Mr. BOYER. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the outlay impact of such budget authority would be $53,801,000. For military assistance, the proposed committee recommendations would amount to an increase of $210,340,000 in budget authority and resulting outlays of $201,653,000. For the Department of State budget, the committee recommendations include an expected $120 million additional request from the executive branch for embassy security and a renewed contribution to the International Labor Organization, and $45 million contained in the Foreign Service Personnel Reform Act, which has just been reported by subcommittee and is scheduled for full committee markup later this week. The total added onto the Department of State budget would be $165 million in budget authority and $131,491,000 in outlays. There have been no recommended changes in the budget for the International Communications Agency or the Board for International Broadcasting or for the various international financial programs, such as the Export-Import Bank. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the proposed committee recommendations include $302,690,000 which would be at the committee's initiative and $160 million at the initiative of the executive branch, for a total of $462,690,000 over the President's January submission. The total outlay increase would be $386,945,000. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair had originally intended that the subcommittee's recommendations would not be reflected, but being realistic, the report as outlined by the staff does include the recommendations. I must make this observation. Because it is highly unlikely that either the Budget Committees or the Appropriations Committee will report levels for international affairs programs in excess of the President's actual request, given the push to balance the budget, I would expect those committees to recommend below the President's request, but that is their prerogative. Are there any questions or other discussion of the budget situation at this time? Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman? Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, in view of the total amount of budget requests from the President, the additions that this committee has made are, I think, quite modest. However, in light of our earlier discussion, it would seem to me the better part of valor if we could figure out some way to reduce other budget recommendations accordingly so that we might recommend to the Budget Committee a figure which is not any higher than what the President requested of the Congress. That would be, as I understand, in striking contrast to what is being done by the other committees, which are essentially going about business as usual, and adding millions and indeed billions of dollars to their budget requests. It seems to me that it might stand us in good stead on the floor when the foreign aid authorization bill is being considered to be able to say, if that is true at the time, that the Foreign Affairs Committee is the only committee which recommended to the Budget Committee a level which did not exceed the President's recommendations. I may be a minority of one in that viewpoint, but I think again looking at both the mood of the country, which is very much concerned about Federal spending, and also the political realities within which this particular committee works when it goes to the floor of the House, that we would be well advised to make that move. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Solarz. Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The advice and admonitions of my good friend from Ohio certainly are deserving of the most serious and sympathetic consideration. I want to assure him as well as the other members of the committee, however, that in comparison to the requests which have been submitted to the Budget Committee by the other standing committees of the House, the Foreign Affairs Committee, even with the increase which we are projecting above the levels requested by the President, still wins hands down the Economy of the Year Award. I have here a list of the submissions to the Budget Committee from every one of the other standing committees that have so far submitted their requests. With the exception of the Small Business Committee, every other standing committee has submitted proposed spending levels to the Budget Committee not only substantially in excess of the recommendations proposed by the President, but way above the recommendations we are about to submit. For example, the Education and Labor Committee has submitted a modest request for an increase in budget authority above what the President asks for of only $8.8 billion. It indicated another request for a relatively modest increase in outlays over and above what the President wanted of $7.2 billion. I look here at the Ways and Means Committee, which says it only needs another $800 million in outlays above what the President wanted, or the Agriculture Committee, on which some of our distinguished colleagues serve, which wants $600 million more in budget authority and $700 million more in outlays. So, I would submit, in comparison to other committees, we are at the absolute bottom of the scale in terms of the increases we are asking for above what the President has requested, and I think it is important to emphasize this is only a request. It is an indication. It does not bind this committee. It does not bind the Budget Committee. We will still be marking up the authorizing legislation, and at that time the gentleman from Ohio is free, obviously, as are other members of the committee, to argue that we should not come in with a bill above and beyond what the President has requested. But as a member of the Budget Committee, let me say that I do think it is in the interests of this committee to submit its recommendations in the form which the chairman now proposes to submit them, because that keeps our options open. In the event at the end of the day the full committee decides to recommend that we spend a little more than the President recommended, there will be no possibility whatsoever of persuading the Budget Committee to go along with that if we in the interim submitted a request for budget authority and outlays which is no higher than that of the President. So all this does is keep our options open. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair will entertain a motion that the committee recommendations for international affairs under function 150 be reported to the Budget Committee. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Bingham, do you make such a motion? Mr. BINGHAM. I so move. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The question occurs on the motion made by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bingham. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." [A chorus of "ayes."] Chairman ZABLOCKI. Opposed, "no." [A chorus of "noes."] Chairman ZABLOCKI. The "ayes" appear to have it. [Pause.] Chairman ZABLOCKI. The "ayes" have it. The recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the international affairs function is agreed to. The committee stands adjourned until 1:30, when we will begin reading and marking the bill. [Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. of the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION [The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman) presiding.] INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION ACT OF 1980 Chairman ZABLOCKI. The committee will please be in order. We meet this afternoon to markup the bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1981 for international security and development assistance, the Peace Corps, and refugee assistance, and for other purposes. The chief of staff will read the bill. We will read it by sections. TITLE I-MILITARY AND RELATED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Mr. BRADY [reading]: A BILL to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1981 for international security and development assistance, the Peace Corps, and refugee assistance, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980." TITLE I-MILITARY AND RELATED ASSSISTANCE PROGRAMS-DEFENSE SERVICES Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask that title I be considered as read. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Michigan has asked that the title I be considered as read and it is open for amendments at any point. Are there any amendments? The first amendment on page 2 is from the International Security and Scientific Affairs Subcommittee. Is there any discussion on section 101? Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman? Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. HAMILTON. This is one of the provisions or requests of the executive branch on which the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East had no recommendation. SECTION 101-DEFENSE SERVICES Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair would suggest that we strike the language in section 101, lines 7 through 12 and insert appropriate language in the committee report which would state that personnel performing defense services sold under this act could perform certain types of services without amending present law. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the impact of what the chairman is suggesting. The administration, by seeking to delete the language, wants to lift the prohibition on the United States providing training and advice to foreign countries when they are engaged in military actions, if I understand that right. Now you are suggesting that the committee not accept the administration's proposal to delete the language, is that correct? Chairman ZABLOCKI. That is what I am proposing to do, to delete the language in lines 7 through 12. Perhaps we ought to ask the administration to briefly advise the full committee whether an expression in the report would satisfy the concerns of the executive branch. STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ERNEST GRAVES, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AGENCY General GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The language that led to the problem was the present wording, "including training, advising or otherwise providing assistance regarding combat activities outside the United States." The problem we have is that under the foreign military sales program and particularly in the Middle East we have a great many support arrangements with the countries to whom we have provided weapon systems. These arrangements are based upon U.S. Government support arrangements and U.S. Government contracts and it could be viewed that the continuation of these activities in the event of hostilities would be, in the words of the law, providing assistance regarding combat activities. We have provided a paper to the committee with a table attached. which indicates the guidelines that we would propose to place in effect. if these words were deleted from the provision of law. If the committee believes that putting such guidance into a committee report would establish a legislative history which would have the same effect as deleting the language from the law, then perhaps that is a workable solution. Our principal concern is to be able to continue these support activities because otherwise what we have is a situation that we have furnished this equipment sometimes at great expense and at the time it is most needed we have to reorient completely the support of the equipment, the maintenance of the equipment, the supply of repair parts and the like. Mr. HAMILTON. General, would you yield for a question, please? General GRAVES. Certainly, sir. Mr. HAMILTON. If you strike out the language that you seek to strike out here, then, as I understand it, our personnel could be training troops right at the front line and you could have military advisers doing everything but shooting, if necessary. General GRAVES. No. As you will see from the tabulation-I don't know whether all the members of the committee received this paper or not. Mr. HAMILTON. I have not seen that, General. General GRAVES. That is a problem then. "No trainers, advisers or other personnel with units engaged in combat." Mr. HAMILTON. Why can't you just make that part of the law? General GRAVES. Well, we would certainly be willing to assist in such language. One of the problems Mr. HAMILTON. Why do you want to take that kind of language out of the law? General GRAVES. Because we want to be able to continue support in rear areas and we believe the construction of the law now might preclude that. Mr. HAMILTON. Well, it strikes me that if you just leave the following language, "Personnel performing defense services sold under this Act may not perform any duties of a combatant nature outside the United States in connection with the performance of those defense services"-you leave the language ambiguous on a very critical point concerning the definition of what constitutes a combatant nature. I think that is the point that ought to be spelled out pretty specifically in the law. You are moving toward further ambiguity rather than more specificity. General GRAVES. No. I think we would be willing to incorporate some of the guidelines in this table into the law or perhaps a better solution would be to incorporate such guidelines in the committee report and establish the legislative history of that provision. Mr. BINGHAM. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. HAMILTON. If I have time, I yield to the gentleman. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair will say, just for the purposes of clarification, in the basic law under section 21 (c), what the request of the executive branch proposes to strike is the phrase: "including any duties related to training, advising or otherwise providing assistance regarding combat activities." That phrase would be deleted under the request of the executive branch. The testimony before our subcommittee was that there are instances that if they strictly interpret the law as it is now on the books, it would preclude them from providing training or advising other states' personnel even though they were not in a combat situation and don't intend to be. What is suggested is that we keep the language |