Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I will not take the full 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, for the information of our colleagues who may have just tuned in, the United States has cut off all assistance for Cambodia for 30 days following the July 5 incident in Cambodia. All assistance programs that have any connection to the government of Cambodia have been suspended. Decisions on resumption or reconfiguring of aid are yet to be made, and depend on many factors. Indeed, as reports of atrocities continue to come in, it becomes more difficult to resume support for the current government for reasons that have been mentioned. I particularly want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], for her interest and leadership on this issue. She and I are both blessed with a Cambodian-American population, are familiar with the situation in Cambodia, and there is a great deal of interest there. I am so pleased she was here to add her support to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. It is indeed tragic that the enormous international effort to lift Cambodia from its misery has apparently been usurped, and I therefore recommend that we accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. However, I do think we should continue to assess the situation, because the gentleman's amendment specifically prohibits assistance to the Government of Cambodia. I assume that other forms of assistance through nongovernmental organizations engaged in humanitarian or democracy-building programs would not be prohibited. The Cambodian people have endured years of suffering under a repressive regime, and they voted in 1993 to bring non-Communist parties to power. As our colleague pointed out, we did not have a clear winner, maybe that was part of the problem, a clear resolution of the election. We should continue to assess the situation as we move forward on the bill. I, too, will be supporting the Rohrabacher amendment but urge my colleagues now to support the Bereuter amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I commend and applaud our colleague from California [Mr. Royce], whom we all hold in such high regard, for his work in fighting corporate welfare. I applaud him and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in their fight against corporate welfare. Indeed, I join them in their fight against corporate welfare. But, Mr. Chairman, OPIC is not corporate welfare. OPIC does not cost the taxpayer a single dollar. Some of the points our colleagues have made in the course of fighting this amendment this evening bear repeating. OPIC is required by law to operate on a self-sustaining basis. Since 1971, OPIC has reimbursed the Government for every dollar of actual outlays it has received. OPIC produces a positive cash-flow for the Government because the fees it charges clients, companies exceed its total cost. OPIC creates American jobs by promoting exports. OPIC has a unique foreign policy role, and OPIC levels the playing field in the global competition. All of America's major economic competitors have OPIC-like agencies to bridge commercial gaps in emerging markets. Let us not tie the hands of our companies in the international market. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Royce amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment of our distinguished colleague from Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a most unfortunate amendment, because it strikes right to the heart of eliminating title I of our bill, which is an important part of our foreign operations legislation. Eximbank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development Agency programs help create more and better-paying U.S. jobs through exports. Each of these agencies has a distinct role in the administration's effort to increase U.S. exports. Increasing U.S. exports is a major pillar of our foreign policy and these agencies help do that. Every one of our major industrial competitors have publicly supported counterparts to Exim, OPIC and TDA. Virtually all of our competitors fund their trade and investment finance agencies at a higher level than we do. Failure to fully fund Exim, OPIC and TDA would severely handicap our exporters as they battle for market share in the key fast-growing markets. Exports create more and higher-paying jobs, support the creation of American jobs by promoting exports. Vote against this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. I would not be able to cite the constitutional authority. I know the gentleman is well known for his opposition to any spending bills, but I think the question that he asks is an appropriate one to ask every Member who speaks on the floor, because these agencies of government create jobs and return revenue to our Treasury. I would like to address one of the points the gentleman made in his remarks. He said if they are so self-sustaining, why are they not privatized, or words to that effect. I think it is very important that this is part of our national export program, that we be able to participate in the program level and have a control on the operating expenses so that all of the funds that are put to this end are well spent and that they promote the most exports, create the most jobs and increase the vitality and dynamism of our own economy.

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, the point was not to mix business and government. The point was to promote U.S. exports abroad and to recognize the realities of the global economy, where all of the countries, the developed countries of the world and the developing countries, are very competitive for the market share out there. It is very important for us in those particular instances where, for example, OPIC would be necessary, assessing the risk very carefully so as not to put the U.S. taxpayers' dollars at an extraordinary risk, but where the calibration is such that we need OPIC's participation, or Eximbank's participation or TDA's promotion, that we give some opportunity to U.S. business to make the playing field more level. As I have said in my remarks, we do not come close to what many countries do to help promote exports, but at least we can participate in promoting exports.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in marking a sad day, the 23d anniversary of the Turkish invasion and partition of the Republic of Cyprus. I would like to thank and comment Mr. Bilirakis of Florida for his vigilance and commitment to a peaceful resolution of this illegal act which cast a pall on the world stage on July 20, 1974. This is, perhaps, the first time in 23 years that we can reasonably talk about an end to the standoff on Cyprus. Many of us in the House have long fought for peace, some from the very moment the Turkish army landed on the island nation's northern shores, depositing thousands of troops and armor in a bald-faced land grab. Tragically, it was with U.S. arms in hand that Turkish soldiers committed their brutal acts of atrocity. Today, only Turkey recognizes the Turkish Cypriot state which declared independence in 1983. No other nation has taken that step. Recently, President Clinton showed us reason for hope. With the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as his special envoy for Cyprus, the President gave every indication that the clock is ticking, and he intends there be peace on Cyrpus. Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders sat down in upstate New York only last week to lay the groundwork for future talks. All of this is encouraging, and significant for a region which could explode at any moment. At present Cyprus is a tinderbox: 35-thousand Turkish troops are on the island and stand ready to rip it apart. Despite the tension on the island, and the longstanding animosity between Greece and Turkey, it has been Greece which has shown a desire to move the peace process forward, sounding a conciliatory tone toward Turkey, a move which I commend and support. While we work for an end to the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, we must do so within the context of a just peace. Peace should come with a full accounting of the atrocities committed against the Greek Cypriot community. Nearly 2,000 people, including 5 Americans, are still missing, unaccounted for, 23 years after the invasion; thousands of Greek Cypriots have been uprooted from their homes. We cannot allow more than two decades of human rights abuses to go uninvestigated. A just peace, Mr. Speaker, is a lasting peace. The people of Cyprus deserve no less.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, since the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chair of the Committee on Rules, referenced my name and what possibly occurred in the Committee on Rules, I would like the privilege of responding to him. First of all, our bill, the foreign operations bill, is one that we worked very hard, under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], to produce a bipartisan product that has reached so much agreement. We came through our full committee in only 40 minutes of debate, which is probably record time, and we are prepared to come to the floor with strong bipartisanship. The amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules did violence to that bipartisanship and makes this rule unacceptable. One of the issues involved is the international family planning issues. But that is only one of the complaints that we have about the bill. The Democratic women in the House have provided great leadership on the international family planning issue. And yet, when it was time for an alternative to the Smith amendment, which was made in order, and that is fair, when it was time for an alternative to be made in order, in a back-room deal on the Republican side of the aisle, with not one Democrat or Democratic woman present, an alternative was given to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], without the participation of the women, especially the Democratic women in the House. Now, first of all, it is all authorizing on an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment is. But if you are going to go down that route, then we thought it would be appropriate that there be an alternative, and that is what I asked for in my testimony, a bipartisan alternative that we could present. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] knows full well and the Republican leadership knows full well that the alternative that they allowed in this bill, the Republican alternative they allowed, failed on this floor a matter of weeks ago. The difference between what we wanted to propose and what they allowed is that the amendment they allowed is a loser. It is a loser. And they know it. And that is why they could not accommodate our fresher approach to a bipartisan amendment that we would present. That is why the Democratic women of the House today are saying that we want to be heard on this subject. You cannot keep us from the table. One way or another, we will get our point across that this is an important issue to us, that we have taken the lead on it over and over again, and that we will be heard on this subject. With all due respect to my good friend, who I do consider a distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, perhaps we had a misunderstanding. But the misunderstanding springs from the fact that a bipartisan alternative is not one that is plotted out in the backroom on the Republican side without the participation of the Democrats, particularly the Democratic women. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. There are not many women ranking members and I insist on the respect the ranking member is due.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise today in opposition to the Bachus amendment to the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill and in support of the provision in this bill to provide $125 million for the Community Development Financial Institutions program. The Community Development Financial Institutions program provides an important source of funding to low-income and low-wealth communities across the Nation. The CDFI program is the very type of program that this Congress, with its attitude about Federal spending, should support. Rather than providing conventional government assistance to poor communities, the CDFI fund focuses on efforts to use government resources to leverage private sector funds, with the goal of achieving community self-sufficiency. The CDFI fund invests in a diverse array of institutions, including banks, credit unions, nonprofit loan funds, venture funds, and others, with varying asset size. The fund is designed to promote community development in the broad range of communities which make up our Nation. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] spent a good deal of his time making some allegations about the politicization of this election process for grantees. These allegations have been carefully investigated and refuted by the Treasury Department. And in that light, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the distinguished ranking member, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is indeed distinguished as well, and the subcommittee members for their report language endorsing the goals of the CDFI program and their belief that any process abuses can be corrected without destroying the program, which this amendment would do. I also commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for their emphasis on the activities that support microenterprise development to build the skills, assets, and earnings of low-income Americans. Mr. Chairman, as this Congress systematically dismantles our traditional programs for poor people and poor communities, we must support programs designed to ensure that these communities have access to the financing they need to help themselves. The CDFI fund is one such program. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bachus amendment and support the committee, support the funding level of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] of $125 million for this important and successful program which is helping American communities help themselves. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes but I do rise in opposition to the Chabot amendment. I urge our colleagues to defeat it and to defeat it resoundingly. In the earlier debate we talked about the importance of the arts, of music to our country. If the arts and music touch the heart of our country, certainly the humanities enhance the soul of our great country. The National Endowment for the Humanities supports scholarly research, education and public programs in the humanities. The NEH preserves our national heritage by helping to keep our historical record intact. It builds citizenship by providing a way for citizens to study and understand principles and practices of American democracy. It strengthens our communities through State councils and local grants. ``No, the marketplace,'' as Ken Burns said in his recent article, ``will not produce the good works of the endowments.'' He said further, ``It is my sincere belief that anything that threatens these institutions weakens our country.'' I hope that my colleagues, when they vote, will vote to strengthen our country. In his article, Ken Burns, and I want to quote because I think it would be interesting to Members, also said, ``Without a doubt, my film series on the Civil War or Baseball could not have been made without the endowment. It not only provided one of the largest grants, thereby attracting other donators, but some of its grants to archival institutions made possible the restoration of historical photographs we used,'' he said, ``to tell our story.'' He further said, and I will close with these remarks, ``Early on, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers knew that the pursuit of happiness did not mean a hedonistic search for pleasure in the marketplace but an active involvement of the mind in the higher aspects of human endeavor; namely, education, music, the arts and history.'' I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, to support the humanities and vote no on the very destructive Chabot amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers amendment. The past 24 hours have been sad and disappointing ones for the House of Representatives, because the Republican leadership has refused to allow the Ehlers amendment of our distinguished ranking member, Representative Sidney Yates. The regular order of the House will call for the ranking member to have an amendment made in order on a subject on which he has standing. No one in the country has more standing on the arts than Sid Yates--a champion indeed. We are all privileged to call him colleague. Yesterday, Mr. Armey said that the Ehlers amendment would put Crayolas in the hands of our children. Yes Crayolas and that's about all. The Ehlers amendment would translate into less than $1 per child. That's for a small box of crayons with no burnt siena and azure blue. The Rep leadership has shown its true colors on this Ehlers amendment. In the debate on the NEA they claim they need to reduce the deficit. Today they are spending that money on the Ehlers amendment. This is about content restruction not deficit reduction. The Ehlers amendment is a transparent figleaf to give cover to those Representatives who voted against arts in America. I urge my colleagues to reject this hoax and reject the Ehlers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the most distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Republican assault on creativity in America and urge my colleagues to vote against the Ehlers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for moral good was imagination. God knows, our children and the people of America, but especially our children, need all of the imagination they can get to face the challenges of the future. Yet, the rule before us today serves to stifle imagination and stifle debate by eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts without even the formality of a vote. Mr. Speaker, the music and the arts are their own excuse for being, but they also help our children learn to gain confidence, to reduce barriers to communication, and to enrich the lives of the American people. Despite a 32-year history of the NEA of bringing the arts to communities all across America, to almost every congressional district, funding over 100,000 grants, and despite the overwhelming support of the American people, and despite the economic benefits pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the rule today eliminates the NEA without even the formality of a vote. I urge my colleagues to vote against this uncivil rule and uncivilizing rule.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. I am going to submit my full statement for the Record, because the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] covered, in presenting his amendment, many of the concerns that I have. But I do want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman, for his leadership on this committee. We are very fortunate to have him there. And he is quite correct, there were representations made about the Headwaters, that some kind of exchange could be made through a full presentation to the subcommittee on the Headwaters. The need for funds for Headwaters was not presented to him. But we do now have an agreement, concluded after exhaustive negotiations between major timber districts and the Federal Government, to acquire the important land in the Headwaters Forest. As the chairman knows, this is an extremely vital part of our northern California forest ecosystem that protects endangered species and their habitat. It is a long- awaited goal that is now before us, that will be lost without action now. We do not want to risk this great, unique wonder of nature, because once lost, it is lost forever. I would also say that in addition to my own area that I am interested in, I think the New World Mine property is an important acquisition because it would threaten Yellowstone National Park if we could not do that. But, as I say, the gentleman is quite correct, he was not appropriately approached for this appropriation because at the time another remedy was being sought. Those remedies have been exhausted. We do have an agreement now which I hope, further along in the process, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] said, that we will have a chance to revisit this. I once again thank the gentleman for the way he does protect our natural resources and listens to our concerns. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment to provide increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund has been dormant for far too long while the backlog of environmentally sensitive lands has increased to a critical stage. The budget agreement provided $700 million for the land acquisitions under the fund and yet the committee chose not to include this amount of funding. We have waited for years to address the enormous backlog that exists, as well as to act on new priorities that will be opportunities lost without this funding. For instance, there is now an agreement, concluded after exhaustive negotiations, between major timber interests and the Federal Government to acquire important lands in the Headwaters Forest. This is an extremely vital part of our northern California forest ecosystem that protects endangered species and their habitats. It is a long-waited goal that is now before us and will be lost without action now. In addition to this important acquisition, the New World Mine property that would threaten Yellowstone National Park is a priority acquisition. We cannot measure the value of this natural treasure--one of the crown jewels and original parks in our national system. We had an agreement; the money is there--why should we hesitate to address these compelling needs. Why should we risk the future of these great, unique wonders of nature? Once lost, they are lost forever. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment. Thank you.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in great respect for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his fine work in bringing this legislation to the floor. And I join my colleagues in expressing great esteem for our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for the great tradition that he has brought to this Congress of support for the arts and support for preserving our national and natural heritage as well. It is indeed an honor for every one of us who serves in this body to call him ``colleague.'' So it is with regret that I rise to oppose an amendment that will come up later, the Ehlers amendment, and hope it will not be part of this legislation at the end of the day. As I am fond of saying in this Chamber, there are so many fig leaves around here that it is beginning to look like the Garden of Eden. Today's fig leaf is the Ehlers amendment, which is supposed to give cover to those who voted to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, but alas, it is a transparent fig leaf. It is interesting to me that, in the course of the Committee on Rules debate and debate on the floor, our Republican colleagues said that we had to eliminate the $99 million in funding for the NEA because we need to reduce the deficit. Now, hiding behind the transparent fig leaf, the Republicans say that we can vote for $80 million through the Ehlers amendment. It is clear that this is not about reducing the deficit, it is about content restriction; it is about conformity instead of creativity. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader, when he spoke earlier, said that the Ehlers amendment would put more Crayolas in our children's hands. Yes, and that is just about it. The Ehlers amendment would amount to about $1 per child for the arts. Do we not want more for America's children? I am certain the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] wants more for his new grandson, who was born yesterday. I am pleased to welcome him to the grandparent's club, the best club there is. Let us hope that our grandchildren can express themselves freely. In order for that to happen, we should reject the Ehlers amendment and bring back the NEA. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ehlers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction, and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends this provision will be narrowly construed and only used in the most serious of circumstances, when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Florida, chairman of the committee, in a colloquy concerning section 305 of the bill. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk a compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to this extension of the authority for 1 more year?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As a member of the Committee on Intelligence, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment. This amendment at heart is about accountability and the public's right to know. The amendment supports the underlying belief that the government of this country is and should be accountable to the people of the country. In today's world there is no rational reason why the American public should be denied information about how much the United States Government is spending on intelligence activities. President Clinton recognized this fact when in April of 1996 he said that the bottom line for intelligence spending should be published. John Deutch, then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that same month, ``Disclosure of the annual amount appropriated for intelligence purposes will inform the public and will not in itself harm intelligence activities.'' The continued classification of the total amount spent annually on intelligence activity is not only unnecessary, but it is also ridiculous. U.S. intelligence spending is considered by many to be one of Washington's worst-kept secrets. Estimates of intelligence spending appear with some regularity in the press. By continuing to refuse to release the amount publicly, Congress is only serving to fuel suspicions that the government is hiding something. Those who support openness and accountability in government should support this effort to make our government accountable in one of the last bastions of secrecy, a secrecy that in today's world is unwarranted. In a democratic society citizens have a right to know what their tax dollars support. In fact, inside the Beltway an estimate of intelligence spending is widely reported, but ordinary citizens are oddly denied this information. I urge my colleagues to support openness and to support the Conyers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me as I rise in opposition to H.R. 858, the Quincy Library legislation and in support of the Miller amendment to H.R. 858. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because this committee bill, despite the valiant efforts of the distinguished chairman of the committee, whom I hold in the highest esteem, this bill is not what it appears to be. It does not provide forestry stream protection. It does not promote adequate public input. It does not provide environmental controls on logging. Indeed, in spite of the efforts of our distinguished chairman, H.R. 858 is a facade. The legislation is not even necessary. The goals stated in this bill could easily be accomplished at less cost and with less controversy by administrative action. What may have started out as a laudable plan by a small group of concerned citizens has not resulted in fulfilling the original concept of forest protection. If Congress intends to go forward with this legislation, it should at a minimum, at a minimum, Mr. Chairman, include the Miller amendment to bring H.R. 858 into compliance with Federal environmental laws governing forest protection and particularly the protection of the spotted owl and its habitat in the region. The Miller amendment stipulates that environmental impact statements under the legislation must be prepared in accordance with existing Federal law. The management of these vast tracts of California forest should be based on sound science and environmental policy. We should not proceed with anything less than the Miller amendment. While the original goal of the Quincy Library Group, and indeed the distinguished chairman, was to reduce catastrophic wildfires, that is an important goal for the Quincy communities and surrounding forest, it has been lost in this debate. H.R. 858 is a drastic departure from the intended goal. Instead H.R. 858 sets a poor example for citizen involvement by allowing Federal laws to be circumvented and sends the message that the activities of local communities can be made immune from Federal laws governing Federal forests. The echo from this message will reverberate in future forest management decisions, signalling that environmental laws can be disregarded. Let us not set a bad precedent today. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment when it is offered later and to oppose final passage of this bill, if the Miller amendment is not adopted.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I was afraid the gentleman from Massachusetts was announcing my resignation from the committee without my knowledge. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and, yes, I do rise as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a commonsense amendment that is well-thought-out and worthy of the support of our colleagues. As a member of the committee I with great reluctance voted against the Sanders amendment, which I think deserved this House's attention because it was a big cut, an across-the-board cut, not giving the discretion to the director or to the community to designate where that cut would come from. That was a 10-percent cut; this is a 0.7-percent cut, less than 1 percent. Certainly, while every other aspect of this budget is subjected to the harsh scrutiny of fiscal responsibility, certainly there is 0.7 percent in the intelligence budget that can be cut, and that will be done, according to this amendment, by the intelligence community, by the director reporting to the committee and, of course, with the approval of the President of the United States, the No. 1 consumer of intelligence in our country, and this figure, the 0.7 percent reduction in the budget, represents the President's request. Mr. Chairman, certainly we want the President to have all of the intelligence he needs to make the important and crucial decisions for our country, whether they relate to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or issues relating to our own military and their activities. So by giving the discretion to the Director of Central Intelligence, our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] says that this cut can be nonmilitary. Certainly there is 0.7 percent in nonmilitary spending, answering the challenge that one of our other colleagues made that this will hurt our troops in the field. I do not think that General Shalikashvili had that in mind when he supported the administration's request for this figure which I cannot mention, but that it is a 0.7 percent reduction. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, we need information. Intelligence is information, but it is not raw data. It is information that is gathered and then has analysis performed upon it, and then when it is intelligence it is presented to its consumers, which are the military and policy makers in our country. And as I have said, our commander in chief, our President of the United States, is the biggest consumer of this intelligence information and the most important one. So why would the President be asking for an intelligence budget that was less than he needed? I supported the Conyers amendment earlier to disclose the aggregate figure of the intelligence budget because I thought, I believed, that the intelligence community should make that figure known to the American people so that it can be accountable for that figure, only the aggregate figure. While every other, as I say, item in this budget has to answer and be accountable to the American people, why does not the intelligence community have to do that as well? Is it because it cannot, in order to resist a small cut of less than 1 percent, if the full figure were divulged, it would have to justify why it could not absorb a 0.7 percent decrease. I think today we are making some mistakes here. We should be accountable to the American people by disclosing the aggregate figure. We rejected that. But certainly this body should be able to support the administration's request, the request of the leading consumer of intelligence in this country, the President of the United States, for his budget number, and I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment.