[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3456-H3463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 506 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 506

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4392) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2001 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 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of 
     order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply 
     with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, H. Res. 506 is a modified open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence Authorization Act. The 
most notable provision in this modified open rule is the requirement 
that Members wishing to offer amendments were asked to have them 
preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. 
Notice of this requirement was provided on Monday of this week.
  This provision does make sense, given the unique nature of the 
matters covered in this particular bill. In the past, we have found it 
works well to allow the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence the 
opportunity to review potential amendments ahead of time in order to 
work with Members to ensure that no classified information is 
inadvertently disclosed or discussed during our floor debate. By no 
means is it our intent to shut out any debate on the bill in any way; 
we simply want to use extra caution in terms of making sure sensitive 
material is properly protected.
  As is customary, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. The rule makes in order the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The rule further waives points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, 
which prohibits nongermane amendments. This is necessary because the 
introduced bill was more narrow in scope, as it usually is, than the 
product reported out by the committee.
  Finally, the rule provides the traditional motion to recommit, with 
or without instruction.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, given the nature of this bill, and, 
as far as I am aware, it is without controversy and it is the 
traditional rule.
  That said, I encourage Members to vote for this fair rule. 
Furthermore, I encourage support for the underlying legislation, which 
I believe is well prepared and an excellent bipartisan product that 
will continue our joint efforts to reform and revitalize our 
intelligence capabilities on behalf of our country and its citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001. H.R. 506 is a modified open rule requiring that 
amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. However, Mr. 
Speaker, the preprinting requirement has been the accepted practice for 
a number of years because of the sensitive nature of much of the bill 
and the need to protect its classified documents.
  The bill is not controversial, and was reported from the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence by a vote of 12 to 0.

                              {time}  1245

  Members who wish to do so can go to the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence office to examine the classified schedule of 
authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of the National Intelligence Program, 
which includes the CIA as well as the Foreign Intelligence and 
Counterintelligence Programs, within, among others, the Department of 
Defense, the National Security Agency,

[[Page H3457]]

the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI. Also 
included in the classified documents are the authorizations for the 
Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities and Joint Military 
Intelligence Program of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House considered and passed the 
authorization for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2001. This 
bill and the activities it funds is another key and critical component 
in our national defense. The end of the Cold War has brought us a new 
set of threats, among them global terrorist operations, narcoterrorism 
and threats to computer security, in addition to threats against our 
military, our State Department representatives around the world and our 
citizens at home.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill, providing 
authorizations for important national security programs. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule so that we may consider H.R. 4392.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule. I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of California). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 506 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 4392.

                              {time}  1245


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4392) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 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, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. H.R. 4392 authorizes for fiscal 
year 2001 the budgets of the 11 agencies and 13 programs of our 
Nation's Intelligence Community.
  Our bill authorizes the expenditure of what our country needs to keep 
its eyes and ears on the rogue states, the terrorist nets, the drug 
cartels overseas that threaten our well-being. It puts our satellites 
up and over our adversaries, our agents in their meetings and our 
linguists on their communications.
  Mr. Chairman, our committee has examined every line of the 
President's budget request for the Intelligence Community. We have had 
over 200 briefings and have held 11 hearings on the particulars of the 
request. Members of the committee have personally visited a number of 
places throughout the world to ensure that the men and women of our 
Intelligence Community, many of whom must work in anonymity and 
obscurity, have what they need to do their critical jobs.
  Through this long and painstaking process, the members of our 
committee have had to work through some troublesome and complicated 
issues to come to the unanimous bipartisan recommendations that are in 
this bill.
  Every member of our committee contributed to this effort and I must 
mention the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), my ranking member, 
for his outstanding work in helping us to shape this bill.
  Also the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the vice chairman of 
the committee, who is also the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which appropriates the 
intelligence funds, deserves full commendation for the outstanding work 
that has meant that this bill and his appropriations bill are indeed 
coordinated in lock-step.
  Finally, let me thank the staff of the committee. Yet again they have 
worked together in a way that has greatly assisted the members in what 
would otherwise have been an impossible task in reviewing so many 
programs in so much depth.
  I would note also that this bill represents the swan song for a 
senior committee staffer, Tom Newcomb, who is leaving the legislative 
branch where he has helped to make laws, to go to the Department of 
Justice where he will now have to help enforce those laws. Let us hope 
they were good laws. Tom has my personal thanks for his help these last 
3 years on the committee and I wish him the best of luck.
  I hope he is listening.
  Mr. Chairman, those who have read the unclassified, public bill or 
the press accounts of it know that we have made many criticisms of the 
current state of intelligence in our Nation. This is constructive 
criticism. The vast majority of these criticisms derive from the 
weakened condition that intelligence, our first line of defense, is in 
after years of underinvesting and making do. The men and women of the 
Intelligence Community and its leaders deserve commendation for what 
their ingenuity and perseverance have done to hold together a vastly 
complicated set of programs with some proverbial chewing gum and 
bailing wire. As with our military, our intelligence resources are 
stretched to the breaking point. Indeed, it has this last year 
tragically unraveled and even broken more than once.
  For example, a few months ago at NSA's headquarters we went deaf for 
3 days, largely due to inadequate resources for maintaining their 
computer systems. Fortunately, again, other elements of our community 
kicked in and picked up what slack they could and we did okay. But let 
me say clearly, had we been actively engaged at that time in 
hostilities in the Balkans or the Middle East or elsewhere it could 
have been a disaster of very high degree with American lives gravely 
threatened and possibly lost.

  Elsewhere, the problems are just as serious. In some places our 
agents do not have resources to recruit and run clandestine sources to 
penetrate hostile threats to our Nation. We soon will not have the 
funds to process and actually make full use of extraordinary pictures 
taken by our satellites. I could go on and on.
  We cannot expect our Intelligence Community to do more and more 
without giving them the resources to do what we ask of them. I wish I 
could say that this bill dramatically reverses the situation. It does 
not. Unfortunately, the way intelligence is funded, paid from the same 
budgetary pot as our military forces, the military would have to make 
do with even less. This is obviously a Hobbesian choice we should not 
have to make, sacrificing intelligence to pay for defense or vice 
versa. But it is the only choice we have, given the way the 
administration has presented the budget.
  We tried to address the critical problems that we have uncovered. We 
cannot go all the way but we at least are going down the road in the 
proper direction. We do increase funding for our intelligence 
disciplines of human intelligence, HUMINT as it is called, and signals 
intelligence, SIGINT; that is, espionage and foreign communications 
interception. These two activities give us our most sensitive 
information on the plans and intentions of our adversaries.
  As last year, in the area of imagery intelligence, the use of 
photographs, we are moving closer towards funding and planning 
adequately for the tasking of systems and the processing, exploitation 
and dissemination of the imagery derived from them. Nevertheless, our 
efforts do not sufficiently meet identified needs even with these 
efforts.
  This bill also addresses some of the most urgent concerns that we 
have with inadequate security and counterintelligence practices within 
the Department of State, which we have been reading about, and other 
agencies as well.
  Mr. Chairman, none of these issues should be a surprise to anyone. We 
have been telling the Intelligence Community and the administration and 
the

[[Page H3458]]

public, when we can, about them and other issues for quite some time, 
sounding, I think, a bit like a tree falling in an empty forest.
  What we have done, Mr. Chairman, is to do the best we could with the 
available resources. Two years ago, we started rebuilding. Since then 
we have made steady but agonizingly slow process to provide 
capabilities to enable us to confront the world as it is today, with 
its new threats and its new technologies.
  I can only hope that some day we can accelerate the rebuild rate. I 
can also hope that future administrations will approach intelligence 
funding differently and with more commitment.
  That day is not here, though, and knowing that lives can hang in the 
balance and do because intelligence can be very risky business, indeed 
we have tried to balance critically important competing priorities 
properly.
  Mr. Chairman, as much as I wish I could have done more I believe that 
as a committee working in a bipartisan, or rather I should say 
nonpartisan manner, we put before the House the best intelligence 
authorization act possible. I am proud of this legislation and the 
people who worked on it. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee that is very valuable 
to us, in the interest of accommodating him.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dixon), for his accommodation.
  Let me join my colleagues in wishing Mr. Newcomb well in his future 
endeavors.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dixon), have achieved an exceptional level of cooperation in the 
work of the committee.
  The bill provides the resources to ensure that the President, the 
National Security Council, cabinet secretaries and our military forces 
get the intelligence they need to protect our national security.
  This bill seeks to redress some of the important problems revealed by 
the campaign in Kosovo, especially in the area of airborne 
reconnaissance. These actions include investments beyond those in the 
President's budget request for the Department of Defense tactical 
intelligence programs. In all cases, these recommendations were 
coordinated with the Committee on Armed Services. Our bill in this area 
reflects the views of the Committee on Armed Services and vice versa.
  The bill also recommends actions in a number of critical areas in the 
so-called national intelligence budget. One of these areas is the 
exploitation of imagery taken from satellites and aircraft, an issue of 
great concern to the committee for several years. It is clear to all 
that our ability to exploit is going to fall far behind our capacity to 
collect, and this is unacceptable. The administration has taken a very 
positive first step by asking and planning for more funds in this and 
subsequent budgets, but the amounts remain well short of requirements.
  The committee added substantial funds to enable the National Imagery 
and Mapping Agency to begin a major upgrade of its information 
management capabilities, the necessity for which was specifically 
emphasized in the Department of Defense Kosovo lessons learned study.
  Another important problem area concerns the National Security Agency. 
The telecommunications and information technology industry appears as a 
whirlwind with NSA, at the moment, trailing in its wake. NSA's new 
director, General Hayden, is a committed reformer who deserves our 
support. He has asked the committee to help him by closing down some of 
the ongoing activities and shifting resources to solving the future 
problems.
  The committee has tried to do that in a responsible manner. This bill 
would give NSA substantially larger resources for modernization. At the 
same time, the bill would require NSA to expend more time and energy to 
ensure that its plans are sound.
  Similarly, we think it is prudent to ensure that the executive branch 
apply systematic oversight of NSA's complex and expensive modernization 
program.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact of launch failures on 
our intelligence activities. The committee has examined current 
arrangements by which the Air Force and the NRO procure launch vehicles 
and manage launch vehicle contracts. The committee proposed that the 
NRO, in the future, manage its own procurements. It is my hope that 
this measure will improve accountability and launch reliability, while 
preserving the very positive partnership between the NRO and the Air 
Force.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would accomplish much and I certainly urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, one of the most enjoyable aspects of serving on the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is that most issues which 
come before the committee are considered and resolved in a bipartisan 
way. That has been the committee's history, and each of its chairmen 
has worked hard to keep to a minimum those issues which might divide 
the committee along party lines.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has been particularly 
tenacious in this regard. I want to thank him for that, and for the 
sense of fairness which he brings to the committee's work, especially 
with respect to the drafting of this bill.
  Reliable and timely intelligence is an essential component of 
national security. The United States is without peer in its ability to 
provide high quality intelligence to policymakers and military 
commanders. Lives of Americans and people in countries throughout the 
world are saved as a result.
  Maintaining that capability in intelligence, though, is expensive. It 
relies not only on recruiting human intelligence sources, but on the 
development of systems which are at the forefront of complex 
technology. Keeping pace with change in that technological environment 
requires a substantial commitment of resources.
  That fact is not lost on the President and his national security 
team. This year the administration's budget request for the national 
intelligence programs, which include the programs of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National 
Security Agency, among others, was 6.6 percent above the appropriation 
last year.
  That is a healthy increase by any standard. It clearly reflects a 
commitment by the administration to intelligence, and a willingness to 
make meeting important intelligence needs a national priority.
  I support the total amount of money requested by the President for 
the national intelligence programs in part because of the persuasive 
justifications made by the Director of Central Intelligence, George 
Tenet, and other witnesses who appeared before the committee.
  As a result of information provided during the committee's budget 
review, some of which was not available to the administration when the 
budget was submitted, the committee has made changes to the allocations 
of fund within the budget request. We have also made a very small 
increase, one-tenth of 1 percent, to the total amount in the 
President's request. In my judgment, the changes and the increase are 
necessary, and I support them.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier of technological challenges facing our 
intelligence agencies. Nowhere are the challenges more daunting and the 
need to successfully address them more acute, than at the National 
Security Agency. Our ability to continue to collect and process signals 
intelligence needs to be better ensured. To do so will require new 
approaches to many aspects of the signals intelligence business.
  The NSA director, General Hayden, has proposed changes, some of which 
have already been implemented. He has asked for support from Congress 
in resources and in other forms. I believe that this bill by and large 
provides that support. The Director has an important task, and the 
committee wants him to succeed. Given the consequences if General 
Hayden's modernization effort is not successful, and

[[Page H3459]]

the significant amounts of money invested in it, the committee needs, 
and will, keep a critical eye focused on the NSA.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the committee, 
will be offering at the appropriate time an important amendment which I 
will support. Currently, the aggregate amount appropriated for 
intelligence programs and activities is classified on the grounds that 
to make it public would threaten national security.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
would require the declassification of the aggregate appropriated 
amount, not for the current fiscal year but for the preceding one.
  The administration has, on two occasions within the past few years, 
chosen to disclose amounts appropriated for intelligence. By 
definition, national security was not threatened by these actions. 
Extending and regularizing declassification, as advocated by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), in my judgment would provide no 
information which would constitute a national security threat.
  On the other hand, this limited look at how much is being spent on 
intelligence would enable U.S. taxpayers to be better informed about 
the uses to which tax dollars are being put.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4392 is an appropriate response to the needs of 
our intelligence agencies. In some cases, it begins work which we will 
need to sustain in the future if its promises are to be realized. I 
urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, for a colloquy.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I want to commend the distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the ranking minority member (Mr. Dixon), 
for bringing this measure to the floor at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Chairman, as indicated in the unclassified report accompanying 
H.R. 4392, the gentleman's committee is taking steps to reorganize the 
management, operations, and security of diplomatic telecommunications. 
That effort will affect the State Department, and the Committee on 
International Relations would like the opportunity to assess the impact 
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's recommendations.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I am asking if the chairman would agree 
that as this bill moves forward, the two committees can discuss the 
best approach to deal with the concerns that are reflected in the 
report to H.R. 4392.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations has spoken correctly about this situation. 
The bill does address the issue of the diplomatic communications 
system.
  As the gentleman is well aware, there will be ample time and 
opportunity prior to conference on this bill to address the matters of 
concern to the gentleman and his committee. I appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to support the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
on this issue, and I am happy that he has previously expressed his 
support for the general direction taken by the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence on this matter.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for responding to me.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the telecommunications issue 
is a serious one. Obviously, we need to look seriously at the 
implications of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's 
approach for the State Department.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), for his willingness to work with the Committee on 
International Relations on this matter. I look forward to the two 
committees working out a resolution on this matter on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Since I am the only Member on both committees, I hope to be in the 
mix. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the 
gentleman he will be in the mix.
  Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that the ranking member is in 
agreement, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), my colleague who is the chairman 
of our subcommittee that makes makes a lot of good things happen on the 
committee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me, and I appreciate the graciousness of the ranking minority 
member.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence 
Authoqrization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I want to again congratulate 
both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dixon) for the product out here. It has been a 
bipartisan product, as it usually is. The staff have done a great job 
of researching and developing very complex and important legislation.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, 
and Counterintelligence, I am satisfied that the committee has achieved 
its goal of providing necessary support towards rebuilding our Nation's 
human intelligence capability.
  As noted in the committee's unclassified report, we remain quite 
concerned that unexpected contingency operations, extended requirements 
for military force protection, poor planning, and community 
infrastructure problems have all conspired to take desperately needed 
funds from our front line intelligence officers in the field.
  These management and budgetary limitations have substantially 
undermined the committee's multi-year initiative to help rebuilding our 
eyes and ears throughout the world. I expect that DCI Tenet will 
fulfill his recent commitment to the committee that resources allocated 
by Congress for human intelligence activities in the field will be made 
available to our field officers serving in harm's way.
  On a more positive note, I want to recognize some impressive 
achievements of the intelligence community during the past year. In the 
counternarcotics realm, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement 
communities have shown an ever-increasing capacity to work together 
effectively against growing threats posed by narcotics trafficking and 
money laundering.
  In 1999, the intelligence community played a key role in several 
major takedowns of narcotics kingpins in Latin America, the Caribbean, 
and Asia; the destruction of a major Colombian cocaine organization in 
Operation Millenium meant that some 30 tons of cocaine no longer 
arrives in the U.S. every month.
  Improved analytical research by the intelligence community now 
provides us with a sobering and more accurate baseline of the volume of 
cocaine being produced in the Andean region and of the total narcotics 
tonnage reaching the United States.
  I remain very concerned that the delay in approving the Colombia 
supplemental is undermining our national security objectives in that 
key South American ally, particularly with respect to urgent 
intelligence and military support needs against the growing threats 
posed by Colombian narco-trafficking and terrorist groups.
  In the counterterrorism realm, the intelligence community also 
achieved some singular successes in 1999. What did not occur in that 
year and at the turn of the millenium gives some indication of the 
effectiveness of our counterterrorism efforts.
  Cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement communities 
resulted in several significant arrests of individuals linked to 
Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups associated with Usama Bin 
Ladin and any number of other incidences, but it does show we need to 
improve our border strength with Canada, and a number of other things 
that still remain deficient.

[[Page H3460]]

  I do also want to express my deep concerns about the serious security 
failures of the State Department. There are a lot of procedures and 
systems that still need to be addressed there. I am not going to take 
the time today to discuss all of those.
  There are a lengthy series of recommendations to both the Secretary 
of State and the DCI in the unclassified portions of the report of this 
committee. I certainly hope that the DCI will take the steps that have 
not yet been taken to exercise his authority in regard to enforcing 
these procedures, and to make sure that all security regulations 
concerning information security, personnel security, and 
counterintelligence measures are fully taken by the State Department.
  I last want to comment on the pending receipt of the DCI's report, 
including the results of his review and recommendations, as well as the 
receipt of certification of States' full compliance with the security 
regulations.
  The committee has recommended the fencing of a sizeable portion of 
those funds authorized to be appropriated through this bill for State's 
Intelligence Research Bureau. I wholeheartedly support the committee's 
action, and look forward to working with DCI Tenet and Secretary 
Albright to overhaul and rebuild those structures.
  I, too, because he has worked so much with this subcommittee that I 
chair, want to commend Mr. Tom Newcomb, who is now leaving, as the 
chairman had indicated, to go to the executive branch of government. He 
has been a valuable aid in this endeavor of the committee, and we will 
all miss him.
  What is more, I want to join the chairman and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dixon) for this bill that they have produced, and urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 4392.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), a member of the Committee.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  First, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his efforts in producing a 
bipartisan bill that addresses the intelligence needs of policymakers 
and our military.
  Additionally, praise must be also extended to the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), for his work in 
helping to craft this important piece of legislation, and for his 
leadership in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The bill is very consistent with the request submitted by the 
President. The committee recommends additional funding in several areas 
resulting in modest increases over the President's request. 
Improvements to our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
airborne platforms account for the largest portion of the increased 
funding.
  These increases are crucial for overall military operational 
readiness. The bill funds additional training aircraft, eliminating the 
need to use some of our operational aircraft for training, effectively 
increasing the number of platforms available for operations. We cannot 
decrease the number of training aircraft because we also have a 
shortage of pilots.
  The committee's Support to Military Operations hearing highlighted 
the need for more airborne platforms. During Operation Allied Force, 
the European Command found it necessary not only to dedicate all of its 
own airborne platforms to the campaign, leaving forces in Bosnia and 
Saudi Arabia vulnerable, but platforms also had to be borrowed from 
other theaters, with similar consequences to other missions. These 
aircraft were critical, providing threat warnings for our pilots, 
enabling the identification of targets, and finding downed pilots.
  Even with these additional reconnaissance platforms, the European 
theater could not satisfy all of its intelligence, reconnaissance, and 
surveillance requirements. It is unacceptable to have significantly 
decreased readiness in theaters where our troops are deployed, and I, 
for one, am not willing to risk the lives of our deployed forces.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a responsible and prudent measure. I am 
pleased to support it, and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the Vice-Chair of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express very strong 
support for this very fine product as produced by the committee.
  Further, I, too, want to express my deep appreciation, as well as my 
compliments, to both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for creating an atmosphere within 
our committee on the floor that is totally nonpartisan, a very 
important element to have the kind of support we need for this product 
that is so important to the future of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4392.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a unique responsibility when it comes to the 
Intelligence Community and the intelligence functions of the United 
States. I have the pleasure of serving as an authorizer on the 
Intelligence Committee as its Vice Chairman under Chairman Goss. And, 
as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee I have the 
responsibility for the appropriations for our intelligence systems, 
people and missions. In these two capacities, I am privileged to have 
an excellent vantage point from which to understand the U.S. 
Intelligence Community. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at this year's 
intelligence budget request from many angles, and I can tell you the 
bill before us today is a good one. Chairman Goss, and the Ranking 
Member, Mr. Dixon have done a thorough and responsible job of looking 
at the capabilities of the intelligence community, its needs, and 
moreover, its problems that must be addressed and corrected.
  This bill makes major recommendations for improving the ability of 
the individual Intelligence Community agencies to communicate and 
collaborate virtually anywhere in the world. This bill will also 
improve, and better secure the information technology infrastructures 
at the National Security Agency. Further, it makes a clear down-payment 
on improving the real-time tactical reconnaissance assets for the 
military services. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is focus the 
limited funds that we are able to muster on the critical needs of the 
nation's intelligence functions.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note the close working 
relationship between the Intelligence Committee and the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. In my many years as a Member of Congress, 
I have rarely seen, let alone been able to be part of, such a great 
working relationship between committees. This working relationship 
allows both committees to focus on the real problems and priority 
issues within the Intelligence Community.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is what this bill does, and I recommend all my 
colleagues to vote for H.R. 4392.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California, our 
ranking member (Mr. Dixon), for yielding me the time.
  I guess I would start by extending my compliments and best wishes to 
Tom Newcomb as well, too. I wish him the best in his new endeavors, and 
also would be remiss if I did not compliment the entire staff on the 
Democratic and Republican side, which I think is extraordinary and 
gives just great help to us as Members with very complicated issues and 
a very, very important budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong bipartisan support of the fiscal year 
2001 Intelligence Authorization Act. I believe this bill sets about the 
right level of overall funding for intelligence activities next year. 
The President requested 6.6 percent more in funding for national 
programs over last year's appropriated level.
  Some have complained that the administration fails to request 
sufficient funding for intelligence activities. The testimony I heard 
during our budget hearings did not convince me that we needed to go 
beyond the relatively robust top-line increase in this request. 
Nevertheless, there was room for concern about some aspects of this 
request and the allocation of those resources.

[[Page H3461]]

  I have been extremely critical of one highly-classified program of 
great cost and exceedingly doubtful impact. I have also been extremely 
concerned that the heightened pace of U.S. government counterterrorism 
efforts arising out of the threat identified over the new millennium 
could not be sustained to the end of the fiscal year and into fiscal 
year 2001.
  Finally, through oversight and legislative hearings, the compiled 
evidence significantly increased my concern about the state of language 
capabilities of intelligence community personnel. I have found that not 
only are there too few people speaking the language in the country, but 
too often the ones who do are not sufficiently proficient.
  I addressed these three concerns with an amendment to transfer some 
of the funding from the highly questionable classified program to areas 
of greater need involving terrorism and language proficiency. This was 
a bipartisan effort, and I thank our chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dixon) for their strong assistance and help in crafting 
that legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, later in the debate, probably next week, I will offer 
an amendment to require a yearly unclassified statement of the 
aggregate amount appropriated for the previous fiscal year.
  It is my understanding that one of the reasons offered for why the 
intelligence budget should remain classified is that its disclosure may 
provide foreign governments with the United States Government's own 
assessment of its intelligence capabilities and weaknesses. This to me 
is not persuasive.
  The fact of the matter is that in our great democratic country, there 
is considerable unclassified information openly published containing 
official assessments of intelligence capabilities and shortcomings.
  The intelligence community has, in fact, published the 1997 and 1998 
aggregate level of spending. There are legitimate concerns about 
protecting, through counterintelligence measures and enhanced security, 
our sensitive and classified information. An accurate report of the 
aggregate number appropriated for intelligence each year would cause no 
harm to national security and would clearly be a welcome addition to 
the public's understanding of the roles and missions of the 
intelligence community.
  In addition, it could also provide some measure of accountability for 
the agencies themselves. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment 
next week.
  We will have, I think, a healthy and vigorous and robust discussion 
about that amendment, and I want to reiterate that some have, in fact, 
recommended going further than my amendment on several occasions.
  I would remind the body that the Aspin-Brown commission which took a 
very serious look at whether or not to disclose an aggregate level of 
funding for the intelligence community, actually went much further in 
their recommendation than what I will propose in my amendment; the 
Aspin-Brown commission recommended that we publish the current year and 
the request.
  I am simply recommending through the amendment that we publish the 
previous year's aggregate funding, and that we do so to make sure that 
we strive hard to protect our Nation's secrets, although suspected 
aggregate funding levels have been published many times in many 
publications.
  Secondly, we must make sure that we have accountability from the 
agencies themselves. We conduct most of our hearings in a classified 
room, in top secret conditions, this is one small way of disclosure, of 
good government, of public accountability, especially in light of a 6.6 
percent increase. Third, I think the general public deserves to know.
  They know item by item in our defense budget that we just passed last 
night, what we spend on helicopters, personnel, submarines, Humvees, 
ships, everything we can imagine is boldly enumerated in our defense 
bill. We are not saying we want to do that in the intelligence bill. 
Although, we have item-by-item disclosure on joint intelligence and 
defense matters in our intelligence report, all I am simply saying is 
one aggregate disclosure level of what all the agencies were 
appropriated for the previous year.
  I look forward to the debate, and I certainly respect the other side 
of this argument.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in very strong support of H.R. 
4392, which is the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. 
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) are to be commended for the 
outstanding leadership they have provided for the intelligence 
community during these difficult times.
  In a strong decisive and bipartisan sense, they have, I think, been 
wonderful leaders and supported by a staff which exhibits the exact 
same characteristics, and those who also serve on it also appreciate 
it. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical 
Intelligence, I understand the critical need to invest in and modernize 
our technical intelligence and intelligence-related systems. 
Unfortunately, investment in our infrastructure has declined over the 
years, and we have reached the point where the strains are showing 
through.
  Over the past year, news headlines have told us the story over and 
over again, reminding us of the grave consequences of reduced funding 
to our intelligence capabilities. Here are a few that made it into the 
press: Outdated databases at the Defense Intelligence Agency led to the 
accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy; major computer systems 
failures at the National Security Agency; and outdated systems at the 
National Imagery and Mapping Agency reduced the levels of support to 
key consumers of intelligence.
  These events are stark indications of the condition of the 
community's basic infrastructure and testimony to the need for 
revitalization.
  This year's Authorization Act begins to address these substantial 
problems, but we understand providing the country with the capabilities 
it deserves and needs will take years and will require continued and 
unwavering support from Congress.
  Simply fixing today's headline problems of outdated and broken 
systems does not position our Nation well to manage the diverse 
challenges of the future.
  Our President must have sufficient capabilities and tools to support 
his policies to enable strong leadership and proactive diplomacy and to 
assure our military maintains a significant advantage over its 
adversaries, if, and when, needed.
  In order to continue to provide this country the intelligence 
required, the intelligence community must modernize its infrastructure, 
and this year's Authorization Act appropriately supports several 
community initiatives to address this very important issue.
  I am also pleased that we have incorporated a provision into this 
year's act to address an ongoing concern within the National 
Reconnaissance Office and their launch program. This was the outcome of 
a number of hearings and briefings in my subcommittee. Specifically, 
the NRO has a long history of overestimating the costs of launches.
  Our committee has been challenged to bring about appropriate 
discipline in this process in the past because of the confusing morass 
of contracts and relationships used by the NRO. A recently completed 
NRO Inspectors General report confirmed and intensified our concerns.
  This provision will improve our ability to hold the NRO accountable 
for their activities and lead to significant savings for the government 
and American people.
  Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
is a responsible, reasonable and appropriate request to fund our 
Nation's national security needs. Our President, our policymakers, our 
military and the People of the United States deserve nothing less, and 
I ask the Members of the House to give it their full support.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when this bill comes back from conference, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I will have ample opportunity to 
thank not only the Members of the committee, but the

[[Page H3462]]

staff for their outstanding work. Today, I would like to join the 
chairman of the committee and other Members who say that they will miss 
Tom Newcomb. The Department of Justice is certainly getting another 
good asset there, and we wish him well in his new endeavors there.
  I would like to take just a minute, Mr. Chairman, to single out 
someone who I have not given enough credit to, and that is the staff 
assistant Ilene Romack. She keeps the minority going and on schedule. 
It is not the most exciting job in the intelligence community, but it 
is a very important job. And I just want her to know, although, she 
does not come to the floor, that I appreciate her hard work and the 
efforts on behalf of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks with 
the distinguished ranking member about Ilene Romack. In fact, I would 
like to associate myself with all remarks about our staff today. I do 
that at some peril. We may have heard too many good things about staff 
today, but they do deserve it.
  I also want to thank those who spoke for the kind words about myself 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon). It is very nice to have 
a committee that is working as smoothly as it does, and I will tell my 
colleagues, it has a lot to do with the membership of those committees. 
And we have wonderful Members on our committee.
  Speaking from my side of the aisle, I know that everybody brings a 
contribution, we have heard some of them speak, various talents, 
various bridges to other committees, and I think that is the essence of 
why this is a permanent select committee that does so well. I 
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for his Members 
as well for the same reason, that we bridge to the committees we need 
to. We do not always agree on everything.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has brought up one of the 
areas where we have a slight disagreement. We will have a little debate 
on that, but we do it in the best of deliberative debate forum trying 
to make the points, and then Members taking the positions they think 
are the appropriate ones.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, I think, the right kind of assurance to 
provide to the United States of America and its people that there is 
good oversight of our intelligence communities. It works, and it is 
effective. The result is, I think we can stand here and assure the 
American people that our intelligence community are operating 
effectively and within the rules, but there is so much more to do in 
the world we face today with the type of challenges, which are very 
difficult, and the type of technology which is obviously very 
different. And this authorization tries to move us in that direction.
  I am not suggesting we are going to get all things done that need to 
be done for the community in terms of this authorization, but we are 
certainly doing, I think, a human part of the job. For all involved, I 
want to say thank you. We will do the amendments, I understand, next 
week.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 4392, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.
  But, Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the issue of the bill before us, 
I would like to take a moment to recognize the great bipartisan 
leadership that Chairman Goss and the ranking member, Mr. Dixon, have 
brought to the Intelligence Committee and, moreover, to the creation of 
this bill. I have had the privilege of serving on the Intelligence 
Committee for the past 3 years, and I can attest to the commitment 
these two leaders make to the committee, our intelligence community, 
and the security of our country. Chairman Goss, thank you for your 
leadership. And, thank you, Mr. Dixon, for your service to our 
intelligence community.
  Mr. Chairman, as one of only 16 members of the Intelligence 
Committee, I fully recognize the trust placed on us by all Members of 
the House to ensure that the highly classified work we do is in the 
proper interests of the United States of America. I take the 
responsibilities of that trust very seriously. That said, I can tell 
you that the Intelligence authorization bill before us today is one 
that I strongly support, and one that I urge all Members to support.
  Is it a perfect bill? No, it's not perfect. Truth is, I would rather 
that the bill were proposing a larger increase in spending for the 
national intelligence functions. It is not hyperbole to tell this body 
that the world is a much more volatile and unpredictable place than it 
was during the cold war. Crises around the world pop up literally 
overnight and are stretching our limited intelligence assets to the 
breaking point. These crises require a great deal of intelligence 
effort. Just because a hot spot doesn't threaten the very existence of 
the United States, doesn't mean that we can provide any less 
intelligence support if even one U.S. life is at stake.
  A single nuclear, chemical or biological weapon can still do 
tremendous damage, as can one large truck bomb. Usama Bin Laden and his 
cohorts continue to terrorize parts of the world. These asymmetric 
threats to our national security are real and we must have the 
intelligence means to know as much about them as we can. To properly 
respond to these threats we need more human sources around the world, 
we need more and better technologies to help our intelligence analysts 
interpret the vast amounts of data they must work through, and we need 
better collaboration among the various intelligence disciplines. All 
this takes money.
  Unfortunately, the budget requests we have been provided have not 
adequately addressed the proper funding necessary to ensure we have a 
strong ``first line of defense''--our intelligence community. And, the 
small increase that we've made to the national intelligence effort does 
not do all we need to do. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, this is not a 
perfect bill.
  However, is this a good bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman it is. We have made 
specific and, in some respects, dramatic recommendations to improve 
intelligence system modernization, collaboration, and communication. On 
the tactical intelligence side, we focused a great deal of attention on 
the testimonies of the theater commanders in chief and have provided 
significant funding for critically needed tactical intelligence 
systems.
  They told us often and loud that they required more intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance assets. To that end we have made 
recommendations for providing the military with badly needed 
reconnaissance aircraft and training systems. We have made 
recommendations for funding spare equipment and for providing 
commercial satellite imagery support. We have also recommended funding 
for improved imagery and signals intelligence systems.
  In short Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that addresses the most 
critical intelligence needs of our military and our national 
leadership. And, it does it with a modest increase to the overall 
request.
  I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4392.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4392, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. The intelligence 
agencies has been struggling to meet the many demands for information 
arising from chaos that reigns in much of the world, the conflicts that 
flare up in far flung corners, the unprecedented level of diverse U.S. 
military deployments, and a foreign policy that is often unclear. For 
the national agencies, this bill provides only a small amount above the 
President's request, to help our intelligence agencies meet these 
challenges.
  One of the prime beneficiaries in the bill is the CIA. The CIA, 
contrary to popular belief, claims only a small percentage of the 
overall intelligence budget. I have become particularly interested in 
the challenges faced by Human Intelligence, or ``HUMINT,'' as we on the 
Intelligence Committee call it. Although human beings--spies, if you 
prefer--are expensive, studies have shown that the money devoted to 
them is well spent, and that their productivity holds up well against 
that of the expensive technical systems receiving the lion's share of 
the intelligence budget. It may be old-fashioned, but it works. We may 
constantly be pushing for sophisticated and expensive new technology, 
but there is no substitute for the eyes and ears of human beings on the 
ground.
  I have made a point to speak and more importantly to listen, to our 
operatives abroad. Like others on the committee, I have heard the 
consistent theme that there are very limited operational funds. If you 
want to recruit people to your cause, you need to get out there and 
meet them, earn their trust and then entice them into the fold.
  Unfortunately, as our committee report states ``contingency 
operations'' have taken money from CIA espionage ``limiting our efforts 
to rebuild our eyes and ears around the world.''
  Last year, the committee made sizable increases to operational funds, 
only to find that these were taxed within CIA to support other 
underfunded but, from our perspective, low priority, activities. When 
we checked this spring, the committee found a lot more ``tail'' but 
little more ``tooth.'' We let it be known that we were most displeased. 
This year, we are

[[Page H3463]]

trying again. To say the least, we will be watching the ledgers with an 
eagle eye. And committee members will be double checking out in the 
field as well.
  Out there in the trenches, they also need a lot more language 
training. Indeed, this is a chronic deficiency throughout most of the 
Intelligence Community. This year, I was most pleased to work with my 
colleague across the aisle, Representative Roemer, to increase funds 
for language training. Our people in the field need to be able to 
communicate and interpret accurately. This also is an area I intend to 
pursue in the future.
  The Intelligence Committee provides very vigorous oversight and has a 
good track record for finding deficiencies, excesses and problems. We 
will continue to do our job, and we ask your support for our bill.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Budget and 
Intelligence committees, I have been especially sensitive to what we 
call top line issues--how much money is available overall, and whether 
it is generally adequate.
  Pressures to keep down the allocations for defense have also had an 
adverse ``trickle down'' effect on intelligence, since intelligence is 
funded within the defense top line. For the last decade, intelligence 
lost a large part of its buying power, after absorbing reductions both 
indirectly from inflation and directly from budget resolutions.
  In this regard, we recently suffered several particularly bad years. 
The administration's request this year increased somewhat, providing 
partial relief from the decline. Striving to remain within established 
financial boundaries, the committee gave the national intelligence 
agencies only slightly more than the request. The service portion of 
the budget, where we share jurisdiction with Armed Services, enjoyed 
greater increases. This willingness to sacrifice a share of the hard-
pressed military budget acknowledges the heavy service dependence on 
tactical intelligence, and the need to improve it.
  The situation among the national agencies is also problematic. Most 
of them have been squeezed for a decade and are showing the effects. 
Personnel numbers have been reduced significantly, but even if 
reductions continue, it is a struggle to keep personnel costs at the 
same budget percentage, because the costs per individual are climbing 
steeply. Personnel are used mainly to process and report the large 
amounts of collected information; but there are many fewer available to 
do this, even as much more data pours in from sensors that must become 
increasingly sophisticated in order to keep up with the targets. As a 
result, this ``downstream'' part of the business, and our overall 
efficiency, are suffering greatly.
  Among the major intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency 
is particularly hard pressed, since targets and their communications, 
radar and telemetry technology have been changing at a dramatic pace. 
NSA requires nearly complete re-tooling to catch up and keep up, but 
this costs a lot of money. NSA's budget has been in steady decline.
  On the imagery side, the struggle to pay for exploitation and 
dissemination of the large volume of imagery required especially by 
military customers is pretty well know. This is another ``downstream'' 
problem exacerbated by declining numbers of human photo-interpreters.
  Five years ago, the House Intelligence Committee warned the 
administration that we must find a way to make our satellite collectors 
much less expensive, or the NRO would take a growing portion of the 
declining intelligence budget, and we be unable to use effectively what 
they collect. We lost that budget battle. However, it is now clear that 
our predictions were accurate. And the situation is getting even worse 
because of cost overruns in NRO programs.
  We realize that everyone wants a ``peace dividend'' that shifts money 
from national security programs to domestic priorities. We want one 
ourselves. However, the breakup of empires historically is accompanied 
by regional confusion and conflict such as we witness today. Continued 
U.S. involvement in regional stabilization efforts comes at a price, 
often a high price. In addition, the breadth and unacceptability of 
terrorism, narcotics trafficking, proliferation and other cross-border 
challenges present unique challenges at this particular time.
  We are striving to make the Intelligence Community more efficient. We 
have done this within agencies and are suggesting a few precedent-
shattering initiatives that cross agency boundaries, in both the 
communications and analyst areas. But there is only so much we can do, 
especially within the patchwork of compromises that makes up the 
congressional process. In several important areas, we are in trouble.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dickey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4392) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 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, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________