[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4299, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 555

       Resolved, That all points of order against the conference 
     report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the United States 
     Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for 
     other purposes, and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary one-half hour to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 555 is the rule 
providing for the consideration of conference report on H.R. 4299, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The request of the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee for the waivers of points of order that might 
lie against the conference report, was agreed to by the ranking 
minority member, and appear to have widespread bipartisan support.
  For my colleagues' information, the waivers deal almost entirely with 
matters of scope. No waiver of the 3-day layover rule, which is often 
so controversial, was required since the conference report was filed in 
time to comply with the layover rule.
  The conference report does contain several provisions which exceed 
the scope of the conference. The chairman testified that all of these 
provisions were included to respond to events which occurred after the 
House and Senate bills had either been reported or passed.
  For example, section 504 limits the reach of a section in the 1995 
defense authorization act for fiscal year 1995 which, is not addressed, 
would undermine the National Security Act's requirement that spending 
on intelligence programs be specifically authorized.
  Section 602 responds to the controversy surrounding the National 
Reconnaissance Office's headquarters facility by establishing a 
requirement to clearly delineate intelligence community construction 
projects with a cost in excess of $750,000.
  In addition, the conference report contains an authorization, 
contained in the classified schedule of authorizations, for an arms 
control treaty monitoring activity which the administration did not 
request until last month.
  The chairman testified that these provisions, and other out-of-scope 
items adopted in conference, address important issues that the 
conferees felt could not wait to be included in the fiscal year 1996 
authorization bill. If the House is to consider these matters this 
year, the points of order that would otherwise lie against them must be 
waived.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report of H.R. 4299, authorizes funds for 
all the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United 
States for the coming fiscal year. It also provides legislative 
authorities for the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities which are 
regularly found in an intelligence authorization bill.
  The authorization levels in the conference report are classified, but 
they have been available for review by Members. The amount authorized 
is approximately 2 percent less than the President's budget request, 
and 2 percent less than last year's appropriated level.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains several important provisions, some of 
which are in response to the Aldrich Ames espionage case which has 
caused--and I might add, continues to be responsible for--so much 
concern to all of us who are interested in the successful operation of 
our intelligence community.
  Chief among the provisions approved by the conference committee in 
response to the Ames case is one strengthening the role of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation in counterintelligence activities.
  I commend the committee for the persistence it has shown in dealing 
with this serious case and for including in this legislation some of 
the safeguards that must be taken to ensure that this not occur again.
  The bill also recognizes the necessity for the entire intelligence 
community to adjust to the post-cold-war era. It is obvious that the 
intelligence agencies need to reexamine their overall roles and 
missions in this new world, and the conferees have given the agencies 
guidance in this respect.
  Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Committee is also to be commended for 
attempting to make the intelligence budget reflect the reality of a 
world significantly changed from a national security standpoint, while 
ensuring that the United States maintains the ability to provide timely 
and reliable intelligence to its policymakers and military commanders.
  The committee is bringing the intelligence budget down, but in a 
measured way which preserves essential capabilities and encourages 
investment in the collection and processing systems which will be 
needed in the future. Personnel rolls are being trimmed as well and, as 
a result of actions mandated by Congress 2 years ago, by the end of 
fiscal year 1997, employment levels will be a least 17.5 percent less 
than they were in fiscal year 1992.
  Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, the world clearly remains an 
unpredictable and dangerous place. There is a need for effective 
intelligence, especially in light of the worldwide reduction of U.S. 
military personnel.
  The conference report also requires the intelligence agencies to 
review their operations, another step which is important in responding 
to the Ames case and all the events that allowed that case to reach the 
stage it did.
  Spending throughout the national security establishment has been 
reduced in recent years, and intelligence has been no exception. This 
was inevitable given the significant changes which have occurred in the 
world. It is the Intelligence Committee's judgment that neither the 
reductions made in past years, nor those contained in this year's bill, 
will hinder the ability of the intelligence agencies to respond to 
essential intelligence requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, and I urge my colleagues to approve 
it so that we may proceed with consideration of this important 
conference report today.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is quite straightforward--in fact, 
as we work our way through the myriad of conference reports in these 
closing days of the 103d session, Members should be getting used to 
seeing such blanket waivers of points of order. Although it is 
understandable that technical waivers of scope and germaneness may be 
necessary to ease consideration of these mammoth bills, I do believe it 
is worthwhile to proceed with the exercise of specifying exactly which 
waivers are necessary on each conference report and for what reason. 
Again I wish to remind my colleagues that we generally get in trouble 
around here when, in a rush to move a bill through, we waive the rules, 
expedite consideration and end up voting on legislation containing 
unexpected surprises. I daresay the folks at Lamar University in Texas 
are still smarting over the spate of undeserved negative publicity that 
was generated by one such ``surprise'' item inserted into the recent 
crime bill conference report, that did for Lamar University what the 
Edsel did for the Ford Motor Co.
  For that reason, I was very glad that Chairman Glickman and ranking 
member Combest were able to complete work on the intelligence 
authorization conference report in concert with the House schedule to 
allow Members the customary 3 days' time to review this important bill 
before today's vote. For the record, I commend Chairman Glickman and 
ranking member Combest for coming to the Rules Committee fully prepared 
to discuss the specific rules waivers needed and the reasons for those 
waivers. I certainly hope this trend will continue and expand to all 
committee chairmen in the 104th Congress.

  Regarding the underlying conference report for H.R. 4299, I 
understand the difficult choices the members of the committee had to 
make in a somewhat hostile environment of public and official scrutiny 
and media malevolence toward our Nation's intelligence programs. I 
remain concerned about the ongoing efforts to scale back--some might 
even say cripple--our intelligence capabilities by those who harbor the 
misguided view that somehow the threat to United States security and 
world stability has disappeared with the Soviet Union. Clearly, that is 
not the case--but just as clearly our policymakers have, it seems, and 
the Clinton Administration in particular, have not made a strong enough 
case to the American people and those in control of the purse strings 
regarding the enormous contribution and continued need for accurate, 
timely, and effective intelligence. I am pleased that this bill 
provides for a new Commission to review our Nation's intelligence 
capabilities, a review that should highlight the continuing importance 
of quality intelligence operations. But I hope that effort will be a 
cooperative mission to generate productive reforms for the CIA and 
other intelligence components and, not a slash-and-burn attempt to 
further weaken our intelligence capabilities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let 
me express my disappointment that, despite the hard work and support of 
ranking member Combest, a provision that had been added to the House 
bill requiring Members of Congress to sign an oath of secrecy and be 
held accountable for their treatment of classified material, was once 
again deleted by the conference. I remain absolutely convinced that 
Members of Congress need to raise their awareness of the responsibility 
they hold when they seek access to classified material, and I view a 
simple secrecy oath as a painless but effective means to accomplish 
that goal. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat my 
congratulations to the chairman and ranking member for their hard work 
and express my support for this rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion and to repeat, this rule waives all points 
of order against the conference report on the authorization bill and 
against its consideration. I remind my colleagues that these waivers 
were fully supported by the ranking minority member of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and received unanimous approval of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to take this time to congratulate my 
good friend and colleague the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman], the 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the ranking minority member, for 
their excellent work on issues that are extremely important and often 
very difficult to deal with. They have again brought us a good piece of 
legislation. I again urge my colleagues to vote for the rule so that we 
may consider the conference report on the bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 555, I call 
up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Watt). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday September 27, 1994, at page H9883.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Combest] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislation.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 4299, the intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995. 
This legislation addresses many significant issues, particularly those 
raised in the wake of the arrest and conviction of Aldrich Ames, the 
most notorious spy in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency. 
Passage of this legislation should enhance U.S. counterintelligence 
capabilities and deter espionage in the future. I want to quickly 
highlight some of the matters that were not found in the House-passed 
bill.
  First, the conference agreement requires the President to establish 
uniform, minimum standards to govern access to classified information 
by employees of the executive branch. As one of the requirements of 
receiving access, employees will be required to consent to allow the 
disclosure, under certain circumstances of certain financial credit and 
travel records, to authorized investigative agencies, during background 
investigations, while the employee is granted access to classified 
information, and for 3 years thereafter.
  Investigative agencies may request these records when there are 
reasonable grounds to believe, based on credible information, that the 
individual is disclosing classified information in an unauthorized 
manner to a foreign power, when there is credible information of 
unexplained affluence or excessive indebtedness, or when circumstances 
indicate the individual had the capability and opportunity to disclose 
classified information known to have been lost or compromised to a 
foreign power.
  A second major provision of the conference agreement requires the 
executive branch to bring physical searches conducted for intelligence 
purposes under the court order procedure of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance act. Currently, these searches are undertaken only on the 
basis of Attorney General approval, without judicial review of any 
kind. Although an argument can be made that these national security 
searches are constitutional, there is no authoritative Supreme Court 
decision on the question. Had the Ames case gone to trial, the legality 
of the searches of his home, authorized by the Attorney General but 
without a judicial warrant, certainly would have been litigated. If the 
searches were found to have been illegal, it is likely the entire 
prosecution would have been thwarted, and Aldrich Ames would have 
walked away free. There was thus broad--although not universal--support 
for taking action on this legislation, requested by the administration, 
to ensure better judicial and congressional oversight of these 
searches.
  The conferees took steps to improve the Senate version of the 
physical search legislation, particularly with respect to searches of 
the residences of U.S. persons. The conferees agreed that the Attorney 
General, as part of an application for a court order, should state what 
investigative techniques had been previously utilized to acquire the 
foreign intelligence information concerned. In addition, the conferees 
provided authority for the court to release more information to the 
subject of a search during court proceedings challenging the legality 
of the search. Furthermore, the conferees directed the Attorney general 
to give notice of a search to its subject if at any time after the 
search the Attorney General determines there is no national security 
interest in continuing to maintain its secrecy.
  A third major provision of the conference report addresses the 
problems of coordination of counterintelligence activities which has 
had a long and sorry history. The agreement requires the establishment 
of a counterintelligence policy board to develop policies and 
procedures for the approval of the President on the conduct of 
counterintelligence activities. The provision requires the heads of 
Federal departments and agencies to report, immediately to the Federal 
bureau of Investigation any information, regardless of its origin, that 
indicates classified information may have been disclosed in an 
unauthorized fashion to a foreign power. The efforts the President has 
made to improve the workings of the bureaucracy, and this provision in 
law, should ensure these coordination problems do not persist in the 
future.
  Additionally, the conference report repeals the limitation on U.S. 
intelligence cooperation with the government of South Africa. Although 
this provision was not included in the House bill, it was the subject 
of a hearing before my Subcommittee on Legislation. The conferees were 
convinced that the repeal was appropriate now that the people of South 
Africa have freely elected a new government.
  Finally, the conference agreement requires the establishment of a 17-
member commission to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the roles 
and capabilities of the intelligence community in the post-cold-war 
global environment. The charter for this commission is far-reaching, 
and its conclusions could be extremely useful in setting intelligence 
policy for the next century.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the conference agreement does not include 
the provision which would have established in statute the offices of 
the inspectors general at the defense Intelligence Agency and the 
National security Agency. I believe our legislation would have improved 
the effectiveness of these offices to a considerable degree, but 
concerns raised by the Department of Defense led the conferees to put 
the provision aside. Certainly, this issue should be addressed again 
next year so that these inspectors general have the tools they need to 
perform their mission.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a good agreement, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Evaluation.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to place in the Record two documents 
that give an accurate picture regarding the NRO Westfield Facility. The 
first document details what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
[SSCI] knew and when they knew it. It is clear that the SSCI not only 
supported the reorganization but actually added $30 million to 
accelerate the project. Senators and staff, some whom are still serving 
on the committee, were given detailed briefings about the NRO project 
by top NRO officials, including the director of the NRO, Martin Faga.
  I am disappointed by the current SSCI leadership in their efforts to 
create the impression that they knew little or nothing about this 
project.
  I also am including a statement by the Director of Central 
Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Joint Statement Issued by the Director of Central Intelligence and the 
            Deputy Secretary of Defense, September 29, 1994

       On August 8, 1994, the Director of Central Intelligence and 
     the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced the formation of a 
     team to review the history of the National Reconnaissance 
     Office (NRO) headquarters construction project, the 
     information provided to Congress during the course of the 
     project, and ways to ensure completion in as cost-effective 
     manner as possible. Named to co-chair the review team were 
     Assistant Secretary of the Navy Nora Slatkin and Central 
     Intelligence Agency Principal Deputy General Counsel John R. 
     Byerly.
       Ms. Slatkin and Mr. Byerly have now briefed the Director of 
     Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 
     the team's principal findings and recommendations. A written 
     report is being prepared and will be submitted shortly.
       The results of the review are as follows:
       The team found no intent to mislead Congress.
       The oversight Committees approved the reorganization of the 
     National Reconnaissance Office, specifically authorizing $30 
     million in additional funds for this purpose as early as 
     1989. They also approved the purchase of property in Fairfax 
     County, Virginia, and the startup of building construction.
       The National Reconnaissance Office failed to follow 
     Intelligence Community guidelines for presenting new 
     initiatives in its Congressional Budget Justification Books.
       In response to Congressional requests, the National 
     Reconnaissance Office provided cost data on the project. But, 
     the data were not presented in a consistent fashion and did 
     not include the same level of detail as comparable military 
     construction requests.
       The NRO was responsive to Congressional requests for other 
     information and provided details on site selection, 
     commercial cover to protect NRO's classified status, and 
     overall facilities design.
       The Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense have approved the review team's 
     recommendation that, in consultation with the Congress, the 
     National Reconnaissance office should ensure that future 
     budget submissions conform to Intelligence Community 
     guidelines and meet Congressional needs.
       The review team round that the construction costs per 
     square foot for the headquarters facility are reasonable 
     based on comparable military facilities and that the National 
     Reconnaissance Office's streamlined execution of the project 
     is working well.
       The team determined that, when judged by General Services 
     Administration standards, the headquarters facility will be 
     underutilized when completed and can house at least 500 and 
     as many as 1,000 persons in addition to the approximately 
     2,900 NRO personnel currently planned. The team concluded 
     that this underutilization was the result of faulty initial 
     assumption about space requirements and was perpetuated by 
     the absence of further internal or an external review.
       Consistent with the team's recommendations, the Director of 
     Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have 
     instructed the Director of the National Reconnaissance 
     Office, working with the Intelligence Community Management 
     Staff, to present to the Director of Central Intelligence for 
     approval a plan for accommodating between 500 and 750 
     additional personnel in the facility, which is scheduled for 
     occupancy in January 1996. This number of additional 
     personnel would bring the building within the normal 
     occupancy range for GSA buildings in the National Capital 
     Region, and requires no significant change in construction.
       For major NRO infrastructure construction projects in the 
     future, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense will name appropriate representatives to 
     review and validate the facility requirements from the outset 
     and at each major milestone.
       The review team concluded that declassification of the 
     NRO's ownership and use of the facility will permit 
     significant tax savings because United States Government 
     facilities are not subject to state and local taxation.
       The team determined, and the NRO agreed, that the NRO's 
     budget for furniture and support equipment could be reduced 
     by at least $8 million. In addition, the team identified $6 
     million in the budget for communications-related items that 
     need further review. As recommended by the team, the Director 
     of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
     have instructed the Director of the NRO to conduct a review 
     before expending funds for these items.
       Source: Senate Supplement to Report No. 101-78.
       Date: 1989.
       Content: NRO Reorganization (FY90 $+30.0M; * * *) * * *
       The Committee believes that the best approach to insuring a 
     robust national reconnaissance program is to reorganize the 
     NRO in a way which facilitates greater communication, cross-
     system and cross-program fertilization, and common security, 
     support, and administrative practices. Thus, the Committee 
     directs that, unless an Alternative plan approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense and the DCI is submitted prior to 
     November 1, 1989, the NRO begin, no later than November 1, 
     1989, a reorganization according to the plan outlined in a 
     letter to the Intelligence Committee dated November 21, 1988 
     by then Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.* * 
     *
       (2) collocation of remaining activities in a central 
     facility in the Washington, D.C. area; and * * *
       * * * the Aldridge Plan * * * Ultimately, circa 1991-1992, 
     the plan called for the collocation of the CIA, Air Force, 
     and Navy program offices in a new facility in Northern 
     Virginia. The Committee believes these goals and the 
     timetable are realistic. Moreover, additional realignment of 
     program office functions are made feasible by the collocation 
     and should be pursued. * * *
       Accordingly, the Committee directs that all activities of 
     the various program offices be collocated according to the 
     1991-1992 timetable unless the Director, NRO decides, based 
     on compelling reasons, that certain sub-elements of the three 
     program offices should not collocate. In such a case, the 
     Director sho7uld notify the Intelligence Committees of his 
     decision and describe his rationale for it. * * *
       The Committee authorizes an additional $30.0 million in 
     FY1990 and $27.0 million in FY1991 in the NRP for the 
     reorganization.
       Source: FY 1990 Intelligence Authorization Act * * * 
     Committee of Conference.
       Date: 1989.
       Content: * * * After conducting its own review, the Senate 
     reached a similar conclusion and added $30,0 million in 
     fiscal year 1990 to provide for reorganization activities. 
     The Senate bill also required that a reorganization plan be 
     provided by November 1, 1989.
       The conferees agreed to authorize $30.0 million for 
     reorganization activities including planning, contract 
     support, * * * and modification, equipment and furniture, 
     etc. * * *
       Source: FY 1990 Appropriations Conference Classified Annex
       Date: November 27, 1989
       Content: The conferees agree, subject to the authorization 
     process, to provide $30,000,000 for certain facilities costs 
     associated with the NRO reorganization. * * *
       Source: Joint Letter from the DCI and the SECDEF to: The 
     Honorable David L. Boren, Chairman, Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
       Date: 26 February 1990
       Content: In our July 3, 1989 letter regarding the NRO 
     restructure we stated our intent to: * * * *
       a. Implement a NRO headquarters collocation that will 
     include the DNRO, his deputies, their staff support, 
     management elements from the three Program Offices, and 
     appropriate centralized support functions in order to 
     facilitate a more integrated organizational approach to 
     accomplishment of the * * * mission.
       We endorse the DNRO's decision not to pursue further 
     collocation at this time. * * * However, we do believe, as he 
     does, that it is important that we continue to protect the 
     option to implement additional collocation initiatives if 
     required. The DNRO's facility acquisition strategy will 
     support this objective. * * *
                                               William H. Webster,
                                 Director of Central Intelligence.
                                                Richard B. Cheney,
                                             Secretary of Defense.
       Attachment.


                            NRO RESTRUCTURE

       In order to provide the required facilities in as timely a 
     manner as possible and to maintain the flexibility to 
     implement the full range of potential restructure 
     alternatives, a phased, incremental facility strategy has 
     been adopted.
       I have decided to protect for a least-total-cost 
     acquisition strategy for the permanent facility which 
     involved the purchase of both the land and the buildings 
     required. This approach has the highest near-year costs but 
     it provides the greatest flexibility regarding additional 
     collocation decisions and, in a budgetary sense, protects for 
     any other approach.
     C. Funding

                          Facilities permanent

Fiscal year:
  1991............................................................$31.9
  1992.............................................................70.1
  1993.............................................................44.4
  1994.............................................................19.8
  1995.............................................................29.2
                                                               ________

    Total.........................................................195.4

       Source: Excerpt from FY 1991 Congressional Budget 
     Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate 
     authorization and appropriations committees.
       Date: Early 1990.
       Content: This element of the Mission Support expenditure 
     center includes the facilities required in the NRO 
     reorganization. * * *
       The MRO is using a phased incremental facility strategy as 
     part of its overall restructure process. The facilities 
     include a *  *  * permanent facility. The NRO plans to 
     acquire the permanent facility to accommodate all functions *  
     *  * and other NRO activities as directed by the DNRO. 
     Financial figures in the Report on the NRO restructure 
     protect the option to acquire the land to support a total 
     collocation and a building sized for less than total 
     collocation.  *  *  *
       Source: Letter to David L. Boren, Chairman, Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence from DNRO, Faga.
       Date: September 17, 1990.
       Content: This letter provides formal notification of the 
     National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) intent to purchase a 
     parcel of land in support of the permanent facility 
     collocation activities of the NRO restructure efforts. This 
     action is consistent with our overall facility strategy and 
     the NRO Restructure Report published in January 1990.
       The third phase of the facility support plan, the subject 
     of this letter, involves the acquisition of property and 
     facilities that provide a permanent solution for our 
     collocation activities. Our intent is to be able to 
     accommodate, in the permanent facilities, all the activities 
     previously located.* * * In addition, the permanent facility 
     site will allow for additional collocation up to and 
     including all of the NRO and some of our supporting 
     contractors.* * *
       * * * The actual land purchase agreement will be executed 
     between the land owner and our facility support contractor. 
     Title to the property will be notionally held in the name of 
     our facility support contractor, thus supporting our cover 
     and security.* * * This will then be converted to pass-
     through arrangement between the facility support contractor 
     and the United States Government. A similar arrangement will 
     be used during the building construction phase. There will be 
     no G&A or fee markup on the pass-through contracts * * *
       * * * Size of the parcel: The size of the parcel in 
     approximately 68 acres.
       * * * The current master plan provides for the development 
     of approximately 1.3 million square feet on the site. The 
     purchase agreement allows us to develop slightly less than 
     1.5 million square feet.* * * The master plan has been 
     structured by definition as a three-phase development 
     program. Phase one provides for the construction of 
     approximately 500,000 square feet.* * * Phase two would add 
     an additional 400,000 square feet. Phase three would provide 
     an additional 400,000 square feet. Flexibility is inherent in 
     the master plan to allow phase two and three to be sized 
     differently as the need arises. We plan to proceed with phase 
     one construction only at this time. Phase two and three 
     protect the option for additional collocation, up to, and, 
     including a total collocation.
       Source: Department of Defense Appropriation Bill, 1991.
       Date: October 9, 1990
       Content: * * * Furthermore, in order to support the 
     permanent restructure of the NRO, the Committee authorizes 
     the NRO to continue to contract directly for its facility 
     activities including planning, contract support, * * * 
     modification, land and building acquisition and equipment. 
     Land and facility acquisition will remain subject to the 
     prior approval of the appropriate Congressional committees. 
     The permanent facility site should provide for expansion 
     capability to accommodate additional collocated activities as 
     required.
       Source: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1991.
       Date: 1991.
       Content: Furthermore, to support the permanent 
     restructuring of the NRO, the conferees agreed to authorize 
     the NRO to continue to contract directly for its facility 
     activities including planning, contract support, * * *,  
     modification, land and building acquisition, and equipment. 
     Land and facility acquisition will remain subject to the 
     prior approval of the appropriate Congressional committees. 
     The permanent facility site should provide for expansion 
     capability to accommodate additional collocated activities as 
     required.
       Source: Excerpts from the FY 1992-1993 Congressional Budget 
     Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate 
     authorization and appropriation committees.
       Date: Early 1991.
       Content: * * * center includes the facilities required in 
     the NRO reorganization * * *
       The NRO is using a phased strategy for the facility 
     restructure process. The facilities include a * * * final 
     facility * * *
       The NRO is using a phased strategy for the facility 
     restructure process. The facilities include a * * * final 
     facility * * * In FY 1991, the NRO acquired the land for the 
     final facility, as well as collocation of some program 
     offices although the the parcel of land is sized to protect 
     the option of a total collocation if required. This budget 
     submission only includes funding for a less than full 
     collocation approach.
       Source: Excerpts from the FY 1993 Congressional Budget 
     Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate 
     authorization and appropriation committees.
       Date: Early 1992.
       Content: The NRO is using a phased strategy for the 
     facility restructure process. The facilities include a * * * 
     final facility. * * * In FY 1991, the NRO acquired a parcel 
     of land sufficient to protect for the option of full 
     collection. The final NRO facility headquarters will be 
     located in western Fairfax, Virginia on approximately 70 
     acres. The facility master plan allows for a six building 
     complex, structured parking, emergency generator building, 
     warehouse, conference facility, and cafeteria. The current 
     construction plan and budget provide for three buildings to 
     accommodate all functions currently located at * * * well as 
     collocation of some program office elements; general site 
     development; site security; and the basic infrastructure 
     support aditional buildings. The site development phase, 
     begun in FY 1991, included clearing and grading, roads, site 
     utility installation, parking structures and building 
     foundation. The building core and shell construction is 
     scheduled to begin in summer 1992. Building fit-up will 
     commence in summer 1993 with building activation, equipment 
     installation and testing scheduled for early 1995 leading to 
     occupancy in late 1995. The total construction is 
     approximately 800,000 gross square feet.
       Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Question 
     for the Record, Fiscal Year 1993.
       Date: May 19, 1992.
       Content: Question 3. Please provide a budget breakout for 
     NRO facilities contruction for each year FY93-FY95. Please 
     indicate the number of people who will occupy the new 
     facility in FY95, and the savings that will be achieved as 
     NRO elements vacate other facilities.
       Answer: The FY 1993 CBJB contains the following for the 
     permanent facility development Activities:

Fiscal year:
  1993............................................................$80.0
  1994.............................................................80.9
  1995.............................................................65.7
                                                               ________

    Total.........................................................227.4

       This FY 1993 budget provides for construction, outfitting, 
     operations and maintenance of three permanent buildings. It 
     also provides for general site development of the NRO 
     Facilities compound, site security, structured parking, and 
     an emergency generator building, warehouse, conference center 
     and cafeteria.
       The current three-building plan is designed to accommodate 
     approximately 1700 people * * *.
       Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Question 
     for the Record, Fiscal Year 1993 CBJB.
       Date: May 19, 1992.
       Content: QUESTION 4. What are the costs in FY 93 and FY 93-
     97 to accelerate construction plans sufficient to provide for 
     full collocation of Program A and Program B at the western 
     Fairfax facility?
       ANSWER: The additional cost for full collocation of the NRO 
     into the western Fairfax facility in accordance with the 
     approved site plan is as follows:

Fiscal year:
  1993............................................................$59.5
  1994.............................................................74.9
  1995.............................................................41.1
  1996.............................................................27.2
  1997.............................................................25.3
                                                               ________

    Total.........................................................228.0

       These costs provide for the additional design, site work, 
     utilities, parking, construction, security, commo, 
     operations, and maintenance associated with the addition of 
     the fourth building at our permanent facility. This will 
     allow us to achieve full collocation of the NRO * * * We are 
     preparing a FY 1992 reprogramming request for your approval 
     so that we may proceed in an expeditious fashion.
       Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--Question 
     on the Collocation Project.
       Date: 29 May 1992.
       Content: What is the FY92 and FY93 budget for the permanent 
     facility and what is the cost to complete of the permanent 
     facility?
       The current budget for the permanent facility development 
     activities is as follows:

Fiscal year:
  1992............................................................$81.6
  1993.............................................................80.8
  1994.............................................................80.9
  1995.............................................................65.7

       Source: Letter to The Honorable David Boren, Chairman 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from D/NRO Faga.
       Date: October 16, 1992.
       Content: I am writing to request approval to reallocate $22 
     million of FY 1992 * * * funds within the National 
     Reconnaissance Program (NRP) * * *
       The panel recommends reorganization into several 
     directorates, * * * and collocation of major NRO elements as 
     expeditiously as possible. This recommendation was approved 
     by the DCI, the Secretary of Defense, and the President.
       Our Congressional Oversight Committees have been 
     encouraging collocation for several years and the FY 1993 
     Appropriations Conference report specifically permits us to 
     proceed. * * *
       The $22 million will be used for design and construction 
     activities related to increasing the size of the permanent 
     facility, approved by Congress in FY 1991 * * *
                                                   Martin C. Faga.
       Source: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1993 for 
     Intelligence.
       Date: 1992.
       Collocation in the National Capitol Region: The conferees 
     agree that the NRO may proceed with the collocation of the 
     NRO program offices in the National Capitol Region.
       Source: Briefing provided to Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence Staff Members.
       Date: 10 November 1992.
     Benefits
     Strengths Technical Capability of Organization
     Improves Decision Making
     Facilitates Functional Organization Structure
     Allows Merging of Similar Functions--Minimize Redundancy
     Promotes Closer, More Active, Interfaces with Customers
     Improves Ability to Develop More Integrated * * * 
         Architecture
     Modified Plan--Total NRO collocation by 1993
     * * * Panel Recommendation--Supported by SECDEF and DCI
     Initiate Option for Additional Space at Westfields * * *


                          wf current baseline

     4 Six story office buildings
     Conference Center
     Cafeteria
     Emergency generator building
     2 Guard houses
     Approximately 1 million sq ft


                             rough grading

     Cost--975K
     Schedule--1991
     Cleared site
     Install storm drainage system and retention ponds
     Fenced the site
     Rough excavation


                            site development

     Cost--22.4 M
     Schedule 8/91-6/91
     Building parking garages
     Road construction
     Site utilities
     Foundations for tower 1 & 2


                             core and shell

     Cost--87.7 M
     Schedule--8/92-9/94
     Tower 3 and 4 foundation and conference center
     Tower 1-4 base building construction (exterior shell, roof, 
         unfinished floors)
     Central plant (elec and HVAC)
     Back-up generator building
     Toilets, elevators, stairs, mechanical rooms, plumbing, 
         electrical, vertical HVAC, light fixtures, doors, fire 
         alarms, and energy management system


                 wf cost (cost per sq ft--1,063,000 ft)

     Core and Shell (C&S)--$82.50
     C&S and site development--$103.57
     +Rough grading--$104.49
     +Land--$127.09
     +F/U--$175.16


                            facility budget

     Westfields--Design/construction and support

                         Total facility budget

1993.............................................................$114.3
1994..............................................................187.0
1995..............................................................138.3
1996..............................................................108.3
1997..............................................................100.3
Includes $22.0M reallocation.

       Source: Letter to DNRO Faga from David L. Boren, Chairman 
     and Frank H. Murkowski, Vice Chairman, SSCI.
       Date: November 13, 1992.
       Content: This letter is in response to your October 16, 
     1992 request to reallocate $22 million of fiscal year 1993 * 
     * * to accelerate the NRO's consolidation plan.
       The Committee does not object to the expenditure of funds 
     for the purpose specified. * * *
       Source: Excerpts from the FY 1994-1995 Congressional Budget 
     Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate 
     authorization and appropriation committees.
       Date: Early 1993.
       Content: * * * includes the facilities to support the NRO 
     reorganization. * * *
       The Restructure Plan approved by the SECDEF and DCI 
     collocates most of the NRO to a single location as soon as 
     possible. * * * Full collocation will be supported with the 
     occupancy of the NRO Westfields facility in 1996 * * * final 
     NRO facility headquarters will be located in western Fairfax, 
     Virginia on approximately 70 acres * * * The current 
     construction plan and budget provide for four buildings to 
     accommodate all functions currently located * * * general 
     site development, site security, and the basic infrastructure 
     support for additional buildings. * * * The total 
     construction is approximately 1,000,000 gross square feet.
       Source: Excerpts from the FY 95 Congressional Budget 
     Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate 
     authorization and appropriation committees.
       Date: Early 1994.
       Content: This element of the Mission Support expenditure 
     center includes the facilities * * *
       The Restructure Plan approved by the SecDef and the DCI 
     collocated most of the NRO to the East Coast as soon as 
     possible. Full collocation will be supported with the 
     occupany of the NRO Westfields facility in 1966 * * * The 
     final NRO facility headquarters will be located in western 
     Fairfax County, Virginia on approximately 70 acres * * *
       The current construction plan and budget provide for four 
     buildings to accommodate all functions currently located at * 
     * * general site development, site security, and the basic 
     infrastructure support for additional buildings * * *
       Significant progress has been made in our efforts to 
     reorganize into an integrated functional organization. * * *
       Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
       Date: 10 August 1994.
       Content: * * * I was pleased to read in the draft SSCI 
     audit report that the NRO had never failed or refused to 
     answer when asked questions about the Westfields facility, 
     and I wholeheartedly concur with the audit report's 
     observation that communication is a dual sided issue and both 
     parties have an inherent responsibility to the other * * *
       Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
       Date: 10 August 1994.
       Content: * * * We were reassured when the draft SSCI audit 
     report concluded that the Westfields project costs per square 
     foot, in constant FY 1996 dollars, will cost about the same 
     as other comparable Intelligence Community construction 
     projects which have been completed over the past decade * * *
       Source: Code of Federal Regulations 41, Chapter 101.
       Date: Revised as of July 1, 1993.
       Content: * * * Primary office area is the personnel-
     occupied area in which an activity's normal operational 
     functions are performed * * *
       The 125 square feet represents the amount of space occupied 
     by employees housed in GSA office space * * *
       Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
       Date: 10 August 1994.
       Content: * * * With regard to the size, the Westfields 
     complex will provide 133 square feet per person, based on our 
     current estimate of the personnel occupancy. This is only 
     slightly higher--6%--than the General Services Administration 
     (GSA) guideline of 125 square feet per person. With the 
     possible addition of 200 people, we would be at or below the 
     GSA guideline.

  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 4299, 
the fiscal year 1995 intelligence authorization bill. The conference 
report and statement of conference managers which are before the 
Members do not tell the whole story on this legislation. The funding 
levels agreed to in the conference are set forth in a classified 
schedule of authorizations which is incorporated by reference in the 
conference report. A classified annex to the statement of managers 
describes the classified schedule in detail. These classified documents 
are available for review by Members in the offices of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  The version of this legislation adopted by the House in July was 
about 2.4 percent below the President's budget request and a similar 
amount below the fiscal year 1994 appropriated level. The Senate's 
reductions were smaller. In conference we moved in the direction of the 
Senate, but only modestly. The conference report is still 2 percent 
below both the budget request and the total amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1994.
  I believe this result accurately reflects a judgment by a majority of 
the House Intelligence Committee that, while we need to keep pressure 
on the intelligence agencies to reduce spending, we need to do so in a 
way that does not jeopardize the ability of those agencies to perform 
their critical missions in addressing threats posed by international 
terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and those who would make weapons of 
mass destruction more readily available. I do not believe that any 
budgetary action recommended by the conferees will have a negative 
impact on any essential capability within the intelligence community. 
In fact, speaking now only for myself, I believe we could have made 
more significant cuts in some areas without affecting essential 
capabilities, but that is an argument for another day.
  I have frequently compared intelligence to an insurance policy. 
Neither administration since the end of the cold war has clearly 
articulated how much coverage is necessary under that policy and why. 
As a result, Congress has focused largely on the premiums, with a 
general sense that they were too high but with a reluctance to trim 
them too much without being certain of the consequences. This has been 
a frustrating process and one which I do not believe is sustainable for 
much longer. It is for that reason that I supported the inclusion in 
the conference report of a provision establishing a commission to 
conduct a bottom-up review of intelligence. Such a review is 
desperately needed, in fact, it is several years overdue. No 
organization can function effectively if it is unsure of what it is 
supposed to be doing and how it fits within the larger structure of 
which it is a part. The intelligence community needs well-defined roles 
and missions for the post-cold-war world, and I have concluded that 
they are going to have to be imposed from outside rather than adopted 
from within. The committee will continue to do what it can in this 
regard, but we will welcome the assistance of those who will serve on 
the commission.
  While Mr. Coleman, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Legislation, 
will explain the legislative provisions of the bill in detail, there 
are several on which I want to comment.
  The committee has operated for most of this year against the backdrop 
of the unfolding Ames espionage case. On September 28, we met with the 
Director of Central Intelligence and the inspector general of the 
Central Intelligence Agency to discuss the inspector general's report 
on the CIA's handling of the case. The report provides a thorough and 
critical analysis of this affair and I want to compliment Inspector 
General Hitz and his staff for a very effective job. The report, 
however, only confirmed what most of us had already concluded: the Ames 
case was an unqualified disaster. The full extent of the damage done by 
Ames' spying will not be known for some time, if ever, but it was 
clearly on an unprecedented scale.
  The committee has reviewed the report and I expect we will be meeting 
again with the inspector general to discuss it in more detail. We have 
our own inquiry underway, however, and while we will make full use of 
the work of the inspector general, we will be reaching our own 
conclusions and will have our own recommendations to make about the 
responses we consider appropriate to the institutional deficiencies 
which exist or the individual failures which occurred.
  The conference report contains a number of provisions which 
constitute a legislative response to the Ames case. Most are designed 
to deter people from committing espionage or make it easier to catch 
them if they do. Chief among these is section 802 which will require 
executive branch employees, in exchange for being granted access to 
classified information, to consent to the disclosure of their records 
held by financial institutions, credit bureaus, and commercial travel 
entities to their employing agencies or authorized investigative 
agencies.
  I support all of the counterintelligence provisions in the conference 
report, but I do not believe that any of them would have been necessary 
to short-circuit the espionage career of Aldrich Ames. That could have 
been done if managers at the CIA had been sufficiently attentive to 
numerous warning signs not only about Ames' financial status, but about 
his problems as an employee. Legislation was not necessary to prevent 
Mr. Ames from being placed in jobs which were perfect places from which 
to conduct espionage, even after he was rated as, at best, a below 
average employee. The failures in the Ames case were not the result of 
a lack of legislation. They were the result of grievous mistakes made 
by a number of individuals at the CIA, and I believe that the 
conclusion is inescapable that Ames flourished as a spy as a result.
  I expect that the report based on the committee's inquiry will make 
some judgments about whether the right people were disciplined for 
those mistakes and whether the discipline was commensurate with the 
gravity of their conduct. If there has been for too long a business as 
usual attitude at the CIA, and I believe there has been, it is 
imperative that the disposition of this case be seen to be directed at 
ending it. That cannot be accomplished if the level of accountability 
for the Ames fiasco is not set high enough.
  Director Woolsey is uniquely situated to make sure that occurs. He 
bears no responsibility for the years in which little attention was 
paid by senior managers to the hunt for a ``mole'' within the CIA, and 
yet history will fairly criticize him if he does not effectively 
discharge the responsibility he does have to ensure that Harry Truman's 
famous axiom ``The buck stops here'' applies in the Ames case. The 
people who ran the CIA from 1985 through 1992--the Directors of Central 
Intelligence and the Deputy Directors for Operations--must bear 
ultimate responsibility for what went wrong in this case. If they did 
not direct that the pursuit of a spy at the heart of the CIA be made 
the highest priority of the Agency, we need to know why.
  In that regard, one of the most significant provisions in the 
conference report is section 811 which requires that the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation be immediately advised of information that indicates 
classified information is being disclosed in an unauthorized manner to 
a foreign power. Espionage is a crime and it should be chiefly 
investigated by law enforcement officials.
  In the Ames case, even after the likelihood that there had been a 
human penetration of the Agency was clear, the investigation was 
chiefly directed by the CIA. If this case teaches any clear lesson, it 
is that spies are not good cops. I believe that there would have been a 
faster, more efficient investigation of this matter if trained police 
officers, the FBI, had been in charge. The FBI should determine when an 
espionage investigation is to be undertaken and how it is to be 
pursued. The agency whose employee may be involved in the commission of 
the crime may be able to provide valuable assistance, but that should 
be the FBI's decision. There can only be one entity in charge of a 
criminal investigation and that should be a law enforcement entity. 
Section 811 is intended to make clear the division of responsibility in 
the conduct of espionage investigations.
  Before leaving the subject of counterintelligence, I want to note 
section 807 which provides a court order process for certain physical 
searches undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes. Currently, such 
searches are conducted pursuant to a so-called national security letter 
signed by the Attorney General. Section 807 will require a judicial 
determination before the search is conducted in a manner similar to 
that which applies when a wiretap is undertaken for foreign 
intelligence purposes. While I understand the concerns of those who 
believe that a search of a residence should only be conducted pursuant 
to a warrant which meets fourth amendment standards, I believe that the 
rights of a potential criminal defendant are much better protected 
under the procedure established by section 807 than by the current 
procedure which allows executive branch officials to authorize a search 
which their employees will conduct.
  After the Ames case, the intelligence story most in the news this 
year related to the construction of the National Reconnaissance Office 
headquarters facility. As I stated on the House floor last month, the 
Intelligence Committee was aware of this project. The degree of 
knowledge about the specifics of the project varied between members of 
the committee and the committee staff, but I suspect that is not 
unusual. The point is, the building did not arise in northern Virginia 
without the committee knowing about it. Having said that, this episode 
did highlight the fact that budget submissions from 
intelligence agencies, particularly from the NRO, are not always as 
detailed as they should be. The conference report therefore contains a 
provision requiring that future intelligence community construction 
projects in excess of $750,000 be specifically identified in the 
President's budget submission and separately authorized by Congress. In 
addition, the conference report requires that a greater degree of 
detail be used to describe the budget category known as base so that it 
can no longer be what it has been--a catch-all, miscellaneous category 
in which to aggregate funds used in the acquisition not only of 
pencils, paper clips, and cleaning supplies, but multimillion dollar 
office buildings as well.

  I began by discussing spending on intelligence activities and I want 
to close in a similar vein. The intelligence agencies, like all 
organizations which handle sensitive information, spend millions of 
dollars and employ hundreds of people to classify documents and ensure 
their security. In my judgment, far too much information is classified 
by our Government, for too long a time, and at too great an expense. 
This is due in part to an Executive order on the classification and 
declassification of information which was promulgated 12 years ago, at 
the height of the cold war. That Executive order needs to be revised 
and a provision in the conference report requires a new Executive order 
to be promulgated within 90 days of enactment. The provision also 
expresses the sense of Congress as to areas on which the new Executive 
order should place emphasis. I believe that if the order reflects this 
expression of congressional sentiment fewer documents will be 
classified, the process of declassification will be expedited, and 
significant sums of money will be saved. On that last point, another 
provision in the conference report requires the larger intelligence 
agencies to allocate at least two percent of the funds appropriated for 
security activities to declassification efforts including reducing 
classified archives. This provision was authored by Mr. Skaggs who has 
been a leader in the committee's work in this area.
  Before concluding, I want to pay tribute to the service of several 
Members who, under current House rules must leave the committee at the 
end of this Congress. First among these Members is Mr. Combest, the 
committee's ranking Republican with whom it has been a genuine pleasure 
to serve. I have found him to be an effective advocate for his views 
whose common sense and even-handed approach to issues was never clouded 
by partisan considerations. Also scheduled to depart on the Republican 
side are Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Dornan. They are joined by Mr. Richardson 
on the Democratic side. Each of these members has made many valuable 
contributions to the committee's work and they will be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 4299 has a significance 
which, despite the important advances it makes in areas like imagery 
intelligence, will be measured largely in non-budgetary terms. It is 
good legislation which deserves the support of the House. I urge its 
adoption.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Combest], for 
the very fair way in which they looked at this question about the NRO 
facility in Virginia. I must tell my colleagues, and I am going to 
place in the Record today the briefing material that we received 
regarding what the other body knew and when they knew it and what they 
did about it, and I think any fair-minded person and I think our 
committee on a bipartisan basis agrees with this, when one looks at the 
evidence it is clear that this project was understood and, in fact, in 
1989 the other body added $30 million to accelerate the project because 
they were so much in favor of it.
  So now I am really very stunned by this accusation that we did not 
know anything about it, we did not know what the total costs were. 
There are other documents in the record that will show that they asked 
questions on an annual basis about the project. It was a high priority 
of one of the senior Members who comes from the State of Virginia.

                              {time}  1510

  They asked questions about the project, and the entire cost data was 
presented in the record, which I am also going to place in the Record 
today. So I regret that there was confusion about this.
  I want to support the chairman, because I have been fighting for 
several years to get more detail into the budget so that there would 
not be confusion about what is a new initiative and what is in the 
base.
  I think it is wrong. I think what we did in reforming that is a major 
step in the right direction, and I want to say I was pleased to be one 
of the sponsors of that provision along with the chairman of the select 
committee on the other side. That may have been one of the few things 
in this conference we did agree about.
  I regret very much there has been an aspersion made about the NRO. I 
feel they are one of the finest and most professional organizations 
that we have. There was no intent on their part to mislead the 
Congress, and that has been stated by everyone who has looked at this 
fairly and objectively.
  As I said, not only did they put $30 million in in 1989 to accelerate 
the project, they also supported it on an annual basis and were given 
information about its total cost.
  I want to compliment the chairman. I think we have made a lot of 
progress on this on clarifying the budget detail and think we are in a 
stronger position for the future.
  I am going to put it in the Record, so all of my colleagues who are 
interested in this subject can fairly assess what actually happened. I 
think when they do, fair-minded people will conclude our committee, of 
course, was correct in stating that the NRO gave us accurate 
information.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank our committee chairman, Mr. 
Glickman, for continuing to lead our committee in a collegial manner 
and encouraging the honest sharing of views. I could not ask for more 
cooperation--on several issues we believe that he has been open to our 
working together to make some significant improvements over our 
original authorization of June this year. I should also state that we 
found the conferees from the other body approachd conference with a 
willingness to compromise on a number of outstanding issues
  This is a conference report of which we can all feel proud--though 
some of us may have different reasons than others. Let me first mention 
some budgetary issues.


                            budgetary issues

  I and my colleagues in the minority are pleased that the conference 
has been more judicious in its efforts to limit intelligence spending. 
The conference report's significant cuts to the requested budget are 
made with a logical rationale of judging programs by their merits and 
by their contributions to this Nation's security. That is a process 
with which we agree.
  The conference report fully funds counterintelligence lines which the 
President and the DCI, Jim Woolsey, have created to fund the new 
National Counterintelligence Center. Although we have some discomfort 
over a few of the cuts to intelligence collection and analysis, we 
believe that the conference report funds those capabilities which we 
strongly believe are essential to keep U.S. policy makers and military 
operators informed and, frankly, to protect national security. We note 
with satisfaction that the intelligence community will be able to move 
along with some long-term technical programs which will be of 
particular value to the military. We are particularly pleased that the 
conference report funds HUMINT--human collection or espionage 
activities--at a level allowing this critical part of the intelligence 
community to continue the process of modernization and restructuring.
  In this last regard I would like to draw your attention to some much 
neglected facts which do not get heard above the din surrounding the 
Ames affair. These relate to the fact that, despite the Ames incident 
and their having only a single digit percentage of the intelligence 
budget, the CIA's Directorate of Operations and other HUMINT collectors 
provide a preponderant amount of our critical intelligence. Some recent 
studies have shown quite clearly that in the areas of tracking 
terrorism, narcotics activities, and weapons proliferation, HUMINT is 
without parallel. The same studies show that for following events in 
the Middle East, Europe, North Africa, and much of Asia it provides our 
most important insights. Anecdotes are hard to give without revealing 
sources and methods, but I can tell you that even in the last couple of 
months HUMINT has saved lives and thousands of American jobs. 
Specifically, it has adverted planned terrorist attacks and protected 
U.S. business by salvaging billion dollar trade deals from unfair and 
illegal trade practices by foreign Governments. We strongly support 
whatever it takes to fix what is broken in the Directorate of 
Operations and elsewhere in the intelligence community but we will not 
stand by to see its critically important capabilities gutted.


                           legislative issues

  Legislatively, the conference report includes numerous items of 
significance.
  We are particularly pleased with some of the counterintelligence 
legislation. It will give appropriate authorities much greater access 
to financial, credit, and travel information on U.S. employees with 
security clearances. The conference report also includes provisions for 
criminal forfeiture for violations of espionage laws.
  We are also cautiously optimistic about the report's creation of what 
has become known as the Warner Commission. This is to be a Presidential 
commission to study the roles and capabilities of the intelligence 
community and to make suggestions on changes which might improve its 
operation. We sincerely hope that the President will appoint to this 
commission objective experts who will think and act on the facts they 
review rather than on prejudices or political expediences. We hope the 
eight congressional designees will be similarly qualified. The Nation 
will be very poorly served should this commission be hijacked by 
partisans who want to use such a commission to validate their efforts 
to dismantle the intelligence community.

  The conference report also improves the reporting requirements to 
Congress for requests for intelligence funds for construction purposes. 
We all remember the purported surprise of the other body's Intelligence 
Committee about the National Reconnaissance Office's headquarters 
building. This legislation should please everyone since, not only will 
it facilitate congressional oversight, but it will also protect the 
intelligence community from false accusations of withholding 
information from Congress. Beyond the topicality of the NRO issue, we 
in the minority strongly support any reasonable legislation enhancing 
congressional fiscal oversight.


                                closing

  In summary, as a realist I am pleased with this, the last conference 
report to be prepared in my 6-year tenure on this committee. I have 
enjoyed every last minute of my 2 years as the ranking member on the 
committee. For a committee that does most of its business behind closed 
doors and deals with the most secret activities of the Government, it 
has, nonetheless, been a very public rollercoaster ride. You would 
think that I would have grown used to it, but those of you who have had 
the privilege of working on the committee will understand my amazement 
at how the activities of some of the most dedicated, hard working, 
creative, and loyal American Government employees manage so regularly 
to be portrayed negatively.
  At the very top of this group is the DCI, Jim Woolsey. He is a loyal 
Democrat serving a Democrat administration, but even as a true-blue 
Republican I must confess my belief that he is the right man in the 
right job trying to do the right thing. Yet, he is, in my opinion much 
under-appreciated by some of his fellow Democrats. He deserves the 
respect and support of us all.
  There is also something I want to say to the rest of the men and 
women of the intelligence community, those in uniform and out, those 
working long hours at desks in Washington and those risking their lives 
in the most dangerous corners of the world. Since I will never have 
occasion to speak to them collectively, I would like to say something 
to them now on the record in the hope that some of them may hear of it:
  Keep the faith. Your good works will never receive the attention of 
your mistakes--real and imagined. You will continue to suffer at the 
hands of those who do not know better. You will suffer body blows to 
your pride; your character may be assailed; your most fundamental value 
may be questioned. But we, who are fortunate enough to have the 
opportunity to see your work--and who have actually taken the effort to 
do so--know of your sacrifices and know of the profound satisfication 
you have in doing the right thing even when it will remain unheralded 
or may be misconstrued. If there is a moral to the history of the 
United States it is that when the democratic system is allowed to 
operate freely it will--eventually--come to the right conclusion. Be 
proud of your work, be vigilant in your duty, and know that you are 
crucial to the life and liberty of us all.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] under the 
normal terms of yielding for the purpose of discussing the schedule.


                          legislative calendar

  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished 
majority leader for the program, let me for just a moment compliment 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for serving these 
past 6 years as our ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. I appointed him thinking he was the best man for the job, 
and certainly he has given me every reason to be mighty proud of his 
stewardship during the course of these very critical years.
  His statement, which just preceded our being acknowledged here 
attests to the diligence with which he has approached that very 
important position all through these years. I want to thank him 
especially for that fine job.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Missouri, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Gephardt.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be no more votes today. There will be a 
schedule: On Monday October 3, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for 
morning hour, and the House will meet at noon for suspensions on 62 
bills which the distinguished minority leader I believe has in front of 
him. I will not take the time of the body to read those, but they are 
available to both sides.
  The suspensions referred to are as follows:
  1. H.R. 4781, International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 
1994.
  2. H.R. 546, to limit State taxation.
  3. H.R. 4999, Civil Rights Commission Reauthorization.
  4. H.R. 2129, Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
  5. H.R. 4608, Patent And Trademark Office Authorization Act of 1994.
  6. H.R. 4896, to grant the consent of Congress to the Kansas and 
Missouri metropolitan culture district compact.
  7. S. 1233, Arizona Wilderness Land Title Resolution Act of 1994.
  8. H.R. 4777, technical improvements in the U.S. Code.
  9. H.R. 4778, to codify without substantive change recent laws 
related to transportation.
  10. H.R. 5102, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, regarding crimes 
relating to medals of honor.
  11. S. 2170, Government Management Reform Act of 1994.
  12. H.R. 3678, Outer Continental Shelf sand and gravel resources.
  13. H.R. 5108, Export Administration Act extension.
  14. H. Con. Res. 279, condemning the July 13, 1994, sinking of the 
13th of March tugboat.
  15. H. Con. Res. 257, commending the work of the U.S. Attache Corps.
  16. H. Con. Res. 286, recognizing President Alfredo Christiani's 
contribution to achieve peace In El Salvador.
  17. H.R. 4704, Hopewell Township Investment Act of 1994.
  18. H.R. 4939, Frederick S. Green U.S. Courthouse.
  19. H.R. 4910, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.
  20. H.R. 4967, Theodore Levin Federal Building And U.S. Courthouse.
  21. H.R. 4495, Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994.
  22. H.R. 2440, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments.
  23. H.R. 4460, Water Resources Development Act of 1994.
  24. H.R. 4394, Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act.
  25. H. J. Res. 417, to extend status quo in Soo Line dispute.
  26. H.R. 1520, Petroleum Marketing Practices Act Amendments.
  27. H.R. 2919, Indoor Air Act of 1994.
  28. H.R. 2305, United States-Mexico Border Health Commission.
  29. H.R. 5103, to provide for an Executive Director of the GAO 
Personnel Appeals Board.
  30. H.R. 2970, to reauthorize the Office of Special Counsel.
  31. H.R. 5139, reemployment of improperly separated Postal Service 
employees.
  32. H.R. 5084, Census Address List Improvement Act.
  33. S. 1312, Pension Annuitants Protection Act.
  34. H. Con. Res., Correction in the enrollment of S. 1312.
  35. H.R. 4814, central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
Compact Amendment Consent Act.
  36. H.R. 4757, claim settlement of the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation.
  37. H.R. 4615, applying the provisions of the Warren Act to the 
central Utah project.
  38. H.R. 4944, Water Desalination Act of 1994.
  39. S. 1146, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1994.
  40. H.R. 3612, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
  41. H.R. 3613, the Kenai Natives Association Equity Act.
  42. H.R. 734, to amend the extension of certain Federal assistance to 
the Pascua Yaqui Indians of Arizona.
  43. S. 720, Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act.
  44. H.R. 4462, Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures 
Act of 1994.
  45. H.R. 4833, American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 
1994.
  46. H.R. 4180, Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994.
  47. S. 1919, Rio Puerco Watershed Act of 1994.
  48. S. 316, Saguaro National Park Establishment Act.
  49. H.R. 4533, National Park Service Entrepreneurial Management 
Reform Act.
  50. H.R. 5096, amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation 
Act of 1972.
  51. S. 986, Corinth, MS, Battlefield Act of 1993.
  52. S. 1614, Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act.
  53. H.R. 5116, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994.
  54. H.R. 4922, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, regarding the 
interception of communications for law enforcement purposes.
  55. S. 1457, to amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution 
Act.
  56. H.R. 2289, Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1994.
  57. H.R.   , transfer of Naval vessels to foreign countries.
  58. H. Con. Res. 214, United States policy toward Tajikistan.
  59. H. Res.   , regarding prospect for peace in Northern Ireland.
  60. H. Con. Res. 278, United States policy toward Vietnam.
  61. S. Con. Res. 74, ban on the use of United States passports in 
Lebanon.
  62. H.R. 2135, Native American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act.
  I would also state to the gentleman that the votes would not begin 
until 5 p.m. on Monday so Members would have an opportunity to travel 
back here.
  There is also a possibility of some action needed on Monday with the 
D.C. appropriations bills. The gentleman knows negotiations are still 
going on in the other body. Maybe that bill can be finished tonight 
without change, in which case it and all of the appropriation bills 
would then be on the President's desk before the end of the fiscal 
year. We all hope for that. But indeed if it does not happen, we may 
have to take action on Monday on the D.C. appropriations bill.
  On Tuesday, October 4, and the balance of the week the House will 
meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning business on Tuesday and then at noon on 
Tuesday, and meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
  We will be taking a House Concurrent Resolution Sense of the Congress 
regarding entitlement spending, subject to a rule, H.R. 3800, Superfund 
Reform Act of 1994, subject to a rule; S. 455, Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes Act, subject to a rule; H.R. 5044, American Heritage Areas 
Partnership Program Act, subject to a rule; H.R. 5110, trade agreements 
concluded in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, 
subject to a rule; House Joint Resolution 416, Limited Authorization 
for the United States-led force in Haiti, subject to a rule; and H.R. 
3801, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, subject to a rule.
  On Thursday the House will recess immediately and reconvene at 
approximately 11 a.m., to receive the President of the Republic of 
South Africa, Mr. Nelson Mandela, in a joint meeting.
  Following the joint meeting, the House will reconvene for legislative 
business. Conference reports may be brought up at any time. Any further 
program will be announced later.
  I would say to the gentleman as he undoubtedly already knows, it is 
our hope and intent to finish and adjourn sine die on Friday, October 
7. It is impossible today to give Members a specific guarantee as to a 
time that that might be accomplished, and obviously we will be 
consulting with the minority throughout the week on what matters may 
need to be brought up before we can reach that adjournment resolution. 
But it is our clear intent as early as possible on that day to be able 
to reach an adjournment sine die.
  Finally, let me say that this may be the last time while the 
distinguished minority leader is minority leader, as he has announced 
his retirement, to carry on a dialog of this kind about the program for 
the next week.
  Again I want to say to the distinguished minority leader how much 
respect and affection every Member of this body has for him and his 
family. I am sorry that we will not have these opportunities again. It 
has been a real joy to work with the gentleman. He has been a great 
legislator and a great patriot and a great American, and everyone here 
wishes him every good wish for his future plans.
  Mr. MICHEL. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I suspect, 
however, next week we will still have occasion to exchange a few 
thoughts with one another. As I have observed windups of Congress over 
the years, why, that last week usually turns out to be quite hectic to 
the degree that we have had to keep our heads close together to make 
sure that it all does end on an orderly note.
  If I might return the compliment, for me over these past many years, 
what a joy it has been to work with the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri, when we were both junior Members and as we have risen up 
through the ranks to become leaders in our respective parties. It has 
been one of those things we will never forget, probably cherish more 
than anything else in my tenure in this House, the relationships and 
friendships between individuals as distinguished from the kind of 
legislative prowess we may or may not have had on any specific bill. 
That is the real strength of this body, those kinds of friendships that 
are forged as we have come to know them over the years.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at 
this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Before yielding, let me say that I have had the pleasure for the past 
6 years in this committee of working with the gentleman from Nebraska. 
I think he is unequaled in members of that committee who have dedicated 
and spent a great deal of their time, very silently but very 
methodically and judiciously. He is someone whom his constituents in 
Nebraska can feel very proud of the efforts he has made toward our 
national security.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report. I want to begin by thanking my distinguished ranking member, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], for his very generous remarks 
and for the kind of very positive and open relationship he and I have 
had throughout our 6 years on the Intelligence Committee, where we sat 
side by side for those 6 years.
  I want also to say it has been my privilege to serve under three 
exceptional chairmen and three exceptional ranking members. Mr. 
Beilenson, Mr. McCurdy, and our current chairman, Mr. Glickman are 
outstanding individuals. They provided exceptional leadership to the 
committee. They have been ably assisted by our ranking members, Mr. 
Hyde, Mr. Shuster, and Mr. Combest during my tenure.

                              {time}  1530

  I would also say quite sincerely that I believe that the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence's staff is, without any doubt 
whatsoever, the highest quality staff that operates in the House of 
Representatives. We are extremely well served by them because of their 
contributions, their dedication and their knowledge of our 
jurisdictional area. It is unparalleled, and we owe them a debt of 
gratitude that is often not expressed.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, quite sincerely I want to express 
regret that it is my sixth and, therefore, my last year as a member of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Since I am also a 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in parting I would like to 
reflect on some of the difficulties the intelligence community faces in 
coming up with a post-cold-war intelligence program to meet recurrent 
congressional demands for a fresh, cost-efficient and effective 
strategy.
  Intelligence officials do not make up their own foreign policy--
unless they wish to court big trouble--but, rather, exist to support 
the Nation's established foreign and national security policies. When, 
as now, under the Clinton administration, America lacks a coherent 
foreign and national security policy, carefully formulated and 
appropriately enunciated, it is almost impossible to plan wisely. It is 
certainly difficult to properly shift financial and personnel resources 
within the limits of the appropriated funds.
  The Clinton administration's ineptness and incoherence in foreign 
policy has become abundantly clear to nearly every careful observer in 
America and abroad. As a result, the administration has lunged from one 
foreign policy crisis to another, embarrassed by contradictions, 
unsupported threats, and reversals. The ship of state seems to be 
without a captain, in uncharted waters, even as the world and the 
American public look to U.S. leadership for direction through a storm 
of uncertainty, instability, and violence. It is a critical time of 
world transition, but unfortunately the United States is having very 
little effect on the shape of things to come.
  Given this erratic behavior, how can the U.S. intelligence community 
plan a strategy of support even through 1996? Given the dearth of 
direction and leadership and the potentially adverse public reaction to 
such ill-advised, haphazard ventures as we do undertake, how can U.S. 
intelligence properly assist in implementing U.S. foreign policy after 
1996? Given the military's apparent inability to fight two major 
regional conflicts simultaneously because of budget cuts and the 
expenses of the Clinton administration's ill-advised commitments of our 
military around the world, should the intelligence community seriously 
program resources to support this two-major-regional defense policy? 
Given the White House's unwillingness or disinterest in supporting its 
Director of Central Intelligence--indeed, its disinterest in the advice 
of the intelligence community in general--the question is what budgets, 
programs or strategies are politically supportable for the intelligence 
community? Since U.S. policy is adrift, it follows logically that the 
efforts of the intelligence community seem to be adrift as well.
  Uncertainties in planning have been exacerbated by the dissolution of 
the Soviet world empire. This is a violent, vengeful, dangerous time. 
Sorting out the East-West ideological rivalry was simple compared to 
divining the threats of terrorist groups and states and the personal 
and tribal vendettas and agendas within multiethnic States. Even in the 
more predictable past, it was difficult to foretell the next hot spot. 
This new multithreat and unstable environment is a good argument for 
attempting to maintain basic intelligence coverage worldwide. That 
attempt, however, clashes with new budget realities. How should the 
intelligence community now decide which countries, regions or topics to 
write off?

  With the changing circumstances at the end of the cold war, the 
intelligence community's priorities changed to reflect the increasing 
importance of the counterproliferation, countenarcotics, 
economic competitiveness, and counterterrorism missions. Additionally, 
the United States' increasing involvement in regional crises and 
peacekeeping activities places a growing burden on an intelligence 
community with declining resources.
  At first, the bills were paid by drastically cutting our intelligence 
community's budget for collection and analysis conducted on the former 
Soviet States. This was in part justified and in part it was done to 
show an insistent Congress that the Community had, indeed, adapted to 
new times. Considering the facts that Russia is markedly less stable 
and less predictable than in the past and yet Russia remains the only 
country on earth capable of destroying the United States, one might 
wonder if changes in priorities went to far too quickly.
  But even these drastic cuts could not pay all the bills. It seems the 
budget cuts require other tradeoffs. Which regions or missions should 
we write off from our intelligence coverage? Should we cut back on 
already anemic R&D efforts? Should we change our strategy of investment 
among the various intelligence components, INTs? Should we favor 
collection, processing of intelligence, or personnel?
  Perhaps the biggest question since the gulf war is our commitment to 
improve intelligence support for the military. Broad-area imagery, 
real-time dissemination, sensor to shooter target information and the 
critical role of intelligence in information warfare have been much 
discussed. But the price tags on these innovations are hardly 
negligible. Again, can we do more--this much more--with less resources? 
That is apparently the demand.
  If we want a new intelligence strategy, we need a foreign policy 
strategy on which to base it. This bill creates a new Commission of the 
Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. intelligence community.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as I leave the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, I want to remind Members of Congress and the 
administration that the success of the intelligence community in 
meeting demands placed upon it by our top policy leaders in the highly 
unstable and unpredictable post-cold-war environment will largely be 
determined by whether this administration and the next are able to 
articulate a coherent foreign policy and national security policy to 
support it. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, without the formulation of a 
coherent and appropriate foreign policy the intelligence community 
cannot serve as the vital national asset America requires to perform 
its world leadership role and to protect the lives and interests of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge the support of this conference report. It 
is an important improvement from the intelligence authorization 
legislation earlier reported from the House and a good investment in 
our Nation's future.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], a great patriot, an individual 
whose level of energy is certainly not matched by mine, only envied.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Combest] for yielding this time to me, and I want to echo everything 
that he has said about the honor of serving on this committee, 
everything the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] said, all the 
staff has said, all of our chairmen, and one tends to be very fond of 
the current chairman. In this case it is very easy because we are 
classmates from 1976.
  Mr. Speaker, I also am leaving this committee after 6 years, probably 
the fastest 6 years of my life, and, as with all Members who took their 
assignment to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence seriously, 
it will be missed, but, as with all Members who have ever served on the 
committee, I have noticed on both sides of the aisle it has made them a 
more valuable Member, a more thoughtful Member, a Member better able to 
evaluate the dangerous state of the world today, better able to 
appreciate that the Communist dragon, after killing far more people 
than even the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, finally was slain after 
three-quarters of a century, only to be replaced by a world of 
poisonous snakes around us everywhere.

                              {time}  1540

  For several years now, many of us have argued against deep cuts 
against intelligence, because of its support to our military. We have 
stressed that intelligence serves as a ``force multiplier'' to the 
military, and that it can provide timely warnings--that goes without 
saying--and assessments which can directly enhance the effectiveness of 
our increasingly downsized forces.
  I recall the words of the immediate prior chairman, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], as the House debated in a 1992 
intelligence budget, the one for fiscal year 1993, which the committee 
had cut by 5 percent. Here is Mr. McCurdy's exact words on this floor: 
``This is a significant cut. It represents for a bipartisan majority on 
the committee the outer limit on which the intelligence community can 
reasonably be expected to reduce spending next year.''
  Well, in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker, we have gone beyond 
even that outer limit point that the gentleman from Oklahoma set in 
1992. The fate of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] has been to 
withstand pressure for savage cuts, and he has done a magnificent job 
holding the line.
  I am pleased to note that this year's funding of military 
intelligence needs, while not without substantial reductions, at least 
has not followed the precipitous path of the past several years. The 
budget reflected in this conference report before the House will 
maintain key intelligence capabilities and pay for the development of 
new systems that we desperately need.
  Some may ask, they ask all the time, why we continue to fund our 
intelligence at these levels, or even greater, as we address the needs 
of national security and our military in this decade and into the next 
century. During the Persian Gulf war, now it is fading some 3 years ago 
in the past, the military took home a number of valuable lessons on how 
intelligence can better serve our commanders, and most importantly, our 
young men and women in the field. These lessons included such things as 
the need for better dissemination of all visual imagery, a broad area 
search capability, better and real time dissemination of tactical 
intelligence information, and greater interoperability between and 
among the individual service elements.
  In all these years since Desert Storm, significant improvements have 
been made in every one of those areas. Interoperability has improved 
appreciably. Commanders can communicate in real time over sophisticated 
conferencing networks from different locations all around the world. In 
the combat theater of Haiti we are going to see how this works as the 
rioting builds to a fever pitch and the looting takes place at this 
very moment we speak on this House floor, with over 20,000 American men 
and women intermixed in all areas of the country in a very dangerous 
situation. How much human intelligence are we going to get fed back 
here to Washington and to our troops?
  Other needs, such as the requirement for broad area search 
capabilities, these are being addressed through the unmanned aerial 
vehicle programs currently under development. Downlinking capabilities 
and better dissemination of imagery and other key intelligence 
information areas have also been improved. All of these improvements 
have continued and, God willing, will continue to improve, but it is 
going to require investments of intelligence dollars.
  While we have seen our budget shrink, frankly the result has not been 
all that bad. Smaller budgets have forced greater efficiencies. Fewer 
dollars have encouraged organizations to work smarter and to work much 
more efficiently. Interservice research and development and joint 
activities are becoming the order of the day, finally.

  We must be mindful of two things, though, as we look to the future 
expectations of intelligence budgets over the remainder of this decade. 
The first is keeping up with technological developments and executing 
well thought out decisions to modernize military intelligence systems. 
That is going to cost additional dollars. The development of new 
intelligence systems or even upgrading what we have is always costly 
and will have to be reflected in future intelligence budget totals, 
and, Lord knows, it saves lives.
  Second, in recent years we have watched the United States become 
involved in a number of low-level conflicts ranging from Yugoslavia to 
Haiti. Regardless of the degree to which the United States becomes 
involved, at all times intelligence support is going to be key, it must 
be supported. This often means additional maintenance costs and 
operational costs associated with every level of intelligence 
gathering. The establishment of communications lines, not only to 
support our U.S. needs or NATO treaty needs, but now the U.N., and the 
deployment of analysts and other intelligence support elements, 
including all those that are only known to the committees of the Senate 
and House. There are also moneys which must be reflected in the budget 
totals which Congress will evaluate in the years to come.
  That is my written statement, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to conclude 
with a word to my colleagues that will be seeking to get an appointment 
to the Intelligence Committee by the Speaker, whichever party that may 
be, to be determined by an election in about 38 days, and by the 
minority leader, whichever party Member that might be. I hope our 
leaders will select people, and I exclude myself from this category, 
because I also want to say what a pleasure it was to serve with the two 
that I came on the committee with, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter], who has an intelligence background, and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest], who has dogged every step of our excellent 
chairman and made this the primary focus of his congressional duties, 
and all of those that will have been added since I have been here.
  We have a great team on both sides, and with everybody being 
replaced, I do not know how many will be replaced on the other side, I 
hope our leaders take due diligence and forget politics when they pick 
the members to replace us.
  To those that want it, and I have had some approach me, that want 
desperately on this committee, let me tell them the bad side. You do 
not get day-to-day ``hot'' information on things happening around the 
globe. I find everybody on the committee, like me, tunes into CNN to 
watch the rioting down there in Haiti. Being on Intelligence, I have 
had no leg up on other information sources to find one shred of 
evidence that the young man who died in Haiti 4 days ago was in fact a 
suicide. During Mogadishu the attitude at the Pentagon was terrible, 
that they would not give anybody on our committee, even the leaders on 
either side, any shred of evidence. They were so psyched by the 
politics and the people in the suits, rather than the people in uniform 
in the Pentagon, and it is happening again in Haiti.
  But, that is not the purpose of our committee. The purpose of our 
committee, even though I have an addiction now to the NID, National 
Intelligence Daily, that I will have a total break with in 3 months, 
the best part of being on our committee is the long-range planning, the 
long-range objectives, and getting those hearing to find out whether 
organized crime does totally run some of the former slave colonies of 
the Soviet Union and mother Russia herself. It is an excellent 
committee. There are no press releases, no political gain for it in 
your district, but I would recommend everybody fight for it, and may 
the best men and women get those assignments. It has been the most 
rewarding experience I have had on Capitol Hill.

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I will save my final accolade for the 
people we could not work without, and that is the staff, those sitting 
behind me, behind the chairman, and those up in H 405. these are as 
dedicated and competent people as I have ever known.
  Mr. Speaker, I would commend this conference report to the passage of 
the House, and, with that, yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the patriotic 
gentleman Congressman from the Gulf Coast of Texas, Mr. Laughlin.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the accolades that 
have been passed out, but to also say as a new member of the committee, 
serving my first 2-year term on the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, how proud I am as an American to see the leadership that 
we have received form Chairman Glickman and from the ranking Republican 
from my State, Mr. Combest, in leading our committee through the 
difficult decisions we had to make. Behind the closed doors, great work 
was done, because we were not of like mind, and we struggled with the 
decisions we had to make for our Nation's future.
  I would say as a soldier of more than 30 years service in the Army, 
our committee members and staff have served with the same commitment to 
the welfare and safety and security of America as our uniformed forces, 
and I am proud of our committee members and the staff that we have 
working with us.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just in closing, I would say this has been an extraordinarily 
difficult time for the intelligence community. Changes are in the 
offing. Great difficulties are occurring and will continue to occur. 
But with all the criticism that has flowed out of my mouth and other 
mouths, and hopefully it has been constructive, the fact of the matter 
is that a strong America in the world depends upon access to good, 
solid information about what is happening. Where are terrorists 
located? Where are chemical and biological, nuclear weapons located? 
Who is passing narcotics to whom? Who maybe is taking advantage of us 
illegally in the economic transactions of the world. We in this 
committee which oversee the intelligence community are trying to make 
sure the intelligence agencies can provide this information.
  While changes are going to happen, we should never lose sight of the 
fact that our goal is high quality information for America so we can 
continue to be the strongest and freest nation in the world.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's staff is absolutely 
sensational, patriots all, and so is mine. I did not want to leave that 
out. Best staffs on the Hill.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, we agree on that.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Republican member on the 
House Armed Services Committee and a conferee to the Intelligence 
Authorization conference, I joined my Armed Services Committee 
colleagues Ron Dellums and Norman Sisisky in declining to sign this 
conference report.
  My decision was based on our strong objection to the action taken by 
the conference in attempting to reverse and overturn the policy 
position endorsed by the Defense authorization conference regarding how 
the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft should be funded. The U-2 issue was 
fully discussed and debated during the Defense authorization conference 
with the full participation of all relevant committees--including the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--yielding a position 
endorsed by both Chambers.
  However, this conference report, with no participation or prior 
knowledge by the Armed Services Committee conferees, advances a 
position on how to fund the U-2 that is diametrically opposed to that 
taken by both the Defense authorization conference report and the 
Defense appropriations conference report adopted yesterday.
  As most Members know, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and the Armed Services Committee share jurisdiction over a significant 
portion of the intelligence budget. As such, it is imperative that the 
two committees work closely in coordinating how these shared areas of 
jurisdiction are represented in each committee's respective annual 
authorization bill. While such an arrangement will always present 
complex challenges, over the years it has worked adequately well on the 
basis of mutual comity and cooperation. On the U-2 issue, this 
relationship obviously broke down and the outcome is contrary to the 
position of the other committees of jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue here is not limited to jurisdictional or 
process concerns. There is a legitimate and long standing policy issue 
involved. Beginning several years ago, the Armed Services Committee 
began pressing the Department of Defense and the intelligence community 
to do a better rationalization on how the intelligence budget is 
structured and divided. Currently, intelligence funding is broken down 
into two principal components: national and tactical. In large measure, 
the category in which a given intelligence program or activity is 
placed greatly affects how that program is treated in the budget 
process both in the executive branch and in the Congress. However, we 
have found that many programs are placed in one category or another for 
what appear to be largely arbitrary reasons.
  In response to the committee's urging, the Department of Defense has 
begun a process to better rationalize how the intelligence budget is 
structured. The initial results of the effort were manifested in the 
fiscal year 1994 budget request wherein several programs with little or 
no intelligence function were moved out of the intelligence budget and 
into the defense budget, while other programs were shifted between the 
national and tactical accounts. The largest single shift in programs 
within categories was the proposal to shift the U-2 from the national 
intelligence category to the tactical budget.
  The Armed Services Committee took a close look at this proposal and 
endorsed both the specifics of the proposed U-2 shift as well the 
overall effort to better structure the budget. We fully expect this 
process to continue and look forward to similar progress in the fiscal 
year 1996 budget process.
  For this reason, the effort by the intelligence committees to deny 
the administration's proposal to fund the U-2 out of the tactical 
budget is a counterproductive development that directly undermines the 
ongoing effort to better structure the intelligence budget. Therefore, 
I oppose this provision of the report and urge the administration not 
to follow it given specific direction to the contrary already found in 
the Defense authorization and appropriations bills.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I join my Armed Services Committee 
colleagues Ron Dellums and Floyd Spence in voicing opposition to the 
provision in this conference report that attempts to reverse the 
position of the Defense authorization and appropriations conferences on 
U-2 funding.
  As my colleagues have already explained in some detail, our committee 
worked this issue through in good faith during our conference and 
arrived at a position that endorses the administration's efforts to 
better rationalize how the intelligence budget is structured. The 
recommendation to fund the U-2 as a tactical program instead of a 
national asset makes perfect sense and ensures that this critical 
capability will continue to be responsive to the needs of our military 
commanders during a time of crisis.
  However, by rejecting this recommendation, this conference report 
succeeds in sending the administration a confused and conflicting 
message from Congress at the same time we are pressing the intelligence 
community to restructure and find more efficient ways to make do with 
decreasing resources. We should instead find ways to send a consistent 
message of encouragement for ongoing efforts to better manage 
intelligence programs.
  It is my hope that the administration will not interpret the 
conference's action as a rejection of the work being done in this area 
and will continue to aggressively develop the Joint Military 
Intelligence Program [JMIP] as a means to better allocate and structure 
dwindling intelligence resources for our warfighters.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  I have two main concerns: One, a longstanding opposition to the 
unnecessary level of secrecy in which the intelligence budget is 
cloaked; and two, the abrupt change in direction that the intelligence 
conferees have taken in their report regarding two important 
intelligence programs.
  First, I will state to my colleagues once again my belief that the 
foreign policy activities of this Nation; taken by our Government on 
behalf of its citizens, should and is, for the most part, done in the 
open. I believe it is wrong, however, that an arm of our Government is 
given the authority to conduct operations, other than intelligence 
gathering, in support of foreign policy goals that are unknown to our 
citizens. The people of the United States have a right to be engaged in 
the debate which yields our foreign policy activities. I do not here 
refer to the important maintenance of operational secrecy, but rather 
to the need to debate in the open whether and when we would engage in 
hostile operations against another country.
  In this context, my concern lies not specifically the overall budget 
level for intelligence, although I believe that prudent savings in the 
intelligence budget can be realized with careful planning and a 
recognition of the many new and open ways in which information flows to 
policymakers. Additionally, it is the right of the people of our 
country to know the funding level of its intelligence agencies. I will 
continue to support legislative efforts that would bring these aspects 
into the sunshine.
  My second objection to the report is concerned more with what has 
become a blurred relationship between the National Foreign 
Intelligence, or NFIP programs, and Tactical Intelligence and Related 
Activities, or TIARA programs. I think it is time we substantially 
change this arrangement.
  I am disappointed and concerned that the conferees have increased the 
authorization for NFIP above the budget request while authorizing a 
corresponding decrease in TIARA programs. This action is contrary to 
actions taken by the conferees on the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
Authorization and Appropriations Acts and contrary to agreements 
reached between the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
Intelligence resulting from their joint review of NFIP and TIARA 
programs.

  We should be focusing on the interoperability of capabilities in 
support of military operations, ensuring essential improvements for 
imagery support, as well as developing a new U.S. intelligence program 
and budget structure to better reflect user needs and priorities, 
consistent with our changed strategic environment.
  The blurring of national versus tactical intelligence was highlighted 
last year when the committee raised concern in its report on the fiscal 
year 1994 Defense Authorization bill. The committee then observed that 
over the years, the boundaries between TIARA and NFIP components of the 
intelligence budgets have become a source of confusion and contention. 
The committee was, and continues to be, concerned that the lack of 
clearly established definitions for NFIP and TIARA have led to the 
sometimes arbitrary assignment of intelligence programs and functions 
within these categories. As a consequence, the Armed Services Committee 
called on the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
Intelligence to review intelligence programs and activities and provide 
to Congress a report identifying those programs which support: First, 
primarily national purposes; second, primarily defensewide, theater 
activities, and the Unified Command; or three, primarily a single 
service or agency. The report was also to have identified those 
programs and activities that should no longer be included in the 
intelligence budget. Although we have seen fragments and/or bits and 
pieces of what appears to be a concerted effort to address this matter, 
a formal, comprehensive report has yet to be provided.
  An important review was undertaken by the Department earlier this 
year to determine what, if any, programs or activities should be 
removed from TIARA. This effort was undertaken in response to the 
fiscal year 1994 House Armed Services Committee language asking the 
Department to identify programs and activities that should no longer be 
included in the intelligence budget. As a result, the Department 
determined that, indeed, there were certain programs that fell outside 
the definition of TIARA used by the congress and has subsequently 
proposed to delete these activities from the fiscal year 1996 TIARA 
Congressional Justification Book. These programs include, for example, 
Ballistic Missile Defense, the Defense Meteorological Support Program. 
Tanker support to Reconnaissance, and the Navy's Mapping, Charting and 
Geodesy, to name a few. When added up, funding for these programs 
totaled more than a half a billion dollars, in each of fiscal year 1994 
and 1995.
  Further, earlier this year, now-Deputy Secretary of Defense John 
Deutch notified officials within the Department of Defense and Congress 
that effective June 1, 1994, he was establishing the Joint military 
Intelligence Program, or JMIP, to focus on joint, defensewide 
initiatives, activities, and programs that predominantly provide 
intelligence information and support to multiple defense customers. The 
goal of the JMIP is to bridge existing programmatic divisions across 
national and service or departmental intelligence lines to provide more 
effective and coherent intelligence programmatic decisionmaking and, 
ultimately, to provide support to military intelligence consumers--
policymakers, force modernization planners and warfighters. I concur 
with the administration in their intent to submit a Joint Military 
Intelligence Program [JMIP] budget request for fiscal year 1996 this 
January.
  I intend to make the analysis of these and other intelligence-related 
issues a priority issue for the Armed Services Committee during our 
review in the next budget cycle.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I join the calls for openness in the 
national debate on intelligence funding decisions and for the 
realignment of the programs I have stated above. As this conference 
report represents a departure from those goals, I will have to oppose 
it.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________