Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my good friend, who every year has offered a Buy America amendment. This year we just put it in the bill because we thought it was the right thing to do, and the gentleman has made a very important contribution, and we appreciate his interest in the intelligence bill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has been very diligent over the years in reviewing the intelligence budget. We do not always agree on this, but I certainly want to yield to him to present his perspective.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 55 seconds. I would just like to remind my colleague that if we subtract 142 from 435, we come up with 293, or a better than 2-to-1 ratio of the members of the House who voted in favor of the intelligence bill as reported by the committee. I would just say this. We have to look at this in perspective. The intelligence bill is part of the defense bill. We have cut defense over the last 14 years every single year. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Secretary of Defense decide how much of the defense budget, which has been cut for 14 straight years, will be allocated to intelligence. We are not going to take money out here and put it over in Health and Human Services. That is just not what we are talking about. If we cut the money out of intelligence, it is going to go to some other aspect of the defense bill, because it is part of the 050 function. I support all of these programs that the gentleman from Vermont is talking about. We were here last night in support of education, and I agree with him that we need to protect Medicare and Social Security and the safety net. But we also have to protect our national security, and that is the foremost responsibility of the Federal Government. I think the bill this year provides a prudent amount. There were 16 members of this committee, and from the most liberal to the most conservative, every single one of them present in the committee voted to approve this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We have done a responsible, balanced job, and I think this bill deserves the support of the House.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back at this time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has always been accurate. He said the NSA. He meant the NRO, and I ask him to correct that.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts I think there are still areas in the defense budget that can be cut; that is why I have supported BRAC.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I only have a little bit of time here, but I yield again to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DICKS. Sea power and air power, yes, basically the threat from conventional forces has been reduced. That is one reason why we have cut the defense budget, because we think we can go to a lower level. But I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that there are other problems out there. We have got Iran. We have got Iraq. We have got North Korea. We have got the problems of China. We have got instability in Russia today that I worry about. They still possess thousands of nuclear weapons. We are taking some risk here in cutting back on our defenses.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, on April 30, Fred Hitz will complete seven and one-half years in office as the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general, and a career in the federal government which exceeds twenty years. In addition to service at the CIA before his confirmation as Inspector General, Mr. Hitz served in Republican and Democratic administrations in a variety of demanding positions at the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy. His tenure in each of these posts was characterized by uncommon dedication and exceptional performance. Mr. Hitz' experience in government, his first-hand knowledge of the unique aspects of working in the CIA, and the high regard in which he was held on Capitol Hill, made him an excellent choice in 1990 to be the CIA's first presidentially appointed inspector general. Inspectors general with independence guaranteed by the fact that they are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the President are essential to the effective operation of executive agencies, and to the maintenance of the public's confidence that officials at these agencies will be held accountable for their actions. I suspect that only by serving in one of these posts could someone fully appreciate how difficult it is to function simultaneously as a senior manager, and an independent critic, of the same agency. As challenging as service as an inspector general must be at most agencies, it is even more so at the CIA where the need to compartment activities for security purposes makes it hard to trace the path of certain decisions, and where the inclination is not to volunteer information, especially to those not perceived to be part of ``the team.'' Fred Hitz has worked tirelessly to create and sustain an inspector general's process which was supported both inside and outside of the CIA. That he has succeeded is a testament to his great ability and unquestionable integrity. The reputation which the Office of the Inspector General enjoys for conducting audits, inspections, and investigations which are thorough and follow the facts wherever they might lead, and for making tough recommendations for improvement regardless of their popularity, is a reflection of Mr. Hitz' leadership abilities. He will be sorely missed at the CIA, but his most important legacy may be the degree to which he has institutionalized in the inspector general's office his commitment to uncovering the truth. A graduate of Princeton University, Mr. Hitz will be returning to his alma mater, this time as a member of the faculty. Anyone who has heard or read Fred's views on subjects like the organization of the intelligence community, or the community's role in the post-Cold War world, knows him to be a person who gives important issues great thought and who expresses himself on them with clarity and care. He will be an excellent teacher from whom students at Princeton will learn a great deal. Mr. Hitz has served the country with great distinction. I want to wish him, and his wife, Mary Buford, only the best in the years to come. I hope that he will not mind an occasional call for advice from those of us who have come to rely on his counsel.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the minority leader, Dick Gephardt, who has been our majority leader and caucus chairman, for an outstanding speech. I came over here today because I have had the privilege of working with Ron Dellums for 22 years. We have had days when we have been allies, when we have fought against the antisatellite weapon and against Star Wars, and we had a different airlifter than maybe the one that the Pentagon wanted, and there was never a better man to be an ally with. And we have had days over here, as someone has mentioned, where we disagreed on a few issues. But the thing that I appreciated about Ron Dellums, and I think that it is something that we have gotten away from in the House, is that he is always willing to stand up here on the floor and engage in true debate on the issues and to have a discussion and to challenge your ideas, but he is always willing to let you challenge his, and out of that I think comes an understanding of these technical issues that we are forced to deal with in the area of national defense. I can tell my colleagues, when people talk about fairness, even though Mr. Dellums and I would disagree on certain issues but we would be allies on others, when you needed a friend, and in this Congress you have to go home and get reelected, and one time I had a terrible problem and that was on the Nisqually River. We wanted to build a fish hatchery for salmon, which now has become an endangered species in the Northwest. I went to Chairman Dellums and I said to him, the best place to have this fish hatchery is on a piece of Army land. And he said to me, what do you want to do about this? I said, the Army will not let us have the piece of land, but they have suggested that if you can get Mr. Dellums to put it in the military construction authorization bill, that we will transfer the land to the Nisqually Indians. And so Dellums, as he could synthesize this, said to me, are you telling me that you want me to take this land away from the Army and give it to the Indians? And I said, yes. And he said, right on, brother. And I will tell you, that was the fastest transfer we ever got. And there are other issues where we worked together on a school district and a whole bunch of other things. But as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) mentioned, I think all of us will remember the fight over South Africa and also the great debates that we had during the Cold War era of whether we are going to maintain arms control, whether we are going to make certain that we did not breach the ABM agreement. We did not override the SALT II limits, all those things we were allies. And I will just tell you this: There are a lot of people over at the Pentagon, a lot of people in the industry who were very fearful when Mr. Dellums became chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. But we never had a fairer, better chairman. Even though sometimes he did not even vote for his own bill, he brought it to the floor, let everybody debate it, passed it and got it done, got the work done. And most importantly, in another era where he is sometimes forgotten, is that when he had to go sit down with the United States Senate, he did well on behalf of the House of Representatives. So even though we have had our disputes, I am going to miss Ron Dellums because I am not going to know who to debate anymore. Where is the challenge going to be? Who is going to be the leader on the more liberal side of our caucus? But I have admired him. I admire his commitment to his constituency, to his family and just not a better man to work with and serve with. I am proud of the fact that we have been friends and we will be friends in the future, and we will work together on important issues, I am sure, when you come back to the Congress from time to time to see your old friends. God bless and good luck and we appreciate your great service to this institution.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, that General Schwarzkopf is a very close friend of mine. In fact, he was commanding officer of I Corps at Fort Lewis, and I went over there several times. He did come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence after the war. He said that this was the best intelligence that any commanding officer had ever received. Now, did he say, yes, there were some things we should be working on like broad area search, the dissemination of imagery, being able to find targets which could be relocated, like Scud launchers, more rapidly? Yes. But I want the gentleman to know that we are working on each one of those issues. Last year, this Congress created NIMA. I strongly supported that. That was an initiative of the administration. We put mapping together with imagery. Today, we are able to get imagery out into the field more rapidly than we could during the Gulf War. I will also say to the gentleman that other areas of intelligence gathering provide greater insights into Iraqi plans in the gulf war. We knew exactly what was going on. So the general had some critiques, but, overall, he said intelligence was very, very good. I think if you talked to him about it, he would say that. We are, I believe, trying to address the areas where there are problems. I would also note that the first thing that George Bush, the President during the gulf war said at the time was that there had not been an intelligence failure with respect to the invasion of Kuwait. The intelligence community gave the President notice that it was likely there would be an invasion. The administration did not act on that warning. It was hard to act, because our allies were giving us different information. Our allies in the region were saying that Saddam will not do it, while the intelligence community said that, it looks like he is going to do it. A decision was made to rely on the people in the region, and that proved to be wrong. But it was not an intelligence failure. I like the fact that when you go all over the world you have CNN, and it is a good supplement to our intelligence. Having the news available all over the world is important. But it does not make up for having in place the national technical means, the tactical intelligence, the human intelligence that has to be out there in the field. I am worried, frankly, that we are downsizing to such a level that we are going to be spread so thin, especially in the human intelligence area, that we could have problems in the future. That is something we have to address. But that is going to require more effort and more resources, not less. We thank the gentleman for his help and participation and for his support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the point we want to make. There have been some problems. I know we are all frustrated about the UAV's, trying to bring them on more rapidly, but I do think in this particular case that the Department of Defense deserves, and after all we said to them, pull all these programs together, create an entity, get management oversight of this, we want this to be handled. Now we got the agency created, they are starting to do the job. The problem is, like in a lot of areas of advanced technology there are problems, and not every one of these programs works perfectly the first time in many areas because they used to be classified, people did not know about it, and finally we get it right, but we would not kill the program. Now we put it out there in the open, and people see the failures, but that is what R&D is really all about. There will be failures, but ultimately we are going to get this job done, and it is going to give us a revolutionary new capability in the reconnaissance area along with our aircraft. And I just think we have got to stay the course and support this, support DARO, and make sure they get the job done with good oversight which the chairman has provided.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the committee, for the statement that he just gave. I think he hit the nail right on the head. We are not spending enough money today on intelligence. A lot of people in this House think we are spending too much money on intelligence. But I think the gentleman is absolutely right. The cuts that were made unfortunately in the Appropriations Committee, and I am a member of it and take some responsibility for it, I think are too deep and are cuts that we are going to regret because of the consequences within the intelligence community. I commend the gentleman for his statement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the intelligence authorization bill. I want to commend again the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] on his leadership in achieving in conference an agreement that addresses many of the reservations I and other Members had with the bill the House considered in July. As I noted then, I believe that changes in the direction of complex activities should be undertaken with a clear understanding of their likely consequences. The conference report takes a more measured approach toward change, particularly in the programs of the National Reconnaissance Office, than did the House bill, and represents in that respect a better product. I want to point out that when you have these very major programs that are crucial to the ability of this country to gather intelligence, our national technical means, stability is required. One thing that we in the Congress have to be very careful about is not causing instability within the NRO. They have got a daunting challenge to modernize our national technical means. I hope that we as a Congress do not make that job more difficult. I want those who are concerned with the amount of money spent on intelligence programs and activities to be aware that while the measure passed by the House contains slight increases to the amounts requested by the President, and authorized in fiscal year 1997, the size of those increases were reduced in conference. The legislation now before the House is 1.4 percent above last year's authorized level and 0.3 percent above the President's request. I do not consider these increases to be excessive and want to assure my colleagues that the amounts authorized by the conference report are responsive to the legitimate needs of our intelligence agencies to maintain their capabilities to collect, analyze, process and disseminate intelligence. The bill as reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence contained a provision which would have terminated the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office [DARO]. Since the version of the defense authorization bill reported by the House Committee on National Security had a similar provision and that reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services did not, the matter was reserved for resolution by the defense authorization conference. As a conferee on that measure, I want to emphasize that the defense authorization conference report does not include the DARO termination recommended by the House. The conference agreement compels no change in DARO nor will it require that DARO cease the exercise of its critical responsibilities for strong oversight of airborne reconnaissance. The conference report does clarify that DARO's role does not include program management or budget execution. It should be understood clearly that this provision does not alter DARO's current role or responsibilities since, Department of Defense officials have stressed, DARO has not, does not and will not manage programs. Instead, all airborne reconnaissance programs are executed by the military services or by the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency [DARPA]. The conference report provides for a review of DARO by the ongoing Defense Reform Task Force, which I support. This task force could well make a recommendation and the Secretary of Defense could decide to place the airborne reconnaissance oversight function in another organizational structure or to alter the manner in which the office reports to senior DOD officials. I have every expectation, however, that the task force and the Secretary will strongly support continuation of a centralized and powerful oversight function at a senior level within the Department. I would add that I believe that the pursuit of UAVs and airborne reconnaissance are two things that we must continue to work on and strongly support. I believe, having talked to a number of intelligence officers, that UAVs, like Predator, have tremendous potential and that we as a Congress need to do everything we can to support the agencies that are working with these unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe that they have tremendous promise and that we should not back away from them. I know that my colleagues on the other side are as interested in that as we are, but we have got to have stability there as well. If we did away with DARO and if we did away with moving forward with UAVs, what would happen is that we would fall back to the old technologies and not make the breakthroughs that I think are required for the future. During a colloquy when the House considered the conference report on the Defense Appropriations Act, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] assured me that the reduction to DARO's operating budget reflected in the act was made without prejudice and that the committee would consider a reprogramming request from the Secretary to restore all or part of the funding requested for supporting the airborne reconnaissance oversight function for fiscal year 1998. The defense authorization conference report followed the budgetary allocations of the appropriations conference in this as in most other matters. I hope that the leadership of the other committees which would have to consider a reprogramming for DARO will likewise defer to the judgment of the Secretary of Defense on funding for this activity in fiscal year 1998. In closing, I want to note an omission from this legislation about which I have great concern and disappointment. One of our primary responsibilities as members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is to ensure as best we can that the intelligence agencies have the means by which to conduct their important activities, not just in the short term but for decades into the future as well. I believe the record of the Congress in providing the resources necessary to modernize intelligence capabilities has been excellent, and there are a number of examples of that in this conference report. There is, however, one important area in which a critical investment should have been made, in my judgment, in the bill. Both intelligence committees were willing to provide the required authorization of funds, but the administration, taking a view of the future with which I disagree, refused to commit the necessary resources. I believe we will look back at this missed opportunity with great regret and that those responsible for this decision will have many occasions to wish that they had taken a more far-sighted view of the intelligence needs of the next century. Mr. Speaker, the reservation I just stated is not the fault of the conference committee and does not lessen my support for what is contained in this conference report. The conference agreement merits the support of the House, and I urge that it be adopted. I want to join with the chairman complimenting the excellent staff that we have both on the Democratic and Republican side. We try to function in a bipartisan way; that is the goal that the chairman and I both share. We do have outstanding people who work every day for the House on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, many with long tenure. I just want the House to know that we are well served by the professionalism and the ability of these people who keep confidential some of the most important information in this Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] who has been largely responsible for the ``buy America'' provisions that have been contained in this bill over the last several years. He has been very concerned about this.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], who is a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services and a new member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but one of our very, very best.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee representing the Intelligence Committee on this legislation, I want to note particularly the resolution of an issue affecting the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, or DARO. The Intelligence Committee originally voted to terminate this office and transfer some of its functions to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. This recommendation was controversial in the Committee--I for one did not support it--but it was endorsed by the House National Security Committee and was likewise reflected in the House defense appropriations bill. The Senate took no action against DARO. I am pleased that this conference report does not include the DARO termination recommended by the House. The conference agreement compels no change in DARO nor will it require that DARO cease the exercise of its critical responsibilities for strong oversight of airborne reconnaissance. The conference report does clarify that DARO's role does not include program management or budget execution. It should be understood clearly that this provision does not alter DARO's current role or responsibilities since, Department of Defense officials have stressed, DARO has not, does not, and will not manage programs. Instead, all airborne reconnaissance programs are executed by the military services or by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The conference report provides for a review of DARO by the ongoing Defense Reform Task Force, which I support. This task Force could well make a recommendation, and the Secretary of Defense could decide, to place the airborne reconnaissance oversight function in another organizational structure or to alter the manner in which the office reports to senior DoD officials. I have every expectation, however, that the Task Force and the Secretary will strongly support continuation of a centralized and powerful oversight function at a senior level within the Department. During a colloquy when the House considered the conference report on the Defense Appropriations Act, Chairman Young assured me that the reduction to DARO's operating budget reflected in the Act was made without prejudice and that the Committee would consider a reprogramming request from the Secretary to restore all or part of the funding requested for supporting the airborne reconnaissance oversight function for fiscal year 1998. The defense authorization conference report followed the budgetary allocations of the Appropriations conference in this as in most other matters. I hope that the leadership of the other committees which would have to consider a reprogramming for DARO will likewise defer to the judgment of the Secretary of Defense on funding for this activity in the coming year.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] on title VI of the log export provision contained in the Interior appropriations agreement. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is nothing in the language of the log export provision which would allow the holder of a sourcing area to export private timber from within their sourcing area. Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that part of the bill provides authority for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest in California. One of the key provisions related to the acquisition makes further land acquisitions that enlarge the Headwaters Forest by more than 5 acres at a time subject to specific authorization by Congress. I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?