[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hutto). Pursuant to House Resolution 468 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 4299.

                              {time}  1031


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Wise, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, July 19, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] had been disposed of, and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to tell my 
colleagues that there are basically two sets of amendments left. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has an amendment on 
counternarcotics, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and myself 
will have a collection of amendments on the issue of secrecy. Then that 
is it, and we should be able to finish this bill, hopefully, within the 
next hour.


            amendment offered by Mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which 
was printed in the Record.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 4, 
     after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 104. REDUCTION IN COUNTERNARCOTIC AND DRUG INTERDICTION 
                   FUNDS.

       The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101 
     for counternarcotic activities and drug interdiction, as 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     prepared to accompany the bill H.R. 4299 of the One Hundred 
     Third Congress, are hereby reduced by $100,000,000.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify for my 
colleagues, the chairman of the committee said that he and the ranking 
Republican had a collection of amendments on secrecy. He could not tell 
Members exactly how many, because I think that is a secret. But it will 
become clear later on if Members will look very carefully. We do not 
want the enemy to find out how many amendments we have because who 
knows what that might lead to.
  Mr. Chairman, what I want to do today is to discuss the urgent need 
for a change in the way we deal with narcotics. This Congress has spent 
a great deal of its time and energy concerned about crime, 
legitimately. It is frustrating because the major instruments in the 
battle against crime are not wielded from the Federal Capitol, they are 
State and local entities. But we are trying very hard to do our best to 
be helpful.
  Unfortunately, I think we have in place a national policy regarding 
drugs which is significantly unhelpful. We have historically spent most 
of the money we spend dealing with drugs on a futile effort physically 
to keep various narcotics out of the United States. This is a very free 
country. We have a great deal of freedom of personal travel. We have 
people who are secure in their persons and in their possessions from 
unreasonable searches, and we have an economy that is extraordinarily 
open.
  Given the number of people who come and go from the United States 
every day, given the amount of goods that are sent into the United 
States either in the company of individuals or shipped in, it is 
physically impossible for us substantially to affect the quantity of 
narcotics shipped into this country.
  In fairness to the armed services and to the military auxiliaries and 
to the police and to all of the other agencies, given the freedom of 
the United States, if we told them that we wanted them to keep all 
horses out of the United States they would probably do a very good job 
and keep most of the horses out. Some would get smuggled in. As the 
entity gets smaller, particularly when it gets so valuable, it is 
fruitless. I do not believe that anyone has been able to point to any 
significant success in our efforts physically to reduce the 
availability of drugs in America. I want to repeat that, because I do 
not think there is a policy in the United States that has gotten more 
rhetorical support and more money and produced less. No one claims that 
we have made any significant dent in the flow that comes in.
  What we do is divert enormous amounts of money from a strapped 
Government. What we should be doing is putting money into other places. 
I have proposed a cut of $100 million because this policy is so futile, 
and I would say it is not my impression that the committee thinks that 
this policy is very effective insofar as it reduces drugs in America. 
One suggestion is it may be useful because it will raise the price so 
people have to steal more.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is cut $100 million and make 
that available. I cannot under the rules do that here, but there are 
three other purposes that seem to me much worthy, local law 
enforcement, deficit reduction, and drug treatment and education. So I 
would hope we would reduce this $100 million that is being wasted on a 
futile effort that has been historically unsuccessful, for good 
reasons, because it cannot succeed, and make that money available for 
some combination which the House and the Senate would chose for deficit 
reduction, local law enforcement and drug treatment.
  That is the purpose of this amendment and I hope it is adopted.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise 
in opposition to my good friend's amendment. I would suggest that 
indeed there are very specific examples of success in our efforts to 
reduce the quantity of illegal narcotics being sent into the United 
States.
  Madam Chairman, let me be specific. First of all, the Federal 
Government last year seized 110 metric tons of cocaine, which is about 
14 percent of the estimated production. In addition, cooperative Latin 
American governments seized an additional 130 metric tons of cocaine. 
These seizures would not have been possible without good intelligence. 
Intelligence is absolutely crucial, and the last thing we need to do is 
to reduce our efforts at providing good intelligence aimed at 
interdiction. This $100 million cut would cripple our ability to 
interdict.
  Let me go further. Total world seizures of cocaine alone last year 
was 265 metric tons' worth over $40 billion on the street. This lost 
income to both the Cali and the Medellin cartels has had a significant 
impact on their operations.
  Beyond that, there are other examples of intelligence successes with 
regard to our battle against the shipment of illegal narcotics into 
this country. The successful hunt for Pablo Escobar was only possible 
with the assistance of intelligence to find his pattern of activity and 
identify his various hiding spots.
  In Bolivia, ``Meco'' Dominguez was captured, and in Peru another drug 
lord was captured. Suppliers of the Cali cartel were arrested, and this 
man is now serving a life sentence.
  Indeed, the last thing we need to do is to reduce these efforts, and 
there are many specific examples of success.
  My good friend from Massachusetts says that we should spend this 
money, this $100 million in other ways. One of the ways he suggests we 
should spend it is more money into drug treatment. I wish drug 
treatment were successful, but the sad truth, the hard fact is that 
about 86 percent of all people who go into drug treatment programs end 
up back on drugs. There is only about a 14-percent or 15-percent 
success rate.
  So as sad as it is, the harsh reality is that drug treatment does not 
work very well at all. So we should instead of taking money away from 
interdiction and putting it into programs that do not work very 
effectively, we should not be throwing up our hands in despair and in 
effect saying let them ship illegal narcotics into the United States.

                              {time}  1040

  Instead we should be intensifying our efforts, because, indeed, the 
facts are very clear that we have been able to put a significant dent 
in their efforts, and for that reason, if no other reason, for that 
reason alone we should reject the amendment.
  I urge a vote against this amendment to cripple our drug-fighting 
efforts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, there is an interesting 
statistical quirk we have just seen. The gentleman said this is a very 
good program because we have seized 14 percent of the drugs which were 
made, and denigrated drug treatment because it only helps 14 percent of 
the recipients. So apparently 14 percent can be either a sign of 
enormous success or an indication of total failure depending on which 
side of the argument you are on.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman 
the 14-percent figure only represented what our Government alone did, 
and when you look at what Latin America did, it was about another 15 
percent you add on top of this worldwide, so the total figure is a 
higher figure, but beyond the statistics even more importantly is, in 
my view, the U.S. position should be that we are not going to throw up 
our hands and simply let the narcotraffickers ship their product into 
this country.
  We should have an effort, a war, if you will, against these 
narcotraffickers, and we should do it because it is effective. It is 
not as effective as it should be. I would like it to be more effective, 
but we certainly should not throw up our hands in despair.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this specific 
amendment.
  Yet, at the same time, I think it is important for us to concede that 
a lot of us have been unsure about all of the dollars and where they 
have gone and resources we have used in the overall war on drugs, and I 
know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said if 
we are going to have a war on drugs, we ought to at least declare it.
  I know the total number of dollars we have spent has been questioned. 
Indeed, I should tell my colleague from Massachusetts that the 
Committee on Intelligence, the full committee, in its final hearing did 
question it and, indeed, we are demanding a report back from specific 
sectors of the Department of Defense with respect to the total 
allocation here.
  It is not a matter of saying that we are going to rubberstamp in this 
legislation everything that someone has in terms of an idea about how 
we will utilize our funding. Nonetheless, I fought very hard not to cut 
the drug interdiction dollars, because I happen to represent a district 
through which many drugs are disseminated, and representing a district 
such as I do, we recognize the vast importance of providing dollars as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts suggests in the treatment, in 
education, and certainly in terms of the whole policing, because we 
think, many of us believe, that is a key component of it.
  I should tell you Joint Task Force 6, which is also in my legislative 
district, certainly provides much of that kind of assistance. In fact, 
the El Paso intelligence community itself does well, EPIC, in providing 
resources, assets, and information to local law enforcement and 
throughout the entire United States. All 50 States now fully 
participate with the exchange of that kind of information.
  It is not just a simple problem of saying we can only do one thing or 
the other. I am one of those that have always believed, like many of 
you, that we cannot just fight this war on drugs or this battle in only 
one place. It kind of reminds me of a football team, when you say, 
``Well, we are going to field a great football team. Oh, by the way, we 
are missing a guard, a tight end, a tackle. We cannot do those; we 
cannot afford those players. What we are going to do is just try to 
fight this contest with what we have and what is left.'' I do not think 
we can do that. I think we have got to do it all across the front. 
I think we have got to do it with education.

  I share the concern of my colleague from Massachusetts about perhaps 
some of the lack of direction and funding that we have gone through, 
but I must say we should not give up the idea we can interdict drugs, 
as tough as that is, and I share his concern about the telling 
statistics about some of our failures. Yet, at the same time, I think 
were we not doing what we have done in the area of interdiction and law 
enforcement, the problem would be much, much greater than it is.
  So I am proud of those people who have been out there on the front 
lines. I happen to represent a lot of them. I, for one, think a cut of 
this magnitude is not the appropriate thing to do. I would hope that my 
colleague and those who will join him in voting for this amendment 
would only help us and provide us with the kind of followup procedures 
throughout the course of this year and stay with us on this issue, 
because I fought some of these cuts, and sometimes in a fairly lonely 
battle.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
thank the gentleman for the very thoughtful proposal. I would just say, 
since we are dealing with drugs and to some extent cocaine, to carry 
out his football analogy, maybe we need more nose guards.
  The fundamental point I would make is I am glad to hear he and others 
on the committee intend to hold people accountable.
  I remember when it was first proposed to put the military heavily 
into this issue, the military resisted. They did not want to do it. 
Frankly, I am a little suspicious that some of their enthusiasm came 
from the fact that back then in the early 1980's they did not need it 
for budgetary purposes; now they do.
  I am glad to hear what the gentleman said. I just wanted to say I 
will be glad to work with him in establishing criteria for success as 
to what we think is working, and its impact should be measured by what 
happens in the United States. I welcome that, and I will be available 
to cooperate with my friends, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I will continue to urge, of course, my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts to cut our Nation's vital drug 
intelligence and interdiction efforts. This amendment will cripple 
these vital functions in the battle against the scourge of drugs.
  Drugs, I might add, are related to more than one-third of the violent 
crime, one-half of the murders in the United States, while adding 
billions to our health care costs, and destroying much of our inner 
cities and large numbers of our youth today. Our drug war cannot afford 
this cut and purported savings.
  Any battle against drugs, or any other enemy for that matter, 
requires sound intelligence to be effective. We need eyes and ears in 
the front lines of this war against sophisticated drug cartels which do 
not operate in the open, or play by anyone's rules. Intelligence 
provides the much needed eyes and ears to combat those drug 
traffickers.
  Sadly, we have already seen disastrous cuts, and unbelievable 
bungling by this administration in our overseas interdiction, and 
counternarcotics intelligence efforts. We cannot stand by, and permit 
further erosion of our vital efforts against the international 
narcotics trade.
  The amendment before us does just that, make no mistake about that.
  The critics of our counternarcotics efforts continuously state that 
nothing works, the drugs pour in, and our drug problem just doesn't get 
any better. Those critics are wrong. We have made significant progress 
over the recent years.
  But, let us examine the critics' arguments. I ask these critics, What 
would the impact be of tons of additional cocaine--for example, fiscal 
year 1992, 137 metric tons seized--on our city streets, schools, and to 
our young, if we did not get a handle on these narcotics overseas, 
before they reach the United States?
  By the time drugs have reached the nickel and dime bags on our city 
streets and in our schools, we have in many ways already lost the 
battle. That is why our overseas coun- ternarcotics and interdiction 
efforts are so important.
  In fiscal year 1991 the total U.S.-foreign seizures amounted to 140 
metric tons of cocaine, or 14.6 percent of worldwide cocaine 
production. In fiscal year 1992 we seized 137 metric tons of cocaine, 
or 14.1 percent of the world's production. Those impressive results 
didn't come from random luck, but they flowed from hard intelligence 
work, needed to defeat the traffickers.
  Actions have consequences as you can see, and to the benefit of the 
traffickers clearly if we were to cut our successful interdiction and 
counter- narcotics efforts.
  We can only guess at the added costs in violent crime, health care, 
drug treatment, and loss of lives in American society today from more 
cocaine from Colombia or heroin from Burma and onto our streets, and in 
our schools, from this precipitous act of cutting our drug intelligence 
efforts.
  Let us not further weaken our Nation's war against drugs by this 
severe cut in our counternarcotics intelligence and interdiction 
efforts. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment before us.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment. My colleagues, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
recently held joint hearings on United States drug policy in the 
western hemisphere. I had the opportunity to attend these hearings, and 
I wish that many of our other colleagues could have been there. Let me 
say that testimony that I heard revealed a drug policy of the United 
States which is in total chaos. What was revealed was shocking for the 
Nation and also for my State of Florida.
  Cocaine air trafficking is up 20 percent. The heroin supply has 
increased 44 percent, other illegal drugs and narcotics are not far 
behind.
  Now, we have before us today a proposal to gut our drug enforcement 
intelligence capability. At this time I really cannot think of anything 
that could be more ill-conceived or ill-thought-out by this congress 
than to go forward with the proposal advocated by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  I believe that we are on the verge, quite frankly, of an onslaught of 
illegal narcotics unlike anything this country has ever witnessed. And 
I am not one to stand here and say that I have not tried to do 
something about this situation.
  Recently this spring I asked Chairman Conyers of the House Committee 
on government Operations to conduct an oversight hearing on the 
administration's drug policy. Over 130 Members, bipartisan Members, 
signed that request. To date there still has not been a total oversight 
hearing On the U.S. policy, which continues to be a disaster.
  A step today, in adopting this amendment, would be another disaster. 
Let us look at what has happened. On May 1 this administration suddenly 
reversed its practice of sharing our intelligence and radar equipment 
to attack the planes of narco-terrorists. With just this one small 
step, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, where nearly 100 percent of the 
world's cocaine is produced, were kicked in the face and betrayed by a 
reversal of U.S. policy. This was another one of these twists and turns 
in our disorganized U.S. drug policy. Fortunately, the administration, 
after this hearing, did reverse itself and has decided again to 
continue its past policy of sharing this intelligence information.
  We see from just this one incident the importance of sharing 
intelligence.
  Now we have before us an amendment to cut $100 million from our 
counter-narcotics and drug interdiction programs. My colleagues, with 
our international drug policy in disarray, with wholesale cutbacks in 
drug interdiction and enforcement mechanisms, with a genocide of young 
male African-Americans in this country, with mixed signals being sent 
to our children by this administration, with crime so closely linked to 
illegal drugs and narcotics--I ask is this really the time to consider 
a proposal like this, to cut our drug enforcement funds and our 
intelligence capability? I urge my colleagues today to defeat this 
amendment. I urge you to look at this whole drug policy, this 
disorganized policy, this sad message that is being sent to our 
country, and this bad message that would be sent by adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in vigorous opposition to the amendment. We have been going 
through now a period of time in which we are talking about the cold war 
ending and whether or not additional funds are necessary. We do this in 
defense, now we are doing it in intelligence. But what is underlying 
here in this particular amendment has nothing to do with any of that. 
It has to do with a war that we are continually waging on the streets 
of every city of this country, every town, every rural and urban area.
  No one is spared the scourge of the increase in drugs in this 
country. There are areas, though, that we can point to to say that we 
have had great success. We have had great success in our interdiction 
efforts. There is no question about it.
  Just in my home district of south Florida, along the southeastern 
Atlantic coast of this country, flying out of Key West we have had a 
tremendous successful effort. Yet we are finding that we are having to 
every day get up and in some way defend what is working in this 
country.
  Our interdiction efforts right now, we are getting $20 of drugs off 
the street for every dollar that we invest. The intelligence effort is 
a vital, a vital part of this overall network in reducing the amount of 
drugs that are coming here to the United States.
  With this vote it is not about defense contractors, it is not about 
saving military hardware, military machines; what we are talking about 
is investing in the young people of this country.
  My colleagues from Florida mentioned the young African-Americans; we 
are talking about the people who are mostly impacted by drugs in this 
country, particularly cocaine. We have found that in inner cities the 
youth of this country, people who are having the hardest time to get up 
the American economic ladder and share in the American dream, their 
future is being dashed and it is being dashed because of the fact that 
the drugs are out there. It impacts not only in the drug use but it 
impacts in crime, in the future ability to go forward.
  Let us not give up something that is working.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The problem is this: Everyone who has spoken against the amendment--
and I think there are still two or three people from Florida who did 
not manage to get up yet--but everybody who has spoken against this 
amendment has talked about the amount of drugs we have seized. No one 
has talked about less drugs out on the streets, because there is a 
disconnect.
  Now let me give an analogy: If we put out a lot of rain barrels, the 
next time it rained real hard we would collect a lot of rain. But no 
one would be made dry by that. We would then talk about our anti-rain 
policy because we collected all this rainwater. But the amount of 
rainwater that fell on people would not be affected.
  Yes, we collect a lot of drugs, but given substitutability, given 
their flexibility, unfortunately I have seen no evidence that that has 
reduced the supply of drugs on the street.
  What I am talking about is in fact trying to put money into programs 
that will be more effective, both law enforcement and treatment and 
education, than what we now do. The problem is not that we are not 
catching drugs out there, but that because it then comes up in another 
country and another country, people increase their efforts, that has 
not, in all this time, had a salutary impact on the situation in 
America.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is certainly one of the more intelligent and articulate 
Members of this House, but he is not using his head on this one. What 
the gentleman is saying is, ``Let us allow more drugs to come into the 
country.'' The gentleman from New York just a few minutes ago gave you 
a statistic about the amount of drugs that we are indeed taking off of 
the streets.
  We are reducing the supply of drugs in this country by the efforts 
that we are undertaking here. And we are just talking about what we are 
taking out; what would be actually out there, grown and produced in 
addition to what we have taken out is anyone's guess. But we know, 
except for our intelligence effort that we would not only be 
interdicting the supply coming into the country but we would be 
encouraging others to produce more drugs, which would again increase 
the supply even more. It is unthinkable.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just think this is an 
interesting variation of the Joycelyn Elders school of fighting the 
drug scourge by defining it out of existence, turning our back on it, 
it will just go away.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman once again.
  Madam Chairman, the gap between what the gentleman from Illinois just 
said and reality is very great. I know he sort of strolled in late. No 
one is talking about that. That really demeans the whole debate. If in 
fact we are going to talk seriously, as others have done, that is one 
thing. What the gentleman from Illinois has just said has no relation 
to anything. No one is talking about ignoring it, no one is talking 
about defining it out of existence. What I was talking about was more 
law enforcement----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Shaw was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman 
continue to yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, the fact is that nothing in what I said remotely 
resembles what the gentleman from Illinois was talking about. The fact 
is that I was talking about more law enforcement, more education, more 
treatment. The problem is not ignoring drugs but how effectively to 
fight it.

                              {time}  1100

  I do not think that physically catching them overseas, unfortunately, 
has had any effect here. I think that I have not yet had anybody say to 
me, ``Hey, we're in great shape in this city or that city, the other 
city because our interdiction has worked to the point that they cannot 
buy any drugs.'' Unfortunately that does not work. But that is the 
rational level----
  Mr. SHAW. In reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I say to the 
gentleman, ``You're misguiding this debate. We are not talking about 
putting more money into police protection. We are not talking about 
putting more money into education.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am.
  Mr. SHAW. The gentleman is, but that is not what the gentleman's 
amendment is saying. The gentleman is talking about let us cut what is 
working, and I think what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is 
talking about is there are certain things in the previous 
administration in the drug war that are working. Let us not try to 
dismantle what is working. It is out there, and it is working, and I 
think it is tremendously important that we continue that.
  Now we can go ahead and talk about appropriating money for the 
different things that the gentleman is talking about, and I would 
support him on many of those. But let us not take it out of something 
that is working. It is like going into an AA meeting with a case of 
whiskey. One does not do that. What one does is try to reduce the 
supply and continue the education. That is important. But do not 
continue the supply and make drugs more plentiful on the streets, make 
drugs greater in volume at a reduced price so that more people are 
getting hooked and more people are getting caught up in this terrible 
trap.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
just for 10 seconds?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct. 
My amendment does not in itself provide more law enforcement and 
treatment money, but I believe in the current budget situation, if we 
do not make cuts somewhere, we do not have the ability to do that, and 
my intention would be to free up money to fight drugs in what I think 
is a more effective way.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I fail to find logic in the gentleman's 
argument as far as decreasing the amount of moneys that we are spending 
here in interdiction and in intelligence. It is vitally important we 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, let me just say that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
raises an amendment which I will oppose today, but I do think that he 
raises some important subjects that need to be talked about.
  Now first, the reasons for opposing it are, one, funding for 
intelligence support in counternarcotics activities is coming down 
radically now. The amounts recommended by the committee are $600 
million less than what was authorized 4 years ago. Within the amounts 
recommended this year, Madam Chairman, more than $50 million is fenced 
until a plan for making better use of radar in the detection and 
monitoring mission is received, so these moneys are coming down, and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
would bring them down so significantly that, I think, they would have a 
profound effect on interdiction.
  However, saying that, I do want to say that the committee's report 
reflects frustration with the management of and inability to measure 
success in the past counterdrug strategy which was centered on 
detection and monitoring of cocaine shipments in the transit zones. The 
funds recommended now are for a new strategy which places less emphasis 
on the transit zones and more focus on working cooperatively with 
governments and nations, particularly in the Andean region which are 
sources to identify traffickers and disrupt their organization.
  Further, significant reduction will curtail ongoing activities which 
support the source-nation strategy of the Clinton administration, and 
further significant reductions will terminate intelligence collection 
programs focused on heroin and the development of interagency efforts 
against heroin at a time when there are indications that heroin abuse 
is a growing problem in the United States.
  So, I urge the rejection of the amendment, however, if my colleagues 
look in the committee report on pages 36 and 37, there is a long 
discussion about the inappropriate management of counternarcotics in 
recent years. One particular case involved counternarcotics 
strategy in Venezuela where, because of lack of cooperation between the 
DEA and the Central Intelligence Agency, large amounts of uncontrolled 
cocaine came into the United States, and what we found is, over the 
years, that there has not been the kind of management of 
counternarcotics programs which would prevent this kind of thing from 
happening, and it is very embarrassing when it happens--``60 Minutes'' 
got hold of that particular one. But the fact of the matter is it is 
probably not the only one where there has been imperfect management.
  The problem with counternarcotics is we are not dealing with saints 
or angels in terms of the relationships we have with people who are in 
the narcotics struggle, so I understand that we will sometimes have 
problems, and I also believe that the CIA has taken some response to 
the Venezuelan case to ensure that the DEA will have full access to 
operational information that is developed, and this is another example 
of better cooperation that is needed between the CIA, the DIA, and the 
FBI. But the fact of the matter is that there has been very serious 
management of the interagency narcotics problems, particularly in Latin 
America, and much improvement needs to be made.
  So, Madam Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that the committee 
opposes this amendment, the committee does put the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the DEA, and the folks involved in the Defense Department on 
notice that we expect them to improve their management of these kinds 
of programs or in future years we are going to look less 
sympathetically on their budget request.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, I would say this. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] indicates the programs do not work, and then 
there has been some discussion that there is a 14-percent efficiency 
factor in these kinds of things. Well, the fact of the matter is that 
the programs are needed, I believe, in order to let the cartels know 
that we are not going to give them carte blanche, open access, into 
this country. I mean the real problem, obviously, has to do with 
domestic usage, and interdiction probably will not stop very much when 
it is so profitable to bring in and sell illegal drugs into this 
country.
  But do we just give up because we do not interdict very much of the 
narcotics coming in? Do we give up particularly when countries like the 
Colombians, and the Peruvians, and the Ecuadorians, and the Bolivians 
are risking life and limb to try to stop the narcotics traffickers in 
their countries? I say, no, we cannot give up, and, if we do give up, 
we open the doors even further to the Cali cartel and the other cartels 
that want to bring drugs into this country. So, I think it would be a 
mistake to say it is not worth the effort. It is worth the effort. But 
I also think it is a mistake to think that the counternarcotics 
programs are being managed as well as they can be managed in the 
future.

  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, if I were someone who did not know the author of the 
amendment better, I would say this is an irresponsible amendment, $100 
million out of our efforts to interdict drugs that are coming into this 
country. That, in my estimation is something that is literally 
indefensible. As a matter of fact, it is interesting that, as far as I 
know, only the author of the amendment has spoken in favor of the 
amendment and appears to have no support on his side of the aisle or 
ours.
  The fact is that over the last few months, Madam Chairman, the white 
flag of surrender has been raised on the drug war from the cutting of 
the drug czar's office by some 85 percent, to the cuts in the personnel 
at DEA and FBI, to the authorization for foreign affairs in which we 
made severe cuts in the efforts of international drug interdiction, and 
now this amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] certainly sends, I think, the wrong signal, not only to the 
American public, but, even more importantly perhaps, to the world at 
large, and particularly to the drug lords who prey on people in our 
country and others in selling their poisonous product.
  It does not always have to be that way. As a matter of fact, when we 
had testimony recently from former DEA Administrator Judge Bonner, he 
pointed out some interesting statistics to indicate that the policy of 
a strong interdiction effort coupled with strong law enforcement can 
bring some very good results and can, in fact, show that we can cut 
down the use of illegal drugs. For example, from 1985 to 1992, Madam 
Chairman, the number of cocaine users in this country, according to the 
National Institute of Drug Abuse, was reduced from 5.5 million in 1985 
to 1.3 million in 1992. Drops in other drug use besides cocaine 
happened as well. On other drugs we saw half a million users in 1990, a 
drop down to 300,000 users in 1992. In marijuana the use is down from 
20 million users in 1990 to 9 million in 1992. We also saw the 
destruction of the Medellin cartel. Some people said that the Medellin 
cartel would go on forever, and it has essentially been destroyed.

                              {time}  1110

  Why? Because we have had the courage to work with other countries to 
consider interdiction as part of the overall law enforcement effort.
  My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, says that he wants to 
strike the law enforcement. Can anyone name one law enforcement agency 
that supports his amendment? Is there one law enforcement agency in 
this country that supports the Frank amendment to cut $100 million from 
our efforts to interdict drugs?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I have spoken to a number of police 
officials, police chiefs, who support this. I do not have the list with 
me, but I will get it for the gentleman. I have found a lot of people 
who are in the local law enforcement business who would very much 
prefer to have resources made available to them rather than have this. 
I will have the list available for the gentleman.
  Mr. OXLEY. That is interesting because I have not talked to one 
serious law enforcement official who does not believe that the 
interdiction effort is part and parcel of a strong antidrug policy in 
this country. No one is saying that it is the total answer, but as the 
chairman of the committee indicated, it is certainly part of a very 
important element in keeping drugs out of this country and providing 
the kind of support to the countries that are on the line fighting 
drugs.

  Will the gentleman concede that if his amendment were to pass and our 
interdiction efforts were lessened, more drugs, not less drugs, would 
come into this country?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I would, and I would say, if I may 
finish my answer completely, that that would make unfortunately no 
difference in our drug problem. And I quote from the committee's report 
on page 37:

       Others, however, believe that progress should be measured 
     by reductions in the amount of drugs flowing into the United 
     States and increases in the street price of the drugs that 
     result. If the latter is used as a measure, then the war on 
     drugs might be considered a failure.

  I would say this is the conclusion in the committee report from which 
the minority members expressed no dissent in this report that I have.
  So the point I am making is that unfortunately the amount of drugs 
that is available in the street appears to be unaffected by these 
efforts. That is why I want to focus on efforts to deal with the 
problems in the street. I do not think that the interdiction would be 
considered a failure, and I think the committee has said that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oxley was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, taking back my time, if the gentleman were 
to concede that there would be a 14-percent increase, if we believe the 
14 percent figure, in the amount of drugs on the street, then clearly 
law enforcement would have an even more difficult problem if the 
gentleman's amendment were to pass than before.
  My only point is that it makes it even more difficult because the 
street price would decrease and it would be easier for people to secure 
drugs, and we are going to have that many more people out there using 
illegal drugs and, by the way, committing at least half of the crime 
out there that we consider to be street crime.
  We have a multibillion dollar crime bill that is in the conference 
committee, the President is trying to get us off the dime to pass it, 
we look at half of the crime being committed because of drugs, and then 
we are arguing about cutting $100 million out of interdiction efforts 
if the gentleman from Massachusetts were to have his way.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But I say that actually that $100 million 
is wasted because with all of this, it is not affecting drug use in 
this country.
  And, by the way, on the argument that by substantially lowering the 
price we have made a big difference, if in fact it is available, 
raising the price so people steal more is not necessarily, it seems to 
me, a mark of success. I agree that the real problem here is the crime 
that is generated by drugs, but it is the American drug policy that 
exacerbates this because this does not allow us to fight crime as 
successfully as we should.
  The point is, as the committee report says, that the interdiction 
efforts are not having any significant effect on drug availability in 
the street.
  That is why I would take that money and put it into other programs, 
law enforcement and education and treatment, that deal better with the 
consequences of its being here.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I would suggest simply that if a Member 
were to support the Frank amendment and really conclude that 
interdiction has been a failure and they are willing to completely 
abandon our interdiction efforts, it would be a low point in the debate 
in this House. I am fully confident that the Frank amendment, should we 
have a rollcall vote, would be defeated, and I ask for its defeat.
  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Frank amendment. 
Nothing in my mind could be more foolhardy than to cut our efforts to 
reduce the flow of drugs into the United States. There has been no 
abatement in the drug cartels efforts to thwart U.S. supply reduction 
programs. I recently traveled to Panama and Colombia to review our 
counternarcotics programs, and the intelligence we provide to host 
nations in Latin America to facilitate their counternarcotics 
operations. I learned that they rely heavily on U.S. intelligence 
assets to provide them early warning and assist in their interdiction 
programs. Our assistance is critical; yet, Mr. Frank wants to deny this 
assistance by reducing counter- narcotics intelligence dollars.
  Intelligence is vital to interdiction successes. Without early 
warning intelligence, we are looking for needles in a haystack among 
the thousands of cars, ships, and planes coming to the United States. 
With intelligence we know where to concentrate resources to improve the 
probability of interdiction. Federal Government and Latin American 
cocaine seizures totaled 240 metric tons last year. This number will 
surely drop if we cut drug intelligence spending.
  What we need in the war on drugs is not a cut in funding, but better 
leadership. This has been clearest in the administration's most recent 
self-inflicted wound. On May 1, without prior consultation with other 
Federal agencies or departments, the Department of Defense terminated 
the passage of radar tracking intelligence to the governments of Peru 
and Colombia. This had the immediate effect of undermining the close 
working relationship between these governments and the United States. 
Equally important, these countries had begun effective air interdiction 
campaigns designed to stop the shipment of raw cocaine from Peru to 
Colombia, which relied upon our information to make their programs 
work. These programs had reduced the flow of cocaine, dislocated the 
traffickers, and raised their operating expenses. But because of an 
arguable legal interpretation, DOD ceased to pass tracking data on the 
flights.
  At no time during the discussion of this problem did a senior 
administration official step in to address the issue and make a 
decision. The problem with counternarcotics programs is not 
counternarcotics intelligence, it is that, too often, no one is in 
charge and will make policy decisions. Indeed, as Mr. Frank knows since 
he read the classified annex to this year's authorization bill, the 
committee took very specific and direct action to address shortfalls in 
leadership arising from the radar incident.
  Because this program is classified, we must discuss the effects of 
the proposed cut largely in generalities without detailing how specific 
counternarcotics programs will be endangered. Let me assure you, 
however, if this amendment passes, we will see an upsurge in drugs on 
our streets.
  Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  Mr. COMBEST. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, let me 
ask, how would we divide the time? Would the time begin after the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has finished, or before?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I would give the gentleman from New 
Jersey his full 5 minutes, and I would ask that all debate on this 
amendment end in 20 minutes. I would take 15 minutes, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] would take 5 minutes, and I would yield 
time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, would we have time on this side?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, let me amend my request. I ask 
unanimous consent that House debate end in 20 minutes after the 
gentleman from New Jersey has completed, with the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Combest] to have 10 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] to have 5 minute minutes, and I would retain 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the request relates to this 
amendment and all amendments thereto?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. That is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes] for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, let me first of all congratulate our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
for his amendment. I am not going to support it, but I think he does us 
a great service, because I think the gentleman is partially right about 
many of his observations.
  I think part of the problem with intelligence gathering in the 
counternarcotics area is like so many other aspects of our law 
enforcement component in this country, and that is we have so many 
agencies that are involved in the activity, few of whom speak to one 
another, share information, and basically try to reduce the kind of 
waste we see in this area, intelligence gathering, and in so many other 
areas.
  My greatest regret over the years is that the so-called drug czar has 
never worked very effectively. They have never attempted to, 
unfortunately, eliminate the overlap and the duplication that exists in 
almost all of our enforcement agencies.
  A few years ago when we developed the new center for intelligence 
gathering in the intelligence community, I think we made one of the 
biggest mistakes, although it has not been funded and has not been 
staffed like originally envisioned. Because again I think we are moving 
in the direction of balkanization of intelligence gathering. Hey, 
folks, they do not talk to one another. In the some 10 years I chaired 
the Subcommittee on Crime, throughout all the oversight hearings, I was 
amazed at how little cooperation there is among agencies. I think there 
is a little more than we have today, but it is certainly not what it 
should be. And I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman from 
Kansas of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the 
oversight hearings I am informed they have conducted.
  I refer you to page 37 of the committee report, where they talk about 
the lack of coordination, and I read from the committee report:

       The committee is concerned that coordination of 
     counternarcotics intelligence efforts involve too many 
     personnel spread among too many ``centers.'' Although the CIA 
     created a counternarcotics center a number of years ago, it 
     is a center in name only. For example, the CIA center only 
     has one detailee from the Defense Intelligence Agency. There 
     are over 200 personnel in CIA's counternarcotics center, and 
     a lesser number working at the DIA's Counterdrug Joint 
     Intelligence Center. In addition, there are personnel in the 
     Department of Defense joint task force centers spread around 
     the country and defense department personnel at the Southern 
     Command in Panama. These intelligence community resources do 
     not include DEA, Coast Guard, Customs, and other associated 
     agencies. The El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC,

which is supposed to comprise most of the law enforcement agencies in 
the El Paso center, ``or the newly established National Drug 
Intelligence Center.''
  The fact of the matter is that we have basically balkanized the 
intelligence gathering in this country. Instead of attempting to bring 
all those resources together in El Paso, as once envisioned, where we 
could bring all the agencies to one location, where they would have to 
feed that kind of intelligence, basically collate, disseminate it, not 
just to our domestic intelligence agencies, but throughout the world, 
what we are doing is collecting all that data, and each one basically 
hordes that data in many instances because it is their work product. 
They want to work those cases. And we have contributed to that, and we 
continue to contribute to that.
  I hope that we reach the day when we understand that we can do a far 
better job than we have done. There has got to be one lead agency, in 
my judgment, and we should have one center for collecting that data and 
disseminating it.
  I understand why the intelligence communities come across that 
information, but in many instances, the CIA, for instance, has 
different human resources. They have to create new resources. They are, 
I think, because of the nature of security, themselves 
compartmentalized and balkanized, and I think it is an absolute 
mistake.
  So I think while the gentleman, I think, is not doing what I would 
like to see us do, I think he has pointed up the fact that there is a 
lot of waste in this program and that we can do a far better job than 
we have done. And intelligence gathering should be strengthened, not 
weakened. We need to invest more resources in the Foreign Cooperative 
Program, because the more information we can collect around the world 
at the source, I think the more we can disseminate, and prevent it from 
coming to this country and other countries.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman raises an 
excellent point. The recent example with these ground-based radars in 
the Andean nations is a classic example of the kind of bureaucratic 
redtape that afflicts the drug war. This was at a higher level, but we 
ended the sharing of information overnight to countries which were 
fighting the drug war because of legal problems in this country, but 
without the kind of coordination that was necessary to effectively deal 
with the problem. That mistake at a high level has filtered down to 
much lower levels as well.
  Mr. HUGHES. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would reject the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], but I think 
we need to get on with the business of getting our act together.
  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, my problem with the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, which I do understand, is that it 
raises the white flag on one aspect of the drug war, and that is on 
interdiction. We have to deal with supply as well as demand. I will 
concede, if there were not a demand, there would not be a supply. But 
there are many fronts in this war. And to just surrender on 
interdiction and say look, we are only stopping 14 percent of it, 
therefore let us give up the game and let us put the money on law 
enforcement and rehabilitation, frankly, and parenthetically I might 
add, rehabilitation has not been all that stellar an accomplishment, 
and for very good reasons. But I do not say give up on rehabilitation. 
I do not say give up on interdiction. But if we can stop this poison at 
its source, or in transit, before it gets distributed in this country, 
you will not need as much rehabilitation as evidently we do.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has said the 
interdiction has failed miserably, or there have been no significant 
interdictions. And we have heard the opposite in terms of statistics 
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Combest], who have talked about this.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Brief correction, since the gentleman got 
one of my sentences wrong: I did not say there has been no significant 
interdictions. I said the interdictions have had no significant effect 
in reducing the availability of drugs on the street.
  Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, if that is the posture of the 
gentleman, I think it is even more illogical, because what is 
interdicted does not get distributed on the street. It does not get 
cut, it does not get sold or given away. It remains in the government 
warehouses for destruction.
  So I just think there is a logical fallacy in what the gentleman 
says.
  The drug war has been faltering, and the problems with it have been 
well illustrated by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] and 
others. But what is required is leadership, a seriousness on the part 
of government to forget the turf wars and to get on the ball, to get 
with it, and to get serious. This has to be done, because we are 
dealing with enormous amounts of money, we are dealing with murder on 
the installment plan for our young people and for older people who are 
addicted. We need to spend more money learning how to rehabilitate 
people. Because, frankly, once you come out of this treatment, you are 
thrown right back into the environment that encouraged the addiction or 
the incentives for the addiction, and you have not really solved a 
problem.
  But we need all of these means of attacking this terrible scourge. 
But do not surrender on interdiction. Make it work better, rather than 
just walking away and saying we will spend the money elsewhere better. 
We need to spend more money in many directions, but do not surrender on 
interdiction.
  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Frank amendment.
  Madam Chairman, this is not a mere across-the-board cut such as we 
deal with so often here in the House on appropriations bills. This is a 
major cut. It is a cut that the country cannot afford to make.
  While we debate about spending money for intelligence activities 
related to the drug effort, the drug lords do not have to worry about 
this. They do not have to sit around with competing agencies deciding 
what to do or when, or where to get the money. The drug lords do not 
have to go to a Committee on Appropriations to get an appropriation. 
They do not have to go to the House of Representatives or to the 
Senate. They do not have to go to a President to sign a bill.

                              {time}  1130

  The leader of the cartel makes a decision and that is the way it is. 
That makes them a very formidable enemy and a formidable target. It is 
important that we maintain our ability to the best of our ability to 
combat those who would infest this Nation and this world with illegal 
drugs.
  They have their own intelligence capabilities, believe me. The drug 
lords, the drug cartels have intelligence that in some cases is more 
effective than ours because they are not handcuffed with the rules and 
the regulations that our drug enforcement agents are.
  In addition, part of intelligence is technology. We have good 
technology in our intelligence community, but the drug lords have good 
technology as well and they do not have to get somebody's permission to 
buy it. They buy it because they have plenty of money, the money that 
comes from the poor individuals who put all of the money they earn or 
steal into purchasing these drugs.
  The drug lords do not have those handcuffs. And they do have 
effective intelligence operations.
  We cannot afford to let down our guard. We have got to continue this 
war against drugs. Maybe it is not easy. Some of the targets are 
difficult to work with because they are not fettered by the rules and 
regulations that our folks are.
  We have heard some complaints and criticisms today about the 
effectiveness of this program. Yesterday during the debate on the major 
part of the intelligence authorization bill, we also had complaints 
about the intelligence community not doing as good a job as it could.
  I think we could concede that. None of us is doing as good a job as 
we would like or as good a job as maybe we could. But here is what has 
been forgotten in this whole debate, whether it deals with dollars for 
drug enforcement or collecting intelligence against drug cartels or 
whether it is against a hostile military target. The truth of the 
matter is, Madam Chairman, while we hear about the mistakes and we hear 
about a failure from time to time, the truth is, because of the nature 
of the intelligence business, because of the necessity for secrecy, 
because of the importance of having these operations clandestine in 
order for them to work, the general public very seldom ever hears about 
the successes.
  I would like to say here today, Madam Chairman, and to my colleagues, 
there are many successes in the intelligence work against the drug 
cartels. There are many successes in the intelligence activities in 
other areas of interest to our national security. And so we should not 
be lulled to sleep by a few errors or a few mistakes. We should 
continue aggressively to correct those errors and to prevent those 
mistakes, but let us not overlook the real honest fact that our 
intelligence community has done a pretty good job. The Nation is still 
free.
  But because of the necessity for secrecy and clandestine operations, 
the general public seldom hears about those successes. And I say again, 
there are many.
  Let us defeat this Frank amendment.
  Let me add a couple of more points, why I think we should defeat this 
amendment.
  A reduction of $100 million in the NFIP and TIARA fiscal year 1995 
counternarcotics budgets will prevent us from making the programmatic 
investments necessary to support the President's counternarcotics 
policy as specifically directed and laid out in the National Drug 
Control Strategy and Presidential Directives. Specifically, this 
reduction will force us to severely curtail highly successful 
counternarcotics interagency and regional efforts developed over the 
past 3 years to disrupt and dismantle major cocaine organizations which 
pose a threat to the United States.
  This reduction will terminate essential human intelligence and 
technical collection programs to counter the heroin threat at a time 
when all indications point to an escalation of the heroin problem in 
the United States.
  This reduction would terminate the development of interagency efforts 
similar to those used for cocaine to attack major heroin targets.
  This reduction would eliminate effective support to the U.S. 
interdiction coordinator and the national interdiction command and 
control structure at a time when more precise intelligence is required 
to direct scarce interdiction assets in the transit zones.
  It would severely curtail our efforts to detect and assess emerging 
areas of coca and poppy production in support of policy decisionmaking.
  The Frank amendment would severely diminish CIA's capability to 
assess the destabilizing effect of narcotics trafficking organizations 
on the political and social structures of countries.
  This reduction would prevent critical research and development 
efforts and the application of sophisticated technology to support 
counternarcotics operations and analysis.
  And it would disrupt the community coordination process currently in 
place between various Government agencies to use available resources 
efficiently and achieve cost savings. For example, the counternarcotics 
community has established interagency working groups in Imagery, 
HUMINT, SIGINT, and Open Source, which coordinate collection priorities 
and activities, as well as the Resource Task Force, which coordinates 
interagency resource planning as a subcommittee of the Committee on 
Narcotics Intelligence Issues [CNII].
  The Frank amendment would be a major retreat in our battles against 
the sinister drug lords and must be defeated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I want again to read from the committee report, because the question 
is not whether or not we have succeeded in interdicting. We have. The 
question is whether the fact that some percentage of drugs grown or 
shipped is interindicted has any significant beneficial effect within 
the United States.
  The fact is that some of my market economy friends have lost track of 
the power of the market economy.
  Unfortunately, in this case, market forces sometimes work whether 
they are legal or illegal. We get substitution. We get a powerful drive 
to sell something that is very profitable. The problem with 
interdiction is not that it does not work on its own terms but that the 
success of interdiction has very little, if any, physical effect within 
the United States. And because resources are limited, the billions we 
spend on interdiction prevent us from putting more money into law 
enforcement, treatment, and education. These are the three separate 
issues.
  We are not simply talking about treatment. That is very important. 
But so is education, which does seem to have significant effects and, I 
believe, is more responsible for the decline in the use of drugs than 
anything else, certainly more than interdiction.
  The committee report itself says, this is the public committee 
report,

       There are differing views on how progress in the war on 
     drugs ought to be measured. If you measure by physical 
     quantities interindicted or overseas drug people arrested, it 
     succeeds. Others believe that progress should be measured by 
     reductions in the amount of drugs flowing into the United 
     States and increases in the street prices of the drugs that 
     result. If the latter is used as a measure, then the war on 
     drugs might be considered a failure.

  That is the point. If one batch is interdicted, another batch 
replaces it. If it is shut down in one country, this is a big world, 
they will grow it in Myanmar. They will grow it here; they will grow it 
there. The problem with interdiction is that for a free society, with 
the free movement of people and goods that we fortunately have and do 
not want to give up, it is physically impossible significantly to 
reduce the availability of that very small and, sadly, very valuable 
quantity.
  Therefore, we are wasting that money. I am not talking about cutting 
out all the money. We cannot get into specifics. Intelligence help and 
cooperation with countries that want to help would still be here. But 
the physical emphasis on interdicting is a mistake.
  When this was first offered to the Defense Department in the early 
1980's, as I remember, they did not want to do it. They said, this is 
not for us. This is not useful.
  That was at a time when they were getting all the money they needed 
from Congress. Now that they are in a budget crunch, the Defense 
Department looks more favorably on this because it helps them support 
some of their arguments. But it is not the way to fight drugs. It is 
not effective.
  The problem is that given that overwhelming demand that tragically 
exists, we get it in here. We stop it in one country, it comes through 
another. We stop this shipment, another shipment comes in.
  That is the problem. The problem is practicality.
  The power of market forces, even though in an illegal market, 
overwhelm the ability of law enforcement in the freest society in the 
world with the greatest exchange of goods that comes in and out to stop 
it.
  Therefore, I believe we ought to begin the process of shifting 
resources. We will then decide among ourselves, there is deficit 
reduction. There is local law enforcement. There is education and there 
is treatment. All four of those seem to me to be preferable to the time 
wasting and money wasting policy that we now have.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do oppose the amendment. The President has proposed a new policy 
which focuses less on interdiction and more on disruption in the 
growing countries, the Andean region countries. I think that is an 
appropriate change in policy.
  I think this cut would be very disruptive at a time when we are going 
after the regions of Colombia and Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and remaining 
countries.

                              {time}  1140

  I also want to note to my colleagues that we have had in the 
committee serious problems with the management of intelligence-sharing 
relationships with other intelligence agencies and law enforcement 
agencies in the whole counter-narcotics area. We have requested that 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Brown's group, report 
no later than September 1 the details of the administration's supply 
reduction strategy. They have come up with a good strategy in generic 
terms. We want to see some meat on the bones of that policy.
  Madam Chairman, we have asked them, No. 1, to provide how the United 
States will help build resolve to attack the drug problem in narcotics-
producing countries and what each department and agency of the U.S. 
Government will contribute in terms of personnel and fiscal resources 
to achieve overall supply reduction goals.
  No. 2, we have asked them the specific role of the U.S. Southern 
Command and how it will support U.S. goals and objectives.
  No. 3, we have asked them for an assessment of the advisability of 
integrating cocaine eradication as part of a supply reduction plan.
  No. 4, and most important to us, we have asked them the policy of the 
United States in providing intelligence support to narcotics-producing 
nations, particularly as it relates to providing U.S.-generated radar 
tracking data.
  Madam Chairman, my concern is that our Government, both this 
administration and the past administration, has not conducted an 
evaluation for cost-effectiveness on the whole issue of intelligence 
support in the counter-narcotics effort. The new directive will help, 
at least on paper. We want to see the specifics. It is incumbent upon 
the intelligence community to implement measures of effectiveness for 
both national and tactical problems to do so quickly.
  This would be hurt of the Frank amendment is adopted. For that reason 
I urge its rejection, but I do want to warn this administration and the 
agencies of the intelligence part of our Government, as well as the law 
enforcement part of our Government, that we do expect more 
effectiveness and better coordination in the operation of these 
programs.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 18, 
noes 406, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                                AYES--18

     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Edwards (CA)
     Frank (MA)
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     McDermott
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Penny
     Schroeder
     Synar
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Yates

                               NOES--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     Clyburn
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gallo
     Gutierrez
     Inhofe
     McDade
     Owens
     Pickett
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sisisky
     Stark
     Stokes
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1203

  Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: At the end of Title III 
     (page 5, after line 23), add the following:

     SEC. 303. DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BY MEMBERS OF 
                   CONGRESS

       During the fiscal year 1995, no element of the United 
     States Government for which funds are authorized in this Act 
     may provide any classified information concerning or derived 
     from the intelligence or intelligence related activities of 
     any such element to a Member of the House of Representatives 
     unless and until a copy of the following oath of secrecy has 
     been signed by that Member and has been published in the 
     Congressional Record.
       ``I do solemnly swear that I will not willfully directly or 
     indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any classified 
     information received from any department of the Government 
     funded in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1995 in the course of my duties as a Member of the United 
     States House of Representatives, except pursuant to the Rules 
     and Procedures of the House.''

  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to abbreviate this very quickly 
and then yield to my distinguished friend, the chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But before I do, I just 
want to point out that this is a very simple amendment. We did it last 
year. It passed.
  It merely requires that Members of Congress, the House of 
Representatives, who wish to have access to classified information, 
take an oath that they will not willfully and knowingly disclose 
classified information. It is that simple. We have been over this 
ground.
  I am prepared to yield briefly to the distinguished chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Chairman, almost everyone who is given access to classified 
information must take an oath of secrecy and publicly affirm a 
commitment to keeping privileged information privileged. The notable 
exception, a fact that has perplexed me since I first came to the Hill, 
is Members of Congress. In fact, until recently, Members had to go 
through more channels to have access to information regarding the 
contents of cigarettes than for accessing the most sensitive 
information this country collects. Now we find that some Members, who 
in the past have not seemed overly concerned about protecting 
classified national security-related information, have jumped on board 
an agreement to require that Members seeking access to Whitewater 
investigation papers sign a confidentiality agreement and treat those 
documents as classified information. There is clearly something wrong 
with our priorities if providing cover for the White House is placed on 
a higher level than protecting matters of national security.
  I would certainly hope that these same Members will today support an 
amendment designed to safeguard properly classified documents as well. 
The Goss-Hyde oath of secrecy amendment is simply designed to elevate 
Members' awareness of these points and underscore the importance of 
keeping America's secrets secret. It requires each Member wishing to 
receive transfers of classified information on an ongoing basis to sign 
and submit into the Record an oath that they will not willfully 
disclose classified information. This is so simple, but vitally 
important. When today's classified briefing becomes tomorrow's 
headlines it has far-reaching impact--impeding future efforts at 
information gathering, endangering those who put themselves at risk to 
collect that information, even compromising our national security.
  Last year the Goss-Hyde amendment was adopted by a vote of 341 to 86, 
but only after being given the kiss of death with an amendment by my 
colleague, Mr. Glickman. Mr. Glickman's amendment would go beyond the 
purview of the House to alter the rules of the other body. The Goss-
Hyde amendment deliberately and appropriately leaves rulemaking for the 
other body to its own Members. The Glickman amendment would also expand 
the simple oath of secrecy for House Members into an unworkable, 
unnecessary, and redundant provision for the executive branch. As a 
former executive branch employee, I can say from experience that 
executive branch employees accessing classified information are already 
required to sign disclosures and oaths in the process of receiving such 
material. Additionally, the Glickman language leaves open the question 
of logistics and important questions; like how those individuals in 
sensitive covert executive branch positions could fulfill the 
publishing requirement without blowing their cover.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Goss-Hyde amendment; a simple but 
powerful measure designed to ensure that the responsibility House 
Members take on when they access classified information is at least 
placed on the same higher level as shielding cigarette companies or the 
White House from public embarrassment.
  There is no need for the Glickman poison pill--the other body is 
responsible for its own accountability, obviously.
  There is no excuse to exempt this body of Congress from laws and 
procedures we ask others to follow, especially in matters involving 
national security.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment of course requires before 
a House Member could attain access to classified information he would 
have to sign basically a secrecy oath which would be placed in the 
Congressional Record. The gentleman offered this last year. I amended 
it last year by including the Senate and the executive branch as well. 
The germaneness rules do not allow me to amend the gentleman's 
amendment.
  As the gentleman knows, my amendment was accepted by the House by a 
vote of 262 to 171. So last year the House voted requiring parity 
between executive and legislative branches when it comes to mandating 
an oath of secrecy and publishing the fact that such an oath has been 
executed. I am going to go ahead and accept the gentleman's amendment 
this time because I will then offer a subsequent amendment which will 
cover the Senate and the executive branch, which I understand both the 
gentleman from Florida and my colleague from Texas [Mr. Combest] have 
no objection to.
  Mr. GOSS. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. That will be a separate section in the bill. That will 
do what I want, which is to bring parity so that it will not only be 
the House, but it will be the Senate and the executive branch who are 
covered as well. And based on the understanding that the gentleman does 
not object to that amendment, I accept his amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. That is my understanding.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, ranking 
member on the committee.
  (Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goss 
amendment. The amendment offered by my good friend from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] complements action we took during consideration of the fiscal 
year 1992 Intelligence Authorization Act which led to adoption of a 
House Intelligence Committee rule requiring Members and staff to sign 
an oath of secrecy.
  I believe that this amendment is very appropriate. When a Member 
signs this oath of secrecy, he or she is reminded that they may not 
disclose to any unauthorized person any classified information received 
from any Department or agency of the Government that is funded by this 
bill. This will be a positive step to heighten and acknowledge our 
resolve to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified 
information from the House.
  Will this amendment completely prevent leaks from the House? Probably 
not, but it will ensure that every Member knowingly recognizes that he 
or she is breaking a solemn oath if classified intelligence information 
is disclosed other than in conformity with House rules. This will 
sensitize those who are not members of the Intelligence Committee to be 
careful about discussion of intelligence information raised during 
closed meetings.
  I urge each of my colleagues to support the Goss amendment. It is 
good security and will demonstrate to those in the executive branch who 
provide information to the Congress that we are aware of their 
legitimate concerns that classified intelligence information be 
protected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida.) The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which was printed in 
the Record.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman:
       At the end of title III (page 5, after line 23), add the 
     following:

     SEC. 303. DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BY MEMBERS OF 
                   CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AND 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       During the fiscal year 1995, no element of the United 
     States Government for which funds are authorized in this Act 
     may provide any classified information concerning or derived 
     for the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of 
     such element of a Member of Congress or an officer or 
     employee of the executive branch of the United States 
     Government unless and until a copy of the following oath of 
     secrecy has been signed by the Member, or officer or 
     employee, as the case may be, and has been published, in an 
     appropriate manner, in the Congressional Record:
       ``I do solemnly swear that I will not willfully directly or 
     indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any classified 
     information received from any department of the Government 
     funded in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 
     1995 in the course of my duties as a Member of Congress 
     (except pursuant to the rules and procedures of the 
     appropriate House of the Congress), or as an officer or 
     employee in the executive branch of the Government, as the 
     case may be.''.

     As used in this section, the term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a Member of the Senate or a Representative in, or a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. GLICKMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same language that 
was adopted by the House last year to include both the Senate and the 
executive branch. The amendment which we just passed by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] includes the House. I see no reason why the 
House should take a different position on this issue than it took last 
year. I urge my amendment be adopted.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As 
was indicated, the amendment would certainly be acceptable on this 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 100 
percent wrong in his effort to strip $100 million from the interdiction 
budget of our intelligence agencies.
  I represent the 16th Congressional District of Illinois, which 
includes the city of Rockford. Last year, Rockford gained the 
unfortunate distinction of leading the State of Illinois in per capita 
crime rate. This can be directly laid at the feet of the growth of 
gangs from larger urban areas expanding their territory to smaller and 
medium-size cities such as Rockford in the American heartland. These 
gangs are the tentacles of drug distribution networks that originate to 
a large degree from Latin America. These drugs are killing our 
children. Congress should vehemently oppose any attempt to diminish 
efforts to keep these murderers with their bags full of drugs away from 
our children.
  Last month, the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the 
suspension of counternarcotics intelligence sharing with our friends in 
South America because of a dispute of what these countries might do 
with the information. Some in the Clinton administration believe that 
an U.S. Air Force airman could be sued by someone because he shared 
information with the Columbian or Peruvian military that stopped a 
shipment of drugs leaving their country by air. If that is our biggest 
problem, then we're in good shape.
  Our counternarcotics policy must be an integrated, comprehensive 
strategy. We need drug eradication and interdiction outside our 
borders; tough law enforcement and swift prosecution inside the United 
States, and drug rehabilitation and education. Subtract resources from 
any one of these components and that's like sounding retreat on the 
drug war.
  For all the talk by this administration about fighting crime, the 
President sends mixed signals to Congress. One minute we loudly hear of 
the immediate need for 100,000 cops on the beat. However, the next day 
I read buried in huge budget documents a request to cut the Drug 
Enforcement Agency by nearly $2 million. No new agents have been hired 
since 1992. One of those agents could have been assigned to help 
Rockford with its growing drug problem. Fortunately, the Appropriations 
Committee last month added $22 million to the President's meager 
request, including $5 million for 132 new DEA agents.
  Totaled together, the President's 1995 budget request for 
international antidrug programs is $428 million, which is $96 million 
cut from last year. That's not good. And, now the gentleman from 
Massachusetts wants to cut another $100 million. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this counterproductive amendment.
  Madam Chairman, the drug war has not filed. We haven't really even 
begun to fight. Now is not the time to withdraw from the battle. It is 
time to give the DEA, the intelligence agencies, and our friends in 
counternarcotics operations in Latin America the support they need to 
complete the job. You can't fight a war without good intelligence. Let 
us fight the war on all fronts both at home and abroad. Oppose the 
Frank amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Torres) having assumed the chair, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 468, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1210

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. 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 410, 
nays 16, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               YEAS--410

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--16

     Brown (CA)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Frank (MA)
     Hamburg
     Johnston
     Minge
     Owens
     Penny
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Gallo
     Kingston
     McDade
     Moorhead
     Pickett
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sisisky
     Washington

                              {time}  1243

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________