Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1655, the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1996. I want to begin by commending Chairman Combest for his perseverance in pursuing a resolution to the several contentious issues which separated the House and Senate on this legislation. His commitment to completing action on this measure this year has resulted in an agreement which strengthens the bills previously considered by the House and Senate. Largely because the conferees agreed to endorse a reduction, made earlier in the Defense Appropriations Act in certain funds available to the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO], the authorization level in this conference report is below the level not only in the House-passed bill and the President's request, but the amounts authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995 as well. The reduction in the NRO's carry-forward funds made possible some increases in intelligence activities in other agencies, without an increase in the overall size of the fiscal year 1996 intelligence authorization. The conferees believed that the amount of carry-forward funds accumulated by the NRO was excessive, either to the needs of NRO programs in fiscal year 1996 or, at some level, to its programmatic needs in the future. I want to emphasize that there is uncertainty over how much of the carry forward funding will be necessary to complete the satellite architecture currently envisioned by the NRO, and the restoration of some of the funds eliminated in the conference report may be necessary in the future. Director of Central Intelligence [DCI] Deutch has made a commitment to resolve this uncertainty so that a better understanding of the NRO's financial needs can be defined. I want to caution against any further significant reductions in the carry-forward funds until the DCI has provided additional, clarifying information. He is also, by the way, putting in a new financial officer at the NRO, which I think is a good move and should be supported by the Congress. The needs of the United States for intelligence collection systems, particularly those which present complex engineering challenges, are influenced by advances in technology, changes in requirements, and available resources. It is important that decisions on the acquisition of new systems, particularly those which will replace systems of proven capability, be made with a full appreciation of the ramifications of those decisions. The conference report ensures that judgments on the advisability of proceeding with a new satellite collection system will be made in a measured, deliberative manner. I believe that will ensure that the DCI will be able to make a much more informed judgment on collection architecture options than might otherwise have been possible. As important as collection is to our intelligence needs, it is just as important that the information collected be thoroughly processed and quickly disseminated. In my judgment, we have not devoted enough attention to these areas in the past, and I am pleased that DCI Deutch intends to commit more resources to them in the future. I look forward to working with Chairman Combest in the fiscal year 1997 budget cycle to make certain that processing and dissemination are adequately addressed. Recently, the DCI, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed the consolidation of imaging resources and management in a single agency within the Department of Defense. In their letter informing Congress of the proposal, these national security leaders promised to consult closely with Congress before proceeding with a comprehensive implementation plan. In fact, they have said in our meetings that legislation is required before the agency can be created. The consultation process has begun. I am pleased that the conferees recognized not only the importance of Congress being fully involved in working out the details of this proposal, but in allowing the necessary studies, planning, and coordination to take place while the process of consultation is underway. I believe this will ensure that the new agency is able to begin to function as soon as all necessary approvals are obtained. Mr. Speaker, with United States Forces beginning a significant deployment in Bosnia, the importance of timely and accurate intelligence is underscored once more. This conference report authorizes many of the programs and activities on which the success of operations like the one in Bosnia will depend. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge that it be adopted. Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the staff. Both the majority and minority staff on this committee have done a good job this year. I think they have worked very hard, and I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis we have been able to put together this bill and to work out some very difficult issues. I would say to some of the other Members of this body that this may be a model for how the majority and minority work together to enact important legislation in a timely way. I want to again thank the chairman for his help, cooperation and his fair-minded approach to dealing with these controversial issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to make clear the point on economic espionage. I think the DCI has made it very clear that we are not entering this on a company-by- company basis; that we are looking at agreements that have been entered into, economic agreements between the United States and other countries, to make sure that they are faithfully executed, sometimes using our intelligence resources for that purpose. We also verify on a government-to-government basis various negotiations that occur between countries. Some things are done there, obviously. We have not engaged, and I think the DCI has been correct and the Congress has been correct to draw a line and say we will not go out and engage in these activities on behalf of any company. I wanted to make that point clear.

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

Mr. DICKS. I want to say to the gentleman, our former chairman, Congressman Glickman, and I both supported making this number public and have voted for it on several occasions. I think we have even joined with the gentleman from Massachusetts in that respect.

Mr. DICKS. I concur. I do not see a major national security problem with that number being made public.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with the gentlewoman on that.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is right? It is many billions.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised and disappointed today to learn that negotiations to get the Government operating again have been broken off. I just want to make sure that my constituents in the State of Washington know that I believe that this impasse is not justified; that it is, I believe, time for the senior Members of the House, both on the Democratic side, and the Republican side, to come together and to insist that we get a continuing resolution enacted which can only be done by this House and by this Congress. It is not the President of the United States's fault that the Republican Congress has refused to enact a continuing resolution. They have precipitated this crisis. As we remember, Speaker Gingrich said many months ago that he intended to do this very thing in order to try to get the President to capitulate and to accept his budget priorities which clearly are not acceptable to the American people. I feel very strongly as someone who has served in this body for 19 years that we have a responsibility as Members of this institution to keep this Government running. We have veterans who may possibly not get their checks in the next few days unless we get a continuing resolution passed. I am going to support that. If the leadership of the House brings it to the floor, we ought to vote on it and get it done. But I do not think it should stop there. I am concerned about the people who work in the Forest Service, who work in the Park Service, who work in the Department of the Interior and the people who work at Health and Human Services, all these other agencies who are not going to be taken care of. It is very obvious that, when there is a little heat put on, the majority is willing to make some adjustments. So if the American people want this Government to operate, they are going to have to make sure that the new Members who were elected last time hear from their constituents that they want this Government reopened and started. This is ridiculous, and then there is no justification for it. This is the worst crisis we have had in terms, I think, of the confidence of the people of this country about our Government. What the Republican majority wants is for Bill Clinton to capitulate and accept their very radical prescription for the budget. The American people do not accept the levels of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. I think it is preposterous to have a $254 billion tax cut when we are trying to balance the budget. That tax cut makes it incumbent upon the majority then to make these very large cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and also in education and other very sensitive and important programs to the American people. I just hope we can bring some common sense back. I hope that the senior Members in the Democratic Party, the senior Members in the Republican Caucus can bring some sense back to this institution and do our job. We should initiate a continuing resolution to get these people back to work. I feel sorry for the Government workers and their families who at this Christmas time are being denied their work, their opportunity to earn a living, because of this impasse. I also urge the President to stand his ground. He should not capitulate. He should not accept this radical agenda. I am very upset about this. I am very upset and feel very badly for the people and their families who are being forced out of work because of this inability to reach an agreement.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to urge my colleagues tonight to think of the troops that we have in the process of deploying to Bosnia. I think a resolution that would cut off all money for ground forces would be widely misunderstood with the troops in the field, and I think would be a tragic mistake in undercutting of the U.S. presidency and of the Dayton agreement. I would hope that my colleagues would give President Clinton what he needs tonight, and that is a resolution which strongly supports the troops, strongly supports the men and women who will be going to Bosnia, and I think the Hamilton resolution gives us that exact message and is what this Congress should rally behind. I do remember the gulf war debate. After that debate was finished, we had a bipartisan effort to support the troops. I might recall to my friends on the other side, Speaker Foley did not call for a vote on this until after 500,000 troops were deployed to the gulf war. That was an appropriate time to do this. But to take this hard approach, to cut off all money, no money shall be spent, I think would be a terrible mistake. I think it would weaken the presidency, it will weaken our leadership in the world, it will weaken NATO and our leadership of NATO, and I think it is one of the most serious mistakes we will have made in this Congress. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Dornan amendment and support Hamilton, which is well written and very supportive of the men and women who will be serving us so well in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the President will be in Paris to witness the signing of the peace accord that will officially end the 43-month war in Bosnia. The United States will be standing proud as the instigator of the process that took place last month in Dayton, at which the leaders of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia agreed to end the savage ethnic warfare that has claimed more than 250,000 lives over the past 4 years. This will be a great day for the people of Bosnia, and certainly a proud moment for those nations involved in the peace process. There is much work ahead in implementing the vision of peaceful coexistence in the Balkans, but with the determination of all of the NATO countries to extend the guarantee of European stability, it is truly a cause worth the effort. Under this agreement one state with a unified, constitutional government will be created. Free elections will be held throughout Bosnia next year. Territorial issues within Bosnia have been resolved, and within these boundaries, all Bosnians will have the right to move freely. Those displaced from their homes by the fighting will finally be able to return home. Best of all, perhaps, is that the parties have agreed to respect the human rights of all persons, and those individuals who have been responsible for the heinous crimes perpetrated against the Bosnian people will be brought to justice. This agreement represents great progress. While some of my colleagues here in the House today have expressed skepticism, I firmly believe that this peace can and will work. The leaders of all sides in this conflict have affirmed a true desire for peace on behalf of their people who are weary from the harshness of the conflict they've experienced. The people themselves have encouraged their respective leaders to follow the course of reconciliation. What is required to make this plan work is simple: a neutral intermediary to enforce the peace accords for a time sufficient to allow the establishment of the new government. Clearly, this role can only be served by NATO. No other international organization has the capacity and respect to undertake such a critical operation. The mission itself is one that NATO is particularly capable of accomplishing. But it is equally true that NATO cannot accomplish the task without the direct and substantial participation of the United States. We have an obligation to participate and we have a direct interest in doing so because of the impact on the stability of Europe. Without our agreement to join NATO on this endeavor, other nations would decline to participate and the peace would assuredly fail. And then the fierce fighting would resume. I am confident that our participation in this peacekeeping mission will be both limited and well-defined. U.S. troops, serving under an American commander, have been given rules of engagement sufficient to provide them with the ability to protect themselves and carry out their assigned tasks. Our role in the implementation force, although significant, will be limited to about one-third of the NATO contingent, with more than 60,000 troops coming from European and other nations. And our role will be limited in duration: the President has expressed the clear intent of withdrawing American troops in a year.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, point of order. The gentleman did not stand and object. He sat and objected.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], former chairman of this subcommittee, for an excellent job. I represent a district in the State of Washington where we have a number of defense bases, McCord Air Force Base, Fort Lewis, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Trident Submarine Base, Keyport. Not all of those are exactly in my district but they are on the border of my district, and some inside. I hope we get this defense bill passed, because thousands of workers, even though we get this essential versus nonessential, but thousands of these workers at these bases have been sent home. The sooner we can pass the defense appropriations bill, get it through the Senate, send it to the President, get it signed, we can get those people back to work. I agree with those who say today that we now must put a floor under the decline in defense spending. We have been cutting defense every year since 1985. We have cut the budget by about $10 billion per year. In other words, in 1985 we were at $350 billion, today we are at about $250 billion. With that, we have reduced procurement from about $135 billion in 1985 down to $41 to $43 billion this year. This committee puts the money back into procurement. I think that is the next major problem, and the Joint Chiefs have pointed it out. Today is a day when I think this committee and the House should come together and pass this bill. I think the chairman of the committee and the good staff have done an excellent job. A number of people have mentioned stealth technology. I will just tell Members this: In the Gulf war, the F-117 proved that stealth technology works. I think it is the best investment we can make to save lives and save money. I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee, let us pass this bill, and let us get it down to the President and get it signed.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stokes- Boehlert instruction and urge my colleagues do as well.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, at this delicate period of negotiations between the warring parties in the former Yugoslavia, I believe that it is extremely counterproductive for the House to be considering this resolution. The Administration is showing great leadership by bringing the factions together to attempt to resolve these ancient hostilities which, in their most recent manifestations, have devastated the region and left more than 200 thousand dead. I believe that if this House approves the resolution before us, it will hinder the peace process by shaking the confidence of the combatants in the ability of the United States to follow through on any commitments to which it agrees. No one in this Congress wants to insert American troops into an ongoing conflict, nor do I believe that this is the desire of our President. Most in the House also agree that Congress should be consulted prior to the commitment of any ground troops to a peacekeeping effort in Bosnia. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have asserted this prerogative to the President and to Administration officials during recent months. The President and the U.S. negotiators know Congress's wishes on this issue; there is no need for the House to approve a resolution today to restate what has been made quite apparent by various Members of Congress. If it is unnecessary to explain to the President the position of the House on this issue, what purpose will this resolution serve? I believe that the only function of this resolution will be to undermine the credibility of the Administration as it enters into negotiations which could have dramatic effects on the outcome of the peace process. I understand that Members have widely differing opinions on the issue of utilizing U.S. troops in peacekeeping missions, and I respect the sincere convictions upon which these opinions have been formed. However, the peace process in the Balkans will suffer if this resolution passes. It vividly emphasizes the distinct possibility that the United States will not honor what it has agreed to at the negotiating table. I do not see how the conflicting parties can have faith in the peace process if the House causes them to question the commitment of the United States. I have always believed that Congress must not deliberately undermine the ability of the President to conduct foreign relations. I have supported this policy for Presidents from both parties. If approved, this resolution will hinder the ability of this President to negotiate an end to the horrible warfare in southeastern Europe. I urge my colleagues to put aside their partisan sentiments and to support the process toward peace by opposing House Resolution 247.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, today Congress faces a decision of great significance, where our actions will affect so thoroughly the lives of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to indicate their most serious consideration of the plight of seniors, children, workers, and the less privileged, by lending their support to the Democratic substitute and rejecting the GOP package. Both sides of the aisle have been able to agree on a number of important policy issues, and I commend the leadership of both sides for their willingness to address these important points. We have agreed that the Federal deficit must be eliminated. Both sides agree that there should be a 7-year time period through which to accomplish this. Members agree that the short and long term problems with Medicare and Medicaid must be resolved by this legislation. The House has also been able to agree that the welfare system must be improved to encourage recipients to re-enter the workforce and become positive, contributing members of society. Unfortunately, the agreement ends here. The Republican budget reconciliation proposal severely cuts many critical Federal programs unnecessarily--for the single purpose of providing a tax cut worth over $245 billion during the next 7 years, much of which will go directly to individuals who make over $100,000 a year. At the same time, the Republican plan will cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides critical tax relief to the poorest American workers. Frankly, I am unable to find the logic of a proposal which cuts taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on the working people of the United States. I do not believe that this is the message the House should be sending to the American people. This $245 billion tax cut for wealthy Americans also will force draconian cuts to be made across the board to programs which provide critical services and assistance upon which many Americans rely. The Republican plan brutally attacks seniors by cutting Medicare and Medicaid by a combined $482 billion. The measure requires seniors and low income individuals to pay greater premiums. It also will reduce payments to hospitals which will force many of these facilities to reduce services or, in some cases, shut down entirely. The Republican proposal will make further cuts to veterans' health programs, increasing their co-payments by 50 percent and increasing the fees veterans must pay to stay in a VA hospital or nursing home. Federal retirees will also be hit by delays in their COLA payments and other changes adding up to a cut of $9.9 billion. Is it right to demand that seniors, veterans, and Federal employees pay more while the most wealthy pay less? This proposal also calls for major reductions to Federal programs supporting our children. Student loans, the most important vehicle through which middle and lower class children are able to attend college, will be cut by over $10 billion. The Federal direct loan program, which has been highly successful at my alma mater, the University of Washington, is eliminated by the Republican bill. Students receiving loans also will be charged an additional $3.8 billion over the next 7 years by eliminating the interest-free grace period, increasing the cost of student loans by as much as $2,500 per student. Is it truly in our Nation's best interest to provide $255 billion to the richest Americans by raising taxes on students? The Republican bill also contains a number of policy decisions which are, simply put, bad ideas. This measure would eliminate established Federal standards nursing homes must meet to receive Medicaid funds. These requirements ensure that our parents and grandparents receive adequate care, are served by competent staff, and retain the rights that they deserve. This measure also permits corporations to raid their workers' pension funds for any purpose--including hostile takeovers-- thus putting the retirement funds of working Americans at significant risk. Mr. Chairman, if all of these changes were truly necessary to balance the budget by 2002, perhaps more of us on the Democratic side of the aisle would be willing to support the Republican proposal. However, the Coalition has developed a plan which accomplishes all of the important goals without this terrible assault on the middle and lower class. How can the coalition's plan do this? Simply, by eliminating the huge tax cut which our Nation cannot afford. The Democratic plan will accomplish deficit reduction while maintaining crucial investments in education and human resources. Our plan will restore the solvency of the Medicare trust fund while cutting health care services by $195 billion less than the GOP plan. It also provides for other important services such as annual mammograms which the GOP proposal chooses not to include. This plan rejects the Republican tax increase on the working poor, encouraging people to choose work over welfare. Our substitute also confirms Congress's dedication to providing our children with a quality education and maintaining their access to institutions of higher learning by providing $50 billion more for education than the Republican plan and fully funding Federal student loan programs. Retired Federal employees will not be required to accept again delayed COLA payments under the Democratic substitute. Neither will nursing home residents be asked to compromise their personal safety nor must worker risk the security of their retirement funds. I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to consider carefully the decision they are about to make. Ask yourselves, should the effort to balance the Federal budget be a divisive affair--where the rich win and the poor lose; where corporations profit while workers and retirees are asked to pay more? Or should this action require all Americans to bear the burden of deficit reduction equally, with fairness and the common need being our guide? I urge my colleagues to reject the further splitting of the wealthy and middle class in this country and to support the balanced approach inherent in the Democratic substitute.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 2425, Medicare legislation which I fear will hurt far too many Americans--literally making senior citizens less healthy and less financially well off than they are today under the current Medicare program. Over the years here in the House, I have found that it is necessary to put major legislation like this into better focus by concentrating on how it will impact those people who will be affected. By cutting $270 billion from Medicare, this bill will hurt many of the people I have come to know representing the 6th District of Washington State. And like most Americans, this drastic cut in Medicare spending will affect my family. My parents have been retired for years, still living in my hometown of Bremerton. And like most Americans their age, they depend on Medicare to live a healthy and productive retirement. But because they are middle class--like most people in the district I represent and throughout America--the large increase in out-of-pocket costs will lower their living standard, I cannot help but take it personally that the Republican majorities in Congress want to lower my parents living standard in order to pay for a huge tax cut that is really not necessary. Over and over today we have heard the false charge that those of us who vote against this legislation are against Medicare reform. That is not true. I support the Democratic alternative plan, which shores up Medicare's financial health without increasing costs for beneficiaries. This Democratic alternative cuts Medicare spending by just one-third of the GOP's $270 billion of cuts. The simple fact is that the House leadership needs the whole $270 billion in Medicare cuts in order to pay for their huge tax cut. [[Page H 10363]] As we here in Congress ask the American people to roll up their sleeves for deficit reduction, it is absolutely unfair to make middle- class retirees on Medicare pay for this tax cut. For that reason, I oppose this Medicare legislation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute here to join the gentleman in urging the House to vote against this instruction. I have great respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin. He has been a good friend of mine for many years, and I understand his point of view. And many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle have difficulty with the budget priorities that are being presented to us in the reconciliation package and in the appropriations bills. But as someone who has served on this subcommittee for 17 years, I would like to remind my colleagues that we have reduced defense spending since 1985. Mr. Speaker, if we took this year's budget and put it back into 1985 dollars, it would be about $350 billion. That was kind of the high point of the Reagan defense buildup. Since then we have cut that budget from $350 billion down to $250. Now, show me any other area of Government where we have made those kinds of cuts. It is about a 37 percent reduction in real terms. I would also point out that that 1985 budget defense spending included about $135 billion for procurement. That procurement budget has now been cut down to $41 billion a year, a 70-percent reduction, which, I think, is going to be the next major problem that we face in the defense area. Mr. Speaker, people talk about readiness. We are spending a lot of money on readiness. Where we are not spending the money properly, in my judgment, is in procuring the new weapon systems to replace the equipment that we have in each of our services. I think that this $3 billion cut, coming at a time when this administration is going to be asking us to come up with money for Bosnia on top of it, would be a serious mistake in judgment. I would support my chairman here. I think we have to support what the committee did on a very bipartisan basis. Yes, we can look at Senator McCain's list. I do not like a lot of the things that were in there, but I would point out that most of them came from the other body. We go into those conferences and we have to deal with these issues, and the ones that the chairman has pointed out are very important and he has done his level best to keep the bill as free of unnecessary spending as he can. And yet we are doing some things in the health area, like breast cancer, which I think, overwhelmingly, the House and the country would support. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can resist this motion to instruct and remember the context. We have already cut defense way back. We have cut force structure by a third. We have a much smaller military today than we did just a few years ago, and it is the one area in Government where we have really made, over a substantial period of time, real reductions. At this point I think we have to level that off or we are going to do considerable damage to the readiness and the ability of this country to defend itself. I appreciate the chairman yielding. Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, last week, Congressman John McDermott, Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, and I had the opportunity to listen to remarks delivered by Dr. John Neff, medical director of Children's Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle. In those remarks, Dr. Neff attempted to dispel many of the myths about Medicaid, and he issued a strong warning against the dangers of converting Medicaid funds into block-grant formulas. For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a copy of Dr. Neff's brief remarks, in addition to a news story published the next day in the Seattle Post Intelligencer entitled ``Medicaid cuts may threaten children.'' I believe this perspective from the director of one of the Nation's most respected children's hospitals is a valuable one, and one that can add greater depth to the debate here in Congress on these proposed changes. Community Assessment of Federal Budget Cuts to Our Communities--Support for Children and the Elderly how federal program cuts will hurt children--by dr. john neff, medical director, children's hospital and medical center, seattle My name is John Neff and I'm medical director at the Children's Hospital & Medical Center. I have been taking care of children as a pediatrician now for over 35 years. The first six years of my career were before Medicaid was implemented and the next 29 years were under the Medicaid legislation. I can tell you from personal experience that not only was the medical care system prior to Medicaid terrible but the institutions that cared for the poor and the elderly are either no longer with us or have been significantly transformed. The old municipality run hospitals and institutions are no longer part of our medical care system and they were grossly inadequate at that time to meet the needs of children. I would consider it a great failure to have to return to those days even in part. We need to retain national standards for the health care of children. We must not go back in time and place arbitrary limits on the services that children need especially those who are unfortunate to have special health care needs. Now let me dispel a series of myths concerning Medicaid. 1. The currently proposed reductions in Medicaid are not cuts but are caps on Medicaid growth at a rate of 4% by 1998. It is cited that Medicaid's annual growth rate now is approximately 10%: In order to dispel this myth let us look at what this 10% Medicaid annual growth rate means. This growth represents new enrollees among children and the elderly, an expansion of Medicaid eligibility and services, and medical inflation. The actual real medical inflation of Medicaid is probably not more than 5%. Given the level of poverty and the aging of our population, the need for Medicaid services will continue to increase, thus to cap the annual rate of growth at 4% by 1998 will represent real cuts and will result in certain actions: A decrease in the number of new enrollees or an expenditure cap on enrollees; elimination of current enrollees; actual cuts in benefits or services. Fifteen percent of children covered by Medicaid are ``medically needy'' because their health care expenses could reduce their families to poverty. Private insurance is often unavailable or unaffordable. Medicaid is literally their insurer of last resort. To cap Medicaid at a growth rate of only 4% per year will result in real elimination of services or cutting individuals out of the Medicaid program. 2. Block grants give more control to states: What block grants will really do will be to eliminate federal standards and eliminate federal obligation. Children covered by Medicaid should be guaranteed they will have medically necessary care regardless of the state in which they live. Children also need to be assured they will have access to pediatric trained providers to meet their specialized health care needs regardless of the state in which they live. What block grants will do initiate a huge battle among states on who receives what portion of Medicaid funds. Currently, there are significant differences in the amount of funding that states receive. As an example, in New York each enrollee receives $7,909; in Washington it is $4,279; in Texas it is $3,838 (HCFA, 1994). Block grants will politicize and perpetuate these unequal distributions to states. States will develop different standards for benefits and eligibility requirements for Medicaid programs. Under the worst scenario, block grants would create unfair or uneven distribution of funds to states and there is the potential to create massive migrations of individuals from one state to another as they move to obtain maximum benefits. If this occurs, some children in some states will receive better benefits than in others. This will be particularly difficult for children as the pediatric expertise is often concentrated in regional tertiary care centers, such as Children's. We see children from a 4-state region including Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana. 3. Medicaid Reductions can be Reached by Improved Efficiencies: This state and many other states already put in significant efforts to improve efficiency. Currently, in the state of Washington, nearly 60% of all Medicaid clients are in managed care and this state also covers children up to 200% of the federal level of poverty. There are not significant savings in improved efficiencies and further savings will cause reductions in services and decrease in those covered. 4. Medicaid is the same as Welfare: Currently, in the United States, 25% of all children receive their health care through Medicaid but more important, 40% of all children in the United States are either covered by Medicaid or have no insurance at all. Forty percent of our children are not ``dead beats''. The fact that 40% of the children in the United States have no health insurance or are covered by Medicaid reflects a failure in our private health care system to adequately cover children. This is one of the reasons that there is a real need for health care reform, not arbitrary reduction in services or coverage. In fact, a decrease in Medicaid coverage will increase the number of uninsured, indirectly increase family poverty and, in the long run, will decrease family employment and individual productivity. Well over half of children assisted by Medicaid (57.5%) live in working families. In the 1980's, Congress delinked Medicaid from welfare, which is based on unemployment, so as to not penalize poor but working families with loss of health coverage for their children. Parents should not have to choose between being able to hold a job or having to sacrifice employment in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage for their children. 5. Children are a Burden on our Federally Sponsored Health Care System: While it is true that 53% of all Medicaid beneficiaries are children, it is also true that children consume less than 20% of Medicaid expenditures and in the state of Washington children consume only 13% of Medicaid funds. To put it in proper context, one must consider all of the health care funds that are federally sponsored for adult care. This includes the VA system, Medicare and 80% of the federal portion of Medicaid. In this context the total amount of public funds that are utilized for health care for children in this country is indeed very small. In reality, if Medicaid funds are developed into block grant formulas and allocated to the states, there is a danger of unleashing a terrible political battle which will pit children against the elderly and disabled and within the children's health care system, primary care providers against those who care for those with special needs. Such a battle would be destructive to both families and providers. 6. medicaid is different than Medicare and Private Insurance because Medicaid Recipients do not Contribute to their own Health Care as do individuals who receive Private Insurance Benefits or Medicare Benefits. It is true that Medicaid funding come almost entirely from tax dollars and not from earned employment benefits. (Medicaid spending accounts for 6% of the federal budget and may run as high as 18% of state spending). To use this, however, as a reason why Medicaid funds should be cut to a disproportionately greater degree than those funds supported by employment benefits is grossly discriminatory against children. Children do not pay taxes, do not work and do not develop employment benefits. It is our public obligation to support the uninsured portion of health care benefits for children. If we do not, we will not only cause untold misery on families but the long term effects of an unhealthy childhood population will be felt for years.

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1655, which authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities for fiscal year 1996. I want to begin by commending Chairman Combest for his leadership in bringing this measure to the floor and for the manner in which he has presided over the committee this year. He has been uniformly fair and has consistently sought to involve all members in all aspects of the committee's business. It has been a pleasure to serve with him and I look forward to our continued collaborative efforts, not only on this legislation, but on the other important work of the committee as well. At a time in history when the capability to provide information rapidly and reliably to our policymakers and military commanders is critical, the United States is fortunate to possess the world's preeminent intelligence system. Other nations envy the ability of our intelligence agencies to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence useful for purposes as varied as determining our stance in diplomatic negotiations and reducing the threats faced by U.S. military personnel deployed in dangerous and rapidly changing crisis situations. As has been seen repeatedly in the past year, from Haiti to Bosnia and in many other locations, United States intelligence is looked to not only by our leaders, but by those of the countries with whom we are allied, to provide that essential piece of information that determines whether action is taken or deferred. In an age of rapid advances in technology, maintaining a system which ensures the best possible access to information which others would not like us to have, interprets that information, and moves it in a matter of seconds anywhere in the world, is an expensive proposition. Intelligence collection and dissemination, particularly in the areas of signals and imagery intelligence, requires substantial investments in highly complex systems. It is impossible to fully discuss in an unclassified setting those systems, or the manner in which human intelligence is collected in a hostile environment by people of great skill and courage. It is also impossible, however, to understate the important contributions our intelligence agencies, and the men and women who work in them, make to our national security. Some have criticized the amount of money the United States spends on intelligence, and it is true that H.R. 1655, in the aggregate, would provide 1.3 percent more money than requested by the President. Those who are critical of the size of the intelligence budget often point to the demise of the Soviet Union as the event which should have made it possible to substantially reduce intelligence expenditures. However, intelligence spending has declined by several billion dollars since the Soviet Union imploded and the number of people employed by the intelligence agencies is declining as well. By fiscal year 1999, there will be 22.5 percent fewer employees than there were in fiscal year 1992. These reductions come at a time when, while there is admittedly no single threat to our national security equivalent to that posed by the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war, an array of challenges exists which places an extraordinary premium on accurate and timely intelligence. Among these challenges are: The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the residual nuclear capacity and uncertain stability of the Russian Government; the need to provide data with which to target precision guided weapons; and regional conflicts. Advances in technology which are costly to counter but which must be addressed only magnify these challenges. I believe that the reductions in spending over the last 5 years have resulted in an intelligence system of about the right size and capability for the missions it confronts. The authorization levels in H.R. 1655 will not provide for a significant expansion of those capabilities beyond what had been previously planned, but in general will ensure that modernization activities already underway are carried through to conclusion. These activities, if completely implemented particularly in the satellite area, will produce significant savings over time. The intelligence community has had many successes, the majority of which cannot be publicized for security reasons. The last few years, however, have not been ones of unqualified achievement. The Ames spy case was an unmitigated disaster for the Central Intelligence Agency in general, and the directorate of operations in particular. The need for change in management style and attitude to better ensure accountability within the directorate of operations was made crystal clear by the Ames debacle. This message has not been lost on the new Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch. He has moved aggressively to install a new team of senior managers who I believe are dedicated to improving the way in which the intelligence community operates, and to making certain that Congress is kept advised of significant intelligence activities, as the law requires. The well publicized failures in the intelligence community have been frustrating and the explanations for their case have been difficult to understand and accept. I believe, however, that these incidents do not provide a rationale for a general reduction in intelligence spending; rather they argue strongly for the kind of review of the internal operations and structure of the intelligence community which our committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Aspin-Brown commission, and the DCI have undertaken. These efforts will produce change that is the product of careful consideration rather than reflex, and I believe result in an intelligence community better designed to operate in the post-cold-war world. H.R. 1655 was reported unanimously by the Intelligence Committee and I have already indicated my support of it. In part, that support is based on my belief that it is important that there be stability and predictability in intelligence funding, particularly in highly technical programs where uncertainty in resources and direction can cause money to be wasted. The bill provides that kind of stability in all areas except for the programs managed by the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]. While I am not pleased by the NRO's performance in keeping the committee informed about the expenditure rates for certain programs, and the annual funding needs based on those rates, I do not believe that the appropriate response to those managerial shortcomings is to radically alter the composition of our planned satellite constellation. Certain of the actions described in the classified annex to this bill, however, would have that effect and represent, in my judgment, a significant departure from the direction provided by Congress to the NRO as recently as a year ago. This departure has the potential for sizable risk and substantial long-term costs. It should only be undertaken if there is amply evidence that the likely gain outweighs the financial and programmatic risks. At this point, that evidence does not exist. I hope that in conference we will carefully consider the advisability of taking these steps now before a thorough record to support them is developed, both at the NRO and at the committee. [[Page H 8819]] Mr. Chairman, the reservations just noted do not prevent me from supporting this important legislation, nor in recommending it to the House. I urge the adoption of H.R. 1655. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. As we go into this new era, as my colleague knows, we are, in fact, making some investments in new capabilities in the satellite area, but over time it will help us reduce the amount of money necessary for intelligence. It is one of those things where we have to invest now in order to get the capability, but the capability we are going to have will mean fewer satellites in orbit, but much more capable satellites. So I just hope we can stay with the program. I've urged John Deutch, and I realize that there are budgetary limitations. We all face that, but I think that the architecture the way we have today is a good one, and I think in the long term it is going to give us tremendous new capabilities that we can use more rapidly and will provide us with that same kind of high quality information that helped us get through the cold war era, and I think it will help us in the future as we deal with the various crises that we face. But I want to commend the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], former Governor, a person who brings a lot of talent to this committee, as someone who I respect and who is up here every day doing his part on the committee for his attention to what the committee has been involved in.