Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. It was spent for Bosnia and it was spent for other legitimate ventures so we did not have to appropriate new money.

Mr. DICKS. I would say to the gentlewoman that we did exactly what I think my colleague would have wanted us to do once we found out that there was in fact a meltdown. He then told us what the amount of money was that was in excess to their requirements and we took it away from them.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentlewoman that this is not the first time we have known about this. The members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Appropriations have known about this but we could not disclose it. Somehow it got in the press, but decisions had already been made to take a significant part of that money last year and in this year's budget. What they are saying is that the total amount that they now have calculated was this. We knew that they were up there, and we took a lot of the money away from them earlier because it was not needed. It was not wasted. No waste, fraud or abuse. It was not used for anything other than authorized purposes.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentlewoman that that money has been taken back, in the administration's budget request and we have used it for other purposes in the Defense bill, which made it possible not to have to appropriate new money. So the problem has been addressed. And, again, the DCI has replaced the leadership of the NRO, he has put in a financial manager and we now have this thing under control. If there is additional money, and if it is not all taken, we have set a certain number of months that they can have carryover funds for use in each of these programs. If they go above that, we will take that money away as well. So it is an ongoing process.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the discussions here, we have been talking about this $4 billion. What we have done in the Congress is we have taken the $4 billion away and we are using it for other things. It has been used for Bosnia, it has been used for other defense priorities. So if the money were still there, then maybe I could see some wisdom in this amendment. The reality is, we are 5 percent below, for the NRO budget this year, 5 percent below the Clinton budget request. We have made some reductions in this particular area. I would also say to my colleagues that we are trying in the NRO, we have got a new financial officer who, John Deutch, a Democrat, Mr. Clinton's DCI put in. He took out the leadership of the NRO. He took out the Director and the Deputy Director. He put in Keith Hall, who is doing a fine job. So the amendment tries to punish someone who has already been punished. They have had their carryforward account taken away, their leadership has been replaced, a new financial manager has been put in place. John Deutch deserves support here. He would tell you if he were here on the floor of the House today that we are in the midst of a modernization effort to build new satellites that will allow us to reduce the overall infrastructure of this program and reduce spending in the future. But if he does not get the NRO money this year to make those investments, then we are going to wind up spending more on intelligence than we need and we are going to have less capable systems. So the DCI has taken the steps necessary to reform this. What we are doing today is repudiating John Deutch by saying even though you did that, Mr. Director, it was not enough. Now we are going to slap your hand again and take away a very significant amount of money. I cannot say the numbers, but we are talking about a significant amount of money. This is as big an amendment as we are talking about today.

Mr. DICKS. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for whom I have enormous respect.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will just point out to my colleagues that I am as sympathetic as they are to the fact that we have reduced some of the most important domestic programs in this country. In fact, I supported both the Blue Dog budget and the Clinton budget, which I think in overall budgetary terms were more balanced than the alternative which was adopted by the House. But I have to remind my good friends and colleagues who have suggested that we can just take this money from defense and intelligence and move it over to the domestic side; that, unfortunately, is not the way the budget works here. If we make the reductions in intelligence, the money is going to go over and be spent on defense, because it is all within the same budgetary item. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about the NRO. This committee has dealt effectively and supported John Deutch in his efforts to get control over the NRO. We have significantly reduced the carryforward funds and used it for other crucial defense priorities. Having said that, we are in the midst of a very important modernization of our signals and imagery collection systems. What we are trying to do is to modernize so we will have fewer but more capable systems and that they will ultimately save money, because we are able to shut down equipment and facilities that will save us money over the longer term and still give us a very capable system. Again, I want to remind my colleagues, everybody gets up here today and talks about the CIA. The CIA is just a small fraction of the overall intelligence budget. I voted with my colleagues to make that number known, the aggregate number known. The vast preponderance of funds that we have in the intelligence budget are used to assist the men and women who are serving us today very effectively in the military all over the world. It is the ability to give them rapid intelligence so they can go in and find a relocatable Scud launcher and destroy it that will save American lives in the future. In the gulf war we were vulnerable to that situation because we could not find those relocatable Scud launchers. Now we have improved intelligence capabilities that will allow us to do that and to target them rapidly and to protect and save American lives. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues today to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman and myself have limited the amount of the carry-forward. The director of the CIA, one of the most competent individuals I know, has made changes in the NRO, has named a new chief financial officer. So in a sense, I think we ought to give Mr. Deutch and the administration some support for the steps that they have taken to ensure that this does not happen again in the future. Yes, the NRO made a mistake. Yes, they were wrong. But I want us to place in perspective that these same people who did a bad job in their accounting also have done some tremendously positive things for the country in terms of the satellites that have been built over the years that helped us avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, of course, as the gentlewoman certainly knows and appreciates, this is budget authority. You do not really spend money until you spend it. That is an outlay. So they had the budget authority, but they never spent the money. So that would not incur any obligation by the Federal Treasury. In a sense, they had the ability to draw on the Treasury up to $4 billion, but they did not do it. What we did with that BA is move it to other higher priority items like Bosnia, so we did not have to appropriate additional money, and again that was agreed to.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment him for taking the floor and his very sensitive remarks. Mike Boorda and his wife Betty were friends of mine. They paid a great honor to my wife and I by coming out to the commissioning of the U.S.S. Ranier in Bremerton. I have never met a finer sailor or a person of whom I was more proud, someone who had come up through the ranks as an enlisted person to become the Chief of Naval Operations, the first time that has ever happened. He was a tremendous leader, a person who cared deeply about the sailors, the people in the Navy and how these long deployments affected them and their families. He was a tremendous leader. My heart goes out to his family. This is a tragedy. We have lost a great leader of the U.S. Navy, someone who will be missed. I just want to commend my friend, Congressman Hoyer, for taking this time. Mike Boorda will be missed, and is someone that has served our country well. I appreciate the gentleman for taking this special order.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, last month, our colleague, Phil Crane, chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, introduced legislation to grant permanent most-favored-nation status to the country of Romania. It is a bill that is overdue and I commend my colleague and the cosponsors of the legislation for taking this step. Of all the Eastern European nations journeying from a centrally planned economic system to that of a free market economy, Romania has had the longest road to travel. It suffered through 40 years of a Communist economic policy. Its 1989 revolution exposed the hollowness of that economic legacy, but it also exposed how deeply ingrained that way of thinking can become. Nevertheless, despite tremendous obstacles, Romania has not faltered in its attempt to join the Western economic community of nations. Romania is making the hard choices. It is taming inflation. Between 1994 and 1995, the inflation rate was cut in half from 62 percent to 28 percent. After selling off numerous state enterprises, at the cost of increased unemployment, Romania's rate of unemployment has shrunk from over 11 percent in 1994 to less than 9 percent in 1995. Romania's private sector has grown into a formidable economic force. Today, 45 percent of Romania's gross domestic product comes from the private sector. By the end of this year, estimates show that 70 percent of its GDP will be generated by thousands of entrepreneurs who finally have the opportunity to determine their own economic future. Romania is traveling a road that we in this country have encouraged by provisionally granting them MFN status. As a result, trade between our two nations has increased as United States exports take advantage of these new market opportunities, I review of Romania's economic policies, when coupled with its attempt at political democracy building, I believe that the prudent course of action for the United States is to make permanent a benefit we have granted Romania several times before. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Crane's bills.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], one of the senior members of the Committee on Intelligence, one of our most important Members of the House, one of our leadership Members, and a man who travels around the world bringing back people who are in trouble and does a great job for this country. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I want him to know I have enjoyed working with him on the defense appropriations subcommittee on some important issues there, and I am delighted to yield to him.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I want to remind our colleagues that since 1985 the defense budget has been reduced by $100 billion. We take this year's budget and this year's dollars and compare it to 1985, and we have come down $100 billion. We have reduced the defense budget by 39 percent in real terms. There is no other area of the budget that has been cut in that dramatic fashion. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts, the world has changed and we have recognized that change, but I also would point out that there are still significant problems, not only in Russia, where we still have a lot of nuclear weapons that have not been dismantled; but in China, a very strong assertive power in Asia that we must be concerned about; and, in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and other former members of the Soviet Union that present intelligence challenges. Mr. Speaker, the intelligence budget is part of the defense budget and it, too, has been reduced. It certainly has not been reduced to the level that my friend from Massachusetts would accept, but I think prudent people who look at this from all cross-sections, understand that this Congress has cut it more than George Bush wanted it cut and it has cut it more than Bill Clinton wanted it cut. I think we have done a responsible job on a bipartisan basis. We had extensive hearings both in the authorization and appropriations process, and we made cuts. When we found excess spending, like we did at the NRO, we cut it out. But we also have very serious requirements that must be met. So I urge my colleagues to continue to support this committee and this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a valued member of our committee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, no. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], who was a former chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, for a very good statement. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman's statement fairly and very accurately summarized the bill and the provisions in it, and we appreciate the cooperation of the Committee on Rules and I want to commend the gentleman for his interest in intelligence, his leadership of this committee, and his continued fine work in this body.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)