Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5095) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1993 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McEwen], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 587 is the rule providing for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5095, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report will be considered as read. The rules waived include those dealing with the 3-day layover period for filing of conference reports, for scope, and germaneness.
Both the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. McCurdy, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Shuster, testified in support of the requests embodied in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5095 is the authorization for fiscal year 1993 of U.S. intelligence and intelligence-related activities, including those of the CIA. The National Security Act mandates that expenditures on intelligence activities be specifically authorized, so it is imperative that the House approve this measure before adjournment.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster, are to be commended for their diligence and good work in this very sensitive area. I urge my colleagues to grant these waivers as they requested and approve the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
(Mr. ROHRABACHER was allowed to proceed out of order.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we were just challenged to explain why the President should be reelected by a lady who did not have the courage to make that challenge when we had the chance to reply. So I appreciate my colleague giving me this opportunity. I hope the voters in California noticed that Barbara Boxer, who issued this challenge and then ran away, has been running away from a debate that her opponent in California. Why--oh, now, she is back on the floor. I hope your side----
Mrs. BOXER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, I will not.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, the gentleman is----
Mr. ROHRABACHER. You have had your 1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. The gentleman is telling untruths. I have debated my opponent twice.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio yielded to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. We were asked exactly why people are unemployed in California and throughout the Nation, why people should vote for President Bush. That is because President Bush will do a better job in putting people back to work. That is because if President Bush would have had his chance to have his policies go through this Congress and not stopped by people like my colleague from California who is now running for Senate, there would be more jobs in California and elsewhere. Instead, what we have had is a tax-and-spend Congress that has thwarted President Bush every time he has tried to put forward a policy of economic growth.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not yet. I have not had my minute yet.
When the President put forward a policy of rationally reducing, reducing defense spending as it should be in a postcold war world, what we have instead on the other side is a policy of irrationally slashing defense, which will leave California workers unemployed and out of luck. And because Mr. Clinton may offer more welfare and Clinton may offer other social service jobs, we are interested, in California, in jobs in the aerospace industry, which will disappear and have disappeared because of the liberal policies espoused on the other side of the aisle, especially by my colleague who is now running for the U.S. Senate.
I would suggest that if people are disturbed that some of us are attacking Clinton, that they stop thrashing Bush like they have for the last 4 years.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself that time which I may consume.
I rise in support of the rule for the consideration of conference report on H.R. 5095, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993. House Resolution 587 provides for consideration of one of the most important pieces of legislation that the House of Representatives must pass each year--the bill authorizing all appropriations for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States.
As explained by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], who served with distinction as chairman of the Intelligence Committee during my years of service on that committee, this rule waives all points of order against the conference report.
The chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, Mr. McCurdy from Oklahoma, and the ranking member, a gentleman for whom I have the highest degree of respect, Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania, came before the Rules Committee and together asked for this rule.
These two gentlemen do an outstanding job of directing our intelligence efforts. Once again, I repeat, this Intelligence Authorization Act is one of the most important bills brought to this floor. It often involves life or death matters for freedom's friends around the globe, and also our Nation's national security interests in the coming years.
The chairman and ranking member came to the Rules Committees and brought a bill to the floor under an open rule. Their conference report now requires points of order to be waived regarding the 3-day layover for conference report, and for a number of technical matters, including the scope of the provisions dealing with the National Security Education Program.
Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that Mr. Shuster expressed before the Committee on Rules yesterday. This bill underfunds some of our most important intelligence programs. A capable intelligence system is not something that can be built and stockpiled like tanks and missiles--if you need more intelligence at some future date, you cannot turn some assembly line back on having killed your sources.
We saw the tragedy of that in the 1970's and have made tremendous strides in the 1980's. Now we are perilously on the edge of returning to the mistakes of the Turner years. We must nurture and support our intelligence system. To do anything less is irresponsible to our highest calling, keeping the Nation safe and free.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and my friend from Pennsylvania for their dedication and for their leadership to our country. They certainly do their best protecting our Nation's intelligence secrets and interests. It is a pleasure to join with the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] in urging support for this rule so that we can consider the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time on this side.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
When I first was appointed to the Select Committee on Intelligence in January 1991, we were thrust into the middle of Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I received an instant lesson on the capacity and the dedication and the service of the intelligence community of our country, not only in national security matters per se, but in all things touching upon our Nation and what it means in the global community.
Since that time we have heard many people question whether or not we need an intelligence community any longer. Since the cold war is over, why do we have to watch what the Soviet Union, our arch enemy of the past, might or might not do? But events since then have shown that not only do we need an intelligence community to stay pat and to do its work in the intelligence gathering function for which it was formed, the need may be greater than ever.
The breakup of the Soviet Union presents problems of its own which our intelligence community must produce results in human and other types of intelligence so that we can be alerted as to what might happen in the Ukraine, in the Latvia and Estonia sectors of the former Soviet Union and, of course, in Yugoslavia. Is it not necessary for us to be on top of things in Yugoslavia and in Africa, in Somalia and in South Africa?
You name the spot and we still have a national security interest to project wherever trouble may arise in the entire world.
The Intelligence Committee on which I am proud to serve must be reauthorized.
Mr. Speaker, I will support the rule and the bill to follow.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 399, nays 2, not voting 31, as follows:
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.