Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That all points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and against its consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary one-half hour to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 555 is the rule providing for the consideration of conference report on H.R. 4299, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The request of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the waivers of points of order that might lie against the conference report, was agreed to by the ranking minority member, and appear to have widespread bipartisan support.
For my colleagues' information, the waivers deal almost entirely with matters of scope. No waiver of the 3-day layover rule, which is often so controversial, was required since the conference report was filed in time to comply with the layover rule.
The conference report does contain several provisions which exceed the scope of the conference. The chairman testified that all of these provisions were included to respond to events which occurred after the House and Senate bills had either been reported or passed.
For example, section 504 limits the reach of a section in the 1995 defense authorization act for fiscal year 1995 which, is not addressed, would undermine the National Security Act's requirement that spending on intelligence programs be specifically authorized.
Section 602 responds to the controversy surrounding the National Reconnaissance Office's headquarters facility by establishing a requirement to clearly delineate intelligence community construction projects with a cost in excess of $750,000.
In addition, the conference report contains an authorization, contained in the classified schedule of authorizations, for an arms control treaty monitoring activity which the administration did not request until last month.
The chairman testified that these provisions, and other out-of-scope items adopted in conference, address important issues that the conferees felt could not wait to be included in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill. If the House is to consider these matters this year, the points of order that would otherwise lie against them must be waived.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report of H.R. 4299, authorizes funds for all the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States for the coming fiscal year. It also provides legislative authorities for the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities which are regularly found in an intelligence authorization bill.
The authorization levels in the conference report are classified, but they have been available for review by Members. The amount authorized is approximately 2 percent less than the President's budget request, and 2 percent less than last year's appropriated level.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains several important provisions, some of which are in response to the Aldrich Ames espionage case which has caused--and I might add, continues to be responsible for--so much concern to all of us who are interested in the successful operation of our intelligence community.
Chief among the provisions approved by the conference committee in response to the Ames case is one strengthening the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in counterintelligence activities.
I commend the committee for the persistence it has shown in dealing with this serious case and for including in this legislation some of the safeguards that must be taken to ensure that this not occur again.
The bill also recognizes the necessity for the entire intelligence community to adjust to the post-cold-war era. It is obvious that the intelligence agencies need to reexamine their overall roles and missions in this new world, and the conferees have given the agencies guidance in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Committee is also to be commended for attempting to make the intelligence budget reflect the reality of a world significantly changed from a national security standpoint, while ensuring that the United States maintains the ability to provide timely and reliable intelligence to its policymakers and military commanders.
The committee is bringing the intelligence budget down, but in a measured way which preserves essential capabilities and encourages investment in the collection and processing systems which will be needed in the future. Personnel rolls are being trimmed as well and, as a result of actions mandated by Congress 2 years ago, by the end of fiscal year 1997, employment levels will be a least 17.5 percent less than they were in fiscal year 1992.
Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, the world clearly remains an unpredictable and dangerous place. There is a need for effective intelligence, especially in light of the worldwide reduction of U.S. military personnel.
The conference report also requires the intelligence agencies to review their operations, another step which is important in responding to the Ames case and all the events that allowed that case to reach the stage it did.
Spending throughout the national security establishment has been reduced in recent years, and intelligence has been no exception. This was inevitable given the significant changes which have occurred in the world. It is the Intelligence Committee's judgment that neither the reductions made in past years, nor those contained in this year's bill, will hinder the ability of the intelligence agencies to respond to essential intelligence requirements.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, and I urge my colleagues to approve it so that we may proceed with consideration of this important conference report today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is quite straightforward--in fact, as we work our way through the myriad of conference reports in these closing days of the 103d session, Members should be getting used to seeing such blanket waivers of points of order. Although it is understandable that technical waivers of scope and germaneness may be necessary to ease consideration of these mammoth bills, I do believe it is worthwhile to proceed with the exercise of specifying exactly which waivers are necessary on each conference report and for what reason. Again I wish to remind my colleagues that we generally get in trouble around here when, in a rush to move a bill through, we waive the rules, expedite consideration and end up voting on legislation containing unexpected surprises. I daresay the folks at Lamar University in Texas are still smarting over the spate of undeserved negative publicity that was generated by one such `surprise' item inserted into the recent crime bill conference report, that did for Lamar University what the Edsel did for the Ford Motor Co.
For that reason, I was very glad that Chairman Glickman and ranking member Combest were able to
complete work on the intelligence authorization conference report in concert with the House schedule to allow Members the customary 3 days' time to review this important bill before today's vote. For the record, I commend Chairman Glickman and ranking member Combest for coming to the Rules Committee fully prepared to discuss the specific rules waivers needed and the reasons for those waivers. I certainly hope this trend will continue and expand to all committee chairmen in the 104th Congress.
Regarding the underlying conference report for H.R. 4299, I understand the difficult choices the members of the committee had to make in a somewhat hostile environment of public and official scrutiny and media malevolence toward our Nation's intelligence programs. I remain concerned about the ongoing efforts to scale back--some might even say cripple--our intelligence capabilities by those who harbor the misguided view that somehow the threat to United States security and world stability has disappeared with the Soviet Union. Clearly, that is not the case--but just as clearly our policymakers have, it seems, and the Clinton Administration in particular, have not made a strong enough case to the American people and those in control of the purse strings regarding the enormous contribution and continued need for accurate, timely, and effective intelligence. I am pleased that this bill provides for a new Commission to review our Nation's intelligence capabilities, a review that should highlight the continuing importance of quality intelligence operations.
But I hope that effort will be a cooperative mission to generate productive reforms for the CIA and other intelligence components and, not a slash-and-burn attempt to further weaken our intelligence capabilities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me express my disappointment that, despite the hard work and support of ranking member Combest, a provision that had been added to the House bill requiring Members of Congress to sign an oath of secrecy and be held accountable for their treatment of classified material, was once again deleted by the conference. I remain absolutely convinced that Members of Congress need to raise their awareness of the responsibility they hold when they seek access to classified material, and I view a simple secrecy oath as a painless but effective means to accomplish that goal. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat my congratulations to the chairman and ranking member for their hard work and express my support for this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion and to repeat, this rule waives all points of order against the conference report on the authorization bill and against its consideration. I remind my colleagues that these waivers were fully supported by the ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and received unanimous approval of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to take this time to congratulate my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman], the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the ranking minority member, for their excellent work on issues that are extremely important and often very difficult to deal with. They have again brought us a good piece of legislation. I again urge my colleagues to vote for the rule so that we may consider the conference report on the bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 555, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4299), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Watt). Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Tuesday September 27, 1994, at page H9883.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation.
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Evaluation.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to place in the Record two documents that give an accurate picture regarding the NRO Westfield Facility. The first document details what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence [SSCI] knew and when they knew it. It is clear that the SSCI not only supported the reorganization but actually added $30 million to accelerate the project. Senators and staff, some whom are still serving on the committee, were given detailed briefings about the NRO project by top NRO officials, including the director of the NRO, Martin Faga.
I am disappointed by the current SSCI leadership in their efforts to create the impression that they knew little or nothing about this project.
I also am including a statement by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
On August 8, 1994, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced the formation of a team to review the history of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters construction project, the information provided to Congress during the course of the project, and ways to ensure completion in as cost-effective manner as possible. Named to co-chair the review team were Assistant Secretary of the Navy Nora Slatkin and Central Intelligence Agency Principal Deputy General Counsel John R. Byerly.
Ms. Slatkin and Mr. Byerly have now briefed the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense on the team's principal findings and recommendations. A written report is being prepared and will be submitted shortly.
The results of the review are as follows:
The team found no intent to mislead Congress.
The oversight Committees approved the reorganization of the National Reconnaissance Office, specifically authorizing $30 million in additional funds for this purpose as early as 1989. They also approved the purchase of property in Fairfax County, Virginia, and the startup of building construction.
The National Reconnaissance Office failed to follow Intelligence Community guidelines for presenting new initiatives in its Congressional Budget Justification Books.
In response to Congressional requests, the National Reconnaissance Office provided cost data on the project. But, the data were not presented in a consistent fashion and did not include the same level of detail as comparable military construction requests.
The NRO was responsive to Congressional requests for other information and provided details on site selection, commercial cover to protect NRO's classified status, and overall facilities design.
The Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have approved the review team's recommendation that, in consultation with the Congress, the National Reconnaissance office should ensure that future budget submissions conform to Intelligence Community guidelines and meet Congressional needs.
The review team round that the construction costs per square foot for the headquarters facility are reasonable based on comparable military facilities and that the National Reconnaissance Office's streamlined execution of the project is working well.
The team determined that, when judged by General Services Administration standards, the headquarters facility will be underutilized when completed and can house at least 500 and as many as 1,000 persons in addition to the approximately 2,900 NRO personnel currently planned. The team concluded that this underutilization was the result of faulty initial assumption about space requirements and was perpetuated by the absence of further internal or an external review.
Consistent with the team's recommendations, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have instructed the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, working with the Intelligence Community Management Staff, to present to the Director of Central Intelligence for approval a plan for accommodating between 500 and 750 additional personnel in the facility, which is scheduled for occupancy in January 1996. This number of additional personnel would bring the building within the normal occupancy range for GSA buildings in the National Capital Region, and requires no significant change in construction.
For major NRO infrastructure construction projects in the future, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense will name appropriate representatives to review and validate the facility requirements from the outset and at each major milestone.
The review team concluded that declassification of the NRO's ownership and use of the facility will permit significant tax savings because United States Government facilities are not subject to state and local taxation.
The team determined, and the NRO agreed, that the NRO's budget for furniture and support equipment could be reduced by at least $8 million. In addition, the team identified $6 million in the budget for communications-related items that need further review. As recommended by the team, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have instructed the Director of the NRO to conduct a review before expending funds for these items.
Source: Senate Supplement to Report No. 101-78.
Content: NRO Reorganization (FY90 $+30.0M; * * *) * * *
The Committee believes that the best approach to insuring a robust national reconnaissance program is to reorganize the NRO in a way which facilitates greater communication, cross-system and cross-program fertilization, and common security, support, and administrative practices. Thus, the Committee directs that, unless an Alternative plan approved by the Secretary of Defense and the DCI is submitted prior to November 1, 1989, the NRO begin, no later than November 1, 1989, a reorganization according to the plan outlined in a letter to the Intelligence Committee dated November 21, 1988 by then Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.* * *
(2) collocation of remaining activities in a central facility in the Washington, D.C. area; and * * *
* * * the Aldridge Plan * * * Ultimately, circa 1991-1992, the plan called for the collocation of the CIA, Air Force, and Navy program offices in a new facility in Northern Virginia. The Committee believes these goals and the timetable are realistic. Moreover, additional realignment of program office functions are made feasible by the collocation and should be pursued. * * *
Accordingly, the Committee directs that all activities of the various program offices be collocated according to the 1991-1992 timetable unless the Director, NRO decides, based on compelling reasons, that certain sub-elements of the three program offices should not collocate. In such a case, the Director sho7uld notify the Intelligence Committees of his decision and describe his rationale for it. * * *
The Committee authorizes an additional $30.0 million in FY1990 and $27.0 million in FY1991 in the NRP for the reorganization.
Source: FY 1990 Intelligence Authorization Act * * * Committee of Conference.
Content: * * * After conducting its own review, the Senate reached a similar conclusion and added $30,0 million in fiscal year 1990 to provide for reorganization activities. The Senate bill also required that a reorganization plan be provided by November 1, 1989.
The conferees agreed to authorize $30.0 million for reorganization activities including planning, contract support, * * * and modification, equipment and furniture, etc. * * *
Source: FY 1990 Appropriations Conference Classified Annex
Date: November 27, 1989
Content: The conferees agree, subject to the authorization process, to provide $30,000,000 for certain facilities costs associated with the NRO reorganization. * * *
Source: Joint Letter from the DCI and the SECDEF to: The Honorable David L. Boren, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Date: 26 February 1990
Content: In our July 3, 1989 letter regarding the NRO restructure we stated our intent to: * * * *
a. Implement a NRO headquarters collocation that will include the DNRO, his deputies, their staff support, management elements from the three Program Offices, and appropriate centralized support functions in order to facilitate a more integrated organizational approach to accomplishment of the * * * mission.
We endorse the DNRO's decision not to pursue further collocation at this time. * * * However, we do believe, as he does, that it is important that we continue to protect the option to implement additional collocation initiatives if required. The DNRO's facility acquisition strategy will support this objective. * * *
William H. Webster,
Director of Central Intelligence.
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
Secretary of Defense.
In order to provide the required facilities in as timely a manner as possible and to maintain the flexibility to implement the full range of potential restructure alternatives, a phased, incremental facility strategy has been adopted.
I have decided to protect for a least-total-cost acquisition strategy for the permanent facility which involved the purchase of both the land and the buildings required. This approach has the highest near-year costs but it provides the greatest flexibility regarding additional collocation decisions and, in a budgetary sense, protects for any other approach.
Source: Excerpt from FY 1991 Congressional Budget Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate authorization and appropriations committees.
Date: Early 1990.
Content: This element of the Mission Support expenditure center includes the facilities required in the NRO reorganization. * * *
The MRO is using a phased incremental facility strategy as part of its overall restructure process. The facilities include a * * * permanent facility. The NRO plans to acquire the permanent facility to accommodate all functions * * * and other NRO activities as directed by the DNRO. Financial figures in the Report on the NRO restructure protect the option to acquire the land to support a total collocation and a building sized for less than total collocation. * * *
Source: Letter to David L. Boren, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from DNRO, Faga.
Date: September 17, 1990.
Content: This letter provides formal notification of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) intent to purchase a parcel of land in support of the permanent facility collocation activities of the NRO restructure efforts. This action is consistent with our overall facility strategy and the NRO Restructure Report published in January 1990.
The third phase of the facility support plan, the subject of this letter, involves the acquisition of property and facilities that provide a permanent solution for our collocation activities. Our intent is to be able to accommodate, in the permanent facilities, all the activities previously located.* * * In addition, the permanent facility site will allow for additional collocation up to and including all of the NRO and some of our supporting contractors.* * *
* * * The actual land purchase agreement will be executed between the land owner and our facility support contractor. Title to the property will be notionally held in the name of our facility support contractor, thus supporting our cover and security.* * * This will then be converted to pass-through arrangement between the facility support contractor and the United States Government. A similar arrangement will be used during the building construction phase. There will be no G&A or fee markup on the pass-through contracts * * *
* * * Size of the parcel: The size of the parcel in approximately 68 acres.
* * * The current master plan provides for the development of approximately 1.3 million square feet on the site. The purchase agreement allows us to develop slightly less than 1.5 million square feet.* * * The master plan has been structured by definition as a three-phase development program. Phase one provides for the construction of approximately 500,000 square feet.* * * Phase two would add an additional 400,000 square feet. Phase three would provide an additional 400,000 square feet. Flexibility is inherent in the master plan to allow phase two and three to be sized differently as the need arises. We plan to proceed with phase one construction only at this time. Phase two and three protect the option for additional collocation, up to, and, including a total collocation.
Source: Department of Defense Appropriation Bill, 1991.
Date: October 9, 1990
Content: * * * Furthermore, in order to support the permanent restructure of the NRO, the Committee authorizes the NRO to continue to contract directly for its facility activities including planning, contract support, * * * modification, land and building acquisition and equipment. Land and facility acquisition will remain subject to the prior approval of the appropriate Congressional committees. The permanent facility site should provide for expansion capability to accommodate additional collocated activities as required.
Source: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991.
Content: Furthermore, to support the permanent restructuring of the NRO, the conferees agreed to authorize the NRO to continue to contract directly for its facility activities including planning, contract support, * * *, modification, land and building acquisition, and equipment. Land and facility acquisition will remain subject to the prior approval of the appropriate Congressional committees. The permanent facility site should provide for expansion capability to accommodate additional collocated activities as required.
Source: Excerpts from the FY 1992-1993 Congressional Budget Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate authorization and appropriation committees.
Date: Early 1991.
Content: * * * center includes the facilities required in the NRO reorganization * * *
The NRO is using a phased strategy for the facility restructure process. The facilities include a * * * final facility * * *
The NRO is using a phased strategy for the facility restructure process. The facilities include a * * * final facility * * * In FY 1991, the NRO acquired the land for the final facility, as well as collocation of some program offices although the the parcel of land is sized to protect the option of a total collocation if required. This budget submission only includes funding for a less than full collocation approach.
Source: Excerpts from the FY 1993 Congressional Budget Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate authorization and appropriation committees.
Date: Early 1992.
Content: The NRO is using a phased strategy for the facility restructure process. The facilities include a * * * final facility. * * * In FY 1991, the NRO acquired a parcel of land sufficient to protect for the option of full collection. The final NRO facility headquarters will be located in western Fairfax, Virginia on approximately 70 acres. The facility master plan allows for a six building complex, structured parking, emergency generator building, warehouse, conference facility, and cafeteria. The current construction plan and budget provide for three buildings to accommodate all functions currently located at * * * well as collocation of some program office elements; general site development; site security; and the basic infrastructure support aditional buildings. The site development phase, begun in FY 1991, included clearing and grading, roads, site utility installation, parking structures and building foundation. The building core and shell construction is scheduled to begin in summer 1992. Building fit-up will commence in summer 1993 with building activation, equipment installation and testing scheduled for early 1995 leading to occupancy in late 1995. The total construction is approximately 800,000 gross square feet.
Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Question for the Record, Fiscal Year 1993.
Date: May 19, 1992.
Content: Question 3. Please provide a budget breakout for NRO facilities contruction for each year FY93-FY95. Please indicate the number of people who will occupy the new facility in FY95, and the savings that will be achieved as NRO elements vacate other facilities.
Answer: The FY 1993 CBJB contains the following for the permanent facility development Activities:
This FY 1993 budget provides for construction, outfitting, operations and maintenance of three permanent buildings. It also provides for general site development of the NRO Facilities compound, site security, structured parking, and an emergency generator building, warehouse, conference center and cafeteria.
The current three-building plan is designed to accommodate approximately 1700 people * * *.
Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Question for the Record, Fiscal Year 1993 CBJB.
Date: May 19, 1992.
Content: QUESTION 4. What are the costs in FY 93 and FY 93-97 to accelerate construction plans sufficient to provide for full collocation of Program A and Program B at the western Fairfax facility?
ANSWER: The additional cost for full collocation of the NRO into the western Fairfax facility in accordance with the approved site plan is as follows:
These costs provide for the additional design, site work, utilities, parking, construction, security, commo, operations, and maintenance associated with the addition of the fourth building at our permanent facility. This will allow us to achieve full collocation of the NRO * * * We are preparing a FY 1992 reprogramming request for your approval so that we may proceed in an expeditious fashion.
Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--Question on the Collocation Project.
Date: 29 May 1992.
Content: What is the FY92 and FY93 budget for the permanent facility and what is the cost to complete of the permanent facility?
The current budget for the permanent facility development activities is as follows:
Source: Letter to The Honorable David Boren, Chairman Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from D/NRO Faga.
Date: October 16, 1992.
Content: I am writing to request approval to reallocate $22 million of FY 1992 * * * funds within the National Reconnaissance Program (NRP) * * *
The panel recommends reorganization into several directorates, * * * and collocation of major NRO elements as expeditiously as possible. This recommendation was approved by the DCI, the Secretary of Defense, and the President.
Our Congressional Oversight Committees have been encouraging collocation for several years and the FY 1993 Appropriations Conference report specifically permits us to proceed. * * *
The $22 million will be used for design and construction activities related to increasing the size of the permanent facility, approved by Congress in FY 1991 * * *
Martin C. Faga.
Source: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1993 for Intelligence.
Collocation in the National Capitol Region: The conferees agree that the NRO may proceed with the collocation of the NRO program offices in the National Capitol Region.
Source: Briefing provided to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Staff Members.
Date: 10 November 1992.
Strengths Technical Capability of Organization
Improves Decision Making
Facilitates Functional Organization Structure
Allows Merging of Similar Functions--Minimize Redundancy
Promotes Closer, More Active, Interfaces with Customers
Improves Ability to Develop More Integrated * * * Architecture
Modified Plan--Total NRO collocation by 1993
* * * Panel Recommendation--Supported by SECDEF and DCI
Initiate Option for Additional Space at Westfields * * *
4 Six story office buildings
Emergency generator building
2 Guard houses
Approximately 1 million sq ft
Includes $22.0M reallocation.
Source: Letter to DNRO Faga from David L. Boren, Chairman and Frank H. Murkowski, Vice Chairman, SSCI.
Date: November 13, 1992.
Content: This letter is in response to your October 16, 1992 request to reallocate $22 million of fiscal year 1993 * * * to accelerate the NRO's consolidation plan.
The Committee does not object to the expenditure of funds for the purpose specified. * * *
Source: Excerpts from the FY 1994-1995 Congressional Budget Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate authorization and appropriation committees.
Date: Early 1993.
Content: * * * includes the facilities to support the NRO reorganization. * * *
The Restructure Plan approved by the SECDEF and DCI collocates most of the NRO to a single location as soon as possible. * * * Full collocation will be supported with the occupancy of the NRO Westfields facility in 1996 * * * final NRO facility headquarters will be located in western Fairfax, Virginia on approximately 70 acres * * * The current construction plan and budget provide for four buildings to accommodate all functions currently located * * * general site development, site security, and the basic infrastructure support for additional buildings. * * * The total construction is approximately 1,000,000 gross square feet.
Source: Excerpts from the FY 95 Congressional Budget Justification Book, submitted to all appropriate authorization and appropriation committees.
Date: Early 1994.
Content: This element of the Mission Support expenditure center includes the facilities * * *
The Restructure Plan approved by the SecDef and the DCI collocated most of the NRO to the East Coast as soon as possible. Full collocation will be supported with the occupany of the NRO Westfields facility in 1966 * * * The final NRO facility headquarters will be located in western Fairfax County, Virginia on approximately 70 acres * * *
The current construction plan and budget provide for four buildings to accommodate all functions currently located at * * * general site development, site security, and the basic infrastructure support for additional buildings * * *
Significant progress has been made in our efforts to reorganize into an integrated functional organization. * * *
Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
Date: 10 August 1994.
Content: * * * I was pleased to read in the draft SSCI audit report that the NRO had never failed or refused to answer when asked questions about the Westfields facility, and I wholeheartedly concur with the audit report's observation that communication is a dual sided issue and both parties have an inherent responsibility to the other * * *
Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
Date: 10 August 1994.
Content: * * * We were reassured when the draft SSCI audit report concluded that the Westfields project costs per square foot, in constant FY 1996 dollars, will cost about the same as other comparable Intelligence Community construction projects which have been completed over the past decade * * *
Source: Code of Federal Regulations 41, Chapter 101.
Date: Revised as of July 1, 1993.
Content: * * * Primary office area is the personnel-occupied area in which an activity's normal operational functions are performed * * *
The 125 square feet represents the amount of space occupied by employees housed in GSA office space * * *
Source: Statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from D/NRO Harris.
Date: 10 August 1994.
Content: * * * With regard to the size, the Westfields complex will provide 133 square feet per person, based on our current estimate of the personnel occupancy. This is only slightly higher--6%--than the General Services Administration (GSA) guideline of 125 square feet per person. With the possible addition of 200 people, we would be at or below the GSA guideline.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 4299, the fiscal year 1995 intelligence authorization bill. The conference report and statement of conference managers which are before the Members do not tell the whole story on this legislation. The funding levels agreed to in the conference are set forth in a classified schedule of authorizations which is incorporated by reference in the conference report. A classified annex to the statement of managers describes the classified schedule in detail. These classified documents are available for review by Members in the offices of the Intelligence Committee.
The version of this legislation adopted by the House in July was about 2.4 percent below the President's budget request and a similar amount below the fiscal year 1994 appropriated level. The Senate's reductions were smaller. In conference we moved in the direction of the Senate, but only modestly. The conference report is still 2 percent below both the budget request and the total amount appropriated in fiscal year 1994.
I believe this result accurately reflects a judgment by a majority of the House Intelligence Committee that, while we need to keep pressure on the intelligence agencies to reduce spending, we need to do so in a way that does not jeopardize the ability of those agencies to perform their critical missions in addressing threats posed by international terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and those who would make weapons of mass destruction more readily available. I do not believe that any budgetary action recommended by the conferees will have a negative impact on any essential capability within the intelligence community. In fact, speaking now only for myself, I believe we could have made more significant cuts in some areas without affecting essential capabilities, but that is an argument for another day.
I have frequently compared intelligence to an insurance policy. Neither administration since the end of the cold war has clearly articulated how much coverage is necessary under that policy and why. As a result, Congress has focused largely on the premiums, with a general sense that they were too high but with a reluctance to trim them too much without being certain of the consequences. This has been a frustrating process and one which I do not believe is sustainable for much longer. It is for that reason that I supported the inclusion in the conference report of a provision establishing a commission to conduct a bottom-up review of intelligence. Such a review is desperately needed, in fact, it is several years overdue. No organization can function effectively if it is unsure of what it is supposed to be doing and how it fits within the larger structure of which it is a part. The intelligence community needs well-defined roles and missions for the post-cold-war world, and I have concluded that they are going to have to be imposed from outside rather than adopted from within. The committee will continue to do what it can in this regard, but we will welcome the assistance of those who will serve on the commission.
While Mr. Coleman, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Legislation, will explain the legislative provisions of the bill in detail, there are several on which I want to comment.
The committee has operated for most of this year against the backdrop of the unfolding Ames espionage case. On September 28, we met with the Director of Central Intelligence and the inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency to discuss the inspector general's report on the CIA's handling of the case. The report provides a thorough and critical analysis of this affair and I want to compliment Inspector General Hitz and his staff for a very effective job. The report, however, only confirmed what most of us had already concluded: the Ames case was an unqualified disaster. The full extent of the damage done by Ames' spying will not be known for some time, if ever, but it was clearly on an unprecedented scale.
The committee has reviewed the report and I expect we will be meeting again with the inspector general to discuss it in more detail. We have our own inquiry underway, however, and while we will make full use of the work of the inspector general, we will be reaching our own conclusions and will have our own recommendations to make about the responses we consider appropriate to the institutional deficiencies which exist or the individual failures which occurred.
The conference report contains a number of provisions which constitute a legislative response to the Ames case. Most are designed to deter people from committing espionage or make it easier to catch them if they do. Chief among these is section 802 which will require executive branch employees, in exchange for being granted access to classified information, to consent to the disclosure of their records held by financial institutions, credit bureaus, and commercial travel entities to their employing agencies or authorized investigative agencies.
I support all of the counterintelligence provisions in the conference report, but I do not believe that any of them would have been necessary to short-circuit the espionage career of Aldrich Ames. That could have been done if managers at the CIA had been sufficiently attentive to numerous warning signs not only about Ames' financial status, but about his problems as an employee. Legislation was not necessary to prevent Mr. Ames from being placed in jobs which were perfect places from which to conduct espionage, even after he was rated as, at best, a below average employee. The failures in the Ames case were not the result of a lack of legislation. They were the result of grievous mistakes made by a number of individuals at the CIA, and I believe that the conclusion is inescapable that Ames flourished as a spy as a result.
I expect that the report based on the committee's inquiry will make some judgments about whether the right people were disciplined for those mistakes and whether the discipline was commensurate with the gravity of their conduct. If there has been for too long a business as usual attitude at the CIA, and I believe there has been, it is imperative that the disposition of this case be seen to be directed at ending it. That cannot be accomplished if the level of accountability for the Ames fiasco is not set high enough.
Director Woolsey is uniquely situated to make sure that occurs. He bears no responsibility for the years in which little attention was paid by senior managers to the hunt for a `mole' within the CIA, and yet history will fairly criticize him if he does not effectively discharge the responsibility he does have to ensure that Harry Truman's famous axiom `The buck stops here' applies in the Ames case. The people who ran the CIA from 1985 through 1992--the Directors of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Directors for Operations--must bear ultimate responsibility for what went wrong in this case. If they did not direct that the pursuit of a spy at the heart of the CIA be made the highest priority of the Agency, we need to know why.
In that regard, one of the most significant provisions in the conference report is section 811 which requires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be immediately advised of information that indicates classified information is being disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power. Espionage is a crime and it should be chiefly investigated by law enforcement officials.
In the Ames case, even after the likelihood that there had been a human penetration of the Agency was clear, the investigation was chiefly directed by the CIA. If this case teaches any clear lesson, it is that spies are not good cops. I believe that there would have been a faster, more efficient investigation of this matter if trained police officers, the FBI, had been in charge. The FBI should determine when an espionage investigation is to be undertaken and how it is to be pursued. The agency whose employee may be involved in the commission of the crime may be able to provide valuable assistance, but that should be the FBI's decision. There can only be one entity in charge of a criminal investigation and that should be a law enforcement entity. Section 811 is intended to make clear the division of responsibility in the conduct of espionage investigations.
Before leaving the subject of counterintelligence, I want to note section 807 which provides a court order process for certain physical searches undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes. Currently, such searches are conducted pursuant to a so-called national security letter signed by the Attorney General. Section 807 will require a judicial determination before the search is conducted in a manner similar to that which applies when a wiretap is undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes. While I understand the concerns of those who believe that a search of a residence should only be conducted pursuant to a warrant which meets fourth amendment standards, I believe that the rights of a potential criminal defendant are much better protected under the procedure established by section 807 than by the current procedure which allows executive branch officials to authorize a search which their employees will conduct.
After the Ames case, the intelligence story most in the news this year related to the construction of the National Reconnaissance Office headquarters facility. As I stated on the House floor last month, the Intelligence Committee was aware of this project. The degree of knowledge about the specifics of the project varied between members of the committee and the committee staff, but I suspect that is not unusual. The point is, the building did not arise in northern Virginia without the committee knowing about it. Having said that, this episode did highlight the fact that budget submissions from intelligence
agencies, particularly from the NRO, are not always as detailed as they should be. The conference report therefore contains a provision requiring that future intelligence community construction projects in excess of $750,000 be specifically identified in the President's budget submission and separately authorized by Congress. In addition, the conference report requires that a greater degree of detail be used to describe the budget category known as base so that it can no longer be what it has been--a catch-all, miscellaneous category in which to aggregate funds used in the acquisition not only of pencils, paper clips, and cleaning supplies, but multimillion dollar office buildings as well.
I began by discussing spending on intelligence activities and I want to close in a similar vein. The intelligence agencies, like all organizations which handle sensitive information, spend millions of dollars and employ hundreds of people to classify documents and ensure their security. In my judgment, far too much information is classified by our Government, for too long a time, and at too great an expense. This is due in part to an Executive order on the classification and declassification of information which was promulgated 12 years ago, at the height of the cold war. That Executive order needs to be revised and a provision in the conference report requires a new Executive order to be promulgated within 90 days of enactment. The provision also expresses the sense of Congress as to areas on which the new Executive order should place emphasis. I believe that if the order reflects this expression of congressional sentiment fewer documents will be classified, the process of declassification will be expedited, and significant sums of money will be saved. On that last point, another provision in the conference report requires the larger intelligence agencies to allocate at least two percent of the funds appropriated for security activities to declassification efforts including reducing classified archives. This provision was authored by Mr. Skaggs who has been a leader in the committee's work in this area.
Before concluding, I want to pay tribute to the service of several Members who, under current House rules must leave the committee at the end of this Congress. First among these Members is Mr. Combest, the committee's ranking Republican with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to serve. I have found him to be an effective advocate for his views whose common sense and even-handed approach to issues was never clouded by partisan considerations. Also scheduled to depart on the Republican side are Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Dornan. They are joined by Mr. Richardson on the Democratic side. Each of these members has made many valuable contributions to the committee's work and they will be missed.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 4299 has a significance which, despite the important advances it makes in areas like imagery intelligence, will be measured largely in non-budgetary terms. It is good legislation which deserves the support of the House. I urge its adoption.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Combest], for the very fair way in which they looked at this question about the NRO facility in Virginia. I must tell my colleagues, and I am going to place in the Record today the briefing material that we received regarding what the other body knew and when they knew it and what they did about it, and I think any fair-minded person and I think our committee on a bipartisan basis agrees with this, when one looks at the evidence it is clear that this project was understood and, in fact, in 1989 the other body added $30 million to accelerate the project because they were so much in favor of it.
So now I am really very stunned by this accusation that we did not know anything about it, we did not know what the total costs were. There are other documents in the record that will show that they asked questions on an annual basis about the project. It was a high priority of one of the senior Members who comes from the State of Virginia.
They asked questions about the project, and the entire cost data was presented in the record, which I am also going to place in the Record today. So I regret that there was confusion about this.
I want to support the chairman, because I have been fighting for several years to get more detail into the budget so that there would not be confusion about what is a new initiative and what is in the base.
I think it is wrong. I think what we did in reforming that is a major step in the right direction, and I want to say I was pleased to be one of the sponsors of that provision along with the chairman of the select committee on the other side. That may have been one of the few things in this conference we did agree about.
I regret very much there has been an aspersion made about the NRO. I feel they are one of the finest and most professional organizations that we have. There was no intent on their part to mislead the Congress, and that has been stated by everyone who has looked at this fairly and objectively.
As I said, not only did they put $30 million in in 1989 to accelerate the project, they also supported it on an annual basis and were given information about its total cost.
I want to compliment the chairman. I think we have made a lot of progress on this on clarifying the budget detail and think we are in a stronger position for the future.
I am going to put it in the Record, so all of my colleagues who are interested in this subject can fairly assess what actually happened. I think when they do, fair-minded people will conclude our committee, of course, was correct in stating that the NRO gave us accurate information.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank our committee chairman, Mr. Glickman, for continuing to lead our committee in a collegial manner and encouraging the honest sharing of views. I could not ask for more cooperation--on several issues we believe that he has been open to our working together to make some significant improvements over our original authorization of June this year. I should also state that we found the conferees from the other body approachd conference with a willingness to compromise on a number of outstanding issues
This is a conference report of which we can all feel proud--though some of us may have different reasons than others. Let me first mention some budgetary issues.
I and my colleagues in the minority are pleased that the conference has been more judicious in its efforts to limit intelligence spending. The conference report's significant cuts to the requested budget are made with a logical rationale of judging programs by their merits and by their contributions to this Nation's security. That is a process with which we agree.
The conference report fully funds counterintelligence lines which the President and the DCI, Jim Woolsey, have created to fund the new National Counterintelligence Center. Although we have some discomfort over a few of the cuts to intelligence collection and analysis, we believe that the conference report funds those capabilities which we strongly believe are essential to keep U.S. policy makers and military operators informed and, frankly, to protect national security. We note with satisfaction that the intelligence community will be able to move along with some long-term technical programs which will be of particular value to the military. We are particularly pleased that the conference report funds HUMINT--human collection or espionage activities--at a level allowing this critical part of the intelligence community to continue the process of modernization and restructuring.
In this last regard I would like to draw your attention to some much neglected facts which do not get heard above the din surrounding the Ames affair. These relate to the fact that, despite the Ames incident and their having only a single digit percentage of the intelligence budget, the CIA's Directorate of Operations and other HUMINT collectors provide a preponderant amount of our critical intelligence. Some recent studies have shown quite clearly that in the areas of tracking terrorism, narcotics activities, and weapons proliferation, HUMINT is without parallel. The same studies show that for following events in the Middle East, Europe, North Africa, and much of Asia it provides our most important insights. Anecdotes are hard to give without revealing sources and methods, but I can tell you that even in the last couple of months HUMINT has saved lives and thousands of American jobs. Specifically, it has adverted planned terrorist attacks and protected U.S. business by salvaging billion dollar trade deals from unfair and illegal trade practices by foreign Governments. We strongly support whatever it takes to fix what is broken in the Directorate of Operations and elsewhere in the intelligence community but we will not stand by to see its critically important capabilities gutted.
Legislatively, the conference report includes numerous items of significance.
We are particularly pleased with some of the counterintelligence legislation. It will give appropriate authorities much greater access to financial, credit, and travel information on U.S. employees with security clearances. The conference report also includes provisions for criminal forfeiture for violations of espionage laws.
We are also cautiously optimistic about the report's creation of what has become known as the Warner Commission. This is to be a Presidential commission to study the roles and capabilities of the intelligence community and to make suggestions on changes which
might improve its operation. We sincerely hope that the President will appoint to this commission objective experts who will think and act on the facts they review rather than on prejudices or political expediences. We hope the eight congressional designees will be similarly qualified. The Nation will be very poorly served should this commission be hijacked by partisans who want to use such a commission to validate their efforts to dismantle the intelligence community.
The conference report also improves the reporting requirements to Congress for requests for intelligence funds for construction purposes. We all remember the purported surprise of the other body's Intelligence Committee about the National Reconnaissance Office's headquarters building. This legislation should please everyone since, not only will it facilitate congressional oversight, but it will also protect the intelligence community from false accusations of withholding information from Congress. Beyond the topicality of the NRO issue, we in the minority strongly support any reasonable legislation enhancing congressional fiscal oversight.
In summary, as a realist I am pleased with this, the last conference report to be prepared in my 6-year tenure on this committee. I have enjoyed every last minute of my 2 years as the ranking member on the committee. For a committee that does most of its business behind closed doors and deals with the most secret activities of the Government, it has, nonetheless, been a very public rollercoaster ride. You would think that I would have grown used to it, but those of you who have had the privilege of working on the committee will understand my amazement at how the activities of some of the most dedicated, hard working, creative, and loyal American Government employees manage so regularly to be portrayed negatively.
At the very top of this group is the DCI, Jim Woolsey. He is a loyal Democrat serving a Democrat administration, but even as a true-blue Republican I must confess my belief that he is the right man in the right job trying to do the right thing. Yet, he is, in my opinion much under-appreciated by some of his fellow Democrats. He deserves the respect and support of us all.
There is also something I want to say to the rest of the men and women of the intelligence community, those in uniform and out, those working long hours at desks in Washington and those risking their lives in the most dangerous corners of the world. Since I will never have occasion to speak to them collectively, I would like to say something to them now on the record in the hope that some of them may hear of it:
Keep the faith. Your good works will never receive the attention of your mistakes--real and imagined. You will continue to suffer at the hands of those who do not know better. You will suffer body blows to your pride; your character may be assailed; your most fundamental value may be questioned. But we, who are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to see your work--and who have actually taken the effort to do so--know of your sacrifices and know of the profound satisfication you have in doing the right thing even when it will remain unheralded or may be misconstrued. If there is a moral to the history of the United States it is that when the democratic system is allowed to operate freely it will--eventually--come to the right conclusion. Be proud of your work, be vigilant in your duty, and know that you are crucial to the life and liberty of us all.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] under the normal terms of yielding for the purpose of discussing the schedule.
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished majority leader for the program, let me for just a moment compliment the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for serving these past 6 years as our ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I appointed him thinking he was the best man for the job, and certainly he has given me every reason to be mighty proud of his stewardship during the course of these very critical years.
His statement, which just preceded our being acknowledged here attests to the diligence with which he has approached that very important position all through these years. I want to thank him especially for that fine job.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Gephardt.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there will be no more votes today. There will be a schedule: On Monday October 3, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour, and the House will meet at noon for suspensions on 62 bills which the distinguished minority leader I believe has in front of him. I will not take the time of the body to read those, but they are available to both sides.
The suspensions referred to are as follows:
1. H.R. 4781, International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994.
2. H.R. 546, to limit State taxation.
3. H.R. 4999, Civil Rights Commission Reauthorization.
4. H.R. 2129, Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
5. H.R. 4608, Patent And Trademark Office Authorization Act of 1994.
6. H.R. 4896, to grant the consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri metropolitan culture district compact.
7. S. 1233, Arizona Wilderness Land Title Resolution Act of 1994.
8. H.R. 4777, technical improvements in the U.S. Code.
9. H.R. 4778, to codify without substantive change recent laws related to transportation.
10. H.R. 5102, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, regarding crimes relating to medals of honor.
11. S. 2170, Government Management Reform Act of 1994.
12. H.R. 3678, Outer Continental Shelf sand and gravel resources.
13. H.R. 5108, Export Administration Act extension.
14. H. Con. Res. 279, condemning the July 13, 1994, sinking of the 13th of March tugboat.
15. H. Con. Res. 257, commending the work of the U.S. Attache Corps.
16. H. Con. Res. 286, recognizing President Alfredo Christiani's contribution to achieve peace In El Salvador.
17. H.R. 4704, Hopewell Township Investment Act of 1994.
18. H.R. 4939, Frederick S. Green U.S. Courthouse.
19. H.R. 4910, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.
20. H.R. 4967, Theodore Levin Federal Building And U.S. Courthouse.
21. H.R. 4495, Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994.
22. H.R. 2440, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments.
23. H.R. 4460, Water Resources Development Act of 1994.
24. H.R. 4394, Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act.
25. H. J. Res. 417, to extend status quo in Soo Line dispute.
26. H.R. 1520, Petroleum Marketing Practices Act Amendments.
27. H.R. 2919, Indoor Air Act of 1994.
28. H.R. 2305, United States-Mexico Border Health Commission.
29. H.R. 5103, to provide for an Executive Director of the GAO Personnel Appeals Board.
30. H.R. 2970, to reauthorize the Office of Special Counsel.
31. H.R. 5139, reemployment of improperly separated Postal Service employees.
32. H.R. 5084, Census Address List Improvement Act.
33. S. 1312, Pension Annuitants Protection Act.
34. H. Con. Res., Correction in the enrollment of S. 1312.
35. H.R. 4814, central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Amendment Consent Act.
36. H.R. 4757, claim settlement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
37. H.R. 4615, applying the provisions of the Warren Act to the central Utah project.
38. H.R. 4944, Water Desalination Act of 1994.
39. S. 1146, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1994.
40. H.R. 3612, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
41. H.R. 3613, the Kenai Natives Association Equity Act.
42. H.R. 734, to amend the extension of certain Federal assistance to the Pascua Yaqui Indians of Arizona.
43. S. 720, Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act.
44. H.R. 4462, Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1994.
45. H.R. 4833, American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994.
46. H.R. 4180, Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994.
47. S. 1919, Rio Puerco Watershed Act of 1994.
48. S. 316, Saguaro National Park Establishment Act.
49. H.R. 4533, National Park Service Entrepreneurial Management Reform Act.
50. H.R. 5096, amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972.
51. S. 986, Corinth, MS, Battlefield Act of 1993.
52. S. 1614, Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act.
53. H.R. 5116, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994.
54. H.R. 4922, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, regarding the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes.
55. S. 1457, to amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act.
56. H.R. 2289, Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1994.
57. H.R. , transfer of Naval vessels to foreign countries.
58. H. Con. Res. 214, United States policy toward Tajikistan.
59. H. Res. , regarding prospect for peace in Northern Ireland.
60. H. Con. Res. 278, United States policy toward Vietnam.
61. S. Con. Res. 74, ban on the use of United States passports in Lebanon.
62. H.R. 2135, Native American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act.
I would also state to the gentleman that the votes would not begin until 5 p.m. on Monday so Members would have an opportunity to travel back here.
There is also a possibility of some action needed on Monday with the D.C. appropriations bills. The gentleman knows negotiations are still going on in the other body. Maybe that bill can be finished tonight without change, in which case it and all of the appropriation bills would then be on the President's desk before the end of the fiscal year. We all hope for that. But indeed if it does not happen, we may have to take action on Monday on the D.C. appropriations bill.
On Tuesday, October 4, and the balance of the week the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning business on Tuesday and then at noon on Tuesday, and meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
We will be taking a House Concurrent Resolution Sense of the Congress regarding entitlement spending, subject to a rule, H.R. 3800, Superfund Reform Act of 1994, subject to a rule; S. 455, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, subject to a rule; H.R. 5044, American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act, subject to a rule; H.R. 5110, trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, subject to a rule; House Joint Resolution 416, Limited Authorization for the United States-led force in Haiti, subject to a rule; and H.R. 3801, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, subject to a rule.
On Thursday the House will recess immediately and reconvene at approximately 11 a.m., to receive the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr. Nelson Mandela, in a joint meeting.
Following the joint meeting, the House will reconvene for legislative business. Conference reports may be brought up at any time. Any further program will be announced later.
I would say to the gentleman as he undoubtedly already knows, it is our hope and intent to finish and adjourn sine die on Friday, October 7. It is impossible today to give Members a specific guarantee as to a time that that might be accomplished, and obviously we will be consulting with the minority throughout the week on what matters may need to be brought up before we can reach that adjournment resolution. But it is our clear intent as early as possible on that day to be able to reach an adjournment sine die.
Finally, let me say that this may be the last time while the distinguished minority leader is minority leader, as he has announced his retirement, to carry on a dialog of this kind about the program for the next week.
Again I want to say to the distinguished minority leader how much respect and affection every Member of this body has for him and his family. I am sorry that we will not have these opportunities again. It has been a real joy to work with the gentleman. He has been a great legislator and a great patriot and a great American, and everyone here wishes him every good wish for his future plans.
Mr. MICHEL. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I suspect, however, next week we will still have occasion to exchange a few thoughts with one another. As I have observed windups of Congress over the years, why, that last week usually turns out to be quite hectic to the degree that we have had to keep our heads close together to make sure that it all does end on an orderly note.
If I might return the compliment, for me over these past many years, what a joy it has been to work with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, when we were both junior Members and as we have risen up through the ranks to become leaders in our respective parties. It has been one of those things we will never forget, probably cherish more than anything else in my tenure in this House, the relationships and friendships between individuals as distinguished from the kind of legislative prowess we may or may not have had on any specific bill. That is the real strength of this body, those kinds of friendships that are forged as we have come to know them over the years.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Before yielding, let me say that I have had the pleasure for the past 6 years in this committee of working with the gentleman from Nebraska. I think he is unequaled in members of that committee who have dedicated and spent a great deal of their time, very silently but very methodically and judiciously. He is someone whom his constituents in Nebraska can feel very proud of the efforts he has made toward our national security.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by thanking my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], for his very generous remarks and for the kind of very positive and open relationship he and I have had throughout our 6 years on the Intelligence Committee, where we sat side by side for those 6 years.
I want also to say it has been my privilege to serve under three exceptional chairmen and three exceptional ranking members. Mr. Beilenson, Mr. McCurdy, and our current chairman, Mr. Glickman are outstanding individuals. They provided exceptional leadership to the committee. They have been ably assisted by our ranking members, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Shuster, and Mr. Combest during my tenure.
I would also say quite sincerely that I believe that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's staff is, without any doubt whatsoever, the highest quality staff that operates in the House of Representatives. We are extremely well served by them because of their contributions, their dedication and their knowledge of our jurisdictional area. It is unparalleled, and we owe them a debt of gratitude that is often not expressed.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, quite sincerely I want to express regret that it is my sixth and, therefore, my last year as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Since I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in parting I would like to reflect on some of the difficulties the intelligence community faces in coming up with a post-cold-war intelligence program to meet recurrent congressional demands for a fresh, cost-efficient and effective strategy.
Intelligence officials do not make up their own foreign policy--unless they wish to court big trouble--but, rather, exist to support the Nation's established foreign and national security policies. When, as now, under the Clinton administration, America lacks a coherent foreign and national security policy, carefully formulated and appropriately enunciated, it is almost impossible to plan wisely. It is certainly difficult to properly shift financial and personnel resources within the limits of the appropriated funds.
The Clinton administration's ineptness and incoherence in foreign policy has become abundantly clear to nearly every careful observer in America and abroad. As a result, the administration has lunged from one foreign policy crisis to another, embarrassed by contradictions, unsupported threats, and reversals. The ship of state seems to be without a captain, in uncharted waters, even as the world and the American public look to U.S. leadership for direction through a storm of uncertainty, instability, and violence. It is a critical time of world transition, but unfortunately the United States is having very little effect on the shape of things to come.
Given this erratic behavior, how can the U.S. intelligence community plan a strategy of support even through 1996? Given the dearth of direction and leadership and the potentially adverse public reaction to such ill-advised, haphazard ventures as we do undertake, how can U.S. intelligence properly assist in implementing U.S. foreign policy after 1996? Given the military's apparent inability to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously because of budget cuts and the expenses of the Clinton administration's ill-advised commitments of our military around the world, should the intelligence community seriously program resources to support this two-major-regional defense policy? Given the White House's unwillingness or disinterest in supporting its Director of Central Intelligence--indeed, its disinterest in the advice of the intelligence community in general--the question is what budgets, programs or strategies are politically supportable for the intelligence community? Since U.S. policy is adrift, it follows logically that the efforts of the intelligence community seem to be adrift as well.
Uncertainties in planning have been exacerbated by the dissolution of the Soviet
world empire. This is a violent, vengeful, dangerous time. Sorting out the East-West ideological rivalry was simple compared to divining the threats of terrorist groups and states and the personal and tribal vendettas and agendas within multiethnic States. Even in the more predictable past, it was difficult to foretell the next hot spot. This new multithreat and unstable environment is a good argument for attempting to maintain basic intelligence coverage worldwide. That attempt, however, clashes with new budget realities. How should the intelligence community now decide which countries, regions or topics to write off?
With the changing circumstances at the end of the cold war, the intelligence community's priorities changed to reflect the increasing importance of the counterproliferation, countenarcotics, economic competitiveness, and counterterrorism missions. Additionally, the United States' increasing involvement in regional crises and peacekeeping activities places a growing burden on an intelligence community with declining resources.
At first, the bills were paid by drastically cutting our intelligence community's budget for collection and analysis conducted on the former Soviet States. This was in part justified and in part it was done to show an insistent Congress that the Community had, indeed, adapted to new times. Considering the facts that Russia is markedly less stable and less predictable than in the past and yet Russia remains the only country on earth capable of destroying the United States, one might wonder if changes in priorities went to far too quickly.
But even these drastic cuts could not pay all the bills. It seems the budget cuts require other tradeoffs. Which regions or missions should we write off from our intelligence coverage? Should we cut back on already anemic R&D efforts? Should we change our strategy of investment among the various intelligence components, INTs? Should we favor collection, processing of intelligence, or personnel?
Perhaps the biggest question since the gulf war is our commitment to improve intelligence support for the military. Broad-area imagery, real-time dissemination, sensor to shooter target information and the critical role of intelligence in information warfare have been much discussed. But the price tags on these innovations are hardly negligible. Again, can we do more--this much more--with less resources? That is apparently the demand.
If we want a new intelligence strategy, we need a foreign policy strategy on which to base it. This bill creates a new Commission of the Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as I leave the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I want to remind Members of Congress and the administration that the success of the intelligence community in meeting demands placed upon it by our top policy leaders in the highly unstable and unpredictable post-cold-war environment will largely be determined by whether this administration and the next are able to articulate a coherent foreign policy and national security policy to support it. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, without the formulation of a coherent and appropriate foreign policy the intelligence community cannot serve as the vital national asset America requires to perform its world leadership role and to protect the lives and interests of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, again I urge the support of this conference report. It is an important improvement from the intelligence authorization legislation earlier reported from the House and a good investment in our Nation's future.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], a great patriot, an individual whose level of energy is certainly not matched by mine, only envied.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for yielding this time to me, and I want to echo everything that he has said about the honor of serving on this committee, everything the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] said, all the staff has said, all of our chairmen, and one tends to be very fond of the current chairman. In this case it is very easy because we are classmates from 1976.
Mr. Speaker, I also am leaving this committee after 6 years, probably the fastest 6 years of my life, and, as with all Members who took their assignment to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence seriously, it will be missed, but, as with all Members who have ever served on the committee, I have noticed on both sides of the aisle it has made them a more valuable Member, a more thoughtful Member, a Member better able to evaluate the dangerous state of the world today, better able to appreciate that the Communist dragon, after killing far more people than even the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, finally was slain after three-quarters of a century, only to be replaced by a world of poisonous snakes around us everywhere.
For several years now, many of us have argued against deep cuts against intelligence, because of its support to our military. We have stressed that intelligence serves as a `force multiplier' to the military, and that it can provide timely warnings--that goes without saying--and assessments which can directly enhance the effectiveness of our increasingly downsized forces.
I recall the words of the immediate prior chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], as the House debated in a 1992 intelligence budget, the one for fiscal year 1993, which the committee had cut by 5 percent. Here is Mr. McCurdy's exact words on this floor: `This is a significant cut. It represents for a bipartisan majority on the committee the outer limit on which the intelligence community can reasonably be expected to reduce spending next year.'
Well, in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker, we have gone beyond even that outer limit point that the gentleman from Oklahoma set in 1992. The fate of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] has been to withstand pressure for savage cuts, and he has done a magnificent job holding the line.
I am pleased to note that this year's funding of military intelligence needs, while not without substantial reductions, at least has not followed the precipitous path of the past several years. The budget reflected in this conference report before the House will maintain key intelligence capabilities and pay for the development of new systems that we desperately need.
Some may ask, they ask all the time, why we continue to fund our intelligence at these levels, or even greater, as we address the needs of national security and our military in this decade and into the next century. During the Persian Gulf war, now it is fading some 3 years ago in the past, the military took home a number of valuable lessons on how intelligence can better serve our commanders, and most importantly, our young men and women in the field. These lessons included such things as the need for better dissemination of all visual imagery, a broad area search capability, better and real time dissemination of tactical intelligence information, and greater interoperability between and among the individual service elements.
In all these years since Desert Storm, significant improvements have been made in every one of those areas. Interoperability has improved appreciably. Commanders can communicate in real time over sophisticated conferencing networks from different locations all around the world. In the combat theater of Haiti we are going to see how this works as the rioting builds to a fever pitch and the looting takes place at this very moment we speak on this House floor, with over 20,000 American men and women intermixed in all areas of the country in a very dangerous situation. How much human intelligence are we going to get fed back here to Washington and to our troops?
Other needs, such as the requirement for broad area search capabilities, these are being addressed through the unmanned aerial vehicle programs currently under development. Downlinking capabilities and better dissemination of imagery and other key intelligence information areas have also been improved. All of these improvements have continued and, God willing, will continue to improve, but it is going to require investments of intelligence dollars.
While we have seen our budget shrink, frankly the result has not been all that bad. Smaller budgets
have forced greater efficiencies. Fewer dollars have encouraged organizations to work smarter and to work much more efficiently. Interservice research and development and joint activities are becoming the order of the day, finally.
We must be mindful of two things, though, as we look to the future expectations of intelligence budgets over the remainder of this decade. The first is keeping up with technological developments and executing well thought out decisions to modernize military intelligence systems. That is going to cost additional dollars. The development of new intelligence systems or even upgrading what we have is always costly and will have to be reflected in future intelligence budget totals, and, Lord knows, it saves lives.
Second, in recent years we have watched the United States become involved in a number of low-level conflicts ranging from Yugoslavia to Haiti. Regardless of the degree to which the United States becomes involved, at all times intelligence support is going to be key, it must be supported. This often means additional maintenance costs and operational costs associated with every level of intelligence gathering. The establishment of communications lines, not only to support our U.S. needs or NATO treaty needs, but now the U.N., and the deployment of analysts and other intelligence support elements, including all those that are only known to the committees of the Senate and House. There are also moneys which must be reflected in the budget totals which Congress will evaluate in the years to come.
That is my written statement, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to conclude with a word to my colleagues that will be seeking to get an appointment to the Intelligence Committee by the Speaker, whichever party that may be, to be determined by an election in about 38 days, and by the minority leader, whichever party Member that might be. I hope our leaders will select people, and I exclude myself from this category, because I also want to say what a pleasure it was to serve with the two that I came on the committee with, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who has an intelligence background, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], who has dogged every step of our excellent chairman and made this the primary focus of his congressional duties, and all of those that will have been added since I have been here.
We have a great team on both sides, and with everybody being replaced, I do not know how many will be replaced on the other side, I hope our leaders take due diligence and forget politics when they pick the members to replace us.
To those that want it, and I have had some approach me, that want desperately on this committee, let me tell them the bad side. You do not get day-to-day `hot' information on things happening around the globe. I find everybody on the committee, like me, tunes into CNN to watch the rioting down there in Haiti. Being on Intelligence, I have had no leg up on other information sources to find one shred of evidence that the young man who died in Haiti 4 days ago was in fact a suicide. During Mogadishu the attitude at the Pentagon was terrible, that they would not give anybody on our committee, even the leaders on either side, any shred of evidence. They were so psyched by the politics and the people in the suits, rather than the people in uniform in the Pentagon, and it is happening again in Haiti.
But, that is not the purpose of our committee. The purpose of our committee, even though I have an addiction now to the NID, National Intelligence Daily, that I will have a total break with in 3 months, the best
part of being on our committee is the long-range planning, the long-range objectives, and getting those hearing to find out whether organized crime does totally run some of the former slave colonies of the Soviet Union and mother Russia herself. It is an excellent committee. There are no press releases, no political gain for it in your district, but I would recommend everybody fight for it, and may the best men and women get those assignments. It has been the most rewarding experience I have had on Capitol Hill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I will save my final accolade for the people we could not work without, and that is the staff, those sitting behind me, behind the chairman, and those up in H 405. these are as dedicated and competent people as I have ever known.
Mr. Speaker, I would commend this conference report to the passage of the House, and, with that, yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the patriotic gentleman Congressman from the Gulf Coast of Texas, Mr. Laughlin.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the accolades that have been passed out, but to also say as a new member of the committee, serving my first 2-year term on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, how proud I am as an American to see the leadership that we have received form Chairman Glickman and from the ranking Republican from my State, Mr. Combest, in leading our committee through the difficult decisions we had to make. Behind the closed doors, great work was done, because we were not of like mind, and we struggled with the decisions we had to make for our Nation's future.
I would say as a soldier of more than 30 years service in the Army, our committee members and staff have served with the same commitment to the welfare and safety and security of America as our uniformed forces, and I am proud of our committee members and the staff that we have working with us.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just in closing, I would say this has been an extraordinarily difficult time for the intelligence community. Changes are in the offing. Great difficulties are occurring and will continue to occur. But with all the criticism that has flowed out of my mouth and other mouths, and hopefully it has been constructive, the fact of the matter is that a strong America in the world depends upon access to good, solid information about what is happening. Where are terrorists located? Where are chemical and biological, nuclear weapons located? Who is passing narcotics to whom? Who maybe is taking advantage of us illegally in the economic transactions of the world. We in this committee which oversee the intelligence community are trying to make sure the intelligence agencies can provide this information.
While changes are going to happen, we should never lose sight of the fact that our goal is high quality information for America so we can continue to be the strongest and freest nation in the world.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's staff is absolutely sensational, patriots all, and so is mine. I did not want to leave that out. Best staffs on the Hill.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, we agree on that.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.