's interest.