[Page: H5674]
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or section 302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to its consideration. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 is the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate time to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, included in the rule are waivers of sections 302(f) and 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act against consideration of the bill. These sections of the Budget Act prohibit consideration respectively of measures that would cause the appropriate subcommittee level or program level ceilings to be exceeded, and of budgetary legislation prior to the adoption of the budget resolution.
[TIME: 1350]
These waivers are necessary to consider one provision of H.R. 2330 that extends pension benefits to certain former spouses of retired Central Intelligence Agency employees. These same waivers are provided for the Intelligence Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute which will be considered for the purposes of amendment.
In addition, the substitute will be considered by title with each title considered as having been read.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also waives clause 7 of the rule XVI which prohibits nongermane amendments against the Intelligence Committee substitute. The rule also requires that amendments to H.R. 2330 be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. There were no objections to the request which was made by the chairman and also by the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 229 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2330, legislation authorizing fiscal year 1994 appropriations for the intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government including those of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the intelligence arms of a number of executive branch departments.
Classified portions of the bill containing amounts and personnel ceilings for each intelligence program are available for Members of Congress to review.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment and commend the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, our good friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman]. He has done an outstanding job along with our friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the ranking minority member of the committee, in bringing to the House a bill that addresses the changing nature of intelligence operations in this post-cold war period.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 229 is a well-written rule for the consideration of legislation that contains, as H.R. 2330 does, classified information. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, the rule, so that we may proceed with consideration of this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of debate only to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], himself a former CIA gentleman who has brought considerable knowledge from his experience to our committee, which we appreciate greatly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H5675]
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for the kind remarks and certainly congratulate him as well for his years of service on the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the future of our Nation's intelligence programs is now. It is today. It is what this debate is going to be about.
We can, and do, debate whether the world is a safer place absent the U.S.S.R. monolith and that hated symbol of national enslavement--the Berlin wall. But very few people buy the proposition that the world is a more certain place. If anything, we have left behind the Warsaw pact and cold war we knew so well and have entered into a promising but decidedly uncertain future. When you do not know what is out there, that is the time to expand your vision and that is the time to turn up your hearing. And that is precisely why it is unwise and illogical, if not absurd, to cut back our information gathering and active intelligence activities at this time. What captain runs to the bridge to turn off the radar in an effort to economize as his ship enters foggy and uncharted waters? The funding levels in this bill are approximately $1 billion below the
administration's request. And I congratulate the administration for going into this and seeing our true need and asking for it.
In the Rules Committee, we had reasonable debate and lots of discussion about the changing dynamics of the world around us and about the corresponding need to adapt, update and streamline our national intelligence programs. Of course, the decline of the Soviet Union has changed the nature of the security threat we face.
There is still a difference in the threat, to be sure. But has it lessened the overall threat? In fact, recent evidence seems to show that we are entering an era of increased volatility and instability, an era when we have fewer easily defined enemies but more, many more, potential sources of life-threatening mischief.
Who is seriously postulating that terrorist groups are folding up, that ruthless dictators are all safely confined in some Jurassic Park? How could a gigantic munitions, arms, and false documents supermarket suddenly turn up right under our noses in a neighboring friendly country with a democratically elected President, a place called Managua, Nicaragua? Who could testify that other nations have cut back their own intelligence organizations and no longer target the United States either politically or militarily or commercially?
Our intelligence program has served us extremely well in the past, and it must serve us just as well in the future. Good intelligence is literally priceless. What better investment can we make than to improve our capability for knowledge so we do not have to employ our capability of muscle?
Are there really any short-term savings when you consider the long-term costs of global terrorism, involving bombings within our own borders or aimed at American citizens and interests overseas?
We all fervently wish to avoid sending U.S. troops into battle. How can the President and the Congress weigh that decision without the best possible information to make a judgment? Those of us here for the Desert Shield-Desert Storm debate remember the depth of the soul-searching that went on before we cast our votes that night. We owe our troops nothing less.
Today we have a rule to allow the fiscal year 1994 Intelligence Authorization Act to come to the floor for debate. I wish to commend Chairman Glickman and our ranking member from Texas, Larry Combest, for really great diligence in crafting this bill and especially for their willingness to allow it to come forward under an essentially open rule. I applaud the Committee for providing all Members with the opportunity to review the legislation in full and be party to detailed briefings regarding our intelligence programs, including briefings of classified matters. That is an inspired initiative which I hope yields a good harvest of understanding. True, amendments were required to be preprinted in the Congressional Record this year. But that minor constraint seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the complexity and sensitivity of the materials before us and especially in view of the guarantee we received from the Committee that there would be no effort to limit or cut off amendments and, to my knowledge, there was none.
I do not believe any Members seeking to improve this bill or further the debate were inconvenienced by this requirement for pre-printing.
At first glance, this rule did give me some pause, especially because it includes budget act waivers that I am generally very reluctant to support. The purpose of the budget act is to provide consistency and constraint in congressional budgeting, as we know. But judging by our
ever-growing national debt, those good intentions have not realized really positive results.
The Rules Committee was asked to provide the necessary waivers to allow for relatively minor changes in current law. Upon examination, it turns out the Intelligence Committee seeks to alter the eligibility requirements for retirement and disability benefits provided to former spouses of participants in the CIA's retirement and disability system. This is more a matter of fairness than cost.
And I have to point out that I am in no way involved, after the gentleman's opening remarks. There is no benefit or connection between me personally with this provision.
In addition, the bill slightly exceeds the committee's allocation of new entitlement authority.
Finally, the bill increases direct spending under paygo by a minor percentage figure, which technically must be offset by comparable spending cuts or tax increases. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Kasich, has made a strong case against waiving the Budget Act to allow for these admittedly minor and generally noncontroversial provisions. In principle, I agree. That is the job of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and he does it well. In practice, though, because of the bona fide effort of the committee to allow this important bill to proceed through an open-amendment process, I will not object to the rule.
In fact, I endorse it.
Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the statistics on open versus restrictive rules, as follows:
[Page: H5676]
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 95TH-103D CONG.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress (years) Total rules granted 1 Open rules 2 Restrictive rules 3
Number Percent Number Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78) 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80) 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82) 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84) 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86) 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88) 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90) 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92) 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94) 31 9 29 22 71
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule number date reported Rule type Bill number and subject Amendments submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb, 2, 1993 MC H.R. 1: Family and medical leave 30 (D-5; R-25) 3 (D-0; R-3) PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. Feb. (Feb. 3, 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993 MC H.R. 2: National Voter Registration Act 19 (D-1; R-18) 1 (D-0; R-1) PQ: 248-271. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4, 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993 C H.R. 920: Unemployment compensation 7 (D-2; R-5) 0 (D-0; R-0) PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993 MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8) 3 (D-0; R-3) PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3, 1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993 MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 13 (D-4; R-9) 8 (D-3; R-5) PQ: 247-170. A:248-170. (Mar. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993 MC H.R. 1335: Emergency supplemental appropriations 37 (D-8; R-29) 1 (not submitted) (D-1; R-0) A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993 MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget resolution 14 (D-2; R-12) 4 (1-D not submitted) (D-2; R-2) PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar. 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993 MC H.R. 670: Family planning amendments 20 (D-8; R-12) 9 (D-4; R-5) PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar. 4, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993 C H.R. 1430: Increase Public debt limit 6 (D-1; R-5) 0 (D-0; R-0) PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1, 1993).
H. Res. 149, Apr. 1, 1993 MC H.R. 1578: Expedited Rescission Act of 1993 8 (D-1; R-7) 3 (D-1; R-2) A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993 O H.R. 820: National Competitiveness Act NA NA A: Voice vote. (May 5, 1993).
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993 O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act of 1993 NA NA A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993 O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel Safety Act NA NA A: 308-0. (May 24, 1993).
H. Res. 173, May 18, 1993 MC S.J. Res. 45: U.S. Forces in Somalia 6 (D-1; R-5) 6 (D-1; R-5) A: Voice vote. (May 20, 1993).
H. Res. 183, May 5, 1993 O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental appropriations NA NA A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993 MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget reconciliation 51 (D-19; R-32) 8 (D-7; R-1) PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194. (May 27, 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993 MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch appropriations 50 (D-6; R-44) 6 (D-3; R-3) PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993 O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA NA A: Voice vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993 MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement 7 (D-4; R-3) 2 (D-1; R-1) A: 244-176. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993 MO H.R. 2333: State Department. H.R. 2404: Foreign aid 53 (D-20; R-33) 27 (D-12; R-15) A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993 C H.R. 1876: Ext. of `Fast Track' NA NA A: Voice vote. (June 22, 1993).
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993 MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations appropriations 33 (D-11; R-22) 5 (D-1; R-4) A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993 O H.R. 2403: Treasury postal appropriations NA NA A: Voice vote. (June 17, 1993).
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993 MO H.R. 2445: Energy and water appropriations NA NA A: Voice vote. (June 23, 1993).
H. Res. 206, July 23, 1993 O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard authorization NA NA A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993 MO H.R. 2010: National Service Trust Act NA NA A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993 O H.R. 2530: BLM authorization, fiscal year 1994-95 NA NA
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993 MC H.R. 2667: Disaster assistance supplemental 14 (D-8; R-6) 2 (D-2; R-0) PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993 MC H.R. 2667: Disaster assistance supplemental 15 (D-8; R-7) 2 (D-2; R-0) A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993 MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence authorization Act, fiscal year 1994 NA NA
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993 O H.R. 1964: Maritime Administration Authorization NA NA A: Voice vote. (July 29, 1993).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest].
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that I could add that has not been said by the gentleman from California or the gentleman from Florida. I appreciate the kind remarks of both of them.
I want to reiterate particularly for the Members on this side that we have a tendency, as a general opposition to closed rules. Of course, this one did not have a closed rule. It did allow amendments which were printed previously to be allowed.
There was no effort whatsoever by the committee to cut off any of those amendments, none was done, so in many instances, and in fact, basically tried to do that so that the Members of the committee or the staff of the committee could help in the assistance of crafting those amendments to make certain that we did not by any stretch of the imagination jeopardize any information which might be otherwise classified.
I would also indicate that, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] mentioned, the budget waivers that this rule does contain are minor in terms of numbers, and I support strongly the rule and would urge my colleagues to support the rule and that any portions of the bill which did include budget waivers that might normally be of concern to Members did have the option to be stricken by amendment if a Member so desired.
Mr. Speaker, I would stand in strong support of the rule, and I appreciate the cooperation and the work of the Committee on Rules in granting the rule which was requested by the chairman of the committee and myself.
[TIME: 1400]
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 229 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2330.
The Chair designates the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] to assume the chair temporarily.
[TIME: 1401]
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
(Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
[Page: H5677]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, this bill authorizes all of the funds for the coming fiscal year for the national and tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government. National intelligence activities, known collectively as the National Foreign Intelligence Program [NFIP], provide intelligence to policymakers such as the President, members of the Cabinet, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the programs and activities authorized within the NFIP are those undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, as well as by the intelligence components of the Department of State and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Other executive branch agencies and departments having intelligence elements, such as the Treasury and Energy Departments and the Drug Enforcement Administration, are also presented within the NFIP.
By contrast, tactical intelligence programs are wholly the responsibility of the Department of Defense. While tactical programs primarily focus on the provision of intelligence to military commanders, like Desert Storm, there are instances in which they are used for national intelligence purposes.
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the functions of national and tactical programs, and the Intelligence Committee, therefore, is responsible for reviewing the budgets of both. We work closely with the Committee on Armed Services on those programs which are of particular concern to the military, and I want to thank Chairman Dellums and members of his committee for the assistance provided by the members and staff of his committee.
The requirement that classified information be protected against disclosure makes it hard to discuss intelligence activities publicly, even in the most general terms. All of the programs and activities authorized by H.R. 2330 are, however, set forth in a classified schedule of authorizations which is incorporated into the bill by reference, and discussed in detail in a classified annex to the committee's report.
Since June 30, these materials have been available in the committee's offices, and I urge Members who have not done so to go upstairs to H. 405 and review these documents.
The committee has promoted efforts to increase understanding on the part of the public and the Members of this House about the importance of an effective intelligence capability in the post-cold war world. This year, for the first time, the Director of Central Intelligence appeared before the committee in open session to offer his vision of the future roles of our intelligence community. Other open sessions of the committee have occurred, and recently Director Woolsey briefed the Democratic caucus and the Republican conference on intelligence capabilities and challenges.
And I would say that dozens and dozens of Members for the first time were exposed to many of the intricacies of what our intelligence community does.
I hope these sessions have provided Members with some understanding of the fact that timely and reliable intelligence is essential in providing the warning of political, military, and economic threats which policymakers need to enable them to decide among possible responses.
As the size of the U.S. military declines and our Pentagon budget is going to do down to reflect this, the importance of an early-warning system, the importance of what I call an insurance policy, that is intelligence, grows. As we witnessed during the Persian Gulf war, effective intelligence can save American lives. In fact, it saved thousands of lives in the gulf war. It may also make the use of force unnecessary, a fact of special significance as the U.S. military presence overseas diminishes.
The cold war has ended, but the need for a capability to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence has not. It is true intelligence activities no longer need to be focused on the military threat once posed by the Soviet Union and that the resources devoted to intelligence should decrease as a result. The committee has been a leader in encouraging the intelligence community to redirect its efforts and to reduce its budgets.
For example, this year's bill is 3.7 percent below President Clinton's request. I might add that the defense bill was about even or very slightly under, the President's request. This bill is nearly 4 percent under what President Clinton requested and 3.8 percent below the amount authorized by last year's bill.
Enactment of this measure would provide an authorization for intelligence at about the same level appropriated for the current fiscal year, an amount significantly below that which has been available in the preceding fiscal year.
Current law mandates a 5-year, 17.5-percent reduction in civilian personnel in the intelligence community. The bill keeps the community on course toward meeting that requirement, which is intended to be accomplished without the use of involuntary separation.
It may be, however, that additional personnel reductions are necessary, and the committee has not ruled out the possibility that they would have to be accomplished in that manner.
As resource levels decline, it becomes imperative that intelligence be focused on requirements of the highest priority. Significant threats to the security of the United States remain. Many nations have the means and the desire to acquire nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons. Recently, the Director of the CIA said that more than 25 countries have that capability right now. The proliferation of these weapons poses a problem of catastrophic proportions for the world. Imagine in the old days, all we had to worry about was the Russians, maybe the Chinese; but now we have to worry about up to 25 different countries having either the real power or the capability to develop nuclear weapons, which could pose dangers to people in this country.
Efforts to address this threat--that is, the nuclear, biological, and chemical threat--as well as the threats posed by terrorism, trafficking in illegal narcotics, and the economic espionage activities of other nations, cannot be successful without dependable intelligence. You have to have your eyes and ears open to what is happening in the world. That is what we are talking about today, having good hearing and good vision to try to become aware of the insidious elements in the world and giving that information to policymakers so they will know what kind of action is needed.
The technologies associated with the more diverse threats in biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorism, particularly as they relate to all these other countries that we never worried about before, are sophisticated and require a similarly sophisticated and expensive intelligence attack. The committee has attempted to achieve what President Clinton, in a recent letter vigorously opposing further cuts in his budget request termed a `delicate balance' between intelligence capabilities and budget constraints. The bill supports the investment in new technologies which will be needed to address the challenges policymakers will confront in the years to come and promotes the consolidation of collection platforms to maximize effectiveness while reducing costs. These actions, since they involve the development and acquisition of new, complex systems, require significant initial costs. Once these systems become operational, however, very significant savings will result. H.R. 2330 puts the intelligence community on the path toward realizing those savings.
[TIME: 1410]
The post-cold-war intelligence community will be leaner, both in terms of numbers of personnel and budgets, than its predecessor. We do not differ with the administration on that result, but we do differ on the question of how much smaller the community should be, and on the pace by which reductions should be made. Although the bill does not provide the level of funding sought by the administration, a majority of the committee believed that the cuts will not degrade essential intelligence capabilities, and that they are appropriate in light of changes in the world and the intense competition for increasingly scarce Federal resources.
Some may argue that the pace of change favored by the committee is too slow, that we should cut more, that more money should be taken from the intelligence budget because our traditional adversary is gone. Those amendments will be offered today. I urge that these amendments be rejected. Further reductions will, in my judgment, increase the risk that unacceptable gaps in intelligence coverage will result. We live in a world in which more countries, some of whom are not friendly to the United States, are aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, in which the expertise and equipment needed to develop those weapons and their delivery systems are readily available on the open market, a world in which regional conflicts requiring some commitment of U.S. forces are becoming increasingly frequent, and in which terrorists are less reluctant to bring their deadly activities to our shores.
The World Trade Center, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Washington Monument, the Golden Gate Bridge, it can and it is happening here in our country.
The capability to provide adequate intelligence about these activities serves as insurance to those who must fashion policies to respond to them, and to military commanders who must minimize the risk to American lives if military force must be employed to counter them. That capability will be available at the funding levels set forth in H.R. 2330, but it becomes more doubtful, more questionable, more gaps remain open, the more we reduce the bill.
In addition to authorizing intelligence programs and activities, the bill contains a number of legislative provisions which will be explained in detail by the chairman of our Subcommittee on Legislation, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. Some of these provisions are within the jurisdiction of other committees. As an example, section 303, which repeals the National Security Education Act of 1991, is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. At the appropriate time, I will seek permission to include, at this point in the Record, an exchange of correspondence between myself and Chairman Ford on section 303, an exchange which typifies the degree of cooperation extended by us by other committees as we sought to bring legislation to the floor.
I want to draw particular attention to section 304 because it illustrates the efforts the committee is making to bring a greater degree of openness to the work of the intelligence agencies. Section 304 requires the Director of Central Intelligence, for the first time, to submit an annual unclassified report to Congress on the activities of the intelligence community during the preceding year, and those issues which will require particular attention in the year ahead. This report will help make intelligence a little less mysterious and a little more understandable to the average American, a process which in my judgment is essential if support for adequate funding is to be assured.
Madam Chairman, in conclusion I want to compliment the staff of my committee, both the majority and the minority staff, for their particular help. My special thanks go to my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], for his cooperation. It has been a pleasure to deal with him on this bill. We have not always agreed, but we have been pretty cooperative, even when we have not agreed, and I appreciate this support.
Let me say one more thing in conclusion. There are a lot of dangers in this world. Americans are actually more threatened today from a diverse number of sources than they have ever been before, by a number of very exotic international powers who want to do great damage to the United States. Many of these people, foreign powers, terrorists and the like, have the capability to obtain sophisticated weaponry with mass destructive power. We need effective eyes and ears to make sure that American citizens are protected. That is the main function of the intelligence budget, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
[Page: H5678]
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might use.
(Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, as the ranking Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, let me start by expressing my great appreciation to my colleague from Kansas, Chairman Glickman, for his leadership of the Intelligence Committee through some very tough deliberations. The business of this committee is of critical importance to the security of the United States and its interests worldwide and--as recent terrorist activities in New York have shown--at home. Mr. Glickman has carefully worked with all members of the committee to make sure that important arguments have been heard and important issues considered. To this end, the outstanding support of the Intelligence Committee's staff must be recognized. It has been said many times before by members of this committee, but I would be remiss not to add my own observation that the staff of the Intelligence Committee is second to none in dedication, hard work, and expertise. We are fortunate to have them.
Madam Chairman, the Republican members of the Intelligence Committee, strongly support the passage of H.R. 2330 without further reductions in the funding levels authorized. While we believe the bill makes several unwise--indeed the future may show them to be extremely unwise--cuts to the President's proposed intelligence budget, we have had to accept these pragmatically. For a fuller discussion of our concerns, I would urge Members to read our minority views.
I will only comment here that in a strange sort of bipartisan partisanship we Republicans supported President Clinton's budget. That budget was in keeping with President Clinton's plan to reduce the fiscal year 1993-97 intelligence budgets as projected by the Bush administration by $7 billion. The President's budget made some very difficult major reductions to reach a level below last year's authorized budget, and yet put needed money into program initiatives which will trigger major savings in coming years. The bill before us took that very lean administration budget and made numerous significant additional cuts. That said, you can understand why we stand firmly behind every cent remaining in this authorization bill.
We are walking a fine line. We are trying to maintain the flexible intelligence capabilities we need while simultaneously reducing funding. This can be appreciated when we look at this budget in the context of last year's major cuts. As the House debated an intelligence budget which the Intelligence Committee had cut by 5 percent, then Chairman McCurdy said:
This is a significant cut * * * It represents, for a bipartisan majority on the committee, the outer limit on which the intelligence community can reasonably be expected to reduce spending next year. To require further cuts would be to risk severe damage to the ability of the community to provide intelligence necessary to policymakers.
Despite our warning, those cuts were effectively doubled in the appropriations process. The net result was that last year's intelligence budget was cut in a manner which, I think, a majority of our committee members--Republican and Democrat--believe was draconian and haphazard. We must not repeat or compound those errors.
We are asking the intelligence community to maintain vigorous, responsive capabilities while suffering cuts to muscle and sinew. The intelligence budget before you funds everything from the antennas on satellite systems to the rent on safehouses for meeting penetrations of radical terrorist organizations; from the technical means of tracking chemical weapons transfers to putting an `X' on a map for an Army sergeant trying to locate enemy artillery; from the FBI's tracking of foreign terrorists to paying an agent to tell us of a foreign government's theft of our industrial secrets; from learning the frequencies of enemy radars so our air crews can counter them or knock them out to tracking the massive illegal transfer and laundering of money by the international narcotics cartels.
Obviously, considered as a whole, these things lumped under the term `intelligence' are not cheap. But neither are the benefits of intelligence:
From my 4 1/2 years on the Intelligence Committee, I can say plainly and without hesitation that intelligence funding buys the lives of American soldiers who would otherwise be parachuting blindly onto strange foreign battlegrounds and the lives of innocent, ordinary tourists, shoppers, and workers who would die victims of undetected terrorists.
The intelligence budget buys the jobs of American workers whose companies and industries would fall prey to unhampered foreign industrial espionage and unchallenged unfair trade practices.
Intelligence buys the capability of working with our allies to slow and, possibly, halt the acquisition of critical technology and equipment with which the world's despots and radical regimes would build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons--at, God knows, what final cost in human lives. It is no accident that the most despotic and despicable--in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to name but a few--are those who are most intent on building up such capabilities.
Protecting American economic competitiveness, countering terrorism, supporting our military, and retarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: Thought it is largely hidden from the public, these are but four of the ways in which our intelligence agencies work relentlessly and with extreme dedication everyday protecting American interests. We must not foolishly think that this is a safe world and that we can now shut our eyes, close our ears, and ignore the dangers around us. We cannot thoughtlessly continue to cut and pare and chop and slice and yet expect that the intelligence community will be able to do what is needed. There are lives, there are jobs, there are principles for which we must still be vigilant and capable of fighting. It is our duty here today to ensure that we provide U.S. intelligence with the wherewithal to do just that.
I urge my colleagues to pass this authorization without additional reductions which will further imperil crucially important intelligence capabilities.
[Page: H5679]
[TIME: 1420]
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to recognize the leadership of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] for his efforts in bringing this important legislation to the floor. His tireless efforts in working to establish a consensus on this bill have been a lesson in diligence, patience, and attention to detail and I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with him on the Intelligence Committee.
Madam Chairman, when I was first appointed to the Intelligence Committee in 1988, cold war considerations were the driving force behind intelligence budgets. In the face of the military threat posed by the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, ever increasing amounts of resources were dedicated to the intelligence community during the 1980's. The end of the cold war, the budget deficit and domestic priorities demand a reduction in the level of intelligence community funding today.
The funding levels recommended in H.R. 2330 represent a 3.7-percent reduction from the administration's initial request and a 3.8-percent reduction from last year's intelligence authorization bill. Madam Chairman, this recommended reduction in no way compromises the national security interests of our country. The funding levels we are recommending today are lean but prudent. The Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, has been in contact with many Members of this House concerning the continuing importance of intelligence. The administration has indicated that it can accept this funding level, although it would oppose additional reductions.
Madam Chairman, as we venture into the next century, our intelligence community must possess the ability to confront new and unorthodox intelligence challenges. The trade center bombing and the failed New York conspiracy offer two examples of the demand terrorism will have on tomorrow's intelligence community. Likewise, the intelligence community will be called upon to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether they be chemical, biological or nuclear. Finally, it will be up to the intelligence community to conduct economic intelligence in support of U.S. industrial policy abroad to ensure that the playing field is level between our trading partners and competitors.
Madam Chairman, the funding levels recommended in this bill offer adequate resources to our intelligence agencies and entities to undertake these new and future challenges.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 2330 also authorizes the Director of Central Intelligence to establish a program in which small cash prizes may be awarded to students who demonstrate excellence in high school science fairs within the United States. We are all aware of the important role science plays in the continuing technological advancement of our country. Scientific excellence is in fact critical to many of the important successes of the U.S. intelligence community and this high school science fair program will help make our Nation's youth aware of that fact.
Madam Chairman, providing for our national security is a fundamental obligation of this body. The American public rightly expects to live in a free society without fear of attack from foreign forces. A strong and dedicated intelligence community is one reason this expectation can be justified. H.R. 2330 ensures the necessary resources to the intelligence community to continue its excellent work and I encourage my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act of fiscal year 1994. In a moment, this Member will address a principal concern regarding the size of the overall cuts in this Nation's intelligence programs.
Before doing so, however, this Member would first take a moment to compliment the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman], for the very capable and equitable manner in which he led the committee during this session. It is a difficult fiscal year, as everyone in this body knows, and budget submissions from every Federal agency came very late indeed. Despite this handicap, the chairman held a full series of hearings in which all intelligence issues of interest both to the majority and minority were fully aired and discussed. Every Member was afforded an opportunity to explore, in sufficient detail, questions and issues of importance. The chairman demonstrated bipartisan leadership and worked closely with the distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], who has himself performed with special distinction in that position. Together, they have built a consensus on most matters coming before the committee and found that consensus whenever possible.
Turning to the legislation, this bill, of course, is the annual authorization legislation for the national and tactical intelligence programs. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Honorable R. James Woolsey, made a cogent and persuasive case for the President's budget. Nonetheless, despite his repeated efforts to provide whatever supporting information the committee required, there seemed to be a dominant mind set to reach a much lower funding level than President Clinton proposed. The Committee has cut dramatically the President's request. But that goal has been met at a very steep price. And every Member of this body must be mindful of the price of this cut as we cast our votes today.
Madam Chairman, acting to defend this country's national security through its defense and civilian components of Government begins with its intelligence agencies--the CIA, NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, and others. They are our eyes and ears in a world that is more dangerous than ever before.
Yes, the cold war is over and we have emerged victorious. Yet, like a slain hydra, the end of the cold war has spawned a series of policy issues that have vexed first the Bush, and now the Clinton administrations. None of them can be resolved easily. What are we going to do in Bosnia? How will the Muslims react to the latest Serb offensive in Sarajevo? What do we do about the allegations that China is engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? How do we deal with the
assertions that Saddam Hussein may have retained a significant amount of his missile forces despite the U.N. sanctions? What do we do about the mass starvation in Africa, not only in Somalia but in the Sudan and elsewhere? And what is the African drought's long-term effect on stability and the growth of democracy in that troubled region?
How do we continue the major, positive trends in the reduction of casual drug use in this country and reduce the supply of cocaine being produced by the South America drug lords? Will our trade negotiators who are engaged in critical talks with our trading partners have the information they need to handle delicate negotiations as they try to close the Uruguay round of the GATT? The questions go on and on, with new questions appearing daily as answers and actions are provided to others.
These are all issues that our intelligence agencies address. They must continue to report on these matters, but also be mindful that Russia continues to maintain a significant strategic weapons capability that can threaten the United States. That capability exists, not only in Russia, but also to a much lesser extent in three other states which are part of the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, Director Woolsey has testified that the types of issues that the United States faces today are, in many ways, considerably more complex and more difficult to deal with than the old mission of tracking the works of Moscow. According to Mr. Woolsey, the old Soviet Union usually operated in relatively predictable ways. It tested new weapons systems in the same manner. It even sought to infiltrate groups in the Third World in the same way. But there is far less certainty or predictability with respect to such countries as North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and others. The behavior or these rogue regimes is difficult to predict, and even harder to deter.
Director Woolsey provided sensible arguments for maintaining funding at the requested levels. Acceptance of those arguments would allow him to gradually lower the amount of spending in the U.S. intelligence community, but also to consolidate and rationalize technical collection capabilities in order to make them more efficient and less costly. Unfortunately, the authorized level in this bill does not provide the Director with the resources that we will require to make a smooth transition to new technologies.
Madam Chairman, this Member was disappointed that the White House did not come to the aid of the intelligence community and actively support the President's own request for funds for fiscal year 1994. I emphasize that their bill authorizes 3.7 percent less than the President requested. However, this Member does appreciate the President's energetic opposition to any further reductions in the fiscal year 1994 intelligence authorization. Indeed, in a July 27, 1993, letter to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the President stated, and I quote:
[Page: H5680]
The reductions already proposed by the House Intelligence Committee will, in themselves, test our
ability to manage prudently the reduction of the intelligence budget while we simultaneously seek to meet the new security challenges which confront the country. Therefore, I will oppose an amendment on the House floor which seeks to reduce intelligence spending beyond the reduction already proposed by the Committee.
Thus, the President has made it absolutely clear that he cannot support a further diminution of our intelligence capability.
Madam Chairman, we are all looking for savings in ongoing programs to pay for worthy programs and essential expenditures and to reduce the deficit. But the cuts the committee has made in this legislation will not go to finance such other worthy expenditures or toward deficit reduction. Rather, the reductions will simply be swallowed up by the Defense authorization bill. Colleagues, I ask you to think about that fact. It is an interesting and general unrecognized fact that what we cut here will only increase Defense authorizations, for that it is widely recognized, is where the intelligence authorizations are widely hidden.
As with any capital investment, one must maintain an acceptable level of such capital assets so they can operate at peak efficiency during times of crisis. Indeed, this Member is not convinced that the authorized funding we are considering will do so; I did not support the level of cuts approved by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Finally, this Member would say that when we are finished with the authorization and appropriations bills, the Congress inevitably will have cut even more funding than the cut made in the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Any further cut clearly would be devastating. Additional cuts could lead to unintended consequences such as involuntary separations of intelligence community employees, a less reliable capability to respond to crises around the world, a tendency to hold back on intelligence operations for fear that there would not be long-term funding to support them, and the dampening of the vital `esprit de corps' within the intelligence community that is so essential to the type of brilliant intelligence operations which have so successfully helped our country throughout the cold war.
Let this Member assure his colleagues that those successes are many, but a great many of those successes necessarily had to go unmentioned or have been concealed either to protect the national interest or to conceal intelligence assets or methods.
For these reasons, Madam Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to tread very carefully and reject further cuts in our intelligence agencies, America's first line of defense.
[TIME: 1430]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation.
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation, I feel we have produced a good bill that has made substantial but careful reductions in the administration's budget request to levels that will maintain our Nation's essential intelligence capabilities.
As a new member of the committee, I have been very concerned that the American people get their money's worth from our spending on intelligence activities. I have pushed to see that overlap and redundancy are eliminated and interagency coordination is improved. More can be done in these areas, but we should not take a meat-ax approach. I am glad the President, in his recent letter to Chairman Glickman, has committed his administration to these goals, as well as to making further reductions in intelligence spending in the future, according to sensible and appropriate consolidation and reorientation plans. I will thus be supporting the committee's bill against amendments on the floor to reduce spending below the levels recommended by the committee.
The Subcommittee on Legislation, which I am honored to chair, held a number of hearings and briefings on legislative proposals either suggested by the administration or arising out of other committee inquiries. Among these were the proposals to authorize separation pay incentives and early out retirement for certain CIA employees, which became Public Law 103-36. The bill before us today contains several other substantive measures, which I would like to outline just briefly:
Section 203 authorizes retirement annuities, survivor annuities, and access to health insurance for certain ex-spouses of participants in the Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system [CIARDS]. The provision is essentially the same as H.R. 981 introduced by Representative Barbara Kennelly, which passed the House last year with bipartisan support. It allows certain ex-spouses of participants in CIARDS who, on or before December 4, 1991, did not qualify as a former spouse because they failed to spend 5 years outside of the United States with the participant, to qualify for retirement, survivor, and other benefits available to a qualified former spouse starting on October 1, 1994.
Section 303 repeals the National Security Education Act of 1991 and requires that all amounts in the national security education trust fund that are not obligated on enactment of the section are to be transferred to the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. This program would provide undergraduate scholarships for study abroad, graduate fellowships in international, area and foreign language studies, and grants to colleges and universities to improve programs in these disciplines. The NSEA has very worthwhile goals, but despite the claims of some supporters, repeal does represent savings to the Treasury in reduced anticipated outlays of approximately $83 million over the next 5 years. At a time when the clamor for deficit reduction is strong, this program is a luxury we cannot afford.
Section 304 requires the Director of Central Intelligence to submit to Congress annually an unclassified report on the activities of the intelligence community. The report is to be unclassified and is to describe the successes and failures of the past fiscal year as well as the areas of the world and the issues that will be of particular concern in the year to come. This section, the work of Chairman Glickman, will help inform the American people of the role of the intelligence community, including the variety of its missions in the post-cold war era.
Section 305 expresses the support of the committee for two efforts underway in the executive branch to assess and reduce secrecy and security practices and procedures. The committee is concerned that the two efforts could be duplicative or even contradictory. Thus, section 305 expresses the sense of Congress
that the reviews be conducted with maximum consultation between them and consolidated recommendations be made to the President. The costs of classification and excessive security procedures is an issue about which the committee will continue to be active and concerned.
Section 401 authorizes the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out a program to award cash prizes to students who participate in high school science fairs within the United States. The section will give the CIA authority already available to other Federal agencies such as NASA and DOD. The committee does not anticipate the program to involve expenditures greater than $5,000 in total annually.
Section 501 increases the statutory ceiling on the amount of foreign language proficiency pay [FLPP] that may be awarded to active duty and reserve component linguists. Foreign language proficiency continues to be a serious problem for our military particularly in intelligence activities. It is a problem of continuing concern to the Intelligence Committee, one that will require action by the Department of Defense on management, training, and pay issues. Our committee and the House Armed Services Committee have worked cooperatively on the FLPP issue and I will support Chairman Glickman's amendment to delete section 501 so that the provision on foreign language proficiency in the defense authorization bill may go forward.
Section 502 amends the National Security Act of 1947 to make clear that any deployment of military intelligence collection units is an intelligence activity about which the congressional intelligence committees must be kept fully and currently informed. This clarification should not be necessary, but the record of the Department of Defense in this area has been uneven at best. It should be noted that the committee is united on the importance of this measure.
In the Subcommittee on Legislation, we have repeatedly asked what is the proper role of the intelligence community--where is the bright line between areas in which the community should be involved and those in which it should not. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance, both legislatively and fiscally, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2330.
[Page: H5681]
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. Literally thousands and thousands of hours have been spent by the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence and our very competent staff in reviewing this budget, and we have made very significant reductions over the last 2 years on this budget. So for our colleagues, I would urge caution in considering across-the-board approaches to further reducing this budget.
I think we have got it in good shape. It is coming down, personnel is coming down. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] has been a leader in trying to get rid of duplication, but we also have to remember how important this intelligence budget is.
So I think the gentleman is on target here, and I would urge the House to stay with the committee recommendations on this budget.
[TIME: 1440]
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I concur in the sentiments that have been expressed by the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Legislation, and am very highly satisfied that we have contributed to the deliberations that have led us to this moment where we hope that the approval of this bill will be the next order of business of the House.
Members, even as we begin the deliberations on this legislation, our young fellow Americans are poised for a possible airstrike or series of airstrikes in the boiling pot of Bosnia. This action, if taken, is going to require not only the admitted and recognized and acknowledged skill of our pilots and those who maintain our aircraft and those who supply the logistical backup for such a military action, but, equally as important, the intelligence capacity of our Armed Forces will be the guiding beam, as it were, for these young Americans to do the job that they will be asked to do.
It brings to mind forcibly what has already been stated in various ways on the floor thus far by the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that no matter how we restructure, no matter how we downsize, no matter how we try to make the Armed Forces and the national security apparatus of our country leaner and meaner, no matter how we reduce it, we will always need
logistics and we will always need, and more so than ever before, intelligence capability.
That is the core of what we argue here today. The proposed reductions, further reductions in the outlays for intelligence will be depriving in a symbolic way, will be depriving our young pilots, if they engage in this Bosnian action, that extra element of intelligence and know-how and scientific background to be able to accomplish their mission with a minimum loss of life on the ground to innocent citizens and with safety and purpose to themselves.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. I am a new member on this committee. The amount of information that we must digest and consider, in a short period of time, is a challenge to any Member. Chairman Glickman and the ranking Republican member, Mr. Combest, shepherded the budget through a difficult period when pressures were increasing constantly for deeper and deeper cuts. It is my feeling, shared I think by my Republican colleagues, that the committee went deeper than is prudent, and that we may pay a steep price for this in the future. Our action comes after last year's cuts, when the Congress, both the authorizers and the appropriators, cut far deeper than anyone anticipated, sending shock waves through the intelligence community. That has a negative impact on important intelligence operations that are vital to our national security.
I would like to discuss briefly the issue of international economic intelligence. Innumerable Americans are secure in their jobs in a variety of industries throughout the United States because of good economic intelligence. No doubt, the average American is unaware of the fact that there is significantly more energy expended by our intelligence agencies collecting economic intelligence than for following strategic weapons developments.
While there is unanimity of opinion that our intelligence agencies will not engage in industrial espionage, many of our international competitors do not have these qualms much less share our basic belief in free trade. Accordingly, our intelligence agencies are the American people's first line of defense to ensure the playing field of international commerce is level and the officiating honest.
We are in the midst of some very difficult times now in dealing with a global economic turndown and in trying to counter the tendency of many of our economic competitors to protect themselves through a variety of unfair means. Intelligence is absolutely crucial in such an environment. Just as much as in supporting our troops and fighting terrorism, intelligence is our first line of defense in maintaining our economic competitiveness. In this case, though, instead of saving lives, it saves jobs.
Finally, I want to comment on section 501 of this bill, which Chairman Glickman will offer an amendment to delete at the appropriate point. In adopting this section, the committee took action to address a longstanding inequity between active and Reserve component forces. This addressed the vital issue of providing well-trained linguists for our military commanders in the field. Section 501, initially, provided that members of the National Guard and Reserve components who maintain a language proficiency at the same level as their active duty counterparts, would receive the same pay, $100 per month, to maintain this proficiency. At the present rate for the Reserve components, $13 a month, there is simply no incentive for the Reserves to spend the long hours necessary to keep their language proficiency. The provision was amended at the full committee markup to increase monthly pay to a maximum $450 per month for active duty and reservists who maintain fluency in two foreign languages. As we downside our military forces, we need to maintain these capabilities within the Reserve components as more and more missions are being shifted to them. The only way that one can do this is by insuring that there is an incentive for the Reserves and National Guard personnel who have language skills to maintain them and improve them. Section 501, as amended, would have addressed longstanding pay inequities and provided a strong financial reward for proficiency. My colleague, Mr. Skelton, on the Armed Services Committee felt we needed to study the proposal further and test it through a pilot program. I agreed with him, but I will continue to focus on language programs and work to ensure there is parity in language proficiency pay between active and Reserve components.
It is noteworthy that Judge Louis Freeh the candidate for Director of the FBI, said at his confirmation hearing that, `We need more agents who speak foreign languages and understand other countries and cultures.' Our committee has been a strong proponent of strong language programs, not only in the military but the entire intelligence community. I agree with Judge Freeh that we need better language programs. I will continue to work on comprehensive programs to address this problem. There will be progress soon because it is essential to better counterterrorism programs at the FBI. If we want to stop terrorists, we must understand them and their organizations. This is where language is necessary. We will work with Judge Freeh to help him rectify this problem.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and oppose further reductions in the authorization levels.
[Page: H5682]
[TIME: 1450]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Baltimore, and surrounding areas, Mr. Ben Cardin.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend is remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and congratulate the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for bringing to the House a bipartisan bill, a bill that is extremely important for the security of this country.
Madam Chairman, I do not serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but as a Member of Congress I took the opportunity to visit NSA and to see firsthand the work that is being done by that agency. I would encourage my colleagues to take advantage of that opportunity as a Member of Congress. I saw firsthand the dedicated work that is being done by very, very talented people for the defense of this country. They are working under extremely difficult circumstances with the problems that we are having with our budget. The reality is they are going to get less resources. We know that. That is the fiscal reality. However, we expect our intelligence community to be able to obtain the brightest minds to work for our intelligence needs, the best mathematicians and linguists in the Nation. It is very difficult with less funds.
I would urge my colleagues to support this authorization and not to make any further cuts. The needs of the intelligence community are changing. Yes, our defense needs might be less as far as our military is concerned, but the need for intelligence actually increases. As we have less military tools, how we use those tools becomes even more important, and intelligence can help us use our tools more efficiently, in the best interests of our times.
These are changing times. The economic competition among nations requires intelligence information for our Nation to remain strong. We need to protect our research and development capacities in this country, and the role of the intelligence community in stopping international terrorism is absolutely essential.
The nature of intelligence work has become critically important to our country. I urge my colleagues to support the committee's recommendation.
Mr. COMBEST, Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DORNAN. Madam Chairman, I rise today on behalf of my committee's bill, H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act. Ulysses S. Grant, one our our great Civil War generals, who at age 46 become our 18th President, once said that, `The art of war is simple enough: Find out where your enemy is, get at him as soon as you can, strike at him as hard and as often as you can, and then keep on moving.'
The key there is finding your enemy. At the 130th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, one of the more tragic parts of the history there was Gen. Robert E. Lee losing his cavalry for almost all 3 days of the conflict. Whoever came up to him on the battlefield, he would say, `Have you seen my cavalry? Where is my cavalry? Where are my eyes?' That probably contributed greatly to his loss.
Without intelligence we are blinded. Madam Chairman, we may have seen the end of the evil police state empire, but the world remains a very, very dangerous place. Finding out where our enemy is will be just as difficult and maybe even more complicated than in other parts and times of the cold war. Spotting an individual foot soldier in the hills of Bosnia with an SA-14 shoulder-held weapon, one of the best of its type in the world, that is not easy. Locating a ballistic missile site in Iraq, pinpointing a nuclear weapons facility in North Korea, or uncovering a terrorist plot in the Middle East to strike the United States or our assets anywhere in this world, all of this is dependent upon the capability of our Government's intelligence forces.
If we further cut this already depleted budget, we will directly risk the lives of not only our brave military forces, who may be asked to tackle one of those problems, or destroy a potential enemy threat, but also every citizen of our Nation, every citizen assigned overseas, and every American who travels. At any given moment, 500,000 to 600,000 or more Americans are traveling around this world. All of them are potential targets of terrorist attack.
Enough is enough. I would ask my colleagues, do not tear down our intelligence services any more. What we are defending on this side of the aisle is Mr. Clinton's intelligence request. One of the amazing things is, no matter who ends up as the Commander in Chief, the one thing they treasure is that 9 o'clock briefing every morning of their service, or when there is a crisis, those hourly briefings where we bring all of the forces of our intelligence to bear on helping the executive branch make their decisions.
Madam Chairman, I include for the Record specific answers to some of the damaging amendments we will have before us today.
[Page: H5683]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the fiscal year 1994 intelligence authorization bill. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I appreciate the work of Chairman Glickman and the Intelligence Committee to shape a budget that adapts our intelligence community to changing threats. This bill funds programs that are critical to our national security, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Intelligence spending is intelligent spending. I believe that intelligence is a crucial investment for much the same reason that I support aid to the former Soviet Republics: It is proactive. The money we spend for these programs helps us avoid spending much greater sums later, because we can identify threats early on and organize our response. Our intelligence capabilities were a major factor in the Persian Gulf war: They improve our battle management, increased our knowledge about Iraq's capabilities, and helped pave the way for the ground war and liberation of Kuwait. My district has made a major contribution to the tactical intelligence systems that are funded jointly by the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, and I think these systems are more vital than ever in these times of rapid international change.
It is also intelligent for the Intelligence Committee to bring fresh air into its proceedings--by holding open hearings where possible, and requiring an unclassified annual report to Congress on the intelligence community's priorities and performance. These are important departures from past practice. I think this information will go a long way toward increasing public understanding of the intelligence community, and of the important programs we are voting on here today.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I want to commend our new colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] on her interest not only in defense intelligence but in defense and national security issues. I would also point out that the technology, those sensors, that stealth capability, all those things came to bear, and it did one other thing in the Persian Gulf war. It saved thousands, and thousands, and thousands of American lives.
Bill Perry probably did as good an article as there has been in Foreign Affairs about how these sensors worked and how all that investment in technology came to bear in the gulf war. I can just tell the Members that it was because of technological superiority, because of those investments, that we did save those lives.
I must tell the Members and I must warn them, we have cut this budget down to the point where if we do not stay with the committee mark, I am concerned, very concerned, that we will not have that technological superiority in the future. We will not be able to make the investments in new capability that are so crucial for the future.
[TIME: 1500]
Ms. HARMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I thank him for his comments and I agree.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H5684]
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Intelligence Committee bill today and commend our chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combset], for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I especially want to commend Chairman Glickman for the spirit of openness that his leadership is bringing to the committee. As he mentioned in his remarks. the open hearing was historic with the new and very capable Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey, and in addition, our meeting and briefing for Members was also. I also want to commend him for the efforts he is making toward making our intelligence gathering more open, less expensive, and therefore safer.
Many of my colleagues with whom I serve on the committee have pointed out reasons why it is necessary for us to have a significant amount of money spent on intelligence. I support them in that. I believe that our committee has made the sharpest responsible cuts to the budget. Are we allowed to say we came in over $1 billion under the President's request? I hope so.
In any event, I believe that to cut any deeper at this point in the process would not be responsible.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] who is, of course, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and very involved in terrorism issues affecting this country.
Mr. SCHUMER. Antiterrorism issues.
Mr. GLICKMAN. The Chair was just testing the gentleman from New York, and he is as sharp as I thought he was.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and I rise in support of the committee bill, and commend Chairman Glickman in his first year as head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for bringing to the floor legislation that will take the CIA and the intelligence communities into the 1990's. I want to also commend Chairman Glickman and ranking minority member Combest for making sensible reductions in the overall funding level for intelligence.
It seems to me that at $1 billion under the President's request, the bill roughly funds Intelligence at last year's level, but more than adequately protects our interests overseas.
It is certainly true, Madam Chairman, that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, the threat to America from a foreign power has significantly diminished. But we have to be realistic. We are in a brave new world.
The bill is especially important, in my opinion, because it begins to make the transition from an intelligence community that was focused, and I would say obsessed with the cold war, to a modern, lean intelligence-gathering organization that is geared toward counter-terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and industrial espionage.
I have been particularly concerned about the steady rise of State-sponsored terrorism around the world, terrorism that has become more extreme, more deadly, more autonomous, and more heavily armed, and unfortunately, for the first time, more active on American soil.
Our success or failure to fight State-sponsored terrorism will depend more than ever on intelligence activities than just about any other leg of national security. If we cut the budget beyond the levels contained in this bill, the happiest people may well be terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah and their patrons in Libya, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.
I would say one other sensitive area is nuclear nonproliferation. I know that that is an important issue, but from the perspective of letting the CIA transition from anti-cold war to fighting the new battles of terrorism and nuclear nonproliferation, it is a responsible bill, well put together, and I support it.
Mr. COMBEST. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to complete the debate, let me once again reiterate what was said on this floor last year during the consideration of the intelligence bill by the chairman at that time. This is a significant cut. It represents, for a bipartisan majority on the committee, the outer limits on which the intelligence community can reasonably be expected to reduce spending next year. To require further cuts would be to risk severe damage to the ability of the community to provide the intelligence necessary to policymakers.
[Page: H5685]
Mr. COMBEST. Madam. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each title is considered as read.
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to its consideration.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994'.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1994 for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the following elements of the United States Government:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(2) The Department of Defense.
(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(4) The National Security Agency.
(5) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(6) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.
(7) The Department of State.
(8) The Department of the Treasury.
(9) The Department of Energy.
(10) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(11) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings: The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 1994, for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the elements listed in such section, are those specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations prepared to accompany the bill H.R. 2330 of the One Hundred Third Congress.
(b) Availability of Classified Schedule of Authorizations: The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives and to the President. The President shall provide for suitable distribution of the Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within the executive branch.
SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Authority for Adjustments: The Director of Central Intelligence may authorize employment for civilian personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year 1994 under section 102 of this Act when the Director determines that such action is necessary to the performance of important intelligence functions, except that such number may not, for any element of the intelligence community, exceed 2 percent of the number of civilian personnel authorized under such section for such element.
(b) Notice to Intelligence Committees: The Director of Central Intelligence shall promptly notify the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate whenever the Director exercises the authority granted by this section.
SEC. 104. COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations: There is authorized to be appropriated for the Community Management Account of the Director of Central Intelligence for fiscal year 1994 the sum of $110,788,000. Within such amounts authorized, funds identified for the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain available for two years.
(b) Authorized Personnel Levels: The Community Management Account of the Director of Central Intelligence is authorized 222 full-time personnel as of September 30, 1994. Such personnel of the Community Management Account may be permanent employees of the Community Management Account or personnel detailed from other elements of the United States Government.
(c) Reimbursement: During fiscal year 1994, any officer or employee of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the Community Management Staff from another element of the United States Government shall be detailed on a reimbursable basis, except that any such officer, employee or member may be detailed on a nonreimbursable basis for a period of less than one year for the performance of temporary functions as required by the Director of Central Intelligence.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal year 1994 the sum of $182,300,000.
SEC. 202. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) In General: The Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act is amended--
(1) in section 101(7) (50 U.S.C. 2001(7))--
(A) by striking the comma after `basic pay' and inserting in lieu thereof `and'; and
(B) by striking `, and interest determined under section 281';
(2) in section 201(c) (50 U.S.C. 2011(c)), by striking `the proviso of section 102(d)(3) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403(d)(3))' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 103(c)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5))';
(3) in section 211(c)(2)(B) (50 U.S.C. 2021(c)(2)(B)), by striking `the requirement under section 241(b)(4)' and inserting in lieu thereof `prior notification of a current spouse';
(4) in section 221 (50 U.S.C. 2031)--
(A) by striking `(or, in the case of an annuity computed under section 232 and based on less than 3 years, over the total service)' in subsection (a)(4);
(B) in subsection (f)(1)(A)--
(i) by inserting `after the participant's death' before the period in the first sentence;
(ii) by striking `after the participant's death' in the second sentence;
(iii) by striking `(or is remarried if' in subsection (g)(1) and inserting in lieu thereof `(or, if remarried,'; and
(iv) by striking `(except as provided in paragraph (2))' in subsection (j);
(5) in section 222 (50 U.S.C. 2032)--
(A) by striking `other' the first place it appears in subsection (a)(7) and inserting in lieu thereof `survivor';
(B) by inserting `the participant' before `or does not qualify' in subsection (c)(3)(C); and
(C) by inserting `spouse's death or the' after `month before the' in subsection (c)(4);
(6) in section 224(c)(1)(B)(i) (50 U.S.C. 2034(c)(1)(B)(i)), by striking `former participant' and inserting in lieu thereof `retired participant';
(7) in section 225(c) (50 U.S.C. 2035(c))--
(A) by striking `other' the first place it appears in paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof `survivor'; and
(B) by striking `1991' in paragraph (4)(A) and inserting in lieu thereof `1990';
(8) in section 231(d)(2) (50 U.S.C. 2051(d)(2)), by striking `241(b)' and inserting in lieu thereof `241(a)';
(9) in section 232(b)(4) (50 U.S.C. 2052(b)(4)), by striking `section 222' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 224';
(10) in section 234(b) (50 U.S.C. 2054(b)), by striking `sections 241 and 281' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 241';
(11) in section 241 (50 U.S.C. 2071)--
(A) by striking `A lump-sum benefit that would have been payable to a participant, former participant, or annuitant, or to a survivor annuitant, authorized by subsection (d) or (e) of this section or by section 234(b) or 281(d)' in subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof `Lump-sum payments authorized by subsections (d) through (f) of this section or by section 281(d)'; and
(B) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:
`(f) Termination on Death of Participant: If a retired participant dies, any annuity accrued and unpaid shall be paid in accordance with subsection (c).';
(12) in section 264(b) (50 U.S.C. 2094)--
(A) by inserting `and' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (2);
(B) by striking `and to any payment of a return of contributions under section 234(a); and' in paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof `, and the amount of any such payment;'; and
(C) by striking paragraph (4);
(13) in section 265 (50 U.S.C. 2095), by striking `Act' in both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof `title';
(14) in section 291(b)(2) (50 U.S.C. 2131(b)(2)), by striking `or section 232(c)'; and
(15) in section 304(i)(1) (50 U.S.C. 2154(i)(1)), by striking `section 102(a)(3)' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 102(a)(4)'.
(b) Effective Date: The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of February 1, 1993.
[Page: H5686]
SEC. 203. SURVIVOR ANNUITY, RETIREMENT ANNUITY, AND HEALTH BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EX-SPOUSES OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY EMPLOYEES.
(a) Survivor Annuity:
(1) In general:
(A) Entitlement of former wife or husband: Any person who was divorced on or before December 4, 1991, from a participant or retired participant in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System and who was married to such participant for not less than 10 years during such participant's creditable service, at least five years of which were spent by the participant during the participant's service as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency outside the United States, or otherwise in a position the duties of which qualified the participant for designation by the Director of Central Intelligence as a participant under section 203 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2013), shall be entitled, except to the extent such person is disqualified under paragraph (2), to a survivor annuity equal to 55 percent of the greater of--
(i) the unreduced amount of the participant's annuity, as computed under section 221(a) of such Act; or
(ii) the unreduced amount of what such annuity as so computed would be if the participant had not elected payment of the lump-sum credit under section 294 of such Act.
(B) Reduction in survivor annuity: A survivor annuity payable under this subsection shall be reduced by an amount equal to any survivor annuity payments made to the former wife or husband under section 226 of such Act.
(2) Limitations: A former wife or husband is not entitled to a survivor annuity under this subsection if--
(A) the former wife or husband remarries before age 55, except that the entitlement of the former wife or husband to such a survivor annuity shall be restored on the date such remarriage is dissolved by death, annulment, or divorce;
(B) the former wife or husband is less than 50 years of age; or
(C) the former wife or husband meets the definition of `former spouse' that was in effect under section 204(b)(4) of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees before December 4, 1991.
(3) Commencement and termination of annuity:
(A) Commencement of annuity.--The entitlement of a former wife or husband to a survivor annuity under this subsection shall commence--
(i) in the case of a former wife or husband of a participant or retired participant who is deceased as of October 1, 1994, beginning on the later of--
(I) the 60th day after such date; or
(II) the date on which the former wife or husband reaches age 50; and
(ii) in the case of any other former wife or husband, beginning on the latest of--
(I) the date on which the participant or retired participant to whom the former wife or husband was married dies;
(II) the 60th day after October 1, 1994; or
(III) the date on which the former wife or husband attains age 50.
(B) Termination of annuity.--The entitlement of a former wife or husband to a survivor annuity under this subsection terminates on the last day of the month before the former wife's or husband's death or remarriage before attaining age 55. The entitlement of a former wife or husband to such a survivor annuity shall be restored on the date such remarriage is dissolved by death, annulment, or divorce.
(4) Election of benefits: A former wife or husband of a participant or retired participant shall not become entitled under this subsection to a survivor annuity or to the restoration of the survivor annuity unless the former wife or husband elects to receive it instead of any other survivor annuity to which the former wife or husband may be entitled under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System or any other retirement system for Government employees on the basis of a marriage to someone other than the participant.
(5) Application:
(A) Time limit; waiver: A survivor annuity under this subsection shall not be payable unless appropriate written application is provided to the Director, complete with any supporting documentation which the Director may by regulation require. Any such application shall be submitted not later than October 1, 1995. The Director may waive the application deadline under the preceding sentence in any case in which the Director determines that the circumstances warrant such a waiver.
(B) Retroactive benefits: Upon approval of an application provided under subparagraph (A), the appropriate survivor annuity shall be payable to the former wife or husband with respect to all periods before such approval during which the former wife or husband was entitled to such annuity under this subsection, but in no event shall a survivor annuity be payable under this subsection with respect to any period before October 1, 1994.
(6) Restoration of annuity: Notwithstanding paragraph (5)(A), the deadline by which an application for a survivor annuity must be submitted shall not apply in cases in which a former spouse's entitlement to such a survivor annuity is restored after October 1, 1994, under paragraph (2)(A) or (3)(B).
(7) Applicability in cases of participants transferred to fers:
(A) Entitlement: Except as provided in paragraph (2), this subsection shall apply to a former wife or husband of a participant under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System who has elected to become subject to chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code.
(B) Amount of annuity: The survivor annuity of a person covered by subparagraph (A) shall be equal to 50 percent of the unreduced amount of the participant's annuity computed in accordance with section 302(a) of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 and shall be reduced by an amount equal to any survivor annuity payments made to the former wife or husband under section 8445 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Retirement Annuity:
(1) In general:
(A) Entitlement of former wife or husband: A person described in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be entitled, except to the extent such former spouse is disqualified under paragraph (2), to an annuity--
(i) if married to the participant throughout the creditable service of the participant, equal to 50 percent of the annuity of the participant; or
(ii) if not married to the participant throughout such creditable service, equal to that former wife's or husband's pro rata share of 50 percent of such annuity (determined in accordance with section 222(a)(1)(B) of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2032 (a)(1)(B)).
(B) Reduction in retirement annuities:
(i) Amount of reduction: An annuity payable under this subsection shall be reduced by an amount equal to any apportionment payments payable to the former wife or husband pursuant to the terms of a court order incident to the dissolution of the marriage of such former spouse and the participant, former participant, or retired participant.
(ii) Definition of terms: For purposes of clause (i):
(I) Apportionment: The term `apportionment' means a portion of a retired participant's annuity payable to a former wife or husband either by the retired participant or the Government in accordance with the terms of a court order.
(II) Court order: The term `court order' means any decree of divorce or annulment or any court order or court-approved property settlement agreement incident to such decree.
(2) Limitations: A former wife or husband is not entitled to an annuity under this subsection if--
(A) the former wife or husband remarries before age 55, except that the entitlement of the former wife or husband to an annuity under this subsection shall be restored on the date such remarriage is dissolved by death, annulment, or divorce;
(B) the former wife or husband is less than 50 years of age; or
(C) the former wife or husband meets the definition of `former spouse' that was in effect under section 204(b)(4) of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees before December 4, 1991.
(3) Commencement and termination:
(A) Retirement annuities: The entitlement of a former wife or husband to an annuity under this subsection--
(i) shall commence on the later of--
(I) October 1, 1994;
(II) the day the participant upon whose service the right to the annuity is based becomes entitled to an annuity under such Act; or
(III) such former wife's or husband's 50th birthday; and
(ii) shall terminate on the earlier of--
(I) the last day of the month before the former wife or husband dies or remarries before 55 years of age, except that the entitlement of the former wife or husband to an annuity under this subsection shall be restored on the date such remarriage is dissolved by death, annulment, or divorce; or
(II) the date on which the annuity of the participant terminates.
(B) Disability annuities: Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i)(II), in the case of a former wife or husband of a disability annuitant--
(i) the annuity of the former wife or husband shall commence on the date on which the participant would qualify on the basis of the participant's creditable service for an annuity under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (other than a disability annuity) or the date the disability annuity begins, whichever is later; and
(ii) the amount of the annuity of the former wife or husband shall be calculated on the basis of the annuity for which the participant would otherwise so qualify.
(C) Election of benefits: A former wife or husband of a participant or retired participant shall not become entitled under this subsection to an annuity or to the restoration of an annuity unless the former wife or husband elects to receive it instead of any survivor annuity to which the former wife or husband may be entitled under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System or any other retirement system for Government employees on the basis of a marriage to someone other than the participant.
(D) Application:
(i) Time limit; waiver: An annuity under this subsection shall not be payable unless appropriate written application is provided to the Director of Central Intelligence, complete with any supporting documentation which the Director may by regulation require, not later than October 1, 1995. The Director may waive the application deadline under the preceding sentence in any case in which the Director determines that the circumstances warrant such a waiver.
(ii) Retroactive benefits: Upon approval of an application under clause (i), the appropriate annuity shall be payable to the former wife or husband with respect to all periods before such approval during which the former wife or husband was entitled to an annuity under this subsection, but in no event shall an annuity be payable under this subsection with respect to any period before October 1, 1994.
(4) Restoration of annuities: Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(D)(i), the deadline by which an application for a retirement annuity must be submitted shall not apply in cases in which a former spouse's entitlement to such annuity is restored after October 1, 1994, under paragraph (2)(A) or (3)(A)(ii).
(5) Applicability in cases of participants transferred to fers: The provisions of this subsection shall apply to a former wife or husband of a participant under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System who has elected to become subject to chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code. For purposes of this paragraph, any reference in this section to a participant's annuity under the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System shall be deemed to refer to the transferred participant's annuity computed in accordance with section 302(a) of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.
(6) Savings provision: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair, reduce, or otherwise affect the annuity or the entitlement to an annuity of a participant or former participant under title II or III of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act.
(c) Health Benefits:
(1) In general: Section 16 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403p) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
`(c) Eligibility of Former Wives or Husbands: (1) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) and except as provided in subsections (d), (e), and (f), an individual--
`(A) who was divorced on or before December 4, 1991, from a participant or retired participant in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System or the Federal Employees Retirement System Special Category;
`(B) who was married to such participant for not less than ten years during the participant's creditable service, at least five years of which were spent by the participant during the participant's service as an employee of the Agency outside the United States, or otherwise in a position the duties of which qualified the participant for designation by the Director of Central Intelligence as a participant under section 203 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2013); and
`(C) who was enrolled in a health benefits plan as a family member at any time during the 18-month period before the date of dissolution of the marriage to such participant;
is eligible for coverage under a health benefits plan.
`(2) A former spouse eligible for coverage under paragraph (1) may enroll in a health benefits plan in accordance with subsection (b)(1), except that the election for such enrollment must be submitted within 60 days after the date on which the Director notifies the former spouse of such individual's eligibility for health insurance coverage under this subsection.
`(d) Continuation of Eligibility: Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) and except as provided in subsections (e) and (f), an individual divorced on or before December 4, 1991, from a participant or retired participant in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System or Federal Employees' Retirement System Special Category who enrolled in a health benefits plan following the dissolution of the marriage to such participant may continue enrollment following the death of such participant notwithstanding the termination of the retirement annuity of such individual.'.
(2) Conforming Amendments: (A) Subsection (a) of such section is amended by striking `subsection (c)(1)' and inserting in lieu thereof `subsection (e)'.
(B) Subsection (e)(2) of such section (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section) is amended by inserting `or to subsection (d)' after `subsection (b)(1)'.
(d) Source of Payment for Annuities: Annuities provided under subsections (a) and (b) shall be payable from the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund maintained under section 202 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2012).
(e) Effective Date:
(1) In general: Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as of October 1, 1994, the amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply to individuals on and after October 1, 1994, and no benefits provided pursuant to those subsections shall be payable with respect to any period before October 1, 1994.
(2) Section 16(d) of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (as added by subsection (c) of this section) shall apply to individuals beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
[Page: H5687]
SEC. 204. CROSS-REFERENCE CORRECTIONS TO REVISED CIARDS STATUTE.
(a) Annual Intelligence Authorization Acts: Section 306 of the Intelligence Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1990 (50 U.S.C. 403r-1) is amended by striking `section 303 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 303 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2153)'.
(b) Foreign Service Act of 1980: The Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended--
(1) in section 853 (22 U.S.C. 4071b), by striking `title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' in subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof `title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)';
(2) in section 854 (22 U.S.C. 4071c)--
(A) by striking `title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' in subsection (a)(3) and inserting in lieu thereof `title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)'; and
(B) by striking `title III of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' in subsection (d) and inserting in lieu thereof `title III of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.)'; and
(3) in section 855 (22 U.S.C. 4071d), by striking `under title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees or under section 302(a) or 303(b) of that Act' in subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii) and inserting in lieu thereof `under title II of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or under section 302(a) or 303(b) of that Act (50 U.S.C. 2152(a), 2153(b))'.
(c) Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Section 3121(b)(5)(H)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `section 307 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 307 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2157)'.
(d) Social Security Act: Section 210(a)(5)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(a)(5)(H)(i)) is amended by striking `section 307 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees' and inserting in lieu thereof `section 307 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2157)'.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits authorized by law.
SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constit