[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10176-H10182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 858, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of
October 30, 1997 I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S.
858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 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.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the
House of October 30, 1997 the conference report is considered as having
been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at page H9586.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany
the bill (S. 858) that authorizes funds for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities, and for other purposes, for fiscal
year 1998.
All such conference reports are, Mr. Speaker, as this one is, a
compromise that, unfortunately, represents a significant reduction in
funding for intelligence activities from our authorization passed by
this body in June. But these reductions, when combined with some of the
actions we have taken in appropriations, will mean the intelligence
community will do without some much needed resources in several areas.
That said, however, this conference report does set the stage for
some work we will be doing over the next several years to ensure that
this Nation has the intelligence capability it needs. Therefore, I
strongly support the passage of this report.
I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked hard to
craft this bill, particularly the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks], the ranking member. I appreciate, as well, the fine efforts of
our subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
In fact, I thank all the members of the committee who played
constructive roles throughout this process; and, indeed, that was every
member of the committee.
Also, Mr. Speaker, special acknowledgment goes to the members of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for their cooperation as we
came together to make tough decisions on how best to invest in the
future of our intelligence community for the benefit of our country.
{time} 0945
Of course, there is no way we could be here today without the
dedication, professionalism and perseverance of the staffs on both
sides of the aisle and on both committees. I say that because we have a
good working relationship, it is bipartisan, and bicameral, and it
shows.
Finally, some applause most go to the Members and the staffs of the
House Committees on National Security and Appropriations for their
sustaining cooperation throughout this authorization's legislative
journey. It has been a good working relationship and a good product as
a result.
Mr. Speaker, this bill could not be more timely. Over the last few
days, much time has been spent by Members deliberating very serious
issues relating to the future relationship that the United States
should have with Russia and with China. Indeed, we will be debating
more on China today. Significant questions have been raised regarding
these countries' roles in the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, proliferation that could result in placing our Nation at
serious risk, thus comprising a direct threat to our national security.
I do not intend to get into the policy side of this debate here
today. Whether we decide that sanctions should be imposed or continued
on these countries is secondary, but there is a fact here that simply
cannot be ignored. As a Nation, we will not be able to gauge the
success or failure of our policies or know the threat without an
effective intelligence community. We simply have to have the eyes and
ears to let us know what is going on.
We are told that there are no Russian missiles aimed at American
children as they go to bed at night. Mr. Speaker, how do we know that
for sure? How can we make that statement with certainty? How long will
it take to retarget such weapons? How can we know how tenuous is the
chain of command in the Russian strategic rocket forces? And how are we
to catch profiteers trying to steal and sell suitcase nukes, if indeed
they exist? And how are we to uncover and disrupt the secret nuclear
weapons programs underway in hostile rogue states we read about
virtually every day in the paper and see on television every night? The
answer to all of these questions is one word, ``intelligence.''
And then there is China, Mr. Speaker. We will soon begin the debate
again on the certification of China. Hanging in the balance could be
United States access to the Chinese nuclear reactor market, reportedly
a $50 billion trade opportunity. Or is it an opportunity? To do this,
though, we must have confidence that the Chinese have stopped
proliferating weapons of mass destruction components, systems and
technologies, something that the Chinese President has promised to do.
How good is that promise? But how will we know? How will we know that
the technology we provide has been secretly diverted to military
programs or to rogue regimes? Again the answer is simple, intelligence.
Intelligence is what we count on to answer these questions, and we want
these questions answered.
Mr. Speaker, weapons proliferation is a sufficiently grave problem
for me to argue the need for dynamic intelligence community
capabilities. But there are other problems also at play. Terrorism,
narcotics, and racketeering are some of the transnational issues we
talk about that are endangering our Nation's well-being and for which
we must have strong intelligence capability.
Also included in the need for intelligence is its crucial role
supporting our military forces, our war fighters, mission one, whether
they are deployed for war or for other less well-defined humanitarian
or peacekeeping missions where we are doing force protection.
Intelligence requirements have grown tremendously and intelligence-
related technologies have revolutionized our defense and warfare
doctrines.
As we know, it is intelligence that puts the smart in the smart
weapons. But it goes well beyond that. Intelligence is the centerpiece
of the doctrine of Dominant Battlefield Awareness, which has been
endorsed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by our Armed
Services.
But, the Defense Department needs to make the hard decision to invest
more for intelligence if it truly desires to achieve the capabilities
it says it needs to support our forces. I encourage them to take that
message during the next year. Indeed, I find it somewhat puzzling that
if this is the direction that DOD wants to go, why are there continued
efforts to, ``tax'' defense intelligence agencies and programs even
more? Why has the Defense Reform Task Force apparently been talking
about significant cuts to defense intelligence, up to 25 percent?
[[Page H10177]]
That is a big cut. Why are those in the Joint Chiefs' office asking
our commands to consider a 10-percent reduction in staffing of joint
intelligence billets in the field? These types of actions do not
indicate a sense of seriousness on behalf of the DOD that backs up
their commitment to intelligence. Giving our war fighters the best
possible informational edge is not debatable.
We also need a real commitment from Congress. As we review our
intelligence capabilities over the coming year and as we look at next
year's budget submission, we must keep in mind that intelligence is a
vital part of our Nation's defense, not a cash cow bill-payer for it.
That brings us up to this conference report, Mr. Speaker. Let me be
blunt. I do not believe that the intelligence community is sufficiently
prepared to meet the demands that are being placed upon it now, much
less in the future. In other words, the community simply cannot deliver
all that is expected or all that is desired of it today. I think that
is a shame. The fact that many forget is that we cannot turn
intelligence on and off like a light switch. We cannot treat this like
we are cramming for a test on a final exam. It just does not work that
way. It takes time to build and maintain the proper capabilities. But
that is something we have got to do.
Regardless of how this Nation responds to an issue, whether it is
through diplomacy or whether it is law enforcement or whether it is
military action, intelligence is the key to success and we simply must
have it. Good intelligence, I think as we all know, is better than
insurance. It saves lives. It prevents calamities. It heads off those
nasty surprises. But like insurance, you have got to have it before the
crisis happens. So now we must invest for our future.
In this conference report, we are doing that. We are doing the right
thing and making the right choices, though coverage in some areas is
admittedly light and I think dangerously light. I encourage my fellow
Members to support this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss],
the chairman of the committee, for the statement that he just gave. I
think he hit the nail right on the head. We are not spending enough
money today on intelligence. A lot of people in this House think we are
spending too much money on intelligence. But I think the gentleman is
absolutely right. The cuts that were made unfortunately in the
Appropriations Committee, and I am a member of it and take some
responsibility for it, I think are too deep and are cuts that we are
going to regret because of the consequences within the intelligence
community. I commend the gentleman for his statement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the
intelligence authorization bill. I want to commend again the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss] on his leadership in achieving in conference an
agreement that addresses many of the reservations I and other Members
had with the bill the House considered in July. As I noted then, I
believe that changes in the direction of complex activities should be
undertaken with a clear understanding of their likely consequences. The
conference report takes a more measured approach toward change,
particularly in the programs of the National Reconnaissance Office,
than did the House bill, and represents in that respect a better
product. I want to point out that when you have these very major
programs that are crucial to the ability of this country to gather
intelligence, our national technical means, stability is required. One
thing that we in the Congress have to be very careful about is not
causing instability within the NRO. They have got a daunting challenge
to modernize our national technical means. I hope that we as a Congress
do not make that job more difficult.
I want those who are concerned with the amount of money spent on
intelligence programs and activities to be aware that while the measure
passed by the House contains slight increases to the amounts requested
by the President, and authorized in fiscal year 1997, the size of those
increases were reduced in conference. The legislation now before the
House is 1.4 percent above last year's authorized level and 0.3 percent
above the President's request. I do not consider these increases to be
excessive and want to assure my colleagues that the amounts authorized
by the conference report are responsive to the legitimate needs of our
intelligence agencies to maintain their capabilities to collect,
analyze, process and disseminate intelligence.
The bill as reported by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence contained a provision which would have terminated the
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office [DARO]. Since the version of the
defense authorization bill reported by the House Committee on National
Security had a similar provision and that reported by the Senate
Committee on Armed Services did not, the matter was reserved for
resolution by the defense authorization conference.
As a conferee on that measure, I want to emphasize that the defense
authorization conference report does not include the DARO termination
recommended by the House. The conference agreement compels no change in
DARO nor will it require that DARO cease the exercise of its critical
responsibilities for strong oversight of airborne reconnaissance. The
conference report does clarify that DARO's role does not include
program management or budget execution. It should be understood clearly
that this provision does not alter DARO's current role or
responsibilities since, Department of Defense officials have stressed,
DARO has not, does not and will not manage programs. Instead, all
airborne reconnaissance programs are executed by the military services
or by the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency [DARPA].
The conference report provides for a review of DARO by the ongoing
Defense Reform Task Force, which I support. This task force could well
make a recommendation and the Secretary of Defense could decide to
place the airborne reconnaissance oversight function in another
organizational structure or to alter the manner in which the office
reports to senior DOD officials. I have every expectation, however,
that the task force and the Secretary will strongly support
continuation of a centralized and powerful oversight function at a
senior level within the Department.
I would add that I believe that the pursuit of UAVs and airborne
reconnaissance are two things that we must continue to work on and
strongly support. I believe, having talked to a number of intelligence
officers, that UAVs, like Predator, have tremendous potential and that
we as a Congress need to do everything we can to support the agencies
that are working with these unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe that
they have tremendous promise and that we should not back away from
them. I know that my colleagues on the other side are as interested in
that as we are, but we have got to have stability there as well. If we
did away with DARO and if we did away with moving forward with UAVs,
what would happen is that we would fall back to the old technologies
and not make the breakthroughs that I think are required for the
future.
During a colloquy when the House considered the conference report on
the Defense Appropriations Act, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]
assured me that the reduction to DARO's operating budget reflected in
the act was made without prejudice and that the committee would
consider a reprogramming request from the Secretary to restore all or
part of the funding requested for supporting the airborne
reconnaissance oversight function for fiscal year 1998. The defense
authorization conference report followed the budgetary allocations of
the appropriations conference in this as in most other matters. I hope
that the leadership of the other committees which would have to
consider a reprogramming for DARO will likewise defer to the judgment
of the Secretary of Defense on funding for this activity in fiscal year
1998.
In closing, I want to note an omission from this legislation about
which I have great concern and disappointment. One of our primary
responsibilities as members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is to ensure as best we can that the intelligence agencies
have the means by
[[Page H10178]]
which to conduct their important activities, not just in the short term
but for decades into the future as well. I believe the record of the
Congress in providing the resources necessary to modernize intelligence
capabilities has been excellent, and there are a number of examples of
that in this conference report. There is, however, one important area
in which a critical investment should have been made, in my judgment,
in the bill. Both intelligence committees were willing to provide the
required authorization of funds, but the administration, taking a view
of the future with which I disagree, refused to commit the necessary
resources. I believe we will look back at this missed opportunity with
great regret and that those responsible for this decision will have
many occasions to wish that they had taken a more far-sighted view of
the intelligence needs of the next century.
{time} 1000
Mr. Speaker, the reservation I just stated is not the fault of the
conference committee and does not lessen my support for what is
contained in this conference report. The conference agreement merits
the support of the House, and I urge that it be adopted.
I want to join with the chairman complimenting the excellent staff
that we have both on the Democratic and Republican side. We try to
function in a bipartisan way; that is the goal that the chairman and I
both share. We do have outstanding people who work every day for the
House on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, many
with long tenure. I just want the House to know that we are well served
by the professionalism and the ability of these people who keep
confidential some of the most important information in this Government.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks] for his very compelling remarks, and I think we can all see what
an extraordinary job he does on this committee and what incredible
leadership he gives us, what participation, and what championship of
projects that he knows about and cares about deeply, and we share the
same views, perhaps not the same energy level on some of them.
I think as regard to DARO, the issue is not about the capability, the
issue is how we make it work best, and I know that the gentleman knows
that I am committed to that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington briefly.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the point we want to make.
There have been some problems. I know we are all frustrated about the
UAV's, trying to bring them on more rapidly, but I do think in this
particular case that the Department of Defense deserves, and after all
we said to them, pull all these programs together, create an entity,
get management oversight of this, we want this to be handled.
Now we got the agency created, they are starting to do the job. The
problem is, like in a lot of areas of advanced technology there are
problems, and not every one of these programs works perfectly the first
time in many areas because they used to be classified, people did not
know about it, and finally we get it right, but we would not kill the
program.
Now we put it out there in the open, and people see the failures, but
that is what R&D is really all about. There will be failures, but
ultimately we are going to get this job done, and it is going to give
us a revolutionary new capability in the reconnaissance area along with
our aircraft. And I just think we have got to stay the course and
support this, support DARO, and make sure they get the job done with
good oversight which the chairman has provided.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
the chairman of our subcommittee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my
chairman yielding this time to me, and I want to take just a moment to
express my personal deep appreciation for the work of both our chairman
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
I would further like to say that within this committee the atmosphere
of growing almost nonpartisanship is a very refreshing development in
the Congress, indeed an area that is so critical to the United States,
our intelligence programing, to have people working together in a
fashion that recognizes that the importance and strength of the country
is what we are about is very, very encouraging to me. I would like to
compliment our staff on both sides of the aisle for their very fine
work they have done throughout developing this measure.
Stepping aside for a moment and reacting to the discussions regarding
the DARO and airborne reconnaissance programs, I must say I believe
this committee has done a fabulous job over some time at highlighting
the importance of these reconnaissance programs, and the work of the
DARO is the result of the efforts of this committee, and indeed a great
deal of progress we have made in this area is a direct result of the
efforts of the committee. And so I am very encouraged by the interest
on both sides of the aisle and expect that there is little doubt that
we have gotten the attention, the clear attention, of those in DOD that
we should have in order to make further progress as we go forward.
In the area of keeping us on the cutting edge of technical
capabilities which is so important to our intelligence success, I would
like to mention just a few things, the first being that investment in
satellite systems that utilize cutting-edge technology that are smaller
and operationally more flexible, and they can be acquired within
greatly reduced time lines, eventually will reduce the overall cost to
these programs, and yet they are very, very important programs to us.
If we do this correctly, that is by following the pattern of faster,
better, cheaper, we certainly will have dividends that in turn can be
applied to other areas of significance to our work.
I would mention that reinvesting some of those dividends and items
that relate to downstream activities, like the processing and
exploitation, analysis, as well as dissemination of our products, is a
critical part of effective use of intelligence assets. I must say it is
one thing to spend a good deal of money developing information; it is
another thing to be able to use it in a way that means something to our
interests, and those sorts of investments are very important as we go
forward with developing more effective intelligence systems as well as
programs.
Another area is investment in research and development to keep us on
that cutting edge. There is not any question in my mind's eye that
there is not another area of American Government's work that is more
critical than making sure that we are technologically capable and on
the edge than in the field of intelligence.
America, without any doubt, in this changing world remains the
strongest country in the world, indeed the leader and the hope for
democratic and free opportunities in the future. No small part of that
is because of the work of the intelligence community. We always and
often most hear about problems that we may have in our intelligence
work because that is when ofttimes those activities and that work
becomes public. Very few know about the real successes that have made a
difference for freedom throughout the world, and that is the
responsibility in no small part of this committee as we carry out our
oversight functions, and it is my privilege to participate in the work,
the very fine work, of the committee and the leadership of our chairman
and our ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], who is a senior
member of the Committee on Armed Services and a new member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but one of our very, very
best.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member giving me
some time this morning.
The conference report before us does more for military intelligence
programs and activities than the President requested. While these
increases are small, I believe they reflect the fact that as the size
of the Armed
[[Page H10179]]
Forces decreases, the need for timely and reliable intelligence becomes
more critical. Our military commanders cannot do their jobs, both in
terms of the achievement of their objectives and the safeguarding of
the lives of our service men and women without intelligence of the
highest quality. We simply cannot manage safely the planned drawdown of
the Defense Department without the kind of investments made by this
bill.
I want to congratulate the chairman and congratulate the ranking
Democrat for the work they have done to make sure that our military
personnel have the support that they need in this important area. I
intend to continue to do what I can to make sure that we do not slight
the future investments that will need to be made to ensure that our
battlefield commanders have the information necessary to achieve rapid
dominance so that any armed conflict results in a decisive victory for
our forces.
I believe we have taken important steps toward that end in this
conference report. Much more, Mr. Speaker, needs to be done,
particularly in the areas of information warfare and aerial
reconnaissance. These are among the areas to which I hope the committee
will devote particular attention in the next year.
It is a pleasure to serve on this committee. I salute both the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the ranking
Democrat, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their dedicated
and bipartisan work. I also want to give particular thanks to all of
the staff who have devoted untold hours to producing this conference
report.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report. I am sure my colleagues have all heard that information
technology is vital to our future both for economic competitiveness and
for national security. Information warfare, information operations,
information dominance, information assurance and dominant battlefield
awareness, they are all familiar phrases often invoked when defense
budget priorities are discussed. Upon closer examination, however, we
sometimes find that this is more rhetoric than reality. Since Rome
Laboratory is in my congressional district, it is the Air Force center
of excellence for information technology development, I have had the
occasion to examine the rhetoric and the reality.
In a broader sense, the entire intelligence budget is geared to
provide a U.S. worldwide information advantage upon which policymakers
and military forces will rely heavily, yet partly because of the rise
in military operations costs and the dearth of military procurement
money, in recent years the intelligence budget has received only modest
congressional plus-ups provided to the defense budget. This year, for
instance, money appropriated for intelligence will be under, under the
administration request.
Further, I understand that in the developing budget for fiscal year
1999, the Air Force initially recommended large cuts to science and
technology in the magnitude of $250 million, which could fall heavily
on information technology. Quite frankly, that is totally unacceptable.
I have made known my strong rejection of that approach to the
appropriate people, and fortunately I am finding a receptive audience
in both DOD, the Department of Defense, and the White House.
One of the reasons I sought this much coveted position on this
committee is to be able to deal directly with its very important
subject, and I am pleased to report that our committee this year took
steps to upgrade the information infrastructure budget of several
agencies to improve their processing, storage and exploitation of
intelligence data. For the future we are also requiring a more coherent
interagency strategy and budget for information assurance, or
information protection. In this regard the President's Commission on
Critical Infrastructure recently publicized its conclusions that not
only the defense infrastructure, but also key parts of the civilian
economy are highly vulnerable to computer attack. The Commission called
for greater focus and progressively increased spending to improve our
protection.
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I do not yet see the level of commitment to
information technology that will maintain the country's technological
advantage into the future. In fact, although the rhetoric is there, the
reality seems to be somewhat questionable.
I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of this committee and the
chairman and the ranking member and support this conference report and
deal with this very important subject in a responsible manner.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons], who is a value added member of our
committee, believe me. As a decorated serviceman, the information he
has given us has been extraordinary, and we welcome him in his first
year.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Speaker, I
rise in very strong support of the conference report accompanying
Senate Bill 858.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], along with their
counterparts in the other body deserve a great deal of credit for an
intelligence authorization bill that this Nation can be proud of and
that all Members of this body should strongly support. Not only does
this bill authorize the proper amount of authorization for the
operation of our national intelligence activities, it also specifically
authorizes funds for those tactical intelligence functions that provide
direct indications and morning support to our military personnel
deployed around the world. It is absolutely critical that we, the
elected officials in this country, fully support those men and women we
have sent into harm's way with useful intelligence.
{time} 1015
This bill provides the best effort possible to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is also important to note that in terms
of tactical intelligence functions, in this bill there was tremendous
and close coordination between the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the House Committee on National Security. I have
firsthand knowledge of this as I proudly serve on both committees.
This cooperation was so effective, in fact, that the tactical
intelligence provisions addressed were actually contained in the
defense authorization bill that was recently voted on by Congress.
As a former military veteran and fighter pilot, I must say that
several of these provisions address issues that are very important to
me personally, issues such as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAV's. These
unmanned aircraft offer a great potential for reducing the threat and
danger of enemy activities and threats to our airborne reconnaissance
aircrews.
However, in many Members' eyes, the Department of Defense's
management of these vehicles has not proven to be overly successful.
The defense and intelligence authorization bills take some bold steps
in this direction, both in terms of legislation and funding actions, to
improve the Department's UAV management, thus ensuring that these air
vehicles have the greatest chance for success.
Although controversial to some, I believe the very responsible
positions hammered out during the conference and the conference process
are all fair, logical, and, most importantly, a step in the right
direction, to minimize the overhead costs while maximizing the
Services' responsibilities for equipping their troops. These
responsible actions are reflective of the entire intelligence
authorization bill.
Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the Members on the
other side of the aisle for their conscious and dedicated effort in
this regard. I urge all my colleagues to support this conference
report.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant] who has been largely responsible for the ``buy
America'' provisions that have been contained in this bill over the
last several years. He has been very concerned about this.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
[[Page H10180]]
me time, and I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for the
bill.
As you know, I have questioned some of the intelligence-gathering
capability of our programming here that we fund. Some of it evidently
is made to the advertisement level, where I questioned why we did not
learn from the CIA that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait but we
learned that from CNN.
I am not going to oppose this bill, because I have confidence in the
people who have drafted the bill, and I understand that without
adequate intelligence gathering, our national security is really
threatened.
But I want to caution the Congress. When General Schwarzkopf said
that he relied on intelligence as much from the media and CNN as he did
from CIA and other sources, that should be cause for alarm. I honestly
believe that we are spending billions of dollars in this hidden
intelligence network system, and we are not getting the type of
intelligence that we need to keep our great Nation free.
I believe there is a fault. I am hoping that in the next bill we will
address that, we will address the reasons why a general in the Persian
Gulf war relied as much on the media as he did on intelligence sources
and why, in God's name, our media knows more at times about significant
national and international events that affect our freedom as does our
intelligence-gathering network.
So I believe you are on the right track. I appreciate the fact that
even though it is a hidden budget, we can have a hidden ``buy
American'' provision, and hopefully maybe we will at least buy a few
American items that will help keep America free. I am going to support
the bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Ohio, Mr.
Traficant, that General Schwarzkopf is a very close friend of mine. In
fact, he was commanding officer of I Corps at Fort Lewis, and I went
over there several times. He did come to the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence after the war. He said that this was the best
intelligence that any commanding officer had ever received.
Now, did he say, yes, there were some things we should be working on
like broad area search, the dissemination of imagery, being able to
find targets which could be relocated, like Scud launchers, more
rapidly? Yes. But I want the gentleman to know that we are working on
each one of those issues.
Last year, this Congress created NIMA. I strongly supported that.
That was an initiative of the administration. We put mapping together
with imagery. Today, we are able to get imagery out into the field more
rapidly than we could during the Gulf War.
I will also say to the gentleman that other areas of intelligence
gathering provide greater insights into Iraqi plans in the gulf war. We
knew exactly what was going on.
So the general had some critiques, but, overall, he said intelligence
was very, very good. I think if you talked to him about it, he would
say that. We are, I believe, trying to address the areas where there
are problems.
I would also note that the first thing that George Bush, the
President during the gulf war said at the time was that there had not
been an intelligence failure with respect to the invasion of Kuwait.
The intelligence community gave the President notice that it was likely
there would be an invasion. The administration did not act on that
warning.
It was hard to act, because our allies were giving us different
information. Our allies in the region were saying that Saddam will not
do it, while the intelligence community said that, it looks like he is
going to do it. A decision was made to rely on the people in the
region, and that proved to be wrong. But it was not an intelligence
failure.
I like the fact that when you go all over the world you have CNN, and
it is a good supplement to our intelligence. Having the news available
all over the world is important. But it does not make up for having in
place the national technical means, the tactical intelligence, the
human intelligence that has to be out there in the field. I am worried,
frankly, that we are downsizing to such a level that we are going to be
spread so thin, especially in the human intelligence area, that we
could have problems in the future. That is something we have to
address. But that is going to require more effort and more resources,
not less.
We thank the gentleman for his help and participation and for his
support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would only follow on to my distinguished colleague's
response to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] by saying, what the
media did in the Gulf war was to report what was happening and what had
happened. What is key to intelligence and its effective service is to
analyze all sources and to try to predict and provide the best possible
advice to our policy makers.
I think we have learned a lot from the Gulf war, and I think the
quality of the intelligence services that we are provided today are,
indeed, far superior. But the fact is, it is always easy to criticize
an event after the fact. It is far more difficult to deal with the
complexities of the world as they exist today and to provide leaders
with predictions about what is going to happen. That is the key.
But I really appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak today
in support of the conference report to accompany the Senate bill that
authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and
Counterintelligence, I am particularly pleased with the bipartisan and
bicameral work that we have been able to do to augment the breadth and
depth of all-source analysis, as I mentioned a minute ago, in the
intelligence process.
Mr. Speaker, let me describe the future role of the all-source
analyst by describing the past. Last month, the Central Intelligence
Agency celebrated the 50th anniversary of its creation, leading us all
to reflect for a moment on the grand struggles and great victories of
the OSS in World War II and the CIA in the Cold War.
Our chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], has spoken
publicly and eloquently about the work and sacrifices made by U.S.
intelligence officers from occupied France to the Soviet Union in
securing these victories, in many instances submitting themselves to
grave, grave danger.
Those struggles, Mr. Speaker, are now history, and it is really a
grand history. In their place has emerged a far more complicated,
multipolar world with issues and threats that emanate not just from
Berlin or Moscow, but from places like Kinshasa, Monrovia, and Chiang
Mai.
To inform and educate our policy makers in this new world, we require
an intelligence community with diverse and global foci. To make that
happen, we require an analytic core that can follow everything from the
T-72 tank in the sub-Sahara to the price of poppies in the Golden
Triangle. We also need those analysts to identify and direct
intelligence collection that is both cost effective and useful to our
needs.
Mr. Speaker, I support strongly Senate bill 858, and I urge my
colleagues to support us in passing this conference committee report
today.
I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for his help and
guidance as the chairman of this committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield back, too. Before I do, I want to
just point out one other thing. Sometimes we overlook the fact that we
have men and women, dedicated men and women in the intelligence
community in the United States of America, who are working literally 7
days a week, night and day, to make sure our national security remains
nationally secure. I think that is something that sometimes gets
overlooked and sometimes gets misinterpreted in our sensationalized and
instantanealized media.
I think every American should be proud of the folks in the
intelligence
[[Page H10181]]
community and the work they do, and should be thankful for them, as we
are.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I urge support of the conference
report.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1998
Intelligence Authorization Conference Report.
As a member of the committee, I would like to commend the chairman,
the ranking Democrat, and all of the staff for their exceptional work
on this important bill.
This report achieves small gains in intelligence spending, at a time
when other categories of Federal spending are decreasing. Why? Because
intelligence spending is intelligent spending.
The post-cold war world is characterized by uncertainty. This makes
it even more critical that we have a robust intelligence program.
One source of uncertainty is proliferation. Nations like Russia and
China are selling high technology weapons and know-how to rogue
nations--we wouldn't be aware of this without the resources and the
efforts of our intelligence agencies.
The Congress had an opportunity to address this issue yesterday, and
now the administration has an opportunity to take the steps necessary
to stop it. To monitor our success in the future we need continued
vigilance and continued efforts to prevent and respond to proliferation
to rogue states.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Technical and
Tactical Intelligence, I want to note that too often when we think of
intelligence gathering, we only think of the spies and information
sources behind enemy lines. These people and sources are critically
important to be sure, but we cannot forget our technical collection
capabilities--the satellites and aircraft equipped with high technology
sensors to observe and to listen.
Taken together, these systems comprise an architecture--a system of
systems--that collects intelligence and distributes it to decision
makers and military planners.
Because of these sentinels, our enemies know that their actions do
not go unnoticed. They know we are watching.
I am proud to say that many of these technical systems are designed
and manufactured in my district, and I salute the men and women who
develop them. They are truly making the highest contribution to our
national security.
Mr. Speaker, today we are undergoing a revolution in military
affairs. Our Armed Forces rely increasingly on information so they can
understand the battlefield and attack with precision and effectiveness.
It is our technical intelligence architecture--our satellites and
aircraft with their sensors and processors--which collects the critical
information that gives our forces an overwhelming advantage over their
opponents.
Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support this Intelligence
Authorization Conference Report, and I urge our colleagues to do so.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
support of the conference report to accompany Senate bill 858 that
authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities
for fiscal year 1998. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I am pleased that this
report identifies and corrects some fundamental shortfalls in the
investments we must make to ensure that our Nation's intelligence
community can provide on the ground intelligence about the narcotics
traffickers, terrorists, weapons proliferators, and rogue states that
imperil our national security.
human intelligence
Mr. Speaker, the collectors of on the ground human intelligence, or
HUMINT, are working hard and working well against the plans and
intentions of terrorists, traffickers, proliferators, and rogue states.
In the budget request, however, our committees found a significant
shortfall in the technical and other support that these collectors will
need in future years to continue their fine efforts to gather HUMINT on
these threats; we cannot expect these collectors to overcome the high
technology employed by traffickers, for example, without technology of
their own. This committee also found a lack of long-term planning in
the focus and funding of collection operations; we cannot expect HUMINT
collectors to perform well when funding plans are made on an ad hoc,
year-to-year basis.
As the result of bipartisan and bicameral work and coordination, Mr.
Speaker, our conference report does indeed begin the process of
providing adequate support for the eyes and ears of the intelligence
community against these new and difficult threats. On those same bases,
Mr. Speaker, our report now directs the intelligence community to
develop a system for projecting the long-term funding needs of these
vital collection efforts so that we may continue to provide these
efforts with adequate support.
analysis
Mr. Speaker, the all-source analyst stands in the center of the
planning of this committee and of the intelligence community for the
needs of policymakers in the 21st century. We will look to the all-
source analyst to anticipate future needs for intelligence and to
provide support to the policymakers and to the military. Where will the
next Congo be? What are the terrorist threats in a specific country?
What success is a rogue regime having in developing chemical or
biological weapons? We will also look to that analyst for direction in
what information about these crises we may obtain through open sources
and what we must obtain through human or technical clandestine
collection.
In that light, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to report that
the conference report directs and begins to fund the restoration of an
analyst cadre pared too lean over past years to cover the projected
needs of policymakers as we pass into the next century. As our report
makes clear, our committees will remain engaged in that restoration and
will look to the all-source analyst to guide the intelligence community
in future years.
counterintelligence
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the reality of the
counterintelligence threat to our national security continues to play
on the front pages of our newspapers: Ames, Pitts, Nicholson, Kim, and
now the recent three arrests. The success of investigations and
prosecutions in these cases continues to depend upon
counterintelligence officers within the community who are able to think
the unthinkable--that is, that Americans could engage in such
treachery--and to pursue investigations carefully and successfully. Mr.
Speaker, our conference report reflects bipartisan and bicameral
recognition of the efforts of these counterintelligence officers and
supports the means by which their vigilance may be continued.
conclusion
In sum, Mr. Speaker, our conference report acknowledges and supports
the focused efforts of the HUMINT collector, the crucial role of the
analyst, and the difficult, but necessary, role of the
counterintelligence officer. We have made surgical cuts and strategic
adds necessary to the focus and the effectiveness of the intelligence
community against the threats that imperil our nation.
I once again thank Chairman Goss for the direction and guidance he
has given to both his subcommittees during the course of conference.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for
S. 858, the Intelligence Authorization for fiscal year 1998. However, I
remain deeply concerned about allegations that have been raised
regarding CIA involvement in drug trafficking in south central Los
Angeles and elsewhere. A year ago next week, then Director of Central
Intelligence John Deutch made an unprecedented visit to Alain Locke
High School in my district to directly address the concerns raised by
my constituents and me generated by these allegations. His visit
illustrated a new openness to wrestling with the issues raised by press
reports. Those reports, some of which have been retracted, suggested
that the crack cocaine trade that has devastated whole communities was
promulgated by official government activities under the aegis of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
Consequently, I and my constituents eagerly await the release of the
inspector generals of Justice and CIA. I understand the release of the
Justice Department's inspector general is imminent. I hope that the
select committee will give their content, methodologies and findings
the scrutiny they deserve and in a similar spirit of openness, make
themselves available to my constituents to respond to any questions
these report generate. I believe such openness is critical to
restoration of the credibility and public trust necessary to allow
intelligence gathering activities, which by their nature are secretive,
to coexist with democracy.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
agreement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998.
Last July, when this body considered the House version of the
intelligence bill, I stood in this well and commended Chairman Goss and
the ranking Democrat, Mr. Dicks, for their efforts in producing a
bipartisan measure that enhanced our Nation's intelligence collection,
analytical and dissemination capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I echo those
remarks today and extend them to the leadership of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Chairman Shelby and Vice-Chairman Kerrey, for
their efforts in working with us to produce a conference agreement
fully supportive of the men and women who comprise our intelligence
community.
In the unstable world that we live in today, our Nation's military is
called upon to perform more difficult tasks at an ever increasing tempo
of operations. Let us not forget that the Department of Defense has
regrettably drawn down more than any other Federal agency and the
reductions in personnel and dollars continue today. Intelligence acts
as a force
[[Page H10182]]
multiplier, and if we are to continue on a downward path in funding our
Nation's armed services, then we need to take every step to ensure that
our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to provide policy makers
with the information then need to make key decisions affecting national
security. The conference report before us today provides the necessary
resources to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient
to meet tomorrow's contingencies.
Mr. Speaker, debate over the appropriate levels of funding for
intelligence activities does not always emphasize the important role of
intelligence in achieving a full accounting of members of the armed
services who are lost in battle. I want to ensure my colleagues,
veterans and the families of the military personnel whose fate remains
undetermined that this conference agreement provides the necessary
resources to permit the intelligence community to continue to assist in
efforts to determine the fate of those listed as missing in action. I
have not forgotten you, the Congress has not forgotten you and this
legislation will assist in helping to bring you home.
Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the leadership of the House and
Senate intelligence committees for their work in fashioning a bill that
provides critical support to all facets of our intelligence community.
The military and civilian components of our intelligence apparatus are
sufficiently provided for in this agreement so that they may continue
to assist in providing force protection intelligence to our troops
called upon to conduct noncombatant evacuations when the lives of
Americans are threatened overseas. Additionally, resources are
authorized that permit the intelligence community to sustain its
efforts to assist in the collection and analysis of critical
intelligence bearing on such difficult and challenging issues as
counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterproliferation.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure and in doing so support
the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community.
Mr. GOSS. 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
conference report.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood).
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 36, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 607]
YEAS--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--36
Becerra
Bonior
Camp
Chenoweth
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Dellums
Duncan
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Lofgren
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Minge
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Rush
Sanders
Serrano
Tierney
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--12
Cooksey
Cubin
Gonzalez
Johnson, Sam
Markey
McDade
Neal
Riley
Schiff
Stark
Stokes
Yates
{time} 1050
Messrs. DeFAZIO, OBERSTAR, VENTO, and RUSH changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BARR of Georgia and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________