Summary:

All articles in House section

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(House of Representatives - May 07, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2944-H2978] INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 420 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Printed amendments shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour. [[Page H2945]] Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 420 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3694, the Fiscal Year 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act. What makes this rule modified open instead of fully open is a preprinting requirement for amendments, whose purpose is to ensure that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has an opportunity to work with Members seeking to offer germane amendments to ensure that important issues are addressed without threatening disclosure of sensitive, classified information. This preprinting requirement has become standard procedure for consideration of the annual intelligence authorization and has not been controversial. Because the leadership sought to have this bill on the floor today, the rule also includes a waiver of points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI, which requires a three-day layover of a committee report. The committee's report was properly filed on Tuesday of this week, and Members have had notice of availability of classified portions of the authorization measure since late last week when public announcements were, indeed, made from the floor. It is my understanding that there is no objection to this slight speeding up of the schedule to accommodate changes stemming from the unrelated scheduling matters and to accommodate Members' travel plans. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill, time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In addition, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 of the bill. That modification, a self-executing change accomplished through the rule, is designed to addressed a Budget Act technicality relating to a provision of the bill extending the early-out retirement program for the CIA. We were advised that, due to the fact that we still await this year's budget resolution, the early-out provision found in title IV of the bill causes a Budget Act problem, and so the provision is being removed from the bill with the understanding that the substance of the issue will be addressed at a later stage of legislative process of H.R. 3694. {time} 1200 The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read. The rule also waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments or clause 5(b) of rule XXI, prohibiting tax or tariff provisions in a bill not reported by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures. Both of these waivers apply to a section of H.R. 3694 regarding the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities in title III of the bill. That provision is nongermane to the introduced version of H.R. 3694, and it deals with subject matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Based on an exchange of letters between the two committees, there is no controversy on this matter. However, these waivers are necessary under the rules of the House. And during general debate, I will introduce into the Record that correspondence between the two committees. I would also point out for the record the Committee on National Security has, by letter, discharged itself from consideration of the matters in this bill that fall within its purview. Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone the vote on any amendment and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on any series of questions provided that the first vote shall not be less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, that was a long explanation of a rule that is, in fact, straightforward, simple, and traditional for this piece of legislation. I know of no controversy about this rule. I urge Members to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule. It allows amendments that are germane to be offered. However, H. Res. 420 does include one waiver of a House rule that troubles me. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI that provides for a 3-day layover of the committee report accompanying the bill. This House rule allows Members time to study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support amendments. The 3-day opportunity to study the bill and report is particularly important in this case because many provisions of the intelligence bills are classified and, if a Member wishes to review those portions, a Member must make arrangements with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To cut short the standard review time under these circumstances is unfortunate. And while I understand that the majority and the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had no objection to the waiver, we should note that it is not the committee's rights but the rights of Members not on the committee that the House rule is designed to protect. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, is to be commended for avoiding the need for waiver of the Budget Act by self-executing in this rule an amendment striking the offending section of the bill. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to gain its acquiescence to a violation of a House rule designed to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. While I often question the need for a requirement for preprinting in the Congressional Record, the sensitivity and the complexity of the intelligence authorization bill justifies the requirement in this case. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the full House to consider germane amendments offered by any Member. Under the rule, the House will be able to debate important questions, such as whether to reduce the overall size of the intelligence budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule. Among other things, it, in fact, allows this Congress to begin debating major priorities as to whether or not we are going to increase spending for the intelligence budget, despite the end of the Cold War and despite the fact that while we increase funding for the intelligence budget, we have cut spending in Medicare for our senior citizens, cut spending for veterans' programs, cut spending in a dozen different areas that the middle-class and low- income people of this country need. So I applaud the chairman for bringing forth this rule. It is a fair rule and it is going to allow us to have a serious debate on what we want this Congress to be doing for the American people. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the concerns of the gentlewoman from New York about the notice given and accommodating Members' schedules today. I am happy to report that several Members did take advantage of the opportunity to come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and participate in review of materials that were of interest to them. So I think the [[Page H2946]] word has gotten out and I think we have done our job properly. 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 resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Pursuant to House Resolution 420 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3694. {time} 1205 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with (Mr. Thornberry) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization to the floor today. As a strong believer in the congressional oversight process, I hope Members have taken the opportunity to examine this year's bill, including its classified annex and, indeed, I know several Members have come upstairs to do just that. The annual intelligence authorization, and its exhaustive review of intelligence activities and capabilities that accompanies it, form the cornerstone of our oversight process. This is truly a valuable exercise for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for Congress as a whole, and I think it is beneficial to the intelligence community as well. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both sides of the aisle whose hard work and long hours have enabled us to produce a responsible, nonpartisan bill that was unanimously approved in committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), chairman of the Committee on National Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, for their input and able assistance with this legislation. H.R. 3694 authorizes funds for the fiscal year 1999 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government. That is a big order. The National Security Act requires Congress specifically to authorize all intelligence spending. That is unique. As Members are aware, many of the details of the intelligence budget are classified, including the total fiscal year 1999 budget request, or top line. I can say, however, that H.R. 3694's top line is substantially in line with the President's request. The committee came in a mere one-tenth of 1 percent above the President's level. I would like to take a moment to explain the process by which the committee arrived at this recommended spending level. What we did not do was adopt an arbitrary number and fill in the blanks until we reached our goal. Instead, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence looked at each line of every program, examined its effectiveness and how it fit in with the overall U.S. intelligence requirements and priorities in today's world. Then we made our decisions based on the merit and value of each program. Mr. Chairman, throughout the committee's review of U.S. intelligence capabilities, whether we were looking at satellite reconnaissance or human intelligence, one fact stood out. The threats that face our Nation demand that the intelligence community maintain a worldwide vigilance and the resources to deal with a multitude of challenges and new challenges. The Cold War is over and the threat of nuclear war has been reduced. Or has it? Unfortunately, the world still is a dangerous place for the United States and its citizens, as we read in papers almost daily about concerns about political stability in places like Russia, the chain of command in Russia over the nuclear weapons, or perhaps even the Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles which we read in the newspapers are targeted against U.S. cities, what they call city-buster bombs and an ICBM capability. To demonstrate this, we need look no further than our continuing struggles with Iraq. Earlier this year the United States came to the brink of military confrontation with Saddam Hussein; yet we did so without all of the information necessary to support a serious campaign. There were serious shortfalls in our ability to support policymakers and military commanders at this critical time. Such gaps endanger U.S. lives and interests and are not acceptable, tolerable, or necessary in today's world. We should not ignore Iraq or Iran or Libya or North Korea or other rogue nations that are striving for and, in many cases achieving, the means to threaten the United States. The risk that a terrorist group or a rogue country will use a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon against the U.S. or an American citizen or American interests here or abroad is increasing. Despite this fact, U.S. intelligence capabilities have dwindled since the end of the Cold War. In effect, we are asking the intelligence community for more and we are giving them less to do it. And we are counting on them more. The intelligence community needs to change the way it does business to address these new threats. This year's authorization identifies five areas that deserve particular attention. One, our signals intelligence capabilities are in serious need of modernization to keep up with the fast pace of communications and technology improvement. I think it is fair to say that the golden days of SIGINT may, in fact, be behind us, and we have been enjoying the benefits of a very good SIGINT activity for many years. That may be over because of technology. We need to deal with that. Two, our clandestine espionage, or human intelligence as it is called, that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and refocused on current priorities. It is fair to say, I think, that the cupboard is nearly bare in the area of HUMINT. We are badly outnumbered by hostiles in a lot of dangerous places in the world. That is intolerable, unacceptable, and unnecessary. The intelligence community needs to increase its analytical capability in order to absorb and accurately gauge the immediate and long-term implications of an ever-increasing volume of information. We have stuff on hand we have not reviewed. We have not exploited it. And it is stuff that would be useful to our decision-makers. We do not have as much analytical capacity as we need. That can be fixed. Covert action capabilities need to be restructured. I said capabilities. Nobody is calling for covert action. We are calling for more arrows in the quiver in case we do need it to suit the needs of today's world and how to deal with problems we come against. Fifth, and last, we need to ensure we maintain an active research and development program in all intelligence areas. H.R. 3694 addresses each of these priorities, in some cases by providing additional funding; in others by redirecting existing programs, resources, or restructuring ongoing programs. In addition, the committee's review raised some fundamental questions that the committee will review over the coming year. These include, what are the proper priorities for our future overheads systems? How can we manage the cost of a national reconnaissance program and yet meet other critical requirements? Is the intelligence community striking the right balance between our capacity to collect intelligence and our capacity to analyze what is collected? Is the intelligence community prepared to face the challenges of information and operations, or cyber-warfare? [[Page H2947]] The future of our intelligence programs depends on finding the answers to these and other questions. But for today, today we understand very well our needs. We have provided for them in this legislation. I think we have achieved an excellent balance. Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to support H.R. 3694 today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 4, 1998. Hon. Porter Goss, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Porter: I am writing in response to your letter of April 29, 1998, which addresses H.R. 3694, as reported by the House Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) on April 29, 1998. H.R. 3694 would amend Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. The bill contains an extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities. As your letter notes, this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Accordingly, the Committee would ordinarily meet to consider the bill. However, because the bill, as reported, extends for one year an already existing application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities, I do not believe that a markup of the bill is necessary. I appreciate your consultation with the Committee in advance. I request your full support in joining me to prevent any other expansion or changes to the application of sanctions laws for intelligence activities other than the one year extension agreed to here. I would further appreciate your consultation with respect to this provision on any future Intelligence Authorization bills, including a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time. Of course, if an agreement cannot be reached, the provision would be subject to a point of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the record during floor consideration. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards, Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 28, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning the planned inclusion of a provision in the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999'' (H.R. 3694), which we expect to mark up on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, and report to the House early next week. I have included a copy of the proposed section for your consideration. As you know, this provision relates to the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities and simply extends the life of the provision for one additional year. As you will recall during last year's consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and based upon our mutual understanding and agreement as to your Committee's jurisdiction over matters relating to taxes and tariffs, this provision was included in the Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as section 304 of that Act. A copy of that provision, as enacted (P.L. 105-107), is also included for your review. I hope that we can, consistent with the agreement reached last year, once again agree that this provision may be included in H.R. 3694, and any resulting Conference Report, without objection from the Committee on Ways and Means. There is no doubt that this provision falls squarely within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by the House that has not been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. This provision is of critical importance to the protection of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies the President with the necessary flexibility to address the competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting our national security interests at the same time. I appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this section of our bill. I would also offer that any modification of this provision in future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be subject to consultation between our Committees, and, if agreement cannot be reached, subject to points of order pursaunt to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look forward to your support for H.R. 3694. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Porter J. Goss, Chairman. ____ ``(b) Benefits, Allowances, Travel, Incentives.--An employee detailed under subsection (a) may be authorized any benefit, allowance, travel, or incentive otherwise provided to enhance staffing by the organization from which the employee is detailed. ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report describing the detail of intelligence community personnel pursuant to subsection (a) during the 12-month period ending on the date of the report. The report shall set forth the number of personnel detailed, the identity of parent and host agencies or elements, and an analysis of the benefits of the details.''. (b) Technical Amendment.--Sections 120, 121, and 110 of the National Security Act of 1947 are hereby redesignated as sections 110, 111, and 112, respectively. (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking out the items relating to sections 120, 121, and 110 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Sec. 110. National mission of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. ``Sec. 111. Collection tasking authority. ``Sec. 112. Restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United Nations. ``Sec. 113. Detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence community assignment program.''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to an employee on detail on or after January 1, 1997. SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible with the national security interests of the United States and consistent with operational and security concerns related to the conduct of intelligence activities, and where fiscally sound, should competitively award contracts in a manner that maximizes the procurement of products properly designated as having been made in the United States. SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. It is the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have equal standing with officials of the Executive Branch to receive classified information so that Congress may carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CERTAIN VIOLENT CRIMES ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to provide information regarding the killing, abduction, torture, ____ (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item: ``Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence (3).''. (b) Expansion of Duties of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management.--Subsection 102(d)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403(d)(2)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (B) through (D) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs: ``(B) Carrying out the responsibilities of the Director under paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(c). ``(C) Carrying out such other responsibilities as the Director may direct.''. SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 2000.''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence strives to report an authorization bill each year which is free of partisan division. While we have been generally successful in that effort, from time to time we have been divided on significant issues of substance. This year, I am pleased to report that we have produced legislation which is not only bipartisan but without major substantive disagreement as well. {time} 1215 Credit for that result goes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the views of all Members are reflected [[Page H2948]] in the work of the committee. I commend him for the leadership he has exhibited as chairman and for his willingness to work with committee Democrats on matters of importance to us. For two of the Democratic Members, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), this will be the final intelligence authorization bill they will bring to the floor. Although I look forward to working with them to get a conference report enacted, I want to thank them for their many contributions to the work of the committee. The willingness of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) to tackle issues like declassification and the need to make greater use of intelligence in nontraditional ways has been invaluable. And the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to encourage development of the complex systems through which intelligence will be collected in the future were also of great assistance. This will be my last authorization bill, as well. I have enjoyed my 8 years of service on the committee and look forward to keeping up with intelligence issues when they come before the Committee on Appropriations. I have been impressed tremendously by not only the importance of intelligence to our Nation's security, but by the dedication, often under circumstances of great hardship and danger, of the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies. The authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 will make improvements in intelligence capabilities that need to be modernized either because of technological advances or because they require greater emphasis to respond to changing threats. The bill is only marginally more, in the aggregate 0.1 percent, than the amount requested by the President. Although the committee chose to place a different spending priority on certain items than did the administration, I do not believe that we have done harm to any initiative or activity which the Director of Central Intelligence or the Secretary of Defense consider crucial. Generating public support for spending on intelligence programs, given their classified nature, is never going to be easy. Although it should be common sense that the possession of information in advance about the military plans of an enemy, the bottom-line position of another government in a diplomatic negotiation, the location of a terrorist cell, or the scientific and technical capability of someone trying to develop a weapon of mass destruction should be invaluable, we sometimes forget that the acquisition of access to that kind of information is time consuming and expensive. I do not believe we need to justify intelligence spending on the basis of some esoteric calculation about whether our national security is more or less at risk than when the Soviet Union was in place. We will always have threats to our security. Some will be predictable, some will not. Dealing with them requires accurate and timely information, some of which can be provided only by intelligence agencies. There is a cost to maintaining the capability to provide that information when required, and that cost is significant. The cost if the information is not available, however, is potentially far greater. Our job on the committee is to ensure that the means necessary to provide intelligence on matters which demonstrably affect national security are available at a cost which is not excessive relative to their importance. I believe the 21-year record of the committee in this effort, including the bill now before the House, has been exceptional. Besides recommending spending levels, an authorization bill and accompanying report also make judgments about the manner in which programs are being managed. I believe that one of the chief responsibilities of an oversight committee is to monitor the activities of the agencies under its jurisdiction in a manner which is both aggressive and thorough. I also believe that oversight should be constructive and fair. I am concerned about the tone of some of the recent criticism of the work of two agencies, the National Reconnaissance Office, (NRO), and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The United States has an intelligence capability second to none in the world. Much of that preeminence is due to the performance of the systems acquired and operated by the NRO. These systems are extraordinarily complex and expensive. We are now in the midst of an effort to modernize these systems. When the need for modernization was made clear several years ago by then-Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey, and Congress agreed to embark on a plan to accomplish it, it was with the understanding that substantial amounts of money would have to be expended in the short term to produce savings in the future. We have spent much of the intervening years altering in sometimes significant ways the components of the plan, which has added to the costs that have to be met in the near term and delayed the realization of the expected long-term savings as well. It is disingenuous to have been a part of this practice and then to complain about the effects it has produced on the NRO's budget. NIMA is a new agency created less than 2 years ago through the merger of the Defense Mapping Agency and the imagery analysis elements of the CIA and DIA. Like most mergers, this one, which I strongly supported was not without problems, but I believe that NIMA personnel are committed to having the agency fulfill its important mission successfully. Earlier this year I wrote to NIMA's customers to ask for an evaluation of their performance. Secretary of Commerce Daley responded that ``After working through some initial confusion regarding authority and responsibility for certain products and services, support to civilian agencies is now better than before the individual components were combined into NIMA.'' James L. Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, wrote, ``The support and service provided by NIMA to support disaster response activities have been and continue to be outstanding.'' Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, complimented NIMA on making a strong effort to provide high-quality analysis and pronounced himself ``generally satisfied'' with the results. I do not believe that these comments reflect an agency that is failing to do its job or one that is ignoring the needs of nonmilitary consumers to concentrate on those of the military, as some had feared. Any enterprise involving human beings can be made better, but I think it is not helpful to make final judgments, pro or con, about an agency in its infancy. I offer these thoughts in the hope that they will provide perspective in evaluating the performance of the NRO and NIMA in the days ahead. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3694 is a good bill which will advance the interest of military and civilian consumers of intelligence. I urge that it be approved by the House. I would also like to compliment both the majority staff and the Democratic minority staff. I think this committee has been blessed over the years with an outstanding staff. And I want to particularly thank Mike Sheehy and the Democratic staff members whom I have had the privilege of working with for the last 4 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to say that I am very proud to have worked with and learned from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as the ranking member. He has been an extraordinary asset of the United States of America in his capacity as a manager of the portfolio. He brings wisdom, judgment and knowledge about military intelligence and equipment to the table in our committee to the extent that I think no other member has or can at this time. I hope he is not going to leave. But if it turns out that way, we will miss him. I also hope we are not going to lose anybody else. And for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), I share that view with all the other members. I happen to feel that we have got an extraordinary committee and staff, we are doing our job timely and well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to allow him to demonstrate what I have just said. [[Page H2949]] (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in both a fiscal and political environment in which we simply cannot fund every system and program we would like. This applies whether intelligence or not intelligence. However, it is important for the American people to understand just how critical intelligence is to the very survival of our Nation and our way of life. On the way over to the Capitol this morning, I heard a radio announcer refer to this bill as ``the bill to authorize America's cloak-and-dagger operation.'' That sort of a label is correct in a way, but unfortuantely, I believe it unintentionally misrepresents what this bill is all about. What this bill is about is the wise and prudent funding and oversight of those intelligence collection analysis and dissemination function necessary to provide for the security of our Nation, its interests, and its citizens around the world. We are talking about what I refer to as ``counterprograms.'' We are not engaged in a world war, but we have some very important counterprograms, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation. These are all very important activities, and this bill funds them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of funcational intelligence areas of particular interest in this bill. The first is the emphasis this bill places on rebuilding leading-edge technology, research and development. It is the basic research and development of new technologies that are the easiest to cut in lean fiscal times. But it is precisely these efforts that our future depends on and that we must pay particular attention to and fund properly. This bill puts great emphasis on future capabilities, albeit sometimes imprudently at the expense of older so-called legacy systems. Also, this bill emphasizes the need for a strong, well-trained and funded reserve intelligence component. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things I could say about this bill, and I do not have the time to say them. Just let me say that as someone who tried to be very attentive to my important responsibilities on this committee, I admire the way the chairman and ranking member have worked cooperatively. I admire the seriousness of purpose of all of the members. I admire the product that we are producing, and I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues and the American people. We are doing the people's business in a wise and prudent manner. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on this important committee. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a colloquy concerning section 303 of the bill. Before doing so, I want to commend our chairman for his leadership also and to thank him for including full funding for the environmental program in this legislation before us today, the recognition that new issues need to be addressed, not that the environment is a new issue, but new compared to its being a priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in the intelligence authorization bill. In any event, I rise to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 more year? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. I would assure the gentlewoman from California that is the intent of the committee, that the legislative history of this provision, as it was developed in the debate in 1995, is applicable to the exercise of this authority. Indeed, the report to accompany H.R. 3694 reaffirms the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 to make completely clear that the original legislative history of this provision continues to govern its implementation. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends that the provision will be narrowly construed and used only in the most serious of circumstances when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk? Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman would further yield, that is certainly the intent of the committee. Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns? Mr. GOSS. That is also the case. Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces? Mr. GOSS. Yes, it does. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for engaging in this colloquy and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. I wanted just to say that I concur in all the statements made by the chairman. This is also the understanding that I have of this provision. Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for his cooperation and concurrence in the view of the chairman. Mr. DICKS. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her diligence on this important matter. {time} 1230 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this intelligence authorization bill. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He has done an outstanding job. I have had the privilege of working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 14 years now, two different terms. I have to say that the gentleman from Florida has been outstanding in the leadership that he provides for the committee and also to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we have worked together for so many years, he is a member of our subcommittee. We have the unusual relationship of being members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as members of the appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Washington does a really good job. He is very dedicated to a good intelligence bill. That is what this is. This is a good intelligence bill. It provides not as much as we would like to have provided for our intelligence activities, but it provides the best that we can with the budget constraints that we are faced with today. There are those of us who believe that we are not making a strong enough investment in our national security, at any part of our national defense structure, whether it be the operational military forces or the intelligence community. But the intelligence community is the eyes and ears of our national capabilities. We have to have information, we have to know what is happening in the world, we have to know what threats there might be out there. [[Page H2950]] The intelligence community does an outstanding job, I might say. I might be criticized for that statement because all you ever hear is the bad news. If an intelligence agent happens to go bad, which does happen on occasion, or if a mistake is made, you hear about that but you do not hear about the good things that the intelligence community brings to our overall national security effort. I wish we could talk about some of those on the floor in open session today, but obviously we cannot because it is essential that the sources that we use for developing our own intelligence information and the methods that we use and the people who are involved in this have to be protected. Their mission is extremely important and their lives could very well be at risk if we went into a lot of detail. I know that there will probably be some amendments offered to reduce the authorized level of funding in this bill. I would urge the Members not to support this. This bill does not provide enough authorization for funding to do the things that we ought to be doing in our national security effort, but it is the best we could do with the budget constraints. I suggest that we defeat any amendments that would tend to reduce the investment in our intelligence capability and let us pass this good bill and get it on to the Senate so we can get it to the President. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for his statement and I want to concur in it. Sometimes I think there is a question out there about whether intelligence is really that important. I think it is our ace in the hole. I think it is what gives America an extraordinary advantage over any potential foe. Our human intelligence, our national technical means, are remarkable assets to this country. In every conflict we have been in in recent years, they have given us a tremendous advantage. I think the work of the defense subcommittee and the authorization committee to come up with a good bill that keeps that going is essential to the future of the country. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He is right on track. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3694. I have a rather unique position and opportunity. As ranking member of the Committee on National Security and as a member of this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can personally testify to the importance of intelligence to our military commanders in the field, to our troops who are daily supporting our peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq, in Macedonia and to our pilots in the Iraqi no-fly-zone. Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. I am not sure we say thank you enough to the members of the intelligence community. What they do so often is not known. Yet it pays off in knowledge to the commanders in chief in the field, to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to this body. Intelligence is critical to successful operations and to the safety of our men and women in uniform. Intelligence also plays a crucial role in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plan for the 21st century, Dominant Battlespace Awareness, which hinges on our intelligence investment. Critical to the Joint Chiefs' plan, as well as to daily air, sea, and ground operations, are the mapping products created by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Although I support this bill, I am frankly concerned with the reductions in the operations and maintenance funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. I think the cuts are unjustified and excessive. I fear that they will have an unacceptable impact on the production of products for the unified commands and for the State Department peacekeeping negotiations. I am also concerned that these cuts will result in the unwarranted elimination of jobs from an agency that does not have sufficient staffing to meet military requirements today. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to associate myself with the very good comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) concerning the strategic importance of intelligence. I would only add to that by saying that intelligence is also more than military and tactical in nature. There are civilian aspects to intelligence that are very important to the national security of this country that go beyond support to our military and provide the kind of protection for the citizens of the United States, not only domestically but abroad, that we all need and cherish. This is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. Part of the reason for that is the fact that we know what our enemies are doing and we know what their plans and intentions are better perhaps than anybody else in the world. I would like to address if I could for a second the budget itself. The legislation before us today refocuses the President's request upon four major priorities for intelligence in the next century. Firstly, it accelerates the recapitalization of a signals intelligence program that has produced invaluable information against the new transnational targets of the post-Cold War world. Secondly, our bill begins the process, after years of drawdowns and reductions, of rebuilding a clandestine human intelligence program that has provided much of our intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists, traffickers and other adversaries. Thirdly, our bill continues the strengthening of the analysis part of intelligence collection that provides both assessment to our policymakers and guidance to the collectors. Finally, our bill enhances the capability of the President to direct and accomplish covert actions when he deems such actions necessary to U.S. foreign policy and our national security. The purpose of our mark in each of these areas is to strengthen the capabilities that will provide policymakers with the intelligence that they will need in the next century. Mr. Chairman, there were also strategic cuts in the budget, made after much investigation and on a line-by-line basis, on programs that will mostly be effective in the 21st century. The intelligence community has for the most part moved forward effectively against new and difficult issues. There are some areas where we can make some reductions and do so in a prudent fashion. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of this bipartisan authorization bill. I want to commend both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for having done an excellent job working together to produce this important bill. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a good solid member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for bringing forward a product that deserves the support of this House. I have said before that whenever an intelligence authorization or appropriations is before us, the proponents are at a disadvantage because people can attack the intelligence community. A lot of this is confidential. They do not have the opportunity sometimes to defend themselves. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world. We have the best trained professionals in the world. Yet we have the most difficult challenges of any nation in this world. We work in a bipartisan manner in order to provide authorization and appropriations for our intelligence agencies. I really do applaud the leadership of this House for [[Page H2951]] doing that. For the security of our country and for the manner in which this has been handled in the House, it deserves our support. I must tell my colleagues, though, that I was somewhat disappointed by some of the tone in the language as it related to some of our intelligence agencies. But I am very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that we must invest in the recapitalization and modernization of our SIGINT capacities. I think that is very important for this country. I have visited NSA on numerous occasions and know the dedication of the men and women in public service for our country. They represent some of our brightest minds in our Nation. But if we are going to be able to attract the best from our universities and colleges so that we can maintain that capacity in the future, it is important that we authorize adequate funds and appropriate adequate funds for our intelligence operation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to bring this product forward in a bipartisan manner. I hope that this body will support the work of the committee, support the authorization and later support the appropriation. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland's remarks. We have worked together on many things. His support is very important. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the task force to counter the drug problem. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fine work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 3694, the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization bill. As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security, and the Task Force for a Drug-Free America, I have had an opportunity to visit a wide range of counternarcotic programs in this country and overseas during the past few years. I have seen the effectiveness of the information produced by our intelligence community in identifying and tracking major narcotics trafficking activities. This intelligence information is essential to facilitating the law enforcement community's effort to slow the flood of cocaine and heroin that is pouring into our country. I have been particularly impressed by the growing coordination between the intelligence community and the law enforcement agencies to jointly target major narcotrafficking groups. Despite this good news, I regret to report that we are stopping no more than 15 to 20 percent of the drugs flowing from the source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. We have the best intelligence organization in the world, but we lack the capability to act effectively on the information that we collect against narcotraffickers. It is clear that the administration's current source zone strategy is having only a very limited impact on cocaine and opium production in the source countries. We need to provide sufficient political will, sufficient resources and sufficient personnel to this effort. Equally, the transit zone strategy is undermined by an unwillingness to seek sufficient air, ground and maritime resources to track, pursue and stop narcotrafficking moving through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Based on numerous meetings with foreign narcotics officials and U.S. Government personnel serving in the field, I am quite persuaded that much more could be achieved if we would be willing to come forward and seek the necessary resources to step up the eradication and interdiction of cocaine and heroin. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. Intelligence is the key to stopping narcotics traffic in this country and this hemisphere. I support this legislation. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their tireless efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the intelligence community. There is arguably no greater consumer of intelligence than our Nation's Armed Forces. Despite the end of the Cold War, the requirements of our military for better and more timely intelligence has actually increased rather than decreased. This is the result of a number of factors, including transitional issues such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps no incident better illustrates the threat that terrorism poses to the men and women of our armed services than the cowardly and callous terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. {time} 1245 Our forces in Bosnia remain exposed to the threat of terrorism, and it is the i

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(House of Representatives - May 07, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2944-H2978] INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 420 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Printed amendments shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour. [[Page H2945]] Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 420 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3694, the Fiscal Year 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act. What makes this rule modified open instead of fully open is a preprinting requirement for amendments, whose purpose is to ensure that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has an opportunity to work with Members seeking to offer germane amendments to ensure that important issues are addressed without threatening disclosure of sensitive, classified information. This preprinting requirement has become standard procedure for consideration of the annual intelligence authorization and has not been controversial. Because the leadership sought to have this bill on the floor today, the rule also includes a waiver of points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI, which requires a three-day layover of a committee report. The committee's report was properly filed on Tuesday of this week, and Members have had notice of availability of classified portions of the authorization measure since late last week when public announcements were, indeed, made from the floor. It is my understanding that there is no objection to this slight speeding up of the schedule to accommodate changes stemming from the unrelated scheduling matters and to accommodate Members' travel plans. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill, time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In addition, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 of the bill. That modification, a self-executing change accomplished through the rule, is designed to addressed a Budget Act technicality relating to a provision of the bill extending the early-out retirement program for the CIA. We were advised that, due to the fact that we still await this year's budget resolution, the early-out provision found in title IV of the bill causes a Budget Act problem, and so the provision is being removed from the bill with the understanding that the substance of the issue will be addressed at a later stage of legislative process of H.R. 3694. {time} 1200 The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read. The rule also waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments or clause 5(b) of rule XXI, prohibiting tax or tariff provisions in a bill not reported by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures. Both of these waivers apply to a section of H.R. 3694 regarding the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities in title III of the bill. That provision is nongermane to the introduced version of H.R. 3694, and it deals with subject matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Based on an exchange of letters between the two committees, there is no controversy on this matter. However, these waivers are necessary under the rules of the House. And during general debate, I will introduce into the Record that correspondence between the two committees. I would also point out for the record the Committee on National Security has, by letter, discharged itself from consideration of the matters in this bill that fall within its purview. Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone the vote on any amendment and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on any series of questions provided that the first vote shall not be less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, that was a long explanation of a rule that is, in fact, straightforward, simple, and traditional for this piece of legislation. I know of no controversy about this rule. I urge Members to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule. It allows amendments that are germane to be offered. However, H. Res. 420 does include one waiver of a House rule that troubles me. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI that provides for a 3-day layover of the committee report accompanying the bill. This House rule allows Members time to study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support amendments. The 3-day opportunity to study the bill and report is particularly important in this case because many provisions of the intelligence bills are classified and, if a Member wishes to review those portions, a Member must make arrangements with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To cut short the standard review time under these circumstances is unfortunate. And while I understand that the majority and the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had no objection to the waiver, we should note that it is not the committee's rights but the rights of Members not on the committee that the House rule is designed to protect. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, is to be commended for avoiding the need for waiver of the Budget Act by self-executing in this rule an amendment striking the offending section of the bill. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to gain its acquiescence to a violation of a House rule designed to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. While I often question the need for a requirement for preprinting in the Congressional Record, the sensitivity and the complexity of the intelligence authorization bill justifies the requirement in this case. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the full House to consider germane amendments offered by any Member. Under the rule, the House will be able to debate important questions, such as whether to reduce the overall size of the intelligence budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule. Among other things, it, in fact, allows this Congress to begin debating major priorities as to whether or not we are going to increase spending for the intelligence budget, despite the end of the Cold War and despite the fact that while we increase funding for the intelligence budget, we have cut spending in Medicare for our senior citizens, cut spending for veterans' programs, cut spending in a dozen different areas that the middle-class and low- income people of this country need. So I applaud the chairman for bringing forth this rule. It is a fair rule and it is going to allow us to have a serious debate on what we want this Congress to be doing for the American people. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the concerns of the gentlewoman from New York about the notice given and accommodating Members' schedules today. I am happy to report that several Members did take advantage of the opportunity to come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and participate in review of materials that were of interest to them. So I think the [[Page H2946]] word has gotten out and I think we have done our job properly. 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 resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Pursuant to House Resolution 420 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3694. {time} 1205 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with (Mr. Thornberry) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization to the floor today. As a strong believer in the congressional oversight process, I hope Members have taken the opportunity to examine this year's bill, including its classified annex and, indeed, I know several Members have come upstairs to do just that. The annual intelligence authorization, and its exhaustive review of intelligence activities and capabilities that accompanies it, form the cornerstone of our oversight process. This is truly a valuable exercise for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for Congress as a whole, and I think it is beneficial to the intelligence community as well. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both sides of the aisle whose hard work and long hours have enabled us to produce a responsible, nonpartisan bill that was unanimously approved in committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), chairman of the Committee on National Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, for their input and able assistance with this legislation. H.R. 3694 authorizes funds for the fiscal year 1999 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government. That is a big order. The National Security Act requires Congress specifically to authorize all intelligence spending. That is unique. As Members are aware, many of the details of the intelligence budget are classified, including the total fiscal year 1999 budget request, or top line. I can say, however, that H.R. 3694's top line is substantially in line with the President's request. The committee came in a mere one-tenth of 1 percent above the President's level. I would like to take a moment to explain the process by which the committee arrived at this recommended spending level. What we did not do was adopt an arbitrary number and fill in the blanks until we reached our goal. Instead, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence looked at each line of every program, examined its effectiveness and how it fit in with the overall U.S. intelligence requirements and priorities in today's world. Then we made our decisions based on the merit and value of each program. Mr. Chairman, throughout the committee's review of U.S. intelligence capabilities, whether we were looking at satellite reconnaissance or human intelligence, one fact stood out. The threats that face our Nation demand that the intelligence community maintain a worldwide vigilance and the resources to deal with a multitude of challenges and new challenges. The Cold War is over and the threat of nuclear war has been reduced. Or has it? Unfortunately, the world still is a dangerous place for the United States and its citizens, as we read in papers almost daily about concerns about political stability in places like Russia, the chain of command in Russia over the nuclear weapons, or perhaps even the Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles which we read in the newspapers are targeted against U.S. cities, what they call city-buster bombs and an ICBM capability. To demonstrate this, we need look no further than our continuing struggles with Iraq. Earlier this year the United States came to the brink of military confrontation with Saddam Hussein; yet we did so without all of the information necessary to support a serious campaign. There were serious shortfalls in our ability to support policymakers and military commanders at this critical time. Such gaps endanger U.S. lives and interests and are not acceptable, tolerable, or necessary in today's world. We should not ignore Iraq or Iran or Libya or North Korea or other rogue nations that are striving for and, in many cases achieving, the means to threaten the United States. The risk that a terrorist group or a rogue country will use a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon against the U.S. or an American citizen or American interests here or abroad is increasing. Despite this fact, U.S. intelligence capabilities have dwindled since the end of the Cold War. In effect, we are asking the intelligence community for more and we are giving them less to do it. And we are counting on them more. The intelligence community needs to change the way it does business to address these new threats. This year's authorization identifies five areas that deserve particular attention. One, our signals intelligence capabilities are in serious need of modernization to keep up with the fast pace of communications and technology improvement. I think it is fair to say that the golden days of SIGINT may, in fact, be behind us, and we have been enjoying the benefits of a very good SIGINT activity for many years. That may be over because of technology. We need to deal with that. Two, our clandestine espionage, or human intelligence as it is called, that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and refocused on current priorities. It is fair to say, I think, that the cupboard is nearly bare in the area of HUMINT. We are badly outnumbered by hostiles in a lot of dangerous places in the world. That is intolerable, unacceptable, and unnecessary. The intelligence community needs to increase its analytical capability in order to absorb and accurately gauge the immediate and long-term implications of an ever-increasing volume of information. We have stuff on hand we have not reviewed. We have not exploited it. And it is stuff that would be useful to our decision-makers. We do not have as much analytical capacity as we need. That can be fixed. Covert action capabilities need to be restructured. I said capabilities. Nobody is calling for covert action. We are calling for more arrows in the quiver in case we do need it to suit the needs of today's world and how to deal with problems we come against. Fifth, and last, we need to ensure we maintain an active research and development program in all intelligence areas. H.R. 3694 addresses each of these priorities, in some cases by providing additional funding; in others by redirecting existing programs, resources, or restructuring ongoing programs. In addition, the committee's review raised some fundamental questions that the committee will review over the coming year. These include, what are the proper priorities for our future overheads systems? How can we manage the cost of a national reconnaissance program and yet meet other critical requirements? Is the intelligence community striking the right balance between our capacity to collect intelligence and our capacity to analyze what is collected? Is the intelligence community prepared to face the challenges of information and operations, or cyber-warfare? [[Page H2947]] The future of our intelligence programs depends on finding the answers to these and other questions. But for today, today we understand very well our needs. We have provided for them in this legislation. I think we have achieved an excellent balance. Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to support H.R. 3694 today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 4, 1998. Hon. Porter Goss, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Porter: I am writing in response to your letter of April 29, 1998, which addresses H.R. 3694, as reported by the House Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) on April 29, 1998. H.R. 3694 would amend Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. The bill contains an extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities. As your letter notes, this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Accordingly, the Committee would ordinarily meet to consider the bill. However, because the bill, as reported, extends for one year an already existing application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities, I do not believe that a markup of the bill is necessary. I appreciate your consultation with the Committee in advance. I request your full support in joining me to prevent any other expansion or changes to the application of sanctions laws for intelligence activities other than the one year extension agreed to here. I would further appreciate your consultation with respect to this provision on any future Intelligence Authorization bills, including a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time. Of course, if an agreement cannot be reached, the provision would be subject to a point of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the record during floor consideration. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards, Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 28, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning the planned inclusion of a provision in the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999'' (H.R. 3694), which we expect to mark up on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, and report to the House early next week. I have included a copy of the proposed section for your consideration. As you know, this provision relates to the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities and simply extends the life of the provision for one additional year. As you will recall during last year's consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and based upon our mutual understanding and agreement as to your Committee's jurisdiction over matters relating to taxes and tariffs, this provision was included in the Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as section 304 of that Act. A copy of that provision, as enacted (P.L. 105-107), is also included for your review. I hope that we can, consistent with the agreement reached last year, once again agree that this provision may be included in H.R. 3694, and any resulting Conference Report, without objection from the Committee on Ways and Means. There is no doubt that this provision falls squarely within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by the House that has not been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. This provision is of critical importance to the protection of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies the President with the necessary flexibility to address the competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting our national security interests at the same time. I appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this section of our bill. I would also offer that any modification of this provision in future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be subject to consultation between our Committees, and, if agreement cannot be reached, subject to points of order pursaunt to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look forward to your support for H.R. 3694. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Porter J. Goss, Chairman. ____ ``(b) Benefits, Allowances, Travel, Incentives.--An employee detailed under subsection (a) may be authorized any benefit, allowance, travel, or incentive otherwise provided to enhance staffing by the organization from which the employee is detailed. ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report describing the detail of intelligence community personnel pursuant to subsection (a) during the 12-month period ending on the date of the report. The report shall set forth the number of personnel detailed, the identity of parent and host agencies or elements, and an analysis of the benefits of the details.''. (b) Technical Amendment.--Sections 120, 121, and 110 of the National Security Act of 1947 are hereby redesignated as sections 110, 111, and 112, respectively. (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking out the items relating to sections 120, 121, and 110 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Sec. 110. National mission of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. ``Sec. 111. Collection tasking authority. ``Sec. 112. Restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United Nations. ``Sec. 113. Detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence community assignment program.''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to an employee on detail on or after January 1, 1997. SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible with the national security interests of the United States and consistent with operational and security concerns related to the conduct of intelligence activities, and where fiscally sound, should competitively award contracts in a manner that maximizes the procurement of products properly designated as having been made in the United States. SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. It is the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have equal standing with officials of the Executive Branch to receive classified information so that Congress may carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CERTAIN VIOLENT CRIMES ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to provide information regarding the killing, abduction, torture, ____ (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item: ``Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence (3).''. (b) Expansion of Duties of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management.--Subsection 102(d)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403(d)(2)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (B) through (D) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs: ``(B) Carrying out the responsibilities of the Director under paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(c). ``(C) Carrying out such other responsibilities as the Director may direct.''. SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 2000.''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence strives to report an authorization bill each year which is free of partisan division. While we have been generally successful in that effort, from time to time we have been divided on significant issues of substance. This year, I am pleased to report that we have produced legislation which is not only bipartisan but without major substantive disagreement as well. {time} 1215 Credit for that result goes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the views of all Members are reflected [[Page H2948]] in the work of the committee. I commend him for the leadership he has exhibited as chairman and for his willingness to work with committee Democrats on matters of importance to us. For two of the Democratic Members, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), this will be the final intelligence authorization bill they will bring to the floor. Although I look forward to working with them to get a conference report enacted, I want to thank them for their many contributions to the work of the committee. The willingness of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) to tackle issues like declassification and the need to make greater use of intelligence in nontraditional ways has been invaluable. And the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to encourage development of the complex systems through which intelligence will be collected in the future were also of great assistance. This will be my last authorization bill, as well. I have enjoyed my 8 years of service on the committee and look forward to keeping up with intelligence issues when they come before the Committee on Appropriations. I have been impressed tremendously by not only the importance of intelligence to our Nation's security, but by the dedication, often under circumstances of great hardship and danger, of the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies. The authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 will make improvements in intelligence capabilities that need to be modernized either because of technological advances or because they require greater emphasis to respond to changing threats. The bill is only marginally more, in the aggregate 0.1 percent, than the amount requested by the President. Although the committee chose to place a different spending priority on certain items than did the administration, I do not believe that we have done harm to any initiative or activity which the Director of Central Intelligence or the Secretary of Defense consider crucial. Generating public support for spending on intelligence programs, given their classified nature, is never going to be easy. Although it should be common sense that the possession of information in advance about the military plans of an enemy, the bottom-line position of another government in a diplomatic negotiation, the location of a terrorist cell, or the scientific and technical capability of someone trying to develop a weapon of mass destruction should be invaluable, we sometimes forget that the acquisition of access to that kind of information is time consuming and expensive. I do not believe we need to justify intelligence spending on the basis of some esoteric calculation about whether our national security is more or less at risk than when the Soviet Union was in place. We will always have threats to our security. Some will be predictable, some will not. Dealing with them requires accurate and timely information, some of which can be provided only by intelligence agencies. There is a cost to maintaining the capability to provide that information when required, and that cost is significant. The cost if the information is not available, however, is potentially far greater. Our job on the committee is to ensure that the means necessary to provide intelligence on matters which demonstrably affect national security are available at a cost which is not excessive relative to their importance. I believe the 21-year record of the committee in this effort, including the bill now before the House, has been exceptional. Besides recommending spending levels, an authorization bill and accompanying report also make judgments about the manner in which programs are being managed. I believe that one of the chief responsibilities of an oversight committee is to monitor the activities of the agencies under its jurisdiction in a manner which is both aggressive and thorough. I also believe that oversight should be constructive and fair. I am concerned about the tone of some of the recent criticism of the work of two agencies, the National Reconnaissance Office, (NRO), and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The United States has an intelligence capability second to none in the world. Much of that preeminence is due to the performance of the systems acquired and operated by the NRO. These systems are extraordinarily complex and expensive. We are now in the midst of an effort to modernize these systems. When the need for modernization was made clear several years ago by then-Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey, and Congress agreed to embark on a plan to accomplish it, it was with the understanding that substantial amounts of money would have to be expended in the short term to produce savings in the future. We have spent much of the intervening years altering in sometimes significant ways the components of the plan, which has added to the costs that have to be met in the near term and delayed the realization of the expected long-term savings as well. It is disingenuous to have been a part of this practice and then to complain about the effects it has produced on the NRO's budget. NIMA is a new agency created less than 2 years ago through the merger of the Defense Mapping Agency and the imagery analysis elements of the CIA and DIA. Like most mergers, this one, which I strongly supported was not without problems, but I believe that NIMA personnel are committed to having the agency fulfill its important mission successfully. Earlier this year I wrote to NIMA's customers to ask for an evaluation of their performance. Secretary of Commerce Daley responded that ``After working through some initial confusion regarding authority and responsibility for certain products and services, support to civilian agencies is now better than before the individual components were combined into NIMA.'' James L. Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, wrote, ``The support and service provided by NIMA to support disaster response activities have been and continue to be outstanding.'' Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, complimented NIMA on making a strong effort to provide high-quality analysis and pronounced himself ``generally satisfied'' with the results. I do not believe that these comments reflect an agency that is failing to do its job or one that is ignoring the needs of nonmilitary consumers to concentrate on those of the military, as some had feared. Any enterprise involving human beings can be made better, but I think it is not helpful to make final judgments, pro or con, about an agency in its infancy. I offer these thoughts in the hope that they will provide perspective in evaluating the performance of the NRO and NIMA in the days ahead. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3694 is a good bill which will advance the interest of military and civilian consumers of intelligence. I urge that it be approved by the House. I would also like to compliment both the majority staff and the Democratic minority staff. I think this committee has been blessed over the years with an outstanding staff. And I want to particularly thank Mike Sheehy and the Democratic staff members whom I have had the privilege of working with for the last 4 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to say that I am very proud to have worked with and learned from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as the ranking member. He has been an extraordinary asset of the United States of America in his capacity as a manager of the portfolio. He brings wisdom, judgment and knowledge about military intelligence and equipment to the table in our committee to the extent that I think no other member has or can at this time. I hope he is not going to leave. But if it turns out that way, we will miss him. I also hope we are not going to lose anybody else. And for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), I share that view with all the other members. I happen to feel that we have got an extraordinary committee and staff, we are doing our job timely and well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to allow him to demonstrate what I have just said. [[Page H2949]] (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in both a fiscal and political environment in which we simply cannot fund every system and program we would like. This applies whether intelligence or not intelligence. However, it is important for the American people to understand just how critical intelligence is to the very survival of our Nation and our way of life. On the way over to the Capitol this morning, I heard a radio announcer refer to this bill as ``the bill to authorize America's cloak-and-dagger operation.'' That sort of a label is correct in a way, but unfortuantely, I believe it unintentionally misrepresents what this bill is all about. What this bill is about is the wise and prudent funding and oversight of those intelligence collection analysis and dissemination function necessary to provide for the security of our Nation, its interests, and its citizens around the world. We are talking about what I refer to as ``counterprograms.'' We are not engaged in a world war, but we have some very important counterprograms, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation. These are all very important activities, and this bill funds them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of funcational intelligence areas of particular interest in this bill. The first is the emphasis this bill places on rebuilding leading-edge technology, research and development. It is the basic research and development of new technologies that are the easiest to cut in lean fiscal times. But it is precisely these efforts that our future depends on and that we must pay particular attention to and fund properly. This bill puts great emphasis on future capabilities, albeit sometimes imprudently at the expense of older so-called legacy systems. Also, this bill emphasizes the need for a strong, well-trained and funded reserve intelligence component. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things I could say about this bill, and I do not have the time to say them. Just let me say that as someone who tried to be very attentive to my important responsibilities on this committee, I admire the way the chairman and ranking member have worked cooperatively. I admire the seriousness of purpose of all of the members. I admire the product that we are producing, and I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues and the American people. We are doing the people's business in a wise and prudent manner. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on this important committee. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a colloquy concerning section 303 of the bill. Before doing so, I want to commend our chairman for his leadership also and to thank him for including full funding for the environmental program in this legislation before us today, the recognition that new issues need to be addressed, not that the environment is a new issue, but new compared to its being a priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in the intelligence authorization bill. In any event, I rise to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 more year? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. I would assure the gentlewoman from California that is the intent of the committee, that the legislative history of this provision, as it was developed in the debate in 1995, is applicable to the exercise of this authority. Indeed, the report to accompany H.R. 3694 reaffirms the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 to make completely clear that the original legislative history of this provision continues to govern its implementation. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends that the provision will be narrowly construed and used only in the most serious of circumstances when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk? Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman would further yield, that is certainly the intent of the committee. Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns? Mr. GOSS. That is also the case. Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces? Mr. GOSS. Yes, it does. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for engaging in this colloquy and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. I wanted just to say that I concur in all the statements made by the chairman. This is also the understanding that I have of this provision. Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for his cooperation and concurrence in the view of the chairman. Mr. DICKS. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her diligence on this important matter. {time} 1230 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this intelligence authorization bill. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He has done an outstanding job. I have had the privilege of working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 14 years now, two different terms. I have to say that the gentleman from Florida has been outstanding in the leadership that he provides for the committee and also to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we have worked together for so many years, he is a member of our subcommittee. We have the unusual relationship of being members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as members of the appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Washington does a really good job. He is very dedicated to a good intelligence bill. That is what this is. This is a good intelligence bill. It provides not as much as we would like to have provided for our intelligence activities, but it provides the best that we can with the budget constraints that we are faced with today. There are those of us who believe that we are not making a strong enough investment in our national security, at any part of our national defense structure, whether it be the operational military forces or the intelligence community. But the intelligence community is the eyes and ears of our national capabilities. We have to have information, we have to know what is happening in the world, we have to know what threats there might be out there. [[Page H2950]] The intelligence community does an outstanding job, I might say. I might be criticized for that statement because all you ever hear is the bad news. If an intelligence agent happens to go bad, which does happen on occasion, or if a mistake is made, you hear about that but you do not hear about the good things that the intelligence community brings to our overall national security effort. I wish we could talk about some of those on the floor in open session today, but obviously we cannot because it is essential that the sources that we use for developing our own intelligence information and the methods that we use and the people who are involved in this have to be protected. Their mission is extremely important and their lives could very well be at risk if we went into a lot of detail. I know that there will probably be some amendments offered to reduce the authorized level of funding in this bill. I would urge the Members not to support this. This bill does not provide enough authorization for funding to do the things that we ought to be doing in our national security effort, but it is the best we could do with the budget constraints. I suggest that we defeat any amendments that would tend to reduce the investment in our intelligence capability and let us pass this good bill and get it on to the Senate so we can get it to the President. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for his statement and I want to concur in it. Sometimes I think there is a question out there about whether intelligence is really that important. I think it is our ace in the hole. I think it is what gives America an extraordinary advantage over any potential foe. Our human intelligence, our national technical means, are remarkable assets to this country. In every conflict we have been in in recent years, they have given us a tremendous advantage. I think the work of the defense subcommittee and the authorization committee to come up with a good bill that keeps that going is essential to the future of the country. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He is right on track. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3694. I have a rather unique position and opportunity. As ranking member of the Committee on National Security and as a member of this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can personally testify to the importance of intelligence to our military commanders in the field, to our troops who are daily supporting our peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq, in Macedonia and to our pilots in the Iraqi no-fly-zone. Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. I am not sure we say thank you enough to the members of the intelligence community. What they do so often is not known. Yet it pays off in knowledge to the commanders in chief in the field, to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to this body. Intelligence is critical to successful operations and to the safety of our men and women in uniform. Intelligence also plays a crucial role in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plan for the 21st century, Dominant Battlespace Awareness, which hinges on our intelligence investment. Critical to the Joint Chiefs' plan, as well as to daily air, sea, and ground operations, are the mapping products created by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Although I support this bill, I am frankly concerned with the reductions in the operations and maintenance funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. I think the cuts are unjustified and excessive. I fear that they will have an unacceptable impact on the production of products for the unified commands and for the State Department peacekeeping negotiations. I am also concerned that these cuts will result in the unwarranted elimination of jobs from an agency that does not have sufficient staffing to meet military requirements today. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to associate myself with the very good comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) concerning the strategic importance of intelligence. I would only add to that by saying that intelligence is also more than military and tactical in nature. There are civilian aspects to intelligence that are very important to the national security of this country that go beyond support to our military and provide the kind of protection for the citizens of the United States, not only domestically but abroad, that we all need and cherish. This is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. Part of the reason for that is the fact that we know what our enemies are doing and we know what their plans and intentions are better perhaps than anybody else in the world. I would like to address if I could for a second the budget itself. The legislation before us today refocuses the President's request upon four major priorities for intelligence in the next century. Firstly, it accelerates the recapitalization of a signals intelligence program that has produced invaluable information against the new transnational targets of the post-Cold War world. Secondly, our bill begins the process, after years of drawdowns and reductions, of rebuilding a clandestine human intelligence program that has provided much of our intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists, traffickers and other adversaries. Thirdly, our bill continues the strengthening of the analysis part of intelligence collection that provides both assessment to our policymakers and guidance to the collectors. Finally, our bill enhances the capability of the President to direct and accomplish covert actions when he deems such actions necessary to U.S. foreign policy and our national security. The purpose of our mark in each of these areas is to strengthen the capabilities that will provide policymakers with the intelligence that they will need in the next century. Mr. Chairman, there were also strategic cuts in the budget, made after much investigation and on a line-by-line basis, on programs that will mostly be effective in the 21st century. The intelligence community has for the most part moved forward effectively against new and difficult issues. There are some areas where we can make some reductions and do so in a prudent fashion. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of this bipartisan authorization bill. I want to commend both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for having done an excellent job working together to produce this important bill. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a good solid member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for bringing forward a product that deserves the support of this House. I have said before that whenever an intelligence authorization or appropriations is before us, the proponents are at a disadvantage because people can attack the intelligence community. A lot of this is confidential. They do not have the opportunity sometimes to defend themselves. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world. We have the best trained professionals in the world. Yet we have the most difficult challenges of any nation in this world. We work in a bipartisan manner in order to provide authorization and appropriations for our intelligence agencies. I really do applaud the leadership of this House for [[Page H2951]] doing that. For the security of our country and for the manner in which this has been handled in the House, it deserves our support. I must tell my colleagues, though, that I was somewhat disappointed by some of the tone in the language as it related to some of our intelligence agencies. But I am very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that we must invest in the recapitalization and modernization of our SIGINT capacities. I think that is very important for this country. I have visited NSA on numerous occasions and know the dedication of the men and women in public service for our country. They represent some of our brightest minds in our Nation. But if we are going to be able to attract the best from our universities and colleges so that we can maintain that capacity in the future, it is important that we authorize adequate funds and appropriate adequate funds for our intelligence operation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to bring this product forward in a bipartisan manner. I hope that this body will support the work of the committee, support the authorization and later support the appropriation. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland's remarks. We have worked together on many things. His support is very important. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the task force to counter the drug problem. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fine work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 3694, the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization bill. As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security, and the Task Force for a Drug-Free America, I have had an opportunity to visit a wide range of counternarcotic programs in this country and overseas during the past few years. I have seen the effectiveness of the information produced by our intelligence community in identifying and tracking major narcotics trafficking activities. This intelligence information is essential to facilitating the law enforcement community's effort to slow the flood of cocaine and heroin that is pouring into our country. I have been particularly impressed by the growing coordination between the intelligence community and the law enforcement agencies to jointly target major narcotrafficking groups. Despite this good news, I regret to report that we are stopping no more than 15 to 20 percent of the drugs flowing from the source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. We have the best intelligence organization in the world, but we lack the capability to act effectively on the information that we collect against narcotraffickers. It is clear that the administration's current source zone strategy is having only a very limited impact on cocaine and opium production in the source countries. We need to provide sufficient political will, sufficient resources and sufficient personnel to this effort. Equally, the transit zone strategy is undermined by an unwillingness to seek sufficient air, ground and maritime resources to track, pursue and stop narcotrafficking moving through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Based on numerous meetings with foreign narcotics officials and U.S. Government personnel serving in the field, I am quite persuaded that much more could be achieved if we would be willing to come forward and seek the necessary resources to step up the eradication and interdiction of cocaine and heroin. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. Intelligence is the key to stopping narcotics traffic in this country and this hemisphere. I support this legislation. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their tireless efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the intelligence community. There is arguably no greater consumer of intelligence than our Nation's Armed Forces. Despite the end of the Cold War, the requirements of our military for better and more timely intelligence has actually increased rather than decreased. This is the result of a number of factors, including transitional issues such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps no incident better illustrates the threat that terrorism poses to the men and women of our armed services than the cowardly and callous terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. {time} 1245 Our forces in Bosnia remain exposed to the threat of terrorism, and i

Summary:

All articles in House section

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(House of Representatives - May 07, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2944-H2978] INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 420 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Printed amendments shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour. [[Page H2945]] Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 420 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3694, the Fiscal Year 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act. What makes this rule modified open instead of fully open is a preprinting requirement for amendments, whose purpose is to ensure that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has an opportunity to work with Members seeking to offer germane amendments to ensure that important issues are addressed without threatening disclosure of sensitive, classified information. This preprinting requirement has become standard procedure for consideration of the annual intelligence authorization and has not been controversial. Because the leadership sought to have this bill on the floor today, the rule also includes a waiver of points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI, which requires a three-day layover of a committee report. The committee's report was properly filed on Tuesday of this week, and Members have had notice of availability of classified portions of the authorization measure since late last week when public announcements were, indeed, made from the floor. It is my understanding that there is no objection to this slight speeding up of the schedule to accommodate changes stemming from the unrelated scheduling matters and to accommodate Members' travel plans. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill, time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In addition, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 of the bill. That modification, a self-executing change accomplished through the rule, is designed to addressed a Budget Act technicality relating to a provision of the bill extending the early-out retirement program for the CIA. We were advised that, due to the fact that we still await this year's budget resolution, the early-out provision found in title IV of the bill causes a Budget Act problem, and so the provision is being removed from the bill with the understanding that the substance of the issue will be addressed at a later stage of legislative process of H.R. 3694. {time} 1200 The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read. The rule also waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments or clause 5(b) of rule XXI, prohibiting tax or tariff provisions in a bill not reported by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures. Both of these waivers apply to a section of H.R. 3694 regarding the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities in title III of the bill. That provision is nongermane to the introduced version of H.R. 3694, and it deals with subject matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Based on an exchange of letters between the two committees, there is no controversy on this matter. However, these waivers are necessary under the rules of the House. And during general debate, I will introduce into the Record that correspondence between the two committees. I would also point out for the record the Committee on National Security has, by letter, discharged itself from consideration of the matters in this bill that fall within its purview. Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone the vote on any amendment and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on any series of questions provided that the first vote shall not be less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, that was a long explanation of a rule that is, in fact, straightforward, simple, and traditional for this piece of legislation. I know of no controversy about this rule. I urge Members to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule. It allows amendments that are germane to be offered. However, H. Res. 420 does include one waiver of a House rule that troubles me. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI that provides for a 3-day layover of the committee report accompanying the bill. This House rule allows Members time to study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support amendments. The 3-day opportunity to study the bill and report is particularly important in this case because many provisions of the intelligence bills are classified and, if a Member wishes to review those portions, a Member must make arrangements with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To cut short the standard review time under these circumstances is unfortunate. And while I understand that the majority and the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had no objection to the waiver, we should note that it is not the committee's rights but the rights of Members not on the committee that the House rule is designed to protect. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, is to be commended for avoiding the need for waiver of the Budget Act by self-executing in this rule an amendment striking the offending section of the bill. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to gain its acquiescence to a violation of a House rule designed to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. While I often question the need for a requirement for preprinting in the Congressional Record, the sensitivity and the complexity of the intelligence authorization bill justifies the requirement in this case. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the full House to consider germane amendments offered by any Member. Under the rule, the House will be able to debate important questions, such as whether to reduce the overall size of the intelligence budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule. Among other things, it, in fact, allows this Congress to begin debating major priorities as to whether or not we are going to increase spending for the intelligence budget, despite the end of the Cold War and despite the fact that while we increase funding for the intelligence budget, we have cut spending in Medicare for our senior citizens, cut spending for veterans' programs, cut spending in a dozen different areas that the middle-class and low- income people of this country need. So I applaud the chairman for bringing forth this rule. It is a fair rule and it is going to allow us to have a serious debate on what we want this Congress to be doing for the American people. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the concerns of the gentlewoman from New York about the notice given and accommodating Members' schedules today. I am happy to report that several Members did take advantage of the opportunity to come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and participate in review of materials that were of interest to them. So I think the [[Page H2946]] word has gotten out and I think we have done our job properly. 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 resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Pursuant to House Resolution 420 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3694. {time} 1205 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with (Mr. Thornberry) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization to the floor today. As a strong believer in the congressional oversight process, I hope Members have taken the opportunity to examine this year's bill, including its classified annex and, indeed, I know several Members have come upstairs to do just that. The annual intelligence authorization, and its exhaustive review of intelligence activities and capabilities that accompanies it, form the cornerstone of our oversight process. This is truly a valuable exercise for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for Congress as a whole, and I think it is beneficial to the intelligence community as well. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both sides of the aisle whose hard work and long hours have enabled us to produce a responsible, nonpartisan bill that was unanimously approved in committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), chairman of the Committee on National Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, for their input and able assistance with this legislation. H.R. 3694 authorizes funds for the fiscal year 1999 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government. That is a big order. The National Security Act requires Congress specifically to authorize all intelligence spending. That is unique. As Members are aware, many of the details of the intelligence budget are classified, including the total fiscal year 1999 budget request, or top line. I can say, however, that H.R. 3694's top line is substantially in line with the President's request. The committee came in a mere one-tenth of 1 percent above the President's level. I would like to take a moment to explain the process by which the committee arrived at this recommended spending level. What we did not do was adopt an arbitrary number and fill in the blanks until we reached our goal. Instead, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence looked at each line of every program, examined its effectiveness and how it fit in with the overall U.S. intelligence requirements and priorities in today's world. Then we made our decisions based on the merit and value of each program. Mr. Chairman, throughout the committee's review of U.S. intelligence capabilities, whether we were looking at satellite reconnaissance or human intelligence, one fact stood out. The threats that face our Nation demand that the intelligence community maintain a worldwide vigilance and the resources to deal with a multitude of challenges and new challenges. The Cold War is over and the threat of nuclear war has been reduced. Or has it? Unfortunately, the world still is a dangerous place for the United States and its citizens, as we read in papers almost daily about concerns about political stability in places like Russia, the chain of command in Russia over the nuclear weapons, or perhaps even the Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles which we read in the newspapers are targeted against U.S. cities, what they call city-buster bombs and an ICBM capability. To demonstrate this, we need look no further than our continuing struggles with Iraq. Earlier this year the United States came to the brink of military confrontation with Saddam Hussein; yet we did so without all of the information necessary to support a serious campaign. There were serious shortfalls in our ability to support policymakers and military commanders at this critical time. Such gaps endanger U.S. lives and interests and are not acceptable, tolerable, or necessary in today's world. We should not ignore Iraq or Iran or Libya or North Korea or other rogue nations that are striving for and, in many cases achieving, the means to threaten the United States. The risk that a terrorist group or a rogue country will use a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon against the U.S. or an American citizen or American interests here or abroad is increasing. Despite this fact, U.S. intelligence capabilities have dwindled since the end of the Cold War. In effect, we are asking the intelligence community for more and we are giving them less to do it. And we are counting on them more. The intelligence community needs to change the way it does business to address these new threats. This year's authorization identifies five areas that deserve particular attention. One, our signals intelligence capabilities are in serious need of modernization to keep up with the fast pace of communications and technology improvement. I think it is fair to say that the golden days of SIGINT may, in fact, be behind us, and we have been enjoying the benefits of a very good SIGINT activity for many years. That may be over because of technology. We need to deal with that. Two, our clandestine espionage, or human intelligence as it is called, that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and refocused on current priorities. It is fair to say, I think, that the cupboard is nearly bare in the area of HUMINT. We are badly outnumbered by hostiles in a lot of dangerous places in the world. That is intolerable, unacceptable, and unnecessary. The intelligence community needs to increase its analytical capability in order to absorb and accurately gauge the immediate and long-term implications of an ever-increasing volume of information. We have stuff on hand we have not reviewed. We have not exploited it. And it is stuff that would be useful to our decision-makers. We do not have as much analytical capacity as we need. That can be fixed. Covert action capabilities need to be restructured. I said capabilities. Nobody is calling for covert action. We are calling for more arrows in the quiver in case we do need it to suit the needs of today's world and how to deal with problems we come against. Fifth, and last, we need to ensure we maintain an active research and development program in all intelligence areas. H.R. 3694 addresses each of these priorities, in some cases by providing additional funding; in others by redirecting existing programs, resources, or restructuring ongoing programs. In addition, the committee's review raised some fundamental questions that the committee will review over the coming year. These include, what are the proper priorities for our future overheads systems? How can we manage the cost of a national reconnaissance program and yet meet other critical requirements? Is the intelligence community striking the right balance between our capacity to collect intelligence and our capacity to analyze what is collected? Is the intelligence community prepared to face the challenges of information and operations, or cyber-warfare? [[Page H2947]] The future of our intelligence programs depends on finding the answers to these and other questions. But for today, today we understand very well our needs. We have provided for them in this legislation. I think we have achieved an excellent balance. Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to support H.R. 3694 today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 4, 1998. Hon. Porter Goss, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Porter: I am writing in response to your letter of April 29, 1998, which addresses H.R. 3694, as reported by the House Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) on April 29, 1998. H.R. 3694 would amend Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. The bill contains an extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities. As your letter notes, this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Accordingly, the Committee would ordinarily meet to consider the bill. However, because the bill, as reported, extends for one year an already existing application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities, I do not believe that a markup of the bill is necessary. I appreciate your consultation with the Committee in advance. I request your full support in joining me to prevent any other expansion or changes to the application of sanctions laws for intelligence activities other than the one year extension agreed to here. I would further appreciate your consultation with respect to this provision on any future Intelligence Authorization bills, including a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time. Of course, if an agreement cannot be reached, the provision would be subject to a point of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the record during floor consideration. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards, Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 28, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning the planned inclusion of a provision in the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999'' (H.R. 3694), which we expect to mark up on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, and report to the House early next week. I have included a copy of the proposed section for your consideration. As you know, this provision relates to the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities and simply extends the life of the provision for one additional year. As you will recall during last year's consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and based upon our mutual understanding and agreement as to your Committee's jurisdiction over matters relating to taxes and tariffs, this provision was included in the Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as section 304 of that Act. A copy of that provision, as enacted (P.L. 105-107), is also included for your review. I hope that we can, consistent with the agreement reached last year, once again agree that this provision may be included in H.R. 3694, and any resulting Conference Report, without objection from the Committee on Ways and Means. There is no doubt that this provision falls squarely within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by the House that has not been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. This provision is of critical importance to the protection of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies the President with the necessary flexibility to address the competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting our national security interests at the same time. I appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this section of our bill. I would also offer that any modification of this provision in future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be subject to consultation between our Committees, and, if agreement cannot be reached, subject to points of order pursaunt to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look forward to your support for H.R. 3694. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Porter J. Goss, Chairman. ____ ``(b) Benefits, Allowances, Travel, Incentives.--An employee detailed under subsection (a) may be authorized any benefit, allowance, travel, or incentive otherwise provided to enhance staffing by the organization from which the employee is detailed. ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report describing the detail of intelligence community personnel pursuant to subsection (a) during the 12-month period ending on the date of the report. The report shall set forth the number of personnel detailed, the identity of parent and host agencies or elements, and an analysis of the benefits of the details.''. (b) Technical Amendment.--Sections 120, 121, and 110 of the National Security Act of 1947 are hereby redesignated as sections 110, 111, and 112, respectively. (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking out the items relating to sections 120, 121, and 110 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Sec. 110. National mission of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. ``Sec. 111. Collection tasking authority. ``Sec. 112. Restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United Nations. ``Sec. 113. Detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence community assignment program.''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to an employee on detail on or after January 1, 1997. SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible with the national security interests of the United States and consistent with operational and security concerns related to the conduct of intelligence activities, and where fiscally sound, should competitively award contracts in a manner that maximizes the procurement of products properly designated as having been made in the United States. SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. It is the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have equal standing with officials of the Executive Branch to receive classified information so that Congress may carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CERTAIN VIOLENT CRIMES ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to provide information regarding the killing, abduction, torture, ____ (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item: ``Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence (3).''. (b) Expansion of Duties of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management.--Subsection 102(d)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403(d)(2)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (B) through (D) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs: ``(B) Carrying out the responsibilities of the Director under paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(c). ``(C) Carrying out such other responsibilities as the Director may direct.''. SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 2000.''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence strives to report an authorization bill each year which is free of partisan division. While we have been generally successful in that effort, from time to time we have been divided on significant issues of substance. This year, I am pleased to report that we have produced legislation which is not only bipartisan but without major substantive disagreement as well. {time} 1215 Credit for that result goes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the views of all Members are reflected [[Page H2948]] in the work of the committee. I commend him for the leadership he has exhibited as chairman and for his willingness to work with committee Democrats on matters of importance to us. For two of the Democratic Members, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), this will be the final intelligence authorization bill they will bring to the floor. Although I look forward to working with them to get a conference report enacted, I want to thank them for their many contributions to the work of the committee. The willingness of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) to tackle issues like declassification and the need to make greater use of intelligence in nontraditional ways has been invaluable. And the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to encourage development of the complex systems through which intelligence will be collected in the future were also of great assistance. This will be my last authorization bill, as well. I have enjoyed my 8 years of service on the committee and look forward to keeping up with intelligence issues when they come before the Committee on Appropriations. I have been impressed tremendously by not only the importance of intelligence to our Nation's security, but by the dedication, often under circumstances of great hardship and danger, of the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies. The authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 will make improvements in intelligence capabilities that need to be modernized either because of technological advances or because they require greater emphasis to respond to changing threats. The bill is only marginally more, in the aggregate 0.1 percent, than the amount requested by the President. Although the committee chose to place a different spending priority on certain items than did the administration, I do not believe that we have done harm to any initiative or activity which the Director of Central Intelligence or the Secretary of Defense consider crucial. Generating public support for spending on intelligence programs, given their classified nature, is never going to be easy. Although it should be common sense that the possession of information in advance about the military plans of an enemy, the bottom-line position of another government in a diplomatic negotiation, the location of a terrorist cell, or the scientific and technical capability of someone trying to develop a weapon of mass destruction should be invaluable, we sometimes forget that the acquisition of access to that kind of information is time consuming and expensive. I do not believe we need to justify intelligence spending on the basis of some esoteric calculation about whether our national security is more or less at risk than when the Soviet Union was in place. We will always have threats to our security. Some will be predictable, some will not. Dealing with them requires accurate and timely information, some of which can be provided only by intelligence agencies. There is a cost to maintaining the capability to provide that information when required, and that cost is significant. The cost if the information is not available, however, is potentially far greater. Our job on the committee is to ensure that the means necessary to provide intelligence on matters which demonstrably affect national security are available at a cost which is not excessive relative to their importance. I believe the 21-year record of the committee in this effort, including the bill now before the House, has been exceptional. Besides recommending spending levels, an authorization bill and accompanying report also make judgments about the manner in which programs are being managed. I believe that one of the chief responsibilities of an oversight committee is to monitor the activities of the agencies under its jurisdiction in a manner which is both aggressive and thorough. I also believe that oversight should be constructive and fair. I am concerned about the tone of some of the recent criticism of the work of two agencies, the National Reconnaissance Office, (NRO), and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The United States has an intelligence capability second to none in the world. Much of that preeminence is due to the performance of the systems acquired and operated by the NRO. These systems are extraordinarily complex and expensive. We are now in the midst of an effort to modernize these systems. When the need for modernization was made clear several years ago by then-Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey, and Congress agreed to embark on a plan to accomplish it, it was with the understanding that substantial amounts of money would have to be expended in the short term to produce savings in the future. We have spent much of the intervening years altering in sometimes significant ways the components of the plan, which has added to the costs that have to be met in the near term and delayed the realization of the expected long-term savings as well. It is disingenuous to have been a part of this practice and then to complain about the effects it has produced on the NRO's budget. NIMA is a new agency created less than 2 years ago through the merger of the Defense Mapping Agency and the imagery analysis elements of the CIA and DIA. Like most mergers, this one, which I strongly supported was not without problems, but I believe that NIMA personnel are committed to having the agency fulfill its important mission successfully. Earlier this year I wrote to NIMA's customers to ask for an evaluation of their performance. Secretary of Commerce Daley responded that ``After working through some initial confusion regarding authority and responsibility for certain products and services, support to civilian agencies is now better than before the individual components were combined into NIMA.'' James L. Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, wrote, ``The support and service provided by NIMA to support disaster response activities have been and continue to be outstanding.'' Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, complimented NIMA on making a strong effort to provide high-quality analysis and pronounced himself ``generally satisfied'' with the results. I do not believe that these comments reflect an agency that is failing to do its job or one that is ignoring the needs of nonmilitary consumers to concentrate on those of the military, as some had feared. Any enterprise involving human beings can be made better, but I think it is not helpful to make final judgments, pro or con, about an agency in its infancy. I offer these thoughts in the hope that they will provide perspective in evaluating the performance of the NRO and NIMA in the days ahead. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3694 is a good bill which will advance the interest of military and civilian consumers of intelligence. I urge that it be approved by the House. I would also like to compliment both the majority staff and the Democratic minority staff. I think this committee has been blessed over the years with an outstanding staff. And I want to particularly thank Mike Sheehy and the Democratic staff members whom I have had the privilege of working with for the last 4 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to say that I am very proud to have worked with and learned from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as the ranking member. He has been an extraordinary asset of the United States of America in his capacity as a manager of the portfolio. He brings wisdom, judgment and knowledge about military intelligence and equipment to the table in our committee to the extent that I think no other member has or can at this time. I hope he is not going to leave. But if it turns out that way, we will miss him. I also hope we are not going to lose anybody else. And for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), I share that view with all the other members. I happen to feel that we have got an extraordinary committee and staff, we are doing our job timely and well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to allow him to demonstrate what I have just said. [[Page H2949]] (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in both a fiscal and political environment in which we simply cannot fund every system and program we would like. This applies whether intelligence or not intelligence. However, it is important for the American people to understand just how critical intelligence is to the very survival of our Nation and our way of life. On the way over to the Capitol this morning, I heard a radio announcer refer to this bill as ``the bill to authorize America's cloak-and-dagger operation.'' That sort of a label is correct in a way, but unfortuantely, I believe it unintentionally misrepresents what this bill is all about. What this bill is about is the wise and prudent funding and oversight of those intelligence collection analysis and dissemination function necessary to provide for the security of our Nation, its interests, and its citizens around the world. We are talking about what I refer to as ``counterprograms.'' We are not engaged in a world war, but we have some very important counterprograms, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation. These are all very important activities, and this bill funds them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of funcational intelligence areas of particular interest in this bill. The first is the emphasis this bill places on rebuilding leading-edge technology, research and development. It is the basic research and development of new technologies that are the easiest to cut in lean fiscal times. But it is precisely these efforts that our future depends on and that we must pay particular attention to and fund properly. This bill puts great emphasis on future capabilities, albeit sometimes imprudently at the expense of older so-called legacy systems. Also, this bill emphasizes the need for a strong, well-trained and funded reserve intelligence component. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things I could say about this bill, and I do not have the time to say them. Just let me say that as someone who tried to be very attentive to my important responsibilities on this committee, I admire the way the chairman and ranking member have worked cooperatively. I admire the seriousness of purpose of all of the members. I admire the product that we are producing, and I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues and the American people. We are doing the people's business in a wise and prudent manner. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on this important committee. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a colloquy concerning section 303 of the bill. Before doing so, I want to commend our chairman for his leadership also and to thank him for including full funding for the environmental program in this legislation before us today, the recognition that new issues need to be addressed, not that the environment is a new issue, but new compared to its being a priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in the intelligence authorization bill. In any event, I rise to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 more year? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. I would assure the gentlewoman from California that is the intent of the committee, that the legislative history of this provision, as it was developed in the debate in 1995, is applicable to the exercise of this authority. Indeed, the report to accompany H.R. 3694 reaffirms the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 to make completely clear that the original legislative history of this provision continues to govern its implementation. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends that the provision will be narrowly construed and used only in the most serious of circumstances when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk? Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman would further yield, that is certainly the intent of the committee. Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns? Mr. GOSS. That is also the case. Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces? Mr. GOSS. Yes, it does. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for engaging in this colloquy and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. I wanted just to say that I concur in all the statements made by the chairman. This is also the understanding that I have of this provision. Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for his cooperation and concurrence in the view of the chairman. Mr. DICKS. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her diligence on this important matter. {time} 1230 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this intelligence authorization bill. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He has done an outstanding job. I have had the privilege of working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 14 years now, two different terms. I have to say that the gentleman from Florida has been outstanding in the leadership that he provides for the committee and also to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we have worked together for so many years, he is a member of our subcommittee. We have the unusual relationship of being members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as members of the appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Washington does a really good job. He is very dedicated to a good intelligence bill. That is what this is. This is a good intelligence bill. It provides not as much as we would like to have provided for our intelligence activities, but it provides the best that we can with the budget constraints that we are faced with today. There are those of us who believe that we are not making a strong enough investment in our national security, at any part of our national defense structure, whether it be the operational military forces or the intelligence community. But the intelligence community is the eyes and ears of our national capabilities. We have to have information, we have to know what is happening in the world, we have to know what threats there might be out there. [[Page H2950]] The intelligence community does an outstanding job, I might say. I might be criticized for that statement because all you ever hear is the bad news. If an intelligence agent happens to go bad, which does happen on occasion, or if a mistake is made, you hear about that but you do not hear about the good things that the intelligence community brings to our overall national security effort. I wish we could talk about some of those on the floor in open session today, but obviously we cannot because it is essential that the sources that we use for developing our own intelligence information and the methods that we use and the people who are involved in this have to be protected. Their mission is extremely important and their lives could very well be at risk if we went into a lot of detail. I know that there will probably be some amendments offered to reduce the authorized level of funding in this bill. I would urge the Members not to support this. This bill does not provide enough authorization for funding to do the things that we ought to be doing in our national security effort, but it is the best we could do with the budget constraints. I suggest that we defeat any amendments that would tend to reduce the investment in our intelligence capability and let us pass this good bill and get it on to the Senate so we can get it to the President. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for his statement and I want to concur in it. Sometimes I think there is a question out there about whether intelligence is really that important. I think it is our ace in the hole. I think it is what gives America an extraordinary advantage over any potential foe. Our human intelligence, our national technical means, are remarkable assets to this country. In every conflict we have been in in recent years, they have given us a tremendous advantage. I think the work of the defense subcommittee and the authorization committee to come up with a good bill that keeps that going is essential to the future of the country. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He is right on track. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3694. I have a rather unique position and opportunity. As ranking member of the Committee on National Security and as a member of this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can personally testify to the importance of intelligence to our military commanders in the field, to our troops who are daily supporting our peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq, in Macedonia and to our pilots in the Iraqi no-fly-zone. Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. I am not sure we say thank you enough to the members of the intelligence community. What they do so often is not known. Yet it pays off in knowledge to the commanders in chief in the field, to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to this body. Intelligence is critical to successful operations and to the safety of our men and women in uniform. Intelligence also plays a crucial role in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plan for the 21st century, Dominant Battlespace Awareness, which hinges on our intelligence investment. Critical to the Joint Chiefs' plan, as well as to daily air, sea, and ground operations, are the mapping products created by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Although I support this bill, I am frankly concerned with the reductions in the operations and maintenance funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. I think the cuts are unjustified and excessive. I fear that they will have an unacceptable impact on the production of products for the unified commands and for the State Department peacekeeping negotiations. I am also concerned that these cuts will result in the unwarranted elimination of jobs from an agency that does not have sufficient staffing to meet military requirements today. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to associate myself with the very good comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) concerning the strategic importance of intelligence. I would only add to that by saying that intelligence is also more than military and tactical in nature. There are civilian aspects to intelligence that are very important to the national security of this country that go beyond support to our military and provide the kind of protection for the citizens of the United States, not only domestically but abroad, that we all need and cherish. This is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. Part of the reason for that is the fact that we know what our enemies are doing and we know what their plans and intentions are better perhaps than anybody else in the world. I would like to address if I could for a second the budget itself. The legislation before us today refocuses the President's request upon four major priorities for intelligence in the next century. Firstly, it accelerates the recapitalization of a signals intelligence program that has produced invaluable information against the new transnational targets of the post-Cold War world. Secondly, our bill begins the process, after years of drawdowns and reductions, of rebuilding a clandestine human intelligence program that has provided much of our intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists, traffickers and other adversaries. Thirdly, our bill continues the strengthening of the analysis part of intelligence collection that provides both assessment to our policymakers and guidance to the collectors. Finally, our bill enhances the capability of the President to direct and accomplish covert actions when he deems such actions necessary to U.S. foreign policy and our national security. The purpose of our mark in each of these areas is to strengthen the capabilities that will provide policymakers with the intelligence that they will need in the next century. Mr. Chairman, there were also strategic cuts in the budget, made after much investigation and on a line-by-line basis, on programs that will mostly be effective in the 21st century. The intelligence community has for the most part moved forward effectively against new and difficult issues. There are some areas where we can make some reductions and do so in a prudent fashion. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of this bipartisan authorization bill. I want to commend both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for having done an excellent job working together to produce this important bill. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a good solid member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for bringing forward a product that deserves the support of this House. I have said before that whenever an intelligence authorization or appropriations is before us, the proponents are at a disadvantage because people can attack the intelligence community. A lot of this is confidential. They do not have the opportunity sometimes to defend themselves. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world. We have the best trained professionals in the world. Yet we have the most difficult challenges of any nation in this world. We work in a bipartisan manner in order to provide authorization and appropriations for our intelligence agencies. I really do applaud the leadership of this House for [[Page H2951]] doing that. For the security of our country and for the manner in which this has been handled in the House, it deserves our support. I must tell my colleagues, though, that I was somewhat disappointed by some of the tone in the language as it related to some of our intelligence agencies. But I am very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that we must invest in the recapitalization and modernization of our SIGINT capacities. I think that is very important for this country. I have visited NSA on numerous occasions and know the dedication of the men and women in public service for our country. They represent some of our brightest minds in our Nation. But if we are going to be able to attract the best from our universities and colleges so that we can maintain that capacity in the future, it is important that we authorize adequate funds and appropriate adequate funds for our intelligence operation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to bring this product forward in a bipartisan manner. I hope that this body will support the work of the committee, support the authorization and later support the appropriation. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland's remarks. We have worked together on many things. His support is very important. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the task force to counter the drug problem. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fine work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 3694, the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization bill. As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security, and the Task Force for a Drug-Free America, I have had an opportunity to visit a wide range of counternarcotic programs in this country and overseas during the past few years. I have seen the effectiveness of the information produced by our intelligence community in identifying and tracking major narcotics trafficking activities. This intelligence information is essential to facilitating the law enforcement community's effort to slow the flood of cocaine and heroin that is pouring into our country. I have been particularly impressed by the growing coordination between the intelligence community and the law enforcement agencies to jointly target major narcotrafficking groups. Despite this good news, I regret to report that we are stopping no more than 15 to 20 percent of the drugs flowing from the source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. We have the best intelligence organization in the world, but we lack the capability to act effectively on the information that we collect against narcotraffickers. It is clear that the administration's current source zone strategy is having only a very limited impact on cocaine and opium production in the source countries. We need to provide sufficient political will, sufficient resources and sufficient personnel to this effort. Equally, the transit zone strategy is undermined by an unwillingness to seek sufficient air, ground and maritime resources to track, pursue and stop narcotrafficking moving through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Based on numerous meetings with foreign narcotics officials and U.S. Government personnel serving in the field, I am quite persuaded that much more could be achieved if we would be willing to come forward and seek the necessary resources to step up the eradication and interdiction of cocaine and heroin. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. Intelligence is the key to stopping narcotics traffic in this country and this hemisphere. I support this legislation. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their tireless efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the intelligence community. There is arguably no greater consumer of intelligence than our Nation's Armed Forces. Despite the end of the Cold War, the requirements of our military for better and more timely intelligence has actually increased rather than decreased. This is the result of a number of factors, including transitional issues such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps no incident better illustrates the threat that terrorism poses to the men and women of our armed services than the cowardly and callous terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. {time} 1245 Our forces in Bosnia remain exposed to the threat of terrorism, and it is the i

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(House of Representatives - May 07, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2944-H2978] INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 420 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Printed amendments shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour. [[Page H2945]] Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 420 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3694, the Fiscal Year 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act. What makes this rule modified open instead of fully open is a preprinting requirement for amendments, whose purpose is to ensure that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has an opportunity to work with Members seeking to offer germane amendments to ensure that important issues are addressed without threatening disclosure of sensitive, classified information. This preprinting requirement has become standard procedure for consideration of the annual intelligence authorization and has not been controversial. Because the leadership sought to have this bill on the floor today, the rule also includes a waiver of points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI, which requires a three-day layover of a committee report. The committee's report was properly filed on Tuesday of this week, and Members have had notice of availability of classified portions of the authorization measure since late last week when public announcements were, indeed, made from the floor. It is my understanding that there is no objection to this slight speeding up of the schedule to accommodate changes stemming from the unrelated scheduling matters and to accommodate Members' travel plans. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill, time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In addition, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 401 of the bill. That modification, a self-executing change accomplished through the rule, is designed to addressed a Budget Act technicality relating to a provision of the bill extending the early-out retirement program for the CIA. We were advised that, due to the fact that we still await this year's budget resolution, the early-out provision found in title IV of the bill causes a Budget Act problem, and so the provision is being removed from the bill with the understanding that the substance of the issue will be addressed at a later stage of legislative process of H.R. 3694. {time} 1200 The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read. The rule also waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments or clause 5(b) of rule XXI, prohibiting tax or tariff provisions in a bill not reported by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures. Both of these waivers apply to a section of H.R. 3694 regarding the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities in title III of the bill. That provision is nongermane to the introduced version of H.R. 3694, and it deals with subject matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Based on an exchange of letters between the two committees, there is no controversy on this matter. However, these waivers are necessary under the rules of the House. And during general debate, I will introduce into the Record that correspondence between the two committees. I would also point out for the record the Committee on National Security has, by letter, discharged itself from consideration of the matters in this bill that fall within its purview. Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone the vote on any amendment and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on any series of questions provided that the first vote shall not be less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, that was a long explanation of a rule that is, in fact, straightforward, simple, and traditional for this piece of legislation. I know of no controversy about this rule. I urge Members to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule. It allows amendments that are germane to be offered. However, H. Res. 420 does include one waiver of a House rule that troubles me. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI that provides for a 3-day layover of the committee report accompanying the bill. This House rule allows Members time to study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support amendments. The 3-day opportunity to study the bill and report is particularly important in this case because many provisions of the intelligence bills are classified and, if a Member wishes to review those portions, a Member must make arrangements with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To cut short the standard review time under these circumstances is unfortunate. And while I understand that the majority and the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had no objection to the waiver, we should note that it is not the committee's rights but the rights of Members not on the committee that the House rule is designed to protect. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, is to be commended for avoiding the need for waiver of the Budget Act by self-executing in this rule an amendment striking the offending section of the bill. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to gain its acquiescence to a violation of a House rule designed to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. While I often question the need for a requirement for preprinting in the Congressional Record, the sensitivity and the complexity of the intelligence authorization bill justifies the requirement in this case. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the full House to consider germane amendments offered by any Member. Under the rule, the House will be able to debate important questions, such as whether to reduce the overall size of the intelligence budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule. Among other things, it, in fact, allows this Congress to begin debating major priorities as to whether or not we are going to increase spending for the intelligence budget, despite the end of the Cold War and despite the fact that while we increase funding for the intelligence budget, we have cut spending in Medicare for our senior citizens, cut spending for veterans' programs, cut spending in a dozen different areas that the middle-class and low- income people of this country need. So I applaud the chairman for bringing forth this rule. It is a fair rule and it is going to allow us to have a serious debate on what we want this Congress to be doing for the American people. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the concerns of the gentlewoman from New York about the notice given and accommodating Members' schedules today. I am happy to report that several Members did take advantage of the opportunity to come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and participate in review of materials that were of interest to them. So I think the [[Page H2946]] word has gotten out and I think we have done our job properly. 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 resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Pursuant to House Resolution 420 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3694. {time} 1205 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with (Mr. Thornberry) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization to the floor today. As a strong believer in the congressional oversight process, I hope Members have taken the opportunity to examine this year's bill, including its classified annex and, indeed, I know several Members have come upstairs to do just that. The annual intelligence authorization, and its exhaustive review of intelligence activities and capabilities that accompanies it, form the cornerstone of our oversight process. This is truly a valuable exercise for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for Congress as a whole, and I think it is beneficial to the intelligence community as well. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both sides of the aisle whose hard work and long hours have enabled us to produce a responsible, nonpartisan bill that was unanimously approved in committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), chairman of the Committee on National Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, for their input and able assistance with this legislation. H.R. 3694 authorizes funds for the fiscal year 1999 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government. That is a big order. The National Security Act requires Congress specifically to authorize all intelligence spending. That is unique. As Members are aware, many of the details of the intelligence budget are classified, including the total fiscal year 1999 budget request, or top line. I can say, however, that H.R. 3694's top line is substantially in line with the President's request. The committee came in a mere one-tenth of 1 percent above the President's level. I would like to take a moment to explain the process by which the committee arrived at this recommended spending level. What we did not do was adopt an arbitrary number and fill in the blanks until we reached our goal. Instead, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence looked at each line of every program, examined its effectiveness and how it fit in with the overall U.S. intelligence requirements and priorities in today's world. Then we made our decisions based on the merit and value of each program. Mr. Chairman, throughout the committee's review of U.S. intelligence capabilities, whether we were looking at satellite reconnaissance or human intelligence, one fact stood out. The threats that face our Nation demand that the intelligence community maintain a worldwide vigilance and the resources to deal with a multitude of challenges and new challenges. The Cold War is over and the threat of nuclear war has been reduced. Or has it? Unfortunately, the world still is a dangerous place for the United States and its citizens, as we read in papers almost daily about concerns about political stability in places like Russia, the chain of command in Russia over the nuclear weapons, or perhaps even the Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles which we read in the newspapers are targeted against U.S. cities, what they call city-buster bombs and an ICBM capability. To demonstrate this, we need look no further than our continuing struggles with Iraq. Earlier this year the United States came to the brink of military confrontation with Saddam Hussein; yet we did so without all of the information necessary to support a serious campaign. There were serious shortfalls in our ability to support policymakers and military commanders at this critical time. Such gaps endanger U.S. lives and interests and are not acceptable, tolerable, or necessary in today's world. We should not ignore Iraq or Iran or Libya or North Korea or other rogue nations that are striving for and, in many cases achieving, the means to threaten the United States. The risk that a terrorist group or a rogue country will use a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon against the U.S. or an American citizen or American interests here or abroad is increasing. Despite this fact, U.S. intelligence capabilities have dwindled since the end of the Cold War. In effect, we are asking the intelligence community for more and we are giving them less to do it. And we are counting on them more. The intelligence community needs to change the way it does business to address these new threats. This year's authorization identifies five areas that deserve particular attention. One, our signals intelligence capabilities are in serious need of modernization to keep up with the fast pace of communications and technology improvement. I think it is fair to say that the golden days of SIGINT may, in fact, be behind us, and we have been enjoying the benefits of a very good SIGINT activity for many years. That may be over because of technology. We need to deal with that. Two, our clandestine espionage, or human intelligence as it is called, that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and refocused on current priorities. It is fair to say, I think, that the cupboard is nearly bare in the area of HUMINT. We are badly outnumbered by hostiles in a lot of dangerous places in the world. That is intolerable, unacceptable, and unnecessary. The intelligence community needs to increase its analytical capability in order to absorb and accurately gauge the immediate and long-term implications of an ever-increasing volume of information. We have stuff on hand we have not reviewed. We have not exploited it. And it is stuff that would be useful to our decision-makers. We do not have as much analytical capacity as we need. That can be fixed. Covert action capabilities need to be restructured. I said capabilities. Nobody is calling for covert action. We are calling for more arrows in the quiver in case we do need it to suit the needs of today's world and how to deal with problems we come against. Fifth, and last, we need to ensure we maintain an active research and development program in all intelligence areas. H.R. 3694 addresses each of these priorities, in some cases by providing additional funding; in others by redirecting existing programs, resources, or restructuring ongoing programs. In addition, the committee's review raised some fundamental questions that the committee will review over the coming year. These include, what are the proper priorities for our future overheads systems? How can we manage the cost of a national reconnaissance program and yet meet other critical requirements? Is the intelligence community striking the right balance between our capacity to collect intelligence and our capacity to analyze what is collected? Is the intelligence community prepared to face the challenges of information and operations, or cyber-warfare? [[Page H2947]] The future of our intelligence programs depends on finding the answers to these and other questions. But for today, today we understand very well our needs. We have provided for them in this legislation. I think we have achieved an excellent balance. Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to support H.R. 3694 today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 4, 1998. Hon. Porter Goss, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Porter: I am writing in response to your letter of April 29, 1998, which addresses H.R. 3694, as reported by the House Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) on April 29, 1998. H.R. 3694 would amend Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. The bill contains an extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities. As your letter notes, this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Accordingly, the Committee would ordinarily meet to consider the bill. However, because the bill, as reported, extends for one year an already existing application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities, I do not believe that a markup of the bill is necessary. I appreciate your consultation with the Committee in advance. I request your full support in joining me to prevent any other expansion or changes to the application of sanctions laws for intelligence activities other than the one year extension agreed to here. I would further appreciate your consultation with respect to this provision on any future Intelligence Authorization bills, including a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time. Of course, if an agreement cannot be reached, the provision would be subject to a point of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the record during floor consideration. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards, Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 28, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning the planned inclusion of a provision in the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999'' (H.R. 3694), which we expect to mark up on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, and report to the House early next week. I have included a copy of the proposed section for your consideration. As you know, this provision relates to the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities and simply extends the life of the provision for one additional year. As you will recall during last year's consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and based upon our mutual understanding and agreement as to your Committee's jurisdiction over matters relating to taxes and tariffs, this provision was included in the Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as section 304 of that Act. A copy of that provision, as enacted (P.L. 105-107), is also included for your review. I hope that we can, consistent with the agreement reached last year, once again agree that this provision may be included in H.R. 3694, and any resulting Conference Report, without objection from the Committee on Ways and Means. There is no doubt that this provision falls squarely within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by the House that has not been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. This provision is of critical importance to the protection of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies the President with the necessary flexibility to address the competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting our national security interests at the same time. I appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this section of our bill. I would also offer that any modification of this provision in future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be subject to consultation between our Committees, and, if agreement cannot be reached, subject to points of order pursaunt to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look forward to your support for H.R. 3694. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Porter J. Goss, Chairman. ____ ``(b) Benefits, Allowances, Travel, Incentives.--An employee detailed under subsection (a) may be authorized any benefit, allowance, travel, or incentive otherwise provided to enhance staffing by the organization from which the employee is detailed. ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report describing the detail of intelligence community personnel pursuant to subsection (a) during the 12-month period ending on the date of the report. The report shall set forth the number of personnel detailed, the identity of parent and host agencies or elements, and an analysis of the benefits of the details.''. (b) Technical Amendment.--Sections 120, 121, and 110 of the National Security Act of 1947 are hereby redesignated as sections 110, 111, and 112, respectively. (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking out the items relating to sections 120, 121, and 110 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Sec. 110. National mission of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. ``Sec. 111. Collection tasking authority. ``Sec. 112. Restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United Nations. ``Sec. 113. Detail of intelligence community personnel--intelligence community assignment program.''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to an employee on detail on or after January 1, 1997. SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 1999''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible with the national security interests of the United States and consistent with operational and security concerns related to the conduct of intelligence activities, and where fiscally sound, should competitively award contracts in a manner that maximizes the procurement of products properly designated as having been made in the United States. SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. It is the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have equal standing with officials of the Executive Branch to receive classified information so that Congress may carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CERTAIN VIOLENT CRIMES ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to provide information regarding the killing, abduction, torture, ____ (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item: ``Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence (3).''. (b) Expansion of Duties of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management.--Subsection 102(d)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403(d)(2)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (B) through (D) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs: ``(B) Carrying out the responsibilities of the Director under paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(c). ``(C) Carrying out such other responsibilities as the Director may direct.''. SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 2000.''. SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONTRACTING. It is the sense of Congress that the Director of Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements of the intelligence community, whenever compatible Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence strives to report an authorization bill each year which is free of partisan division. While we have been generally successful in that effort, from time to time we have been divided on significant issues of substance. This year, I am pleased to report that we have produced legislation which is not only bipartisan but without major substantive disagreement as well. {time} 1215 Credit for that result goes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the views of all Members are reflected [[Page H2948]] in the work of the committee. I commend him for the leadership he has exhibited as chairman and for his willingness to work with committee Democrats on matters of importance to us. For two of the Democratic Members, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), this will be the final intelligence authorization bill they will bring to the floor. Although I look forward to working with them to get a conference report enacted, I want to thank them for their many contributions to the work of the committee. The willingness of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) to tackle issues like declassification and the need to make greater use of intelligence in nontraditional ways has been invaluable. And the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to encourage development of the complex systems through which intelligence will be collected in the future were also of great assistance. This will be my last authorization bill, as well. I have enjoyed my 8 years of service on the committee and look forward to keeping up with intelligence issues when they come before the Committee on Appropriations. I have been impressed tremendously by not only the importance of intelligence to our Nation's security, but by the dedication, often under circumstances of great hardship and danger, of the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies. The authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 will make improvements in intelligence capabilities that need to be modernized either because of technological advances or because they require greater emphasis to respond to changing threats. The bill is only marginally more, in the aggregate 0.1 percent, than the amount requested by the President. Although the committee chose to place a different spending priority on certain items than did the administration, I do not believe that we have done harm to any initiative or activity which the Director of Central Intelligence or the Secretary of Defense consider crucial. Generating public support for spending on intelligence programs, given their classified nature, is never going to be easy. Although it should be common sense that the possession of information in advance about the military plans of an enemy, the bottom-line position of another government in a diplomatic negotiation, the location of a terrorist cell, or the scientific and technical capability of someone trying to develop a weapon of mass destruction should be invaluable, we sometimes forget that the acquisition of access to that kind of information is time consuming and expensive. I do not believe we need to justify intelligence spending on the basis of some esoteric calculation about whether our national security is more or less at risk than when the Soviet Union was in place. We will always have threats to our security. Some will be predictable, some will not. Dealing with them requires accurate and timely information, some of which can be provided only by intelligence agencies. There is a cost to maintaining the capability to provide that information when required, and that cost is significant. The cost if the information is not available, however, is potentially far greater. Our job on the committee is to ensure that the means necessary to provide intelligence on matters which demonstrably affect national security are available at a cost which is not excessive relative to their importance. I believe the 21-year record of the committee in this effort, including the bill now before the House, has been exceptional. Besides recommending spending levels, an authorization bill and accompanying report also make judgments about the manner in which programs are being managed. I believe that one of the chief responsibilities of an oversight committee is to monitor the activities of the agencies under its jurisdiction in a manner which is both aggressive and thorough. I also believe that oversight should be constructive and fair. I am concerned about the tone of some of the recent criticism of the work of two agencies, the National Reconnaissance Office, (NRO), and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The United States has an intelligence capability second to none in the world. Much of that preeminence is due to the performance of the systems acquired and operated by the NRO. These systems are extraordinarily complex and expensive. We are now in the midst of an effort to modernize these systems. When the need for modernization was made clear several years ago by then-Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey, and Congress agreed to embark on a plan to accomplish it, it was with the understanding that substantial amounts of money would have to be expended in the short term to produce savings in the future. We have spent much of the intervening years altering in sometimes significant ways the components of the plan, which has added to the costs that have to be met in the near term and delayed the realization of the expected long-term savings as well. It is disingenuous to have been a part of this practice and then to complain about the effects it has produced on the NRO's budget. NIMA is a new agency created less than 2 years ago through the merger of the Defense Mapping Agency and the imagery analysis elements of the CIA and DIA. Like most mergers, this one, which I strongly supported was not without problems, but I believe that NIMA personnel are committed to having the agency fulfill its important mission successfully. Earlier this year I wrote to NIMA's customers to ask for an evaluation of their performance. Secretary of Commerce Daley responded that ``After working through some initial confusion regarding authority and responsibility for certain products and services, support to civilian agencies is now better than before the individual components were combined into NIMA.'' James L. Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, wrote, ``The support and service provided by NIMA to support disaster response activities have been and continue to be outstanding.'' Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, complimented NIMA on making a strong effort to provide high-quality analysis and pronounced himself ``generally satisfied'' with the results. I do not believe that these comments reflect an agency that is failing to do its job or one that is ignoring the needs of nonmilitary consumers to concentrate on those of the military, as some had feared. Any enterprise involving human beings can be made better, but I think it is not helpful to make final judgments, pro or con, about an agency in its infancy. I offer these thoughts in the hope that they will provide perspective in evaluating the performance of the NRO and NIMA in the days ahead. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3694 is a good bill which will advance the interest of military and civilian consumers of intelligence. I urge that it be approved by the House. I would also like to compliment both the majority staff and the Democratic minority staff. I think this committee has been blessed over the years with an outstanding staff. And I want to particularly thank Mike Sheehy and the Democratic staff members whom I have had the privilege of working with for the last 4 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to say that I am very proud to have worked with and learned from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as the ranking member. He has been an extraordinary asset of the United States of America in his capacity as a manager of the portfolio. He brings wisdom, judgment and knowledge about military intelligence and equipment to the table in our committee to the extent that I think no other member has or can at this time. I hope he is not going to leave. But if it turns out that way, we will miss him. I also hope we are not going to lose anybody else. And for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), I share that view with all the other members. I happen to feel that we have got an extraordinary committee and staff, we are doing our job timely and well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to allow him to demonstrate what I have just said. [[Page H2949]] (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in both a fiscal and political environment in which we simply cannot fund every system and program we would like. This applies whether intelligence or not intelligence. However, it is important for the American people to understand just how critical intelligence is to the very survival of our Nation and our way of life. On the way over to the Capitol this morning, I heard a radio announcer refer to this bill as ``the bill to authorize America's cloak-and-dagger operation.'' That sort of a label is correct in a way, but unfortuantely, I believe it unintentionally misrepresents what this bill is all about. What this bill is about is the wise and prudent funding and oversight of those intelligence collection analysis and dissemination function necessary to provide for the security of our Nation, its interests, and its citizens around the world. We are talking about what I refer to as ``counterprograms.'' We are not engaged in a world war, but we have some very important counterprograms, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation. These are all very important activities, and this bill funds them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of funcational intelligence areas of particular interest in this bill. The first is the emphasis this bill places on rebuilding leading-edge technology, research and development. It is the basic research and development of new technologies that are the easiest to cut in lean fiscal times. But it is precisely these efforts that our future depends on and that we must pay particular attention to and fund properly. This bill puts great emphasis on future capabilities, albeit sometimes imprudently at the expense of older so-called legacy systems. Also, this bill emphasizes the need for a strong, well-trained and funded reserve intelligence component. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things I could say about this bill, and I do not have the time to say them. Just let me say that as someone who tried to be very attentive to my important responsibilities on this committee, I admire the way the chairman and ranking member have worked cooperatively. I admire the seriousness of purpose of all of the members. I admire the product that we are producing, and I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues and the American people. We are doing the people's business in a wise and prudent manner. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on this important committee. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a colloquy concerning section 303 of the bill. Before doing so, I want to commend our chairman for his leadership also and to thank him for including full funding for the environmental program in this legislation before us today, the recognition that new issues need to be addressed, not that the environment is a new issue, but new compared to its being a priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in the intelligence authorization bill. In any event, I rise to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 more year? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. I would assure the gentlewoman from California that is the intent of the committee, that the legislative history of this provision, as it was developed in the debate in 1995, is applicable to the exercise of this authority. Indeed, the report to accompany H.R. 3694 reaffirms the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 to make completely clear that the original legislative history of this provision continues to govern its implementation. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends that the provision will be narrowly construed and used only in the most serious of circumstances when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk? Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman would further yield, that is certainly the intent of the committee. Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns? Mr. GOSS. That is also the case. Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces? Mr. GOSS. Yes, it does. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for engaging in this colloquy and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. I wanted just to say that I concur in all the statements made by the chairman. This is also the understanding that I have of this provision. Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for his cooperation and concurrence in the view of the chairman. Mr. DICKS. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her diligence on this important matter. {time} 1230 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this intelligence authorization bill. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He has done an outstanding job. I have had the privilege of working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 14 years now, two different terms. I have to say that the gentleman from Florida has been outstanding in the leadership that he provides for the committee and also to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we have worked together for so many years, he is a member of our subcommittee. We have the unusual relationship of being members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as members of the appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Washington does a really good job. He is very dedicated to a good intelligence bill. That is what this is. This is a good intelligence bill. It provides not as much as we would like to have provided for our intelligence activities, but it provides the best that we can with the budget constraints that we are faced with today. There are those of us who believe that we are not making a strong enough investment in our national security, at any part of our national defense structure, whether it be the operational military forces or the intelligence community. But the intelligence community is the eyes and ears of our national capabilities. We have to have information, we have to know what is happening in the world, we have to know what threats there might be out there. [[Page H2950]] The intelligence community does an outstanding job, I might say. I might be criticized for that statement because all you ever hear is the bad news. If an intelligence agent happens to go bad, which does happen on occasion, or if a mistake is made, you hear about that but you do not hear about the good things that the intelligence community brings to our overall national security effort. I wish we could talk about some of those on the floor in open session today, but obviously we cannot because it is essential that the sources that we use for developing our own intelligence information and the methods that we use and the people who are involved in this have to be protected. Their mission is extremely important and their lives could very well be at risk if we went into a lot of detail. I know that there will probably be some amendments offered to reduce the authorized level of funding in this bill. I would urge the Members not to support this. This bill does not provide enough authorization for funding to do the things that we ought to be doing in our national security effort, but it is the best we could do with the budget constraints. I suggest that we defeat any amendments that would tend to reduce the investment in our intelligence capability and let us pass this good bill and get it on to the Senate so we can get it to the President. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for his statement and I want to concur in it. Sometimes I think there is a question out there about whether intelligence is really that important. I think it is our ace in the hole. I think it is what gives America an extraordinary advantage over any potential foe. Our human intelligence, our national technical means, are remarkable assets to this country. In every conflict we have been in in recent years, they have given us a tremendous advantage. I think the work of the defense subcommittee and the authorization committee to come up with a good bill that keeps that going is essential to the future of the country. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He is right on track. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3694. I have a rather unique position and opportunity. As ranking member of the Committee on National Security and as a member of this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can personally testify to the importance of intelligence to our military commanders in the field, to our troops who are daily supporting our peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq, in Macedonia and to our pilots in the Iraqi no-fly-zone. Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues. I am not sure we say thank you enough to the members of the intelligence community. What they do so often is not known. Yet it pays off in knowledge to the commanders in chief in the field, to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to this body. Intelligence is critical to successful operations and to the safety of our men and women in uniform. Intelligence also plays a crucial role in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plan for the 21st century, Dominant Battlespace Awareness, which hinges on our intelligence investment. Critical to the Joint Chiefs' plan, as well as to daily air, sea, and ground operations, are the mapping products created by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Although I support this bill, I am frankly concerned with the reductions in the operations and maintenance funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. I think the cuts are unjustified and excessive. I fear that they will have an unacceptable impact on the production of products for the unified commands and for the State Department peacekeeping negotiations. I am also concerned that these cuts will result in the unwarranted elimination of jobs from an agency that does not have sufficient staffing to meet military requirements today. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to associate myself with the very good comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) concerning the strategic importance of intelligence. I would only add to that by saying that intelligence is also more than military and tactical in nature. There are civilian aspects to intelligence that are very important to the national security of this country that go beyond support to our military and provide the kind of protection for the citizens of the United States, not only domestically but abroad, that we all need and cherish. This is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. Part of the reason for that is the fact that we know what our enemies are doing and we know what their plans and intentions are better perhaps than anybody else in the world. I would like to address if I could for a second the budget itself. The legislation before us today refocuses the President's request upon four major priorities for intelligence in the next century. Firstly, it accelerates the recapitalization of a signals intelligence program that has produced invaluable information against the new transnational targets of the post-Cold War world. Secondly, our bill begins the process, after years of drawdowns and reductions, of rebuilding a clandestine human intelligence program that has provided much of our intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists, traffickers and other adversaries. Thirdly, our bill continues the strengthening of the analysis part of intelligence collection that provides both assessment to our policymakers and guidance to the collectors. Finally, our bill enhances the capability of the President to direct and accomplish covert actions when he deems such actions necessary to U.S. foreign policy and our national security. The purpose of our mark in each of these areas is to strengthen the capabilities that will provide policymakers with the intelligence that they will need in the next century. Mr. Chairman, there were also strategic cuts in the budget, made after much investigation and on a line-by-line basis, on programs that will mostly be effective in the 21st century. The intelligence community has for the most part moved forward effectively against new and difficult issues. There are some areas where we can make some reductions and do so in a prudent fashion. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of this bipartisan authorization bill. I want to commend both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for having done an excellent job working together to produce this important bill. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a good solid member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for bringing forward a product that deserves the support of this House. I have said before that whenever an intelligence authorization or appropriations is before us, the proponents are at a disadvantage because people can attack the intelligence community. A lot of this is confidential. They do not have the opportunity sometimes to defend themselves. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world. We have the best trained professionals in the world. Yet we have the most difficult challenges of any nation in this world. We work in a bipartisan manner in order to provide authorization and appropriations for our intelligence agencies. I really do applaud the leadership of this House for [[Page H2951]] doing that. For the security of our country and for the manner in which this has been handled in the House, it deserves our support. I must tell my colleagues, though, that I was somewhat disappointed by some of the tone in the language as it related to some of our intelligence agencies. But I am very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that we must invest in the recapitalization and modernization of our SIGINT capacities. I think that is very important for this country. I have visited NSA on numerous occasions and know the dedication of the men and women in public service for our country. They represent some of our brightest minds in our Nation. But if we are going to be able to attract the best from our universities and colleges so that we can maintain that capacity in the future, it is important that we authorize adequate funds and appropriate adequate funds for our intelligence operation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to bring this product forward in a bipartisan manner. I hope that this body will support the work of the committee, support the authorization and later support the appropriation. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland's remarks. We have worked together on many things. His support is very important. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the task force to counter the drug problem. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fine work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 3694, the fiscal year 1999 intelligence authorization bill. As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security, and the Task Force for a Drug-Free America, I have had an opportunity to visit a wide range of counternarcotic programs in this country and overseas during the past few years. I have seen the effectiveness of the information produced by our intelligence community in identifying and tracking major narcotics trafficking activities. This intelligence information is essential to facilitating the law enforcement community's effort to slow the flood of cocaine and heroin that is pouring into our country. I have been particularly impressed by the growing coordination between the intelligence community and the law enforcement agencies to jointly target major narcotrafficking groups. Despite this good news, I regret to report that we are stopping no more than 15 to 20 percent of the drugs flowing from the source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. We have the best intelligence organization in the world, but we lack the capability to act effectively on the information that we collect against narcotraffickers. It is clear that the administration's current source zone strategy is having only a very limited impact on cocaine and opium production in the source countries. We need to provide sufficient political will, sufficient resources and sufficient personnel to this effort. Equally, the transit zone strategy is undermined by an unwillingness to seek sufficient air, ground and maritime resources to track, pursue and stop narcotrafficking moving through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Based on numerous meetings with foreign narcotics officials and U.S. Government personnel serving in the field, I am quite persuaded that much more could be achieved if we would be willing to come forward and seek the necessary resources to step up the eradication and interdiction of cocaine and heroin. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. Intelligence is the key to stopping narcotics traffic in this country and this hemisphere. I support this legislation. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their tireless efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the intelligence community. There is arguably no greater consumer of intelligence than our Nation's Armed Forces. Despite the end of the Cold War, the requirements of our military for better and more timely intelligence has actually increased rather than decreased. This is the result of a number of factors, including transitional issues such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps no incident better illustrates the threat that terrorism poses to the men and women of our armed services than the cowardly and callous terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. {time} 1245 Our forces in Bosnia remain exposed to the threat of terrorism, and i