Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My view of this is that we have already cut defense by $115 billion from the high point back in 1985. That means that we have reduced that overall budget from about $365 billion a year to $250 billion a year. We are not even keeping up with inflation. There has been a judgment made by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence about how much of that roughly $250 billion is going to go into intelligence. This committee, 16 Members; 9 Republicans, 7 Democrats, have held exhaustive hearings into every aspect of that budget. We have a highly professional staff that looks into it all. We have come to a unanimous conclusion that the amount that has been requested by the chairman in his markup is the right amount. Let us fight in other venues to take money and use it for what the gentleman from Vermont talked about. I am for all those programs. But I do not think we should try to cut it out here. If it was taken out of the authorization for intelligence, all it would do is wind up being spent for other defense items. That is the reality of this. It is a nice idea, but it simply will not work.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would give me a chance, I would respond to that. I say yes, we are facing less of a ground-based military threat from the Soviet Union.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what I say to my good friend is this, we have cut defense over the last 15 years by $115 billion. That is how we balanced this budget. Defense has already been cut. I think there are a lot of other parts of this budget that ought to be looked at.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. DICKS. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her diligence on this important matter.

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. 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 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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I compliment my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) again for another amendment that I find completely acceptable. This cooperation must exist and we must do better in this effort. I concur with my chairman that this is a national priority and one that will be aided by this report. I urge that the Committee accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield to me, I appreciate very much the hard work that the gentlewoman from California has put into this, an enormous effort on her part. I regret that, because of a technicality, the amendment will not be accepted. I guarantee the gentlewoman we will work with her to make certain that we do everything we can to come up with a strategy to be certain that the understanding that is now in place with the Attorney General is strengthened, so that, in cases where there has been illegal activity or problems, that they must be reported to the Attorney General. I know that is the thrust of your amendment. As you know, our committee is still involved in our investigation. It may well be one of the conclusions of our investigation that we need to strengthen this area. I pledge to the gentlewoman from California that I will work with her to get a satisfactory solution. Again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's endeavors and hard work here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's kind remarks.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman makes an important point in that we have to be prepared with what we have today. We are not going to have time to go out and build all the things that we may need in our next conflict. My colleague, the gentleman from Oregon said that in the Gulf War, we had an intelligence failure. That simply is not true. The President said after the invasion of Kuwait was that he had 2 days of actionable warning from the intelligence community; and that is a fact. The problem was, and this is what happens sometimes in these crises, we did not act on that intelligence, because we were told by other people who were allies in that region that Saddam would not invade. But there was, in fact, warning there; and I want to make that point. Part of the reason why we had the warning is because we had our intelligence apparatus in place. I would also say, in very general terms, we had a tremendous military victory because we had an intelligence advantage in the Gulf War that allowed that victory to occur quickly, decisively, saving American lives, saving the lives of the allies, and saving money, actually, for the taxpayers. By having intelligence superiority, as Colin Powell said, you can provide overwhelming military force and end the conflict rapidly. That is why I have always believed that having a strong defense is the right thing to do; because, as you go back and look in our history, look at Korea, another example where we were unprepared, did not have the right training, did not have the people ready to go, and we almost got run off the peninsula. That was another problem where we were both militarily weak and did not have good intelligence. It would be a mistake of vast proportions to undermine the intelligence community, to undermine the defense of this country. We have already cut defense and national security by $115 billion.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there are some areas in base closure where we can do some other cuts. I would like to take that money, frankly, and put it into modernization where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the service chiefs have written a letter to the Secretary of Defense saying we should be, instead of being at $43 billion a year, be at $60 billion. We are not there. We went through this before, after the Vietnam War, when we created a hollow force, and then it opened the door for Mr. Reagan to come in and say we have to vastly increase defense spending because we did not handle this properly. We did not develop an adequate force. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for any additional time because I know my colleagues will not appreciate it.

Mr. DICKS. I know.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have an additional minute.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on National Security.

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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) who has served as chairman of this committee and in many important assignments in this House, and he is going to be one of the Members that next year we are going to miss the most. He has done an outstanding job for his district and an outstanding job for this country.