[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15493-H15501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1655, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 318 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 318

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1655) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate rule for a conference report and 
I am delighted to bring it to the House so that we may expeditiously 
consider the intelligence authorization conference report for fiscal 
year 1996. This rule waives all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration, and I would like to commend 
Chairman Combest and his staff for diligently providing our Rules 
Committee with detailed information about the types of waivers that 
this bill requires. In addition this rule provides that the conference 
report shall be considered as read.

  Mr. Speaker, as a conferee who worked on this bill, I am very proud 
of our final product. Members should know that, despite all the 
partisan rhetoric that's been flying in this Capitol in recent weeks, 
this legislation is the product of bipartisan cooperation in the finest 
tradition of this House. Oversight of intelligence policy and 
implementation of crucial national security programs are very, very 
serious subjects and its oversight is taken very seriously. The Members 
of the House Committee on Intelligence, and our counterparts in the 
other body, sorted through a multitude of complex and vexing problems 
in order to complete this conference report. Although it is fashionable 
in today's environment to bash the intelligence agencies and complain 
about problems that have come to light, I think most Americans realize 
that today's highly complicated and chaotic world demands that our 
policymakers have accurate and timely information--perhaps more so in 
this modern information age than in any other time in our history. Of 
course, we must ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past--the 
highly public mistakes we've all read about--so that we don't make such 
mistakes again. And we must also ensure that our finite resources are 
being put to their most effective and appropriate use and, frankly, 
that is what this bill is about. My colleagues, this process of review 
and assessment won't stop there. Our committee is undertaking a 
comprehensive review of our intelligence capabilities and how they can 
carry us into the next century; and I am proud to be a part of that 
effort under Mr. Combest's and ranking member Dick's leadership. 
Likewise, the former Aspin Commission--now known as the Brown 
Commission--is conducting a major review at direction of Congress. As a 
member of both those efforts, I assure my colleagues that this 
important subject is being carefully addressed and we will have reports 
to you back next spring. As an important piece of that whole picture, I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the conference 
report on H.R. 1655.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding 
the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this rule for the consideration of the 
conference report for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1996. There was no objection from the minority on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence to the waivers that the rule provides 
for the conference report, and we do not oppose them.
  Among the potential points of order that are protected against are 
those for violations of scope, germaneness requirements, prohibition on 
appropriations in a legislative bill, and the Budget Act requirements. 
The rule is, of course, waiving the 3-day layover requirement. We are 
reluctant, ordinarily, to provide that particular waiver, because we 
believe Members should have ample time to review the legislation they 
are voting on, but we did agree in this instance this particular waiver 
of the 3-day layover rule is not at all unreasonable.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence supports the substance of the conference agreements. I am 
sure we will hear more about the provisions of the agreement during the 
debate on the conference report itself that will follow.
  The original House bill did, however, contain several controversial 
provisions, including the handling of certain National Reconnaissance 
Office activities. Because of their classified status, these issues 
cannot be discussed in detail, but Members should be aware that the 
chairman described those changes as the only major departure in the 
bill from the administration's request for the National Foreign 
Intelligence Program.
  During House consideration of the bill, the minority on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence expressed the hope that the 
reservations about the NRO would be addressed in the conference on this 
legislation with the Senate. We trust that they were addressed 
satisfactorily.
  We were also concerned about the limit the committee place on 
spending for carrying out the President's Executive order of April 17 
of this year that prescribes a uniform system for classifying and 
declassifying national security information.
  The President has properly recognized the need to ensure that 
Americans know about the activities of their Government, when it is 
possible to make that information public. We continue to believe that a 
carefully prescribed system is long overdue for declassifying documents 
that remain classified for no reason other than inertia.
  The debate over the cost of compliance with the Executive order was 
the main obstacle to implementation of that Executive order. We 
understand that the conference agreement provides more flexibility than 
the House bill from the several intelligence agencies in carrying out 
this Executive order, and we support that decision.
  We are also supportive of the conferees' decision to tighten up the 
change in the National Security Act that would allow the President to 
delay the imposition of economic sanctions against a foreign country in 
certain cases. We understand that minority Members who raised concerns 
about that provision agree with the conference report action in this 
respect.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the conference committee 
agreed to increase the authorization for the environmental task force, 
which has been successful in making environmental information derived 
from intelligence more accessible to the general public and to the 
scientific community.

  We had been very concerned about the level of funding for the task 
force in the House bill, which had been a disappointing $5 million. We 
understand that the conferees agreed on a funding level of $15 million. 
We would have preferred the $17.6 million requested by the President, 
but the conference 

[[Page H15494]]
agreement is certainly much better than the House version, and we 
welcome this improvement in the legislation.
  The work of the task force, established in 1993, has been very 
impressive. We are pleased that the conferees agree that the 
outstanding accomplishments associated with it should be supported.
  This initiative is another way to bring the information that is 
collected by intelligence assets, and that is proper to share to 
policymakers and scientists. It promises to help us better understand 
the consequences of long-term environmental change and help us better 
manage crisis situations involving natural and ecological disasters.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill that recognizes the 
significant challenges that the U.S. intelligence community continues 
to face in adapting to the post-cold-war world. The conference 
agreement reflects a slight decrease in the intelligence budget, which 
some Members will welcome and others decry.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out, however, especially to those who 
might be tempted to criticize the decrease in spending in this 
legislation, that the modest reduction is the result of cuts in the 
huge NRO special carry-over account that was made public earlier this 
year. I think all agree that the conferees made the correct and proper 
decision in following the appropriators' lead in cutting that NRO 
special account.
  Mr. Speaker, we all want to help ensure that the United States 
maintains the ability to provide timely and reliable intelligence to 
its policymakers and military commanders, and we think the committee 
has developed a responsible budget for the intelligence agencies and 
activities.
  Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, the world clearly remains an 
unpredictable and dangerous place; we know that all too well as we 
watch American servicemen and women enter Bosnia to help keep the peace 
there. There is, obviously, a great need for effective intelligence, 
especially in light of the worldwide reduction of U.S. military 
personnel.

  The intelligence community should continue to be encouraged to review 
their operations, discarding those that are no longer necessary, 
strengthening those that remain important, and devising new ones when 
they are called for.
  The appropriate missions of an intelligence agency will always be a 
controversial and most appropriate subject in a Nation founded on 
Democratic principles.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest], chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], ranking 
minority member, for helping to guide this legislation through the 
conference committee, and for their excellent work in general in 
leading this committee in a very difficult time.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we support the rule, and we urge its 
adoption, so that we may proceed with consideration of the intelligence 
authorization bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], who was a 
former chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, for a 
very good statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman's statement fairly and very 
accurately summarized the bill and the provisions in it, and we 
appreciate the cooperation of the Committee on Rules and I want to 
commend the gentleman for his interest in intelligence, his leadership 
of this committee, and his continued fine work in this body.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Washington very much for his kind comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I again say that we strongly support this rule and the 
bill, and we thank especially the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], 
the distinguished chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], the distinguished ranking member, for all of 
their good work this year and in years past on this very difficult and 
important committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself with the remarks of 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] about the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson]. I thought that was an excellent statement, 
and particularly compelling coming from the gentleman from California, 
given his experience and deep knowledge of this subject, and I would 
also say his commitment to it over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, the only area I might take a little bit of exception, I 
think of Mark Twain when I think of the Soviet Union these days: The 
demise of the death being greatly exaggerated. After the elections last 
Sunday, I am not so sure that we are where we think we are, sometimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], chairman of the committee.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for his support in pushing this rule. I also thank the Committee 
on Rules for granting the rule that was requested by myself and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. I also want 
to thank the gentleman from Florida for this active role in the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he as well sits, and 
the gentleman from California, former chairman of the committee, for 
his continued interest in intelligence activities; for his continued 
help in the rules process; and, for his continued friendship.
  Mr. Speaker, I would certainly urge passage of this rule. I strongly 
support it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we had other speakers, but they are not on the 
floor. Since the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has yielded 
back all time, I will yield back all time also, 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. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 1655) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for the 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. 
Government, community management account, and the Central Intelligence 
Agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to 
whether the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the ranking 
Democrat, is in favor of this conference report and would yield to the 
gentleman for the purpose of answering that question.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, therefore, under the rules, 
I claim the 20 minutes to be allotted to a Member in opposition when 
both the other Members are in favor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the time will be 
divided three ways. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1655, 
the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. The conference 
report, and the House and Senate bills that led up to it, were the 
product of a great deal of hard work. As I stated when we debated the 
original authorization bill, the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence held 11 hearings, 20 Member briefings, and even more staff 
briefings to craft this legislation. 

[[Page H15495]]

  I wish to take a moment to thank our staff for their hard work. In 
the course of this year, they have not only helped prepare an 
authorization bill that will lead us in new and positive directions, 
but also have had a full agenda of such issues as the Ames damage 
assessment--which remains the subject of wild claims and few concrete 
findings in terms of the effects of U.S. policy decisions; allegations 
about activities in Guatemala; and our major effort for the 104th 
Congress, ``IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century.'' I 
am pleased to report that IC21 is on time and on schedule, and we hope 
to be back before you next year with legislative proposals that will 
strengthen and modernize our intelligence community.
  I want to thank our colleagues in the Senate. I have been engaged in 
ongoing negotiations with Chairman Specter and Vice Chairman Bob Kerrey 
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They were always 
dedicated, gentlemanly, and forthcoming as we worked out the necessary 
compromises. It was a pleasure working with them and the rest of the 
Members and staff of that committee. I have enjoyed working with the 
ranking member, Mr. Dicks. Although we have had our differences, we 
have worked them out to present this report.
  I would like to say a few words about the authorization we have just 
completed. This bill authorizes funds for all U.S. intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities. It is integral to our national 
security. As I said earlier this year, the original submission we got 
from the administration was a disappointment. It was a very static 
bill, preoccupied with this year's funding, but showing no sense of 
vision, no sense of where they would like the intelligence community to 
be as we enter the 21st century. That is why we are excited about the 
new directions we have forged in such areas as the national 
reconnaissance program.
  As my colleagues know, a great deal of this authorization is, of 
necessity, classified. I once again urge my colleagues to take the time 
to visit our committee offices and go over the classified portions of 
the bill. You will not only come away better informed, but you will 
also have a much better sense of the breadth and depth of the 
intelligence community. What you will not get, unfortunately, is a 
sense of the thousands of dedicated employees who make it work. It was 
with some surprise and no little dismay that I read, only a few 
weekends ago, that the Director of Central Intelligence said he ``did 
not find many first class minds in the ranks.'' He said that ``compared 
to uniformed officers, [intelligence officers] certainly are not as 
competent, or as understanding of what their relative role is and what 
their responsibilities are.'' That may be the DCI's benighted view of 
the intelligence community, but it is not one that I or, I am sure, 
most of my colleagues share.
  I want to highlight one provision of our bill that is in the 
classified annex only because of how the bill is structured, but is not 
classified in and of itself. Members may be aware of an agreement by 
the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to merge a large number of 
agencies and offices that deal with imagery, into something that they 
are calling the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, or NIMA.
  This is a major proposal, involving as it does some of our most 
useful collection assets and a large amount of the intelligence budget. 
To date, we have not received any necessary details on what is 
involved, how this would operate, how this would affect all of the 
policy makers who rely on this valuable intelligence. I wish to assure 
my colleagues that we in the Intelligence Committee and they here on 
the floor will have a full opportunity to review and vote on any such 
major change. That is why my colleagues in the Senate and I inserted a 
provision in this bill requesting that no funds be used to begin 
implementation of such an agency until Congress has had the opportunity 
to review detailed plans.
  Let me turn briefly to the prospects for the fiscal year 1997 
intelligence authorization. As I said, the fiscal year 1996 
administration proposal was lacking in vision and was a disappointment. 
I have made it very clear to the Vice President and to the Director of 
Central Intelligence that if the fiscal year 1997 authorization request 
is similarly lacking in vision for the next several years, then that 
bill will be dead on arrival.
  I am also concerned by briefings that we have begun to receive about 
upcoming intelligence funding. The Director of Central Intelligence is 
apparently considering large cuts in his own budget in order to fund 
nonintelligence defense programs. Too often intelligence has been made 
a bill payer for these other programs. Earlier this week, DCI Deutch 
testified before our committee and stated that he disagreed ``with 
people who say where you take the money doesn't matter. It does 
matter.'' He also said that he wanted to see an ``honest competition 
between platforms in the defense budget.'' We intend to hold him to 
these views. Thus far, his actions speak louder than his words. I would 
hate to see the work we have begun to do on intelligence so quickly 
undone.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the fiscal year 1996 
intelligence authorization gives the Nation a necessary beginning in 
reshaping and strengthening our intelligence capabilities. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
H.R. 1655, the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1996.
  I want to begin by commending Chairman Combest for his perseverance 
in pursuing a resolution to the several contentious issues which 
separated the House and Senate on this legislation. His commitment to 
completing action on this measure this year has resulted in an 
agreement which strengthens the bills previously considered by the 
House and Senate.
  Largely because the conferees agreed to endorse a reduction, made 
earlier in the Defense Appropriations Act in certain funds available to 
the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO], the authorization level in 
this conference report is below the level not only in the House-passed 
bill and the President's request, but the amounts authorized and 
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 as well. The reduction in the NRO's 
carry-forward funds made possible some increases in intelligence 
activities in other agencies, without an increase in the overall size 
of the fiscal year 1996 intelligence authorization.
  The conferees believed that the amount of carry-forward funds 
accumulated by the NRO was excessive, either to the needs of NRO 
programs in fiscal year 1996 or, at some level, to its programmatic 
needs in the future. I want to emphasize that there is uncertainty over 
how much of the carry forward funding will be necessary to complete the 
satellite architecture currently envisioned by the NRO, and the 
restoration of some of the funds eliminated in the conference report 
may be necessary in the future. Director of Central Intelligence [DCI] 
Deutch has made a commitment to resolve this uncertainty so that a 
better understanding of the NRO's financial needs can be defined. I 
want to caution against any further significant reductions in the 
carry-forward funds until the DCI has provided additional, clarifying 
information. He is also, by the way, putting in a new financial officer 
at the NRO, which I think is a good move and should be supported by the 
Congress.
  The needs of the United States for intelligence collection systems, 
particularly those which present complex engineering challenges, are 
influenced by advances in technology, changes in requirements, and 
available resources. It is important that decisions on the acquisition 
of new systems, particularly those which will replace systems of proven 
capability, be made with a full appreciation of the ramifications of 
those decisions. The conference report ensures that judgments on the 
advisability of proceeding with a new satellite collection system will 
be made in a measured, deliberative manner. I believe that will ensure 
that the DCI will be able to make a much more informed judgment on 
collection architecture 

[[Page H15496]]
options than might otherwise have been possible.
  As important as collection is to our intelligence needs, it is just 
as important that the information collected be thoroughly processed and 
quickly disseminated. In my judgment, we have not devoted enough 
attention to these areas in the past, and I am pleased that DCI Deutch 
intends to commit more resources to them in the future. I look forward 
to working with Chairman Combest in the fiscal year 1997 budget cycle 
to make certain that processing and dissemination are adequately 
addressed.
  Recently, the DCI, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed the consolidation of imaging resources 
and management in a single agency within the Department of Defense. In 
their letter informing Congress of the proposal, these national 
security leaders promised to consult closely with Congress before 
proceeding with a comprehensive implementation plan. In fact, they have 
said in our meetings that legislation is required before the agency can 
be created. The consultation process has begun. I am pleased that the 
conferees recognized not only the importance of Congress being fully 
involved in working out the details of this proposal, but in allowing 
the necessary studies, planning, and coordination to take place while 
the process of consultation is underway. I believe this will ensure 
that the new agency is able to begin to function as soon as all 
necessary approvals are obtained.
  Mr. Speaker, with United States Forces beginning a significant 
deployment in Bosnia, the importance of timely and accurate 
intelligence is underscored once more. This conference report 
authorizes many of the programs and activities on which the success of 
operations like the one in Bosnia will depend. I commend this 
legislation to my colleagues and urge that it be adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the staff. Both the majority 
and minority staff on this committee have done a good job this year. I 
think they have worked very hard, and I am pleased that on a bipartisan 
basis we have been able to put together this bill and to work out some 
very difficult issues.
  I would say to some of the other Members of this body that this may 
be a model for how the majority and minority work together to enact 
important legislation in a timely way. I want to again thank the 
chairman for his help, cooperation and his fair-minded approach to 
dealing with these controversial issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to differ with my colleague who just 
spoke when he said this should be a model for how to deal with 
important legislation.
  I do not think there is a less becoming example of how this Congress 
deals with fundamental issues than the way we have historically dealt 
with intelligence. First, let us underscore one point: One of the most 
important facts about this debate will go unuttered: How much are we 
authorizing? Because we have enforced upon ourselves an extraordinary 
stupid rule by which we cannot publicly say what the overall amount of 
the intelligence budget is, apparently because we think the enemy may 
know.
  Now, of course, virtually any enemy interested in being an enemy 
knows. What we do here is to keep this from the average American. There 
will be figures presented in the newspaper. They will probably be 
accurate. We will look the other way.
  It seems to me we bring a lot of disrespect when we wink at that. 
Actually, I was surprised when my friend from Washington said we were 
reducing the authorization this year. From what to what? We cannot tell 
you. How much? We cannot tell you.
  The American people cannot be trusted with anything as potentially 
dangerous as a number, but we can tell then we are reducing it.
  I am actually encouraged the Committee on Intelligence is telling us 
if we announced we were reducing it, we would be encouraging the enemy. 
I am pleasantly surprised. I do not think anything negative will 
happen. We are gong to see now. We have announced we are reducing it. I 
do not think the enemies are going to come forward.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to say to the gentleman, our former chairman, 
Congressman Glickman, and I both supported making this number public 
and have voted for it on several occasions. I think we have even joined 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts in that respect.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I agree
  Mr. DICKS. I concur. I do not see a major national security problem 
with that number being made public.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. As you know our 
former colleague, Mr. Glickman, now Secretary of Agriculture, I 
understand he is interested in trying to hide the number of 
agricultural subsidies. That is, I think, one that angers many more 
Americans, what we are going to pay the farmers to do whatever they 
want anyway. That is probably one they ought to hide and not this one.
  I acknowledge what the gentleman from Washington said. But the 
majority has enforced this rule. So the American people can know, I 
think I can say without fear of indictment, that we will be spending 
many billions of dollars in this bill. I think national security will 
survive by mentioning the figure, many billions. The American people 
will not know how many billions and how many less billions than we used 
to before.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
right? It is many billions.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for that. I hope he 
has not endangered his standing as a member of the national security 
community prepared to help protect our secrets. But this is an example 
of the silliness.
  There are further examples of how this is not the best way to deal 
with it. We are talking here about one of the most fundamental issues 
facing this country. We are about to adopt a budget which will severely 
limit spending over the next 7 years. We are going limit overall 
discretionary spending.
  The amount we spend on national security, on intelligence and its 
various forms, on the military, and this is all intricately connected, 
will be a severe check on what we can spend elsewhere. The more we 
spend in this budget the less environmental protection we will have, 
the less we will have for education. It all becomes zero sum.
  In the past we would say to ourselves, well, when it comes to the 
national security, we will err on the side of safety because, after 
all, the very security of the Nation is at stake.

  We also have not been operating for many years in a limited zero-sum 
situation. We had a deficit, a continuing deficit. It was harder to 
argue then that an extra billion or two or three in this budget would 
come out of efforts at local enforcement where we supply money for 
communities to hire police officers, loans for people to go to college 
who could not otherwise afford to go, environmental protection. We use 
to be able to be more casual about this.
  But today every dollar that we appropriate for this and other 
national security measures reduces our capacity as a society to deal 
with other important public problems.
  Now, for many years we argued that we, if we were going to err, we 
should err on the side of spending money on national security because 
the very survival of the Nation was at stake. And it was. Beginning in 
the late 1930's, with the rise of Hitler and his allies and then after 
this Nation played a major role in defeating Hitler, beginning in 1945, 
with Stalin and his, not allies but vassals, we faced for 50 years 
outside powers that did not share our belief in freedom, that were 
regressive in their desire to diminish freedom elsewhere and which 
possessed the physical capacity to damage the United States.
  Fortunately, for a combination of reasons, by the early 1990's, that 
situation had changed, and one thing that this budget reflects is the 
view, and Members have said it time and again here, the world is no 
less dangerous today than it was 10 years ago from the standpoint of 
the United States. I cannot think of a single proposition less 

[[Page H15497]]
intellectually valid, less in consonance with the real facts in the 
world and more damaging to the social fabric of this country.
  In fact, there has been a qualitative increase in our security in the 
world. Yes; there are in the world today very unpleasant people running 
countries. You look at Iran, you look at Iraq, you look at North Korea 
and in a rational world the people running those countries would not 
even be allowed to drive cars. Sadly, they are in charge of countries. 
They make miserable the lives of millions, and if they could they would 
do great damage. But, collectively, they simply do not rise to the 
level of a threat of the United States.
  We fought a few years ago against Iraq. We were told, and some of us 
took that apparently more seriously than it turned out we had to, that 
there would be a terrible problem because Iraq had the fourth largest 
army in the world. We went to war against the fourth largest army in 
the world, and that war was over, fortunately, very quickly in a very, 
very one-sided win for the United States. Then we were told, even after 
Iraq, there are other countries that are a threat. There is Iran. Well, 
Iran is run by people who are appalling in their lack of respect for 
the rights of others. They are clearly people who, if they could, would 
substantially diminish freedom. But they have not got the capacity to 
threaten us physically.
  Iran lost a war to Iraq, which suggests to me that our fear of their 
overall power has been exaggerated. Again, we are talking now not about 
whether the United States ought to be strong, not whether the United 
States ought to be by far the strongest nation in the world with the 
best intelligence in the world, the best weapons in the world; the 
question is, now the Soviet Union has collapsed, that Russia is now a 
small part of what the old Soviet empire was, now that Poland, Hungary, 
East Germany and Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria have moved away, now the 
Soviet Union itself has been broken into smaller parts, the nature of 
the threat has substantially diminished.

                              {time}  1115

  Yes, there are still problems in Russia, but the capacity, and people 
in the military have always said, you do not look at the intention of 
the enemy, you look at the capacity, that capacity is rapidly 
diminishing.
  The Russians are now trying to sell their last remaining aircraft 
carrier to India, because they cannot afford to keep it up. Their fleet 
is in disuse and they are trying to sell that off. There has been 
denuclearization in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. The question is 
not whether America should be strong.
  The question is, and this is, as I said, the central proposition, 
those who are looking to prop up excessive defense spending, which 
comes inevitably at the cost of environmental protection and education 
and health care and other important needs, local law enforcement, local 
transportation, their argument is the world is no safer.
  They are wrong. There is a qualitative difference between the Soviet 
Union of 10 years ago, leading the Warsaw Pact, with its capacity to 
inflict absolutely terrible physical damage on this country, and, on 
the other hand, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Immoral societies, 
societies that oppose freedom, but which simply do not have the power.
  Members have said, you know, the military budget has dropped since 
1990. Yes, it has. But the point is that it has not dropped nearly 
enough, given the drop in the threat. If, in fact, we were lucky enough 
to see cancer as an illness diminish in its scope the way the Soviet 
Union has diminished, I would predict you would see a greater drop in 
the National Cancer Institute. We do not spend a lot of money today 
combating polio. It is a terrible thing, but fortunately, we have 
diminished it.
  The problem is that military spending survives far after the threat 
has diminished, and the proof of that is that people who defend this 
level of spending, this relatively minor cut, talk about, and I really 
feel at a disadvantage, because, unlike the gentleman from Washington, 
the majority has insisted on keeping the number secret, so they are 
going to tell you they cut it, but they cannot tell you how much they 
cut it. But that is because they do not want to tell you how much they 
cut it, which is, of course, silly. But it also helps them keep it at a 
much higher number than it should be. We have got an overly inflated 
national security expenditure. The world is very different.
  As a matter of fact, what we are suffering from is a severe case of 
cultural lag. For about 50 years, from 1940 to 1990, it is true, this 
Nation faced, first from the Nazis and then from the Communists, 
physical threats to our very existence.
  Today the major international problem for Americans is not that we 
face a physical threat to our existence; it is that we face a threat to 
our ability to maintain the standard of life to which we have become 
accustomed in a world in which you can make anything anywhere with 
great technological change.
  That is the challenge. That is the challenge that is destabilizing 
France. That is the challenge that is causing grave problems in 
America, as company profits go up and workers are treated worse.
  The problem we have is that we are using tens of billions of dollars 
of our resources to act as if we were still under major physical threat 
from the Soviet Union or some comparable force, and depriving ourselves 
of the ability to deal with the current threat. It is a severe case of 
cultural lag.
  So, I hope we will reject this particular budget, because it is a 
reflection of the mistaken policy that says the world is just about as 
dangerous as it used to be. Let me say this. They said, you know, the 
world is just as dangerous because we have Iran, Iraq, North Korea.
  None of those countries, as I recall, sprang into existence for the 
first time in 1992. Eight or nine years ago we had the fully nuclear-
armed Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and Iran and Iraq and North 
Korea. Now we have these smaller nations and we continue to pump it up.
  As far as the intelligence agencies are concerned, what are they 
doing? Well, they are into, we have talked about mission creep, they 
are into mission search. Mission creep is when you gradually begin to 
do more. Mission search is when you do not have enough things to do and 
you look for new things to do to justify your budget. So now we are 
being told we need them to do economic intelligence.
  Where are the free enterprisers? You want to have the Federal 
Government now serving as the economic research bureau of corporate 
America? These are people who are charged with protecting our national 
security. The notion that we will now transfer over and pay them 
billions of dollars to do economic analysis is hardly consistent with 
free enterprise, and also not a very good use of our money, since they 
are not going to be the ones you would reply on. Paying our highly 
trained intelligence force to be market researchers does not make a 
great deal of sense, but that is the direction they are moving in.

  I stress again that we do this at very specific cost to everything 
else. Every billion dollars we spend unnecessarily in this area means 
you cannot spend money on student loans, for working class young people 
to go to college; cleaning up Superfund sites, providing adequate 
transportation; providing health care.
  My Republican colleagues have said with regard to some of the cuts 
that are being made, we do not like to make them, but we have to, 
because we have the goal of balancing the budget. You make it much 
harder with this kind of legislation. To the extent you continue to 
pump unnecessary funds into the national security apparatus and do not 
recognize the extent to which there has been a diminution in the threat 
of a qualitative sort, you cause your own problems when you reduce 
spending in many other places.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, you can never do too much reconnaissance. 
That is General George S. Patton from his book ``War as I Knew It.''
  This excellent intelligence conference report provides our military 
and our intelligence support troops what they need today in Bosnia and 
the intelligence capability we will need tomorrow and as far as we can 
recon into 

[[Page H15498]]
the future in North Korea, Iran, South America, Eastern Europe, and 
everywhere else on an increasingly complicated global situation.
  This report provides, as has been stated several times, a 4-percent 
increase in tactical intelligence funding. The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Combest] has made me the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical 
and Technical Intelligence, and in a situation like Bosnia, everything, 
from our highest satellite architecture, to unmanned aerial vehicles, 
to everything we can do technically to detect some very difficult-to-
find land mines, a great percentage of them made just across the 
Adriatic in Italy, it is not all Chinese plastic mines, we need all the 
funding we can get to truly ``support our men and women in harm's 
way.''
  This is direct intelligence for the war fighters, or peace forgers, 
or peace hammerers, or peacekeepers, or nation builders, whatever we 
call our young defenders in the field.

  It increases funding for, as I said, unmanned aerial vehicle 
programs, UAV programs, including the highly successful Predator, 
already supporting operations in Bosnia. The staff of our committee and 
myself, together with a former member of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, Col. Greg Laughlin, the Congressman from Texas, we 
went to Albania, saw our growing friendship there, and how excellent 
this Predator program is.
  It provides funding to reengine the existing workhorse of strategic 
manned reconnaissance, the RC-135 rivet joint aircraft. One of our 
staffers who went with me on that trip last August, Mike Meermans, 
spent many years on active duty in the Air Force in the infancy of this 
rivet joint incredible program.
  Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, this is a great effort to enhance the 
tactical and technical intelligence capability of the U.S. military. I 
want a big and vigorous vote on this, to show that when you are drawing 
down your military to the tune of almost 700,000 patriotic men and 
women who planned on a career, you should be upping your intelligence.
  A nation that suffered such drama in this Chamber on December 8 of 
this month 54 years ago, the last time we ever declared war on anybody, 
it was a result of Pearl Harbor, of course, I am speaking about, it was 
a result of a total breakdown of intelligence. We will never have that 
major a lapse again, but we are still now in a dangerous world where 
even fine tuning of intelligence makes the difference.
  I encourage a massive vote by the Members of this Chamber for this 
excellent intelligence conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, may I please add a few more key points. Our focus is to 
posture for the future without detriment to current fielded systems. 
Our intent is to invest in latest technologies to determine potential 
without sacrificing existing, proven programs, for example, new 
satellite technology initiative, while funding for existing programs; 
funds new UAV ACTD efforts while ensuring U-2 Dragon Lady upgrades.
  Although the budget's total intel authorization is .08 percent less 
than the President's request, it actually, increases funding for every 
major national intel program except the NRO. The overall decrease is 
result of the large decrease in carry forward funds from NRO.
  Our conference approved bill provides a 4 percent increase in TIARA-
JMIP--direct warfighting--intelligence support. This reflects a turn 
around of continual decreases in direct military intelligence support 
funds since 1990.
  I repeat, we fund many new UAV efforts.
  We increase funding for the PREDATOR Medium Altitude endurance UAV--
proven in Bosnia, where it provided direct operational support, with 
unprecedented real-time imagery, to NATO forces participating in the 
air campaign.
  We increase funding for the Low Observable High Altitude Endurance 
UAV which will begin flight testing this January 1996.
  We Fund Conventional High Altitude UAV.
  I repeat, we provide funding, not included in President's request, 
for reengining the ``strategic manned reconnaissance workhorse'', the 
RC-135 rivet joint.
  Much of this authorization focuses on processing and dissemination of 
collected intelligence. These have been where the intel community has 
been perceived as weak in the past.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, will ensure a continuing strong intelligence 
capability to support policymakers and our deployed military forces 
worldwide.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], one of the senior members 
of the Committee on Intelligence, one of our most important Members of 
the House, one of our leadership Members, and a man who travels around 
the world bringing back people who are in trouble and does a great job 
for this country.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say in these days of budget impasse, there is a 
lot of talk of bipartisanship that does not exist, but I think this 
committee is a model for bipartisanship. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] for the way they handle this committee. I especially want 
to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for the support he 
gives me on many of my trips and other initiatives.
  Let me just say this conference report is a good one. There are some 
good bipartisan compromises on the National Recognizance Office, on 
some of the covert action programs. There are good initiatives here 
that deal with international terrorism, good initiatives allowing also 
the Department of Defense to get more into the intelligence areas, 
recruiting women and minorities. There are some good initiatives here 
that deal with Bosnia.
  Let me just address some observations that I have had as probably the 
longest serving member of the Committee on Intelligence of anyone here.
  First, I think we have a very good CIA director, John Deutch. I think 
we should support him. He is a reformer. He is trying to make things 
better. He has brought some good people in. He is trying to 
consolidate. I think we should support him as he tries to bring the 
Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency under his 
rubric. I think we should, because what we have is a Director of 
Central Intelligence, we should make him. We should give him the 
authority to appoint those people. He has dealt with the Ames problem 
effectively. He is trying to clean things up.
  But in this effort of reforming the agency, we have to be sure we do 
not hurt morale over there. There are still a lot of good people that 
perform good intelligence work, that have been there for many years, 
that are either mid-career officers, that are younger officers. Let us 
support them. Let us reform the agency, anything can be done better. 
Let us made them justify their fund. I think the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] brings in some very healthy skepticism. But 
at the same time, let us not decimate it.
  It is an unsafe world out there, maybe not as unsafe as it used to 
be, but there are threats of nuclear proliferation, there are threats 
of terrorism, tribal ethnic conflicts, international narcotics. And we 
do have a need for economic intelligence. I want my trade negotiators 
to know what the position of another country is going to be before they 
get to the negotiating table. We are not talking about freebies for 
corporations. We are talking about implications, intelligence work that 
is valuable for our national security; that is, our trade negotiators.
  Let me also say that I think the National Security Agency, the NSA, 
has too many people there. They have an effort that collects data with 
a very broad sweep. They do not target it. They need to do betters in 
that area.
  I do think we need more human intelligence. We need more spies. We 
need more people getting us intelligence. Now, that may not be popular 
in some circles, but we do. We need more James Bonds. We need more 
people out there that perform services that sometimes are not the 
safest and sometimes are not considered the purest of objectives. But 
we need covert action. There are instances where we probably should 
have used it, and we did not.

[[Page H15499]]

  It has got to be carefully monitored by the Congress. It has got to 
be approved by this body. Let me say also the new DCI, the Director of 
Central Intelligence, has consulted with the Congress a lot better than 
his predecessors. That has always been a problem. But I think the 
committee and the staff have a good system of knowing what is going on, 
disseminating the information, and finally acting on it.
  Mr. Speaker, again, we should approve this vote with a strong margin. 
There is strong bipartisan support for this bill. We are downsizing our 
military. But that does not mean that we should not give our military 
that intelligence that they need to deal with threats. And the world is 
not safe. Perhaps it is not as unsafe as it used to be, but these new 
threats have to be dealt with by new initiatives, consolidation. They 
have to be dealt with with a stronger thrust, as I said, in the human 
intelligence areas, and that is people. That is people that know Arab 
countries, that know about North Korea, that know about some of the 
threats that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] posed, and he 
is right. The Soviet Union is not that much of a threat. We do not need 
to know how miserable the economy of the Soviet Union is. It already 
is. We know that. So we should know about the intentions of other 
nations.

  So again, I think this is a good bill. We should support it, but with 
a good healthy skepticism that some of our colleagues have discussed.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], because he will need that for his 
introductions.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I want him to know I have enjoyed working 
with him on the defense appropriations subcommittee on some important 
issues there, and I am delighted to yield to him.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, all over this country today, the American people are 
frightened and alarmed and upset that the Government has closed down. 
Last night at 10 o'clock on the floor of this House we managed to pass 
a bill that got checks out to wounded veterans, but yet right now we do 
not know whether 8 million low-income kids, whether their families will 
get checks so that they can eat this Christmas week.
  People here are talking about major cuts in Medicare, forcing low-
income elderly people to pay more for health insurance when they just 
do not have the money to do that. People in this Chamber are talking 
about savage cuts in Medicaid, which could throw millions of low-income 
kids, elderly people, working people off of health insurance.
  In America today millions of working class families cannot afford to 
send their kids to college. Today, 22 percent of our children are in 
poverty, by far the highest rate of children in poverty in the 
industrialized world.
  For God's sake, let us get our priorities straight. We do not need to 
be funding the CIA and the intelligence budget at anywhere near the 
level that we funded them at the end of the cold war.
  The Soviet Union, in case some of my colleagues have not heard, no 
longer exists. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists. But our children are 
still hungry, our elderly people still cannot afford their prescription 
drugs. Millions of kids still cannot go to college because they lack 
the funds.
  When we talk about moving toward a balanced budget, and every day I 
hear people coming up here and telling us how important it is to move 
toward a balanced budget and how we have to cut so much from the needs 
of the elderly and the low-income people, what happened to the 
discussion of the balanced budget today? How come it is not important 
today?
  Forty years ago Dwight David Eisenhower, a conservative Republican, 
said watch out for the military industrial complex. Watch out for the 
military industrial complex, said Dwight Eisenhower, a conservative 
Republican President, and was he right.
  This year, with the end of the cold war, President Clinton signed a 
Republican defense budget asking for $7 billion more than the Pentagon 
requested, and the children go hungry. Today we are asking for an 
inflated intelligence budget, inflated CIA budget, and the elderly 
people cannot get the health care that they need.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities right. Let us say no to this 
bill. Let us keep faith with the American people.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I want to remind our colleagues that since 1985 the defense budget 
has been reduced by $100 billion. We take this year's budget and this 
year's dollars and compare it to 1985, and we have come down $100 
billion. We have reduced the defense budget by 39 percent in real 
terms. There is no other area of the budget that has been cut in that 
dramatic fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts, the world has 
changed and we have recognized that change, but I also would point out 
that there are still significant problems, not only in Russia, where we 
still have a lot of nuclear weapons that have not been dismantled; but 
in China, a very strong assertive power in Asia that we must be 
concerned about; and, in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and other former 
members of the Soviet Union that present intelligence challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, the intelligence budget is part of the defense budget 
and it, too, has been reduced. It certainly has not been reduced to the 
level that my friend from Massachusetts would accept, but I think 
prudent people who look at this from all cross-sections, understand 
that this Congress has cut it more than George Bush wanted it cut and 
it has cut it more than Bill Clinton wanted it cut. I think we have 
done a responsible job on a bipartisan basis.
  We had extensive hearings both in the authorization and 
appropriations process, and we made cuts. When we found excess 
spending, like we did at the NRO, we cut it out. But we also have very 
serious requirements that must be met. So I urge my colleagues to 
continue to support this committee and this bill.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining 
time.
  My friend from Washington said they found some extra spending in the 
NRO and they dealt with it. They did. They spent it somewhere else in 
that same budget. That is a good example.
  The intelligence community hid a billion dollars from them. A billion 
dollars was being spent by the intelligence community and they did not 
know about it. And then they found out about it after the fact. Well, 
first, how many Federal agencies have the capacity to hide a billion 
dollars from the appropriators and the authorizers? The intelligence 
people did.
  and what was the penalty, Mr. Speaker? Well, the penalty was they 
could not spend it the way they wanted to. But that billion dollars did 
not go into deficit reduction or into other purposes, it went back into 
this cold system because they just think they need this money.
  I believe, in the first place, that when we talk about a 39-percent 
reduction, let us understand that that is differential accounting. 
Because when the Republicans talk about cuts or increases in future 
programs, they do not use real dollars. They do not take inflation into 
account. They use nominal dollars. It is only the national security 
budget that gets the inflation factor put in.

  But even if it is 39 percent, and let us just use that real dollar 
term elsewhere, and then some of the increases they talk about will 
become decreases in real dollars, but I believe the threat to the 
United States has dropped by more than 39 percent.
  In 1985, a fully armed Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, and that is 
gone, and Iran and Iraq and those other countries do not add up to 60 
percent of the threat we had. Yet there has been a drop.
  It is also the case that 1985 was a great base year because that was 
after Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger and a very quiescent Congress 
gave the Pentagon literally more money than even they knew what to do 
with. 1985, of course, was the most inflated possible base year. 

[[Page H15500]]

  I want to close by talking again about that billion dollars they hid 
from the Congress at the NRO. We have people today cold, endangering 
their health, because this Congress has refused to appropriate adequate 
funds for low-income home energy assistance. Let us be very clear. We 
have cut this back.
  There are elderly people and families in a panic because in this cold 
they could not heat their homes because we cut back the money. The 
billion dollars that they hid from us that we rewarded them by letting 
it be spent elsewhere is more than we are going to give people to heat 
their homes. Crumbs, small change in this budget are essential 
elsewhere, and this is an example of the worst kind of priority 
setting.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a valued member of our 
committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the Chair and the 
ranking member of our committee for the bipartisan manner in which the 
business of the Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence has been 
conducted.
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] 
for his leadership and cooperation on the sanctions issue, on which we 
went into detail when the bill originally came to the floor. Simply 
said, if the administration chooses not to issue sanctions for reasons 
as are spelled out in the bill, this action would be rare and Congress 
would be looking closely at the actions they take.
  I, too, agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], that 
as we cut spending across the board in the Congress of the United 
States, that our intelligence budget should be subjected to that same 
tightening of the belt. I wish that his amendment, which I thought was 
a very sensible one, because it left the discretion to the DCI and 
Secretary of Defense to do the cutting, was one that I had hoped this 
body would have accepted. It did not.
  However, I still rise to support the legislation because I believe 
that the bill before us is one that, at least for this next year, is 
worthy of support. It is worthy of support, I believe, because of the 
work that has gone into it but also because of the new director of the 
Central Intelligence, Director Deutch. I believe he deserves the 
confidence of the Congress of the United States to attempt to change 
how the intelligence community relates to itself and to each other.
  I also believe that we have to have appropriate funding in order to 
build the satellite architecture and make the determinations about the 
satellite architecture. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the diversity 
issue be addressed more proactively in the Central Intelligence Agency, 
and I accept the director's assurances that that will take place.
  I believe that our country is better served when all of its 
manifestations reflect the diversity of our country. It is very, very 
important in terms of intelligence. What country has greater diversity 
in terms of language, in culture, and representation than the United 
States? I think our needs in terms of intelligence are served by 
drawing upon that, diversity certainly not only in our recruiting, but 
in our advancement within the Central Intelligence Agency and the 
community. And in that I certainly include the participation of women. 
I am pleased with the appointment of Nora Slatkin as the executive 
director.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the funding for their issues. We do 
need funds in order to declassify the material that we need to 
declassify. We need to prepare for a comprehensive test ban treaty 
verification. There are many reasons why we have to provide the 
resources to go forward, including the environment.
  I share the concern of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
about economic espionage. I think that corporations should do their own 
intelligence. If the needs of the country are served by our economic 
intelligence, that is quite different than serving the needs of a 
particular company.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I again commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for their leadership. I, too, will fight again for cuts. I think 
we should have more declassification and more diversity in our 
intelligence services and will fight for that in the next year.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I want to make clear the point on economic espionage. I think the DCI 
has made it very clear that we are not entering this on a company-by-
company basis; that we are looking at agreements that have been entered 
into, economic agreements between the United States and other 
countries, to make sure that they are faithfully executed, sometimes 
using our intelligence resources for that purpose. We also verify on a 
government-to-government basis various negotiations that occur between 
countries. Some things are done there, obviously.
  We have not engaged, and I think the DCI has been correct and the 
Congress has been correct to draw a line and say we will not go out and 
engage in these activities on behalf of any company. I wanted to make 
that point clear.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I have two 
concerns about the economic espionage. One is the one the gentleman 
just spelled out, that we are not here to be an extension of providing 
corporate welfare to corporations to help them do business 
internationally, and the gentleman makes the distinction very well in 
terms of what is in the interest of our country, trade, et cetera.

                              {time}  1145

  But I have another concern, and that is how many of my colleagues 
remember when we were young, what was the March of Dimes against polio, 
and then all of a sudden one day, who knows, the day when the March of 
Dimes was to fight birth defects. It happened at a time very 
appropriately, and I am saying that with great positive admiration for 
the work that is done there.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see the intelligence community all of 
the sudden justifying its existence on the economic side, when what has 
been described by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] as real threats. And as we know, 
if we send our troops out, we have to provide the best intelligence, 
but I do not want the justification for this big budget, which I think 
should be cut, to be now economic espionage. That is part of my concern 
with this new mission.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with the gentlewoman on 
that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, certainly, economic espionage does not 
require the type of money that we are talking about here.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me what the remaining time 
is?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Combest] has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the time of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has expired.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to make some general comments, not specific.
  Mr. Speaker, I will never forget when I first had the opportunity, 
actually my first trip to Washington, DC, in my life in my mid-
twenties, when I went to work for U.S. Senator John Tower. One of the 
things that we have certainly lost in this House, and that I would like 
to return to, and I think the relationship with the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] and with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is exemplary, is in terms of the fact that we can work 
together. We may have some philosophical differences, but it is not a 
personal matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I always had a great deal of respect for the fact that 
Hubert Humphrey, while I disagreed with him on many philosophical 
issues, there could be passionate debate in the Senate, and he and my 
boss, John Tower, would basically walk off the floor arm in arm because 
of a friendship that was there. They understood the passion with which 
people cared about issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I have that same respect certainly for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders]. They are very passionate in their beliefs. 

[[Page H15501]]

  This is one of those issues in which there are some differences in 
priorities. It certainly is not that we want to see children starving. 
We could take all of the money in defense and in intelligence and spend 
it on other programs, and to many that would not be enough. And, 
certainly, we cannot do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about a balanced budget. This Congress 
passed, and it may have been over the objection of many who have 
spoken, a budget earlier in the year and we conform to that budget. We 
fit within it. We will take those reductions as they come.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that we 
are substantially below where we were when this House passed this bill 
some months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] said. There is no Member of the House that has 
more of a concern, a very dedicated concern in the areas that she has 
those concerns in our foreign relations policies. I have stated on this 
floor as well that we should not, and we cannot, justify expending 
money in the intelligence budget on economic intelligence. I would have 
a very difficult time coming and suggesting that that is what we ought 
to be doing.

  Mr. Speaker, if there is information in the bigger national security 
issue that we would gain and glean from that, I think that is as well, 
as the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Rchardson] so ably pointed out, 
an area in which we can be very helpful to our own commerce. But it is 
not company-specific; it is not giving one company advantage over the 
other.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not that just the agencies within the intelligence 
community are going out and searching for new roles in order to justify 
their existence. They are being asked to do these things.
  The Vice President is very concerned about the role that intelligence 
can play, and past intelligence information that has come together, on 
the environment. And if there is information that we can get on the 
environment, and information we can get about economic intelligence and 
other areas, I think that is a very legitimate cause. I think it would 
be very difficult to justify expenditures solely for those purposes. 
They are not the major priority and role of the intelligence community. 
They are an offshoot. The country is better served by it. And as long 
as it does not infringe upon or become more significant or important 
than that dealing with national security and the intelligence 
community, I will continue as well to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington only had 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. Does the gentleman need additional time?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, no. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. 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.

                          ____________________