Congressional Record: December 11, 2000 (House)
Page H12070-H12072
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) will suspend temporarily while we consult with the minority. {time} 1745 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows: Senate amendments: Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``Sec. 501. Contracting authority for the National Reconnaissance Office.'' Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``502'' and insert ``501''. Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``503'' and insert ``502''. Page 48, strike out lines 4 through 16. Page 48, line 17, strike out ``502'' and insert ``501''. Page 49, line 7, strike out ``503'' and insert ``502''. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) so he might explain more fully how the legislation covered by his unanimous consent request differs from the bill sent to the Senate on November 13, 2000. Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to explain to her why on December 11 the House is again considering the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. As Members will recall, the President vetoed an earlier version of the legislation on November 4. In doing so, the President indicated that his objections were limited to a single section of the bill, the so-called ``leaks provision,'' and he asked Congress to return the same bill to him with the ``leaks provision'' deleted. It had been my hope to do exactly that. In fact, the day the veto message was received by the House, Mr. Dixon, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I introduced H.R. 5630, a bill identical to the previous conference report, save for the leaks provision, which was removed in its entirety. The same day the House passed H.R. 5630 and sent it to the Senate for what I had hoped would be speedy consideration, passage, and transmittal to the President for his signature. I am deeply disappointed that this is not exactly what transpired. The other body did last week pass H.R. 5630, but in doing so removed an additional provision. That provision, which was agreed to in our House- Senate conference and approved by the full House [[Page H12071]] and Senate, was designed to improve the performance of the National Reconnaissance Office's launch program, and to save millions of taxpayers' dollars in the process. I hope we will have a chance to hear from our colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the author of the NRO language in just a moment. But I want to register my disappointment with the process. In reviewing the record of debate in the other body, there is no rationale given for striking the provision about the National Reconnaissance Office, and it appears to me to be an unjustified and inexplicable action. Under normal circumstances, therefore, I would absolutely refuse to agree to this amendment. However as a practical matter, there is no real possibility of convening a second conference committee to resolve this problem before time runs out on the 106th Congress. Therefore, noting that the remaining parts of this legislation are still vital to the U.S. intelligence community and will contribute to improving our national security, I am reluctantly asking the House to pass H.R. 5630, which will, finally, send this bill to the President for his signature. Still, I recognize much time and hard work went into developing the National Reconnaissance Office launch provision, and I do not want to see that work go to waste. I am pledging to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and other Members that I am planning to make NRO launch issues, including all aspects of Air Force support for this activity, a top priority for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 107th Congress. Ms. PELOSI. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about the National Reconnaissance Office contracting issue, but I want to make it clear that nonetheless, the House should pass the bill, as modified by the Senate. The original conference report included a House provision that would require the National Reconnaissance Office to contract for satellite launch vehicles separately from the Air Force. The committee's action was based on a substantial review of several expensive launch failures involving the loss of very valuable intelligence satellites, as well as Inspector General reports describing significant problems in the NRO's relationship with the Air Force. I believe that the remedy that was fashioned by my subcommittee chairman and my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), was reasonable and would be effective. The conferees debated this matter, and there were votes taken. The House position prevailed. It is more than a little galling that the Senate committee would undo that agreement by exploiting the procedural and time constraints that were imposed by the President's veto of the original conference report over a completely unrelated matter. I fully appreciate and share the sense of wrong that is conveyed here today. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary to accept the bill now in the form in which it has been returned to us by the Senate because of the overriding importance of enacting an intelligence authorization measure. The overall benefits to the Nation's security outweigh, in my opinion, the loss of this particular provision. Instead, the committee should plan to take this issue up again next year as the chairman, (the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), indicated, and I would pledge to work with and support the efforts of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to correct the serious underlying problems in managing the launch of our critical intelligence satellites. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has indicated, the President vetoed an earlier version of this bill because it contained a provision that would have further criminalized the intentional disclosure of classified information. In my view, the notion that this so-called ``leaks provision'' was carefully crafted and targeted with laser-like precision on a small hole in the criminal code is simply wrong. I believe the provision had the potential to do great harm to civil liberties. I did not sign the intelligence authorization conference report because it contained the leaks provision. I believe the President was right to veto the measure over this matter. In fact, I commend him for doing that. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and our late distinguished colleague and friend, Julian Dixon, are to be commended for introducing a new bill which does not contain the leaks provision. I am pleased that the actions taken by the Senate on that bill, which is now before the House, did not attempt to add new language on the leaks issue. As the distinguished chairman said, it is entirely out of the bill. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information can damage national security, and that type of conduct should have consequences. Administrative and criminal sanctions are available currently. The vetoed leaks provision, however, would have placed the full force of Federal criminal law behind a classification system which is based not in statute but in executive order, and therefore, it is changeable at the sole discretion of the President. That would have been a serious mistake, so I am very pleased on that aspect of the bill. I also want to associate myself with the comments of our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), concerning the provision in the bill of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and look forward to working with him in the next Congress. It is just a strange way that the Congress operates that a provision that could pass the conference committee could be yanked from the bill in the manner it was. I am, however, prepared to accept the decision of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on how best to deal with the changes on the National Reconnaissance Office contracting matter made by the Senate, although this issue was fully debated and I believe resolved by the conferees in October. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore Mr. Dixon's remarks on November 13 when this bill was considered by the House, that the statement of managers on the vetoed conference report should be regarded as the expression of the intent of Congress on how the intelligence programs and activities authorized for fiscal year 2001 are to be conducted. In referencing Mr. Dixon's remarks, of course, we cannot ignore the fact that our dear colleague is now lying in state. We take every opportunity we can to recognize his tremendous service to this Congress, to this country, and indeed, to this committee. One very high profile challenge we had in this committee was dealing with the labs, and Mr. Dixon was always the voice of reason and balance and fairness in those deliberations, and in fact, in every deliberation he was ever a part of. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Committee, in a brief colloquy. I would like to thank first of all the chairman for the wonderful job with this year's intelligence authorization legislation. I congratulate him for it. Obviously, we congratulate Mr. Dixon for it, but his loss is immeasurable to this Congress, as so many people have said. It is sad he cannot be here today. I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. As the chairman knows, I strongly support the overall bill, but have withheld my final support because of what I view as an egregious action by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and perhaps others. As Members are well aware, we worked hard to address the needed reforms to our satellite launch program, as over the last almost 2 years six rocket launch failures have destroyed or made ineffective important military communications and intelligence satellites, risking the national security of the United States and costing taxpayers over $3 billion. Our provision, approved by the House and Senate conferees and passed by both Houses of Congress, would have [[Page H12072]] ensured more accountability for the launch program of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force, promoting better acquisition practices. A series of meetings, hearings, and briefings on the severity of these problems, with the help of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Sanford), has made it obvious that our failures and problems were rooted in the morass of contracts used in the launch program and exacerbated by a tangle of bureaucratic turf concerns. The Senate's refusal to acknowledge that these reforms are needed is shortsighted and risk more problems in the satellite launch program. Unfortunately, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not see fit to include this provision. It stripped the measure out without debate or justification. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is it his understanding that the National Reconnaissance Office provision would greatly help streamline the satellite launch process, and that the Senate's refusal to acknowledge that these reforms are needed is short-sighted and risks more problems in our satellite launch program? {time} 1800 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, as I stated in conference, as I stated earlier, and as I would state again, I believe the provisions would have improved greatly the management and performance of the NRO's launch program. I, too, am extremely disappointed in the Senate's action, which I also concur is shortsighted. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I am glad we agree on this. As the gentleman from Florida is aware, while I am disappointed in the Senate's action on this, I have agreed to let this bill pass today and move the process forward. Mr. Speaker, can we agree that the committee will, early next year, begin to look into this matter more closely with the National Reconnaissance Office so that we can place good reforms into our launch program and pursue what is best for our national security, let alone our taxpayers' best interests? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware has my commitment that, early in the 107th Congress, the committee will study and draft such reforms based upon the good work of the gentleman from Delaware, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and others on the committee, which have been reflected in the bill. In fact, we have already done this. We have passed it, as the gentleman has said, both in the House and the Senate. I think we had good product, I think we had good process, and I am sorry we find ourselves in this predicament. However, I think the best resolution, as has been outlined, is to go forward with the vital bill. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has my commitment that we will go back, and perhaps we can improve even more on the improvements the gentleman has already recommended to us. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I also would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who spoke in favor of this, too. It is a shame we cannot get it done this year, but we do have to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. The motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________