Congressional Record: November 20, 2003 (House)
Page H11661-H11663
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417,
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 451
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2004 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. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has granted the customary rule
for consideration of conference reports to H.R. 2417, the Intelligence
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004. This is standard procedure. The
rule is fair and without controversy as far as I know, and it does
allow ample time for consideration of conference matters that have come
up.
Mr. Speaker, as in past years, we thought it best to allow Members
ample opportunity to review the bill and debate the issues they feel
are important to our Nation's security. This was certainly exhibited
earlier this summer when we passed, with overwhelming bipartisan
support, the Intelligence Authorization Act in the House. Our
classified annex and staff have been made available to any Member of
Congress interested in reviewing the underlying bill and the reports
thereto.
Today we are at the culmination of this process. The conference
report on H.R. 2417 is critical, it is must-do legislation.
The bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2004 intelligence
and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government,
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement Account and Disability system.
In the past 2 years, our country has made very strong steps to
improve our Nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities, as well as
the analysis of the results of those intelligence-gathering
capabilities. With that said, the attacks this morning in Istanbul are
yet again a painful reminder that every day, we must not let down our
guard. Rather, it emphasizes work that remains to be accomplished. We
need to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and align them to deal
with the threats that we face today.
This legislation convincingly moves us in the right direction by
enhancing the depth and the capacity of all facets of our intelligence
community. The bill provides for improved intelligence analysis and
coordination. It continues the effort to increase our human
intelligence resources, an area vital to the
[[Page H11662]]
security of our Nation during the war on terrorism, as we have seen
discussed virtually every day.
In addition, H.R. 2417 augments the information shared between
Federal, State, and local governments and encourages strong cooperation
in the pursuit of joint counterterrorism activities to keep our
homeland safe.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes possible the important work performed by
dedicated intelligence professionals, people who are out and about
right now taking very high risks to get us vital information so the
right decisions can be made to nip terrorism in the bud before it
strikes us again. It is the product of a bipartisan agreement that we
deal with today and, as I stated previously, another prudent step in
the right direction for developing our capabilities in the intelligence
community.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
rule that will provide them with a fair forum for debate on this
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. It is a pleasure
to serve with the gentleman on both the Committee on Rules and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, as I said last night,
not in a self-serving way, I do not know of any two committees which
work harder or more diligently than the two on which the gentleman and
I serve. It turns out that we are the only two Members on both of those
committees, and what I said last night is we must be gluttons for
punishment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, providing for the
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2417, the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This bill
authorizes classified amounts in fiscal year 2004 for 14 United States
intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the
National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of
the Defense Department, FBI, State Department, Homeland Security
Department, and other agencies.
Members who wish to do so, and I urge Members to do this if they have
concerns, can go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the
programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the national intelligence program. As I said, this
includes authorizations for the CIA, as well as the foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence programs within, among others, the
Department of Defense, NSA, Department of State, Treasury and Energy,
and the FBI. Also included in the classified documents are the
authorizations for the tactical intelligence and related activities and
joint military intelligence program of the Department of Defense.
The measure covers specific and general intelligence operations
including all of our operations that we put forward in any manner.
Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and
flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this
body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the
continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this
legislation. I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor in a
truly bipartisan manner. Thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) and all of the members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the specific subcommittees, a good job has been done
on behalf of this country.
Let me say though, Mr. Speaker, that just because this is brought
here in a bipartisan manner does not mean that it is a perfect bill;
far from it. There are several areas that many of us would have liked
to have seen improved. One of them that we have an exacting concern
about is the expansion of the executive authorities under section 374,
the amendment of the National Financial Services Act. We feel that that
bears further scrutiny and certainly, without judicial review in that
section, could pose problems at some point in our future. It is
something that many of us will continue to review.
We also felt very strongly, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who will speak specifically to it, that we
should emphasize the area of language ability in a more dramatic
fashion.
Mr. Speaker, this bill provides authorizations and appropriations for
some of the most important national security programs in this great
country. Any hesitation by this body in passing it would be a
disservice to the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this
rule and the underlying conference report.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my good friend.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his good work not only
on the Committee on Rules, but also on the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
As he said, I would welcome the opportunity later to speak about the
need to have better training in critical languages here in the United
States, but at the moment, I would like to talk about something that is
relevant to the rule and to the Committee on Rules.
Here in Congress we have a responsibility, not only to appropriate
funds, to authorize those funds, but also to oversee their expenditure.
It is a sacred responsibility to deal with other people's money. It is
a difficult job.
Now, in the areas of transportation and the Department of the
Interior and other areas, we are assisted by millions of engaged
citizens who keep an eye out for waste or misguided programs or
programs that are less than well-thought-out. We do not, in classified
programs, have that advantage, so it falls to us and our staff. We have
an excellent staff that keeps tabs on the multifarious programs of the
intelligence community. We are blessed with a chairman who has an
agreeable personality and demeanor and wields his gavel with
equanimity, and an excellent ranking member who keeps us on track. But
we have a difficult job under the best of circumstances to oversee the
intelligence programs.
It is made almost impossible when large fractions of the intelligence
budget come through special appropriations, not through the normal
course, not through the normal authorization and appropriation process,
when in emergency allocations, money is put in without any previous
oversight.
So as I speak in favor of the authorization bill that we are
considering today and hope that we approve the rule so that we can get
to the debate and approval of this authorization bill, I would ask the
Committee on Rules to use its considerable influence in the future to
see that we do not appropriate large sums of money for intelligence and
other operations without going through the customary and necessary
authorization process. We have done that over and over again in recent
years, and it is a disservice to the intelligence community and a
disservice to the American people. So again, I ask the Committee on
Rules to use its considerable influence to see that we not fall into
that problem.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS), the distinguished
chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and
Counterintelligence.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
I want to rise in strong support of the rule for the authorization of
the intelligence bill, H.R. 2417. I want to take just a moment to
explain the issue of compensation reform which I think is important and
critical to the future of the intelligence community.
Over the years we have had a system of pay for the men and women who
are doing the hard work of gathering intelligence for the people of
this country.
{time} 1045
And yet we have not been able to find a way to adequately compensate
them.
[[Page H11663]]
These are individuals who are dedicated to this mission. They are not
there because they want more money. They are there because they like
what they do. They feel it is important for the future of this country
and for the security of the American people. We have opportunities now
to make sure that when we pay these individuals, we pay them correctly,
we pay them adequately for their services. It is important that
Congress continue this oversight.
We have an important part of this bill that addresses the issue of
compensation reform. I am hoping that all our colleagues will rise and
support this bill because of the important aspect of compensation
reform for the men and women who are doing the valiant job of
representing this country in faraway places in the dark of night, doing
things that most other people would not do. These are true heroes in
the American legend. We should all stand up and thank them for the work
they have done. And I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss)
for the opportunity to speak out on this rule and hope that everyone
will support the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my good friend.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding, and I also want to commend our chairmen and
ranking members for the great job that they do under what, I think, are
very difficult circumstances. And I would also associate myself with
the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons),
about giving good compensation for great work that is being done around
the world for our national security by the intelligence community
employees.
Having said that, I also want to state that I rise in strong support
of this rule for H.R. 2417, but I also want to note that there are many
of us that have concerns about issues that are vitally important to our
national security, the lack of diversity in the intelligence community,
and certainly the lack of a good solid plan to diversify and understand
and recruit people that know and understand and speak different
languages and come from different cultures. Those are critical and
important in light of the attacks of September 11.
I would urge everyone to support this rule, but at the same time I
also think it is vitally important that we continue to focus. And as my
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), made mention, it
is difficult in this environment because we operate in a closed
oversight manner and we do not have the benefit of outside input and
scrutiny. So it is critical.
And I know that our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss),
and the ranking member are committed to continue to work in these two
critical areas, diversity and language proficiency. So with that, Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), his remarks about a concern
about disenfranchising authorizing committees by the use of
supplemental appropriations and other such matters as has sometimes
happened. I do believe that the authorizing committees provide a
critical contribution, a valuable contribution to the legislation of
this institution. And I think it is unfortunate that sometimes in the
press of business that we sometimes bypass that wisdom and that
contribution because of urgency or other matters, which are
understandable, but which should be an aberration rather than the
practice.
And I can assure the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and others
who are interested that I am going to be spending some time and,
hopefully, get a point or two across on the Committee on Rules that our
view is that regular order is a whole lot better than supplemental
appropriations.
The second thing I wanted to point out, very briefly, I am well aware
this is not a perfect bill. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) and I and the members of the committee have worked very hard.
We have excellent staff. This is not a perfect bill. It is a very, very
good bill. It deserves the attention of the Members on the floor today.
Certainly the rule is appropriate to bring it forward.
I think I can promise on behalf of the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman) and all the Members that the minute this authorization
bill passes we start on the next authorization bill. And there is
plenty to be done.
There are a number of things we will hear about in the debate later
today. These are things that we already have taken aboard, and we will
be pushing hard on. So I am convinced that from the legislative
perspective we are doing the job that the people of this country have
asked us to take on in the oversight, and I am very proud to be part of
that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Congressional Record: November 20, 2003 (House)
Page H11667-H11673
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker pursuant, to House Resolution 451, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolutions 451, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 19, 2003, at page H 11605.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference
report for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004. And I want to personally thank members and staff of the
committee for their industry, their skill, their professionalism, and
their dedication in crafting what I believe is a strong nonpartisan
bill which will see us well through the year.
Perhaps the job was made a bit more difficult this year given the
attempts by some in the media and elsewhere to throw American
intelligence capabilities into the meatgrinder of partisan Presidential
politics, but I am confident that a review of this legislation will
show just how successful the members of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence have been in putting the Nation's security
needs first, rejecting the divisiveness, the partisan trickery and
treachery that has been elsewhere.
H.R. 2417 authorizes funding for all intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
Disability System. Generally speaking, we have authorized funding for
the National Foreign Intelligence Program in fiscal year 2004 at a
level slightly above the President's request and substantially equal to
that provided in the appropriations process.
There is much in the bill to recommend it to Members of the House. I
would like to mention just a few of the important provisions and
highlights.
First and foremost, this conference report supports the men and women
in the intelligence community who are dedicated to protecting our
Nation's citizens and their freedom, many of
[[Page H11668]]
whom do this work under a shroud of secrecy, carrying out very tough
tasks and, in fact, heroic deeds with little, if any, recognition.
Intelligence is the fundamental element of the global war on
terrorism. It is crucial to America's efforts in the hot parts of the
war such as Afghanistan and Iraq, just as it is essential to protecting
Americans overseas and at home, that is, offense and defense. This
conference report funds many important counterterrorism programs.
Also of note in the fight against terrorism, we are witnessing
history being made this day. This is the first intelligence bill to
authorize funds for the intelligence functions of the new Department of
Homeland Security. We on the committee are acutely aware of the vital
need for intelligence community resources to be effectively marshaled
in protecting the homeland. In the past year, the Federal Government
has moved to realign national resources to better leverage capabilities
in the war on terrorism. We have been hard at work on that. In addition
to the establishment of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate over at the Homeland Security, the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center was created and is under the control of the
Director of Central Intelligence, and a new Terrorist Screening Center
is being established and put to work at the FBI.
These resources, among others that we have been working on
previously, will require continued investment and strong leadership to
overcome a number of challenges including, by the way, the challenge of
being the first of their kind. Our committee will continue to be
actively engaged in defining how the intelligence community is evolving
to meet the challenges of homeland security. We actually have no
greater obligation.
Counterterrorism and counterintelligence are the driving forces
behind section 374 of the conference report. This provision brings the
definition of ``financial institution'' up to date with the reality of
the financial industry. The current definition in the Right to
Financial Privacy Act was crafted back in 1978. That was a quarter of a
century ago. This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and
spies to ``follow the money'' more effectively and thereby protect the
people of the United States more effectively.
This conference report contains a provision that has received some
degree of attention, section 405 dealing with the Central Intelligence
Agency's compensation reform proposal. The conferees support the idea
that improvements can be made, should be made, in the old GS system of
pay and promotion. I certainly feel we can do better by the officers at
CIA. However, it is important to replace the outdated system with a
better one, not just a new one. So section 405 will assist CIA
management in finding the right system by allowing important fine-
tuning and workforce buy-in.
The conferees were concerned that CIA managers were rushing a bit
into the implementation of an undertested and unevaluated compensation
system. To address this concern, section 405 delays slightly the
implementation of CIA's compensation reform plan to allow time for the
review, evaluation, and for adjustment, where needed, of the
compensation program currently being tested in a congressionally
mandated pilot program which we have all been very interested in and
are following very closely. I think the final result will be a better
system for managers and employees alike and a significant improvement
for the institution. If it takes a month longer to get there, I think
it is going to be well worth the investment.
I could go on for some time detailing many other worthy provisions,
but I will conclude my opening remarks here with the observation that
this conference report reflects the committee's view that the U.S.
intelligence community is making progress in many areas. In the past 3
years, it has recovered to a degree from the devastating cutbacks and
budget personnel capabilities and frankly flagging political support
that occurred during the mid-1990s. But as I have said, it will be a
long road to recovery, and it takes time to build intelligence
capability. It will take years of sustained effort and attention and
reinvigorated political backing to rebuild a fully capable intelligence
community that does all the things we need it to do for us. We are on
the road to recovery. I am proud of that. Investment in timely
intelligence is the best investment for our homeland and national
security, and I hope most Members agree with that.
This conference report represents progress on that road, and I urge
the House to adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2417. Earlier today, several large truck
bombs exploded in Istanbul killing the British Consul General and
dozens of others, wounding at least 450, and causing substantial
property damage. The attacks appear to have the earmarks of al Qaeda,
and they make today's action even more pressing.
This bill is not perfect, but it represents a lot of hard work to
come to bipartisan agreement on tough issues. In the past 2 years, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has completed a joint 9-11
inquiry and is currently reviewing prewar Iraq intelligence. These two
reviews, among other activities we have undertaken, have pinpointed
deficiencies in collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence
that cannot be fixed one brick at a time; nor can meaningful
intelligence improvements be made simply in response to the latest
crisis. This bill represents progress; but, Mr. Speaker, systemic
transformation is needed, and it hopefully will be the committee's
primary focus in the coming year.
I am particularly satisfied that this bill requires a lessons learned
study on Iraq intelligence as soon as possible and no later than a year
from now. This House, just 2 days ago on a virtually unanimous basis,
instructed the conferees to include this language, and we did. In the
course of 6 months of review, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings
in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
ties to terrorism. A bipartisan letter earlier this fall details the
preliminary view that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I
hold. My own view is that estimates were substantially wrong and at a
minimum the intelligence community overstated the strength of
underlying data supporting its conclusions. Asking the intelligence
community to do an introspective study is not an unreasonable request
to ensure the credibility of our national security strategies. It will
also ensure our troops and our leaders are served by the best
intelligence.
In intelligence collection, the bill funds initiatives to improve
technical and human collection. It pushes the intelligence community to
hire and develop officers who speak foreign languages and who have deep
experience in other countries and cultures, important issues raised in
an unprecedented public hearing a few weeks ago.
{time} 1200
In intelligence analysis and dissemination, the bill provides a new
infusion of resources to modernize analyst infrastructure, including
new information technology tools, training, and hiring new analytic
expertise. There is also strong support for improving information-
sharing across the IC and with State and local law enforcement
partners.
The bill provides funds to support integration of watch list efforts
across the Terrorist Threat Information Center, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Terrorist Screening Center, and other relevant
players. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security,
working with the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney
General, to establish a training program to help local and private
sector officials identify threats and report information to Federal
partners. Information-sharing, as we have shown again and again and
again, was a primary intelligence failure pre-9/11. This bill goes a
long way to fix it.
I am pleased that the bill addresses the development of data mining
efforts for fighting terrorism, while maintaining adequate privacy
protections for U.S. persons. The defense appropriations conference
report, which we have already voted on, terminated DOD's Terrorist
Information Awareness program, but it transferred funds and
[[Page H11669]]
projects from that program to the intelligence community. For these
programs, there are restrictions on mining databases containing
information on U.S. persons, and I applaud those restrictions. But data
mining, properly applied, is an excellent way to isolate who the bad
guys are. It is also important to ensure that research and development
on data mining tools continues, even while deployment awaits the full
development of policies, guidelines, and procedures for use of these
tools.
Let me be clear: I do not support deployment without limitations, but
I think that R&D continues to be important. Responsible, respected
groups like the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in
the Information Age and the Center for Democracy and Technology, along
with scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation,
all have concluded that data mining tools can be enormously beneficial
for our national security, and that these operations can be done in a
way that preserves privacy and protects civil liberties.
But it will not happen automatically. It will require real work from
the administration, especially in view of the hole it dug for itself
over the TIA project. The bill tasks the administration to come to
grips with the policy issues posed by advanced data mining technology,
requiring the administration to report to Congress with proposed
modifications to laws and policies, and I hope the administration will
embrace this opportunity.
The bill contains a provision to expand the definition of ``financial
institution'' in the context of the FBI's authority to issue national
security letters which compel the production of financial records
without a warrant. The expanded definition closes a potentially
significant loophole in the government's ability to track terrorist
financing. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on
this point. On the other hand, however, I worry that language in the
bill is not as clear as it needs to be that this authority to obtain
records only pertains to the customer's financial relationship with
institutions. I would have preferred this clarification to be in the
statute. It is in the report language. I would have preferred the
report language to be even stronger, and I remain concerned that the
expanded definition leaves the potential, hopefully that will never be
realized, for abuse in a classic fishing expedition.
The bill authorizes new personal services contracting for the FBI to
allow it to more efficiently and flexibly surge capabilities against
new missions. These powers granted to the FBI must not become a
substitute for hiring full-time employees for the Bureau's long-term
strategic needs or lead to other abuses in hiring practices. I spoke
earlier this week with FBI Director Mueller and received his assurances
that he will personally review this program and be sensitive to
potential abuses. It is important to have strong standards and criteria
alongside the increased flexibility.
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has said, and I agree,
that intelligence community reform, or transformation, must be a
central focus of the committee next year.
Issues raised by our Iraq review and the Joint 9/11 Inquiry point to
systemic challenges and raise fundamental questions of roles, missions,
capabilities, and organization. These include whether the intelligence
community should be headed by a Director of National Intelligence;
whether the Nation would be best served by a domestic intelligence
agency; the shortcomings of budgeting by supplemental; and our
committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), made this
point I thought quite effectively in our previous debate on the rule
for this conference report. Also, strengthening the quality of HUMINT
and other collection on hard targets; the roles and authorities of the
Department of Defense in intelligence activities; and the roles and
responsibilities of policy officials and intelligence analysts
regarding objectivity of intelligence products.
Transforming the IC's approach to language and cultural expertise
will also require special attention. I note the work of the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), two committee members, and strongly support the gentleman
from Florida's (Chairman Goss) proposal for a major initiative focused
on building these skill sets.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the best intelligence is key to stopping
the insurgency and permitting reconstruction in Iraq today. It is key
to addressing threats in Afghanistan today. It is key to countering
threats from terrorism in Turkey and elsewhere today, and to addressing
challenges in Iran and North Korea today and tomorrow. To produce less
than our best intelligence is to protect national security less than is
needed.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to serve as ranking member of this
committee. Our 2004 authorization conference report was approved
unanimously by our Members, and I urge its strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished
vice chairman of the committee who is also chairman of our Subcommittee
on Intelligence Policy and National Security. He is indeed a busy man.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
authorization legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time.
The conference report takes important steps to strengthen the
intelligence community's ability to provide global analysis. I think it
is an excellent report and an excellent effort on the part of the
chairman, ranking member, and all Members and our staffs.
We are all aware that we are waging an aggressive war against
terrorism. In addition, U.S. military forces are fighting the remnants
of the former regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet we have global interests,
for despite the immediate threats that we face, we must not devote all
of our intelligence energies to Iraq and al Qaeda.
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks on two primary points. The
first is related to human intelligence. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons), I am sure, will cover that subject very well, since it is a
primary responsibility of the subcommittee he chairs, so I will move to
the second area. This relates to attacking the terrorists' finances.
The gentlewoman from California talked about that to some extent just a
few minutes ago. The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss)
has been very supportive in the progress that is being made in this
legislation through his leadership. I think the important point is what
we have done through this legislation within the Treasury Department.
Terrorist networks like al Qaeda obviously cannot function without
significant financial backing. These terrorists, supported by (A) a
shadowy network of fund-raisers, money lenders and shakedown artists;
(B) businesses and charities serving as front organizations; and (C)
unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen.
Now, prior to the attacks of September 11, the Treasury Department
was not organized or equipped to take steps such as the freezing of
terrorist bank accounts or assets. Frankly, it has never been as high a
priority in Treasury as it should have been. H.R. 2417, this bill,
creates an Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of
Treasury headed by an Assistant Secretary and tasked with the receipt,
analysis, and dissemination of relevant foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence information. In short, the conference report makes
the Department of Treasury a real player, which can be an effective
partner agency, in the global war on terrorism. This Members extends
his appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Financial Services for working in a constructive manner to
include this important provision in our legislation today. This Member
also congratulates the staff for the exceptional work here.
I think that the leadership presented by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss), the chairman, and the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, has been demonstrated in
bringing forth a genuinely bipartisan product.
[[Page H11670]]
The conference report is a very serious effort to improve our
intelligence capacity. Each and every member of the committee and its
staff dedicated long hours to the drafting of this legislation. Each
member recognizes the importance of our actions and responsibilities
and things yet to come. This body can justifiably, I believe, be proud
of the efforts of the HPSCI in this case and, in particular, the
leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman).
Mr. Speaker, this Member urges strong adoption of the conference
report to H.R. 2417.
Together, these endeavors have severely tested the capabilities of
our intelligence resources. However, America's interests remain global,
and we must not devote all our energies to Iraq and al Qa'ida. The
Intelligence Community must continue to provide timely, actionable
intelligence on a host of potential threats--from nuclear proliferation
threats on the Korean peninsula, to narco-traffickers in the jungles of
Colombia, to collapsing regimes in West Africa.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a new world, and face new and more terrible
threats. In many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat
was the Soviet Union. Frankly, the Intelligence Community has been slow
in adapting to this new environment. Our intelligence services did not
reach out aggressively to recruit the ``human intelligence'' sources
that could have provided us invaluable information. We lost far too
many of the skilled analysts whose job is to provide early warning.
H.R. 2417 provides much-needed funding to rebuild a dynamic, wide-
ranging, global analytic capability. But we should be under no
illusions--it takes years to develop skilled analysts who are able to
``connect the dots'' and provide our policymakers with timely
information.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of our
committee and ranking member for their commitment to working in a
bipartisan manner on the very important work that this committee has to
do.
I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R.
2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. Conferees and staff
worked together closely to craft a bill that provides new and better
capabilities to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, as well
as to address a range of global intelligence challenges that we, as a
country, face today.
I want to highlight two features of this very important bill. The
first one is the requirement that the Director of Central Intelligence
submit an Iraq Lessons Learned Report to the intelligence committees as
soon as possible. Tuesday we debated the merits of the lessons learned
in Iraq. I argued that Iraq must not become another Vietnam. We need to
know from the intelligence community what has and what has not worked,
and what has and what has not gone well in Iraq. Better intelligence is
essential to defeating the expanding insurgency that we are seeing
there today. I am pleased that the bill underscores the urgency of
intelligence lessons learned.
This bill also establishes a pilot project within the intelligence
community to enhance the recruitment of individuals with diverse ethnic
and cultural backgrounds, skill sets, and language proficiency. The
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently held a rare
public hearing on this very issue of diversity. A panel of experts
highlighted the capabilities that a diverse workforce bestows upon the
intelligence community. It brings added language capability and better
understanding of foreign cultures. I am pleased that this bill
encourages diversity in the intelligence community.
In a similar vein, this bill also fences a portion of the funds
authorized for the community management account until the Director of
Central Intelligence submits a report to this committee outlining his
plan to improve diversity throughout the intelligence community.
I tried also to include in this bill conference language urging that
the Drug Enforcement Agency to make funds available for the El Paso
Intelligence Center's Open Connectivity project. That language
unfortunately was not included. Nonetheless, I still feel that EPIC has
an important role to play in countering terrorism, and I hope that it
is recognized for that role in this committee and others in the near
future.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence,
and a man who has carried some of the more difficult projects that we
have had to deal with in this bill.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Intelligence Authorization bill, and I want to thank my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for granting me this
time to speak on it.
This is a very good bill, Mr. Speaker. It represents a lot of hard
work by very dedicated staffs on both sides of the aisle. It addresses
intelligence needs that this committee has highlighted for many years.
The good news is, Mr. Speaker, that some of the most crucial needs of
our intelligence community, the human intelligence and analysis, are
getting the funding and attention that they deserve. We are fighting a
war on terrorism, and I cannot overemphasize how important human
intelligence, also known under the acronym of HUMINT, is to the
security of the American people and to our national interests.
The satellites of the Cold War were key intelligence collectors, and
our current reconnaissance vehicles are even better today than they
have ever been in the past. However, in the world we live in right now,
an overreliance on overhead photography and other technical programs
would be a mistake. They cannot provide America with plans and
intentions of terrorists who plot in secret, hide in civilian
populations, and communicate with messengers.
{time} 1215
What you have to have is HUMINT, collected by professionals
possessing foreign language skills, foreign cultural knowledge, and
specialized training necessary for success. This committee encourages
the enhancement of these critical skills areas. And this bill
authorizes essential funding needed to accomplish these goals.
The second crucial area in the war on terrorism is analysis. Our
committee has expressed time and again the importance of a well-
trained, experienced analytic cadre. Like the HUMINT capability,
building a truly professional analytical cadre takes years of
investment in people, technology, and training. The critical skill sets
and professional cadres are still too thin and still too few in number.
We are still paying the price for the mistakes of the mid-1990s. The
good news is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill commits great resources to
correct those mistakes.
CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and other intelligence and law
enforcement agencies desperately need qualified analysts. It takes
years to develop them, but the development is under way. This committee
has seen to that. And this bill is a key measure.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the bill before you will
significantly help the intelligence agencies increase and sharpen their
effectiveness, especially against terrorist groups.
I strongly support this measure, Mr. Speaker. I urge its passage and
once again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
leadership in this.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. BOSWELL), our committee member who is the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and
Counterintelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the
ranking member, for their leadership and untiring efforts to work
together and produce this very meaningful bill. Plus I have never seen
better and more dedicated staff than I have seen on this committee, and
I appreciate them very much.
[[Page H11671]]
It is basic: we have to have the best possible intelligence to enable
our troops and protect our Nation again a basic must-do. So I rise in
support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
2004. What is the bottom line of this bill? The bottom line is that it
funds important new intelligence capabilities while demanding
accountability and improvement in certain areas.
Here are three examples: first, the conference report requires the
intelligence community to conduct a review of lessons learned for
military operations in Iraq. Based on the committee's reviews so far of
prewar intelligence on Iraq, there were some serious deficiencies in
collection and analysis that needed to be fixed, must be fixed. The
lessons learned provision is essential and will identify new tools and
techniques needed.
Second, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human
Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I want to strengthen
HUMINT collection efforts around the world. In our efforts and
briefings and in our committee members' oversight trips to Baghdad and
other places, members have talked to dozens of intelligence officers
who are fighting the war on terrorism and fighting to win the peace in
Iraq. I admire their bravery, their patriotism, and their selfless
dedication to duty.
This conference report provides them with tools they need to
accomplish their mission. It expands language and cultural expertise in
the intelligence agencies. It asks the administration to set up a
process for reviewing the laws and guidelines associated with data
mining. And it supports new tools for sharing information through the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center and with local officials to the
Department of Homeland Security and local FBI joint task force on
terrorism.
Finally, the conference report includes measures that will strengthen
the capabilities of defense human intelligence. Through further
transformation and reform, defense HUMINT will become more flexible,
agile, readily responsive to the Department of Defense intelligence
requirements. This is a good bill that will protect Americans. I am
pleased to support it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who is the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. And that subcommittee
has, indeed, been hard at work.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 and thank our chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me this time.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his
extraordinary leadership and the outstanding job that he does and also
compliment our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), for the good work that she does and the way in which both the
chairman and the ranking member are able to work together. I too want
to compliment our staff. I think they do a terrific job and work long
hours on behalf of really tying to improve intelligence gathering and
really keeping the Members posted on what is happening.
Never before have we needed or have we demanded so much of crucial
importance from our intelligence community. The intelligence community
provides the eyes, ears, and analytical brain power necessary to
identify and prevent terrorist attacks. The cataclysmic events of
September 11, 2001, provide a unique and compelling mandate for strong
leadership and constructive change throughout the intelligence
community. This bill adds to that impetus for change.
I believe our committee has authored legislation that strives to
fully invest in and engage those economic, military, foreign policy,
and law enforcement elements of our intelligence community in the war
on terrorism. It strives to employ, integrate, and enhance the
capability of the intelligence community to track down and destroy
terrorist organizations both overseas and within the United States.
For instance, this legislation supports the attack on international
financial support for terrorism, supports the unique analytical
capabilities of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury
Department and further develops these capabilities by establishing the
Office of Intelligence Analysis within the Treasury Department. The
last measure will streamline and centralize the U.S. Government's
capability to track terrorist financial networks around the globe.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I
am acutely aware of the vital need for our intelligence resources to be
marshaled not only on the international front but also in our homeland.
In order to defeat terrorism threats to our Nation, all elements of
government must communicate and coordinate more effectively among
themselves. The conference report supports efforts to encourage the
flow of information, measures including FBI efforts to make internal,
structural, and technological changes to improve and expand the use of
data mining and other cutting-edge analytical tools; authority for the
FBI director to enter into contracts for needed services like language
skills, intelligence analysis, and other high-value requirements relate
to the flow of information not already available; the creation and
nurturing of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center as a central
office to monitor threats to the Nation; the inauguration of the
Department of Homeland Security's office of Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection to facilitate timely sharing of relevant
information with all appropriate Federal and State and, very
importantly, local first responder authorities.
Our committees will continue to encourage the intelligence community
development of clear policies and guidelines by which no resource is
wasted, no credible terrorist threat left undetected, and threats to
our homeland continue to diminish.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is very proud of
the men and women that serve in the war on terrorism. I am convinced
that the bill will make them more effective in their efforts to defend
our country. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation.
I would be remiss, though, if I did not say something about what has
taken place in what I would characterize as the politicizing of the
intelligence gathering in the other body. Specifically, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence has, I believe, tried to use
intelligence gathering as a political vehicle for nothing other than
political gain against the President and his team. This is wrong and I
decry those who want to use the intelligence efforts of this country
for political gain.
These political efforts are unprecedented and I hope the
embarrassment brought to bear on the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence will put an end to the charade that has taken place.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I will enter into the Record the memo that
has been made public that came from the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and
believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as
follows:
(1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that
may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or
questionable conduct by Administration officials. We are
having some success in that regard. For example, in addition
to the President's State of the Union speech, the Chairman
has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz) as
well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the Chairman supports our investigations into
these offices, and cosigns our requests for information, is
helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will
find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far
greater when we have the backing of the Majority. (Note: We
can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are
pursuing).
(2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to
attach to any interim or final reports the committee may
release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we
intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have
already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by
senior Administration officials. We will identify the most
exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence
estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional
views will also, among other things, castigate the majority
for seeking to limit the scope of the
[[Page H11672]]
inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to
reopen the question of establishing an independent commission
(i.e. the Corzine amendment).
(3) Prepare to launch an Independent investigation when it
becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully
collaborate with the Majority. We can pull the trigger on an
independent investigation of the Administration's use of
intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once. The
best time to do so will probably be next year either:
(A) After we have already released our additional views on
an interim report--thereby providing as many as three
opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) Additional
views on the interim report; (2) announcement of our
independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the
final investigation; or
(B) Once we identify solid leads the Majority does not want
to pursue. We would attract more coverage and have greater
credibility in that context than one in which we simply
launch an independent investigation based on principled but
vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized
independent investigation, we continue to act independently
when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the Majority.
For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at
the request of the Vice Chairman; we have independently
submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing
further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's
concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an
important role to play in revealing the misleading--if not
flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior
Administration officials who made the case for a unilateral,
preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the
best prospect for exposing the Administration's dubious
motives and motives.
Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members it is not appropriate during debate to characterize the actions
or inactions in the other body.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague and classmate, the ranking
member on our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National
Security.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
And I want to express in the beginning of my comments my appreciation
for the hard work, the cooperation of all of my colleagues on the
committee, of course, our distinguished chairman and, most
particularly, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who I think
really leads us so well on our side and really brings such credit to
the work that we do. To the staff of our committee, and, certainly,
from where I speak, the minority staff; The word ``intelligence'' is
used all the time--I think it resides first with them. They are second
to none. And I really salute them for the work they do day in and day
out.
This legislation was prepared with our minds still focused on the
lessons of September 11 and as the drama in Iraq was unfolding. By
these yardsticks this conference report reflects important progress in
many areas. One of the most significant lessons to emerge from the
joint congressional inquiry into the 9/11 tragedy is the need to
improve information-sharing through the extension of modern information
technology. Sounds like a no-brainer. But what we have found is that
simply was not the case.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence made a concerted
effort this year to chart a path to bring the information revolution to
the intelligence community. So it is imperative for the Congress to
sustain the pressure next year and for the executive branch to embrace
this vision.
Regarding so-called data mining of government and private sector
databases, this is an extraordinarily large issue, and it contains
extensive information on U.S. persons. And this conference report
strikes what we believe is the right balance between security and
privacy protection for the American people. The American people care
about this. The conference report authorizes continued development of
data mining tools, but it prohibits their use against domestic
databases. It calls for the administration to begin defining the
policies, the procedures, and the technologies necessary to safeguard
this privacy.
I would like to turn just briefly to the problem of prewar
intelligence. The intelligence community has to face up to the problems
and the shortcomings in its Iraq estimates. That is why I strongly
support the conference report's requirement for the intelligence
community to report on lessons learned.
I want to again thank the committee, the committee staff, my
colleagues, most especially our gifted leader, the vice chairman of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who is chairman of the
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and, obviously, a
critical member of the team who has also been one of our world
travelers to places that not everybody wants to go to.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2417 and
the conference report to accompany the 2004 intelligence authorization
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as a member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. It is my pleasure to commend the leadership
and direction of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), on this
nonpartisan bill at a time in this country's history when it is needed
most.
This bill addresses the critical need to review the Nation's imagery
capabilities and the intelligence community's strategic plan for an
imagery architecture. It is imperative that the community sees into the
future with a utility of a cohesive imagery structure that focuses on
each technical collection system and how it fits uniquely or with
intentional redundancy into this broader framework we call an imagery
architecture strategy. I think we have a fair spending plan here that
provides the support that is needed, yet challenges the community to
see more clearly a comprehensive vision of a much-needed cohesive
architecture. Just like an architect, we must have a blueprint.
Mr. Speaker, on that note I would also like to express my
disappointment that the choices presented to us in this conference
report require us to fund a particular classified collection system
within this bill. This system does not fit into what we hope will be
our Nation's well-conceived architecture. In fact, it is a
transgression. It may perpetuate a series of problems.
I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons), for his efforts in spearheading a committee campaign to
educate all members of the committee on the pros and cons of this
program and to praise him for the impact that he had on the
authorization for the program in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community is building a number of
tools. I believe we need to use them and use them jointly and across
services and agencies. I am glad to say that this bill addresses the
need for greater emphasis on tasking, processes, exploitation, and
dissemination practices within the intelligence community.
{time} 1230
These intelligence systems are becoming so proprietary and so complex
and so autonomous that neatly networking them is becoming equally as
difficult. It is very important that we observe collectively how these
systems are used and by whom for greatest benefit. I believe this bill
enforces that concern.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 supports our intelligence community as it
supports our country's defense. Most visibly our intelligence community
is fully supporting our military and other personnel in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, in Operation Enduring Freedom, at Guantanamo Bay and here in
homeland security operations. Mr. Speaker, intelligence is our Nation's
first line of defense. We needs to support it and our intelligence
professionals who continue to do heroic, but unheralded, work around
the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill properly supports the
intelligence community as it proves our best and first line of defense
for America. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2417.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from
[[Page H11673]]
California (Ms. Harman) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 11 minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), another committee member.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues have already done, I
would like to compliment the chairman on his commitment to
bipartisanship within the committee, not only in the presentation of
this bill but in so many of the committee's activities. The two sides
may not see eye to eye on every issue, but the two sides do share a
commitment to national security.
I especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), for her leadership and bipartisanship. She
brings to her position a vigorous commitment to the Nation's
intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2417. The bill enhances our
Nation's intelligence capabilities in several important ways: In all
source analysis, in foreign language capabilities, in human
intelligence, in counter-terrorism watchlists and in particular
programs. It is a step forward in what is I think a long-term
transformation of the intelligence community.
The bill is based on a good measure of oversight, but as I spoke
earlier today here, it is difficult to provide the kind of full
oversight of such a multifaceted and secretive undertaking, but it is
essential that we do so.
Intelligence, like law enforcement and policing, is essential to an
orderly society; but like policing, it has great potential for misuse,
challenging personal rights and civil liberties and abroad it can harm
as well as advance our interests.
It is also essential that we, as a committee, support and stand
behind the dedicated people and very talented people who sacrifice so
much, sometimes even their lives, to keep alive American ideals.
We know that our intelligence is not perfect. We have a particularly
good example of that in the intelligence that led up to and into the
war with Iraq. I hope the committee will continue to scrutinize the way
in which intelligence on Iraq's threat or perceived threat to the
United States may have been deficient and to draw lessons for the
future. The committee's oversight of this issue will be especially
important if the long-term transformation of the intelligence community
is to result in better intelligence.
I hope we will continue to move toward more use of understanding of
unclassifieds and open sources. There is often, in fact, more useful
knowledge in open sources than from the secret sources that the
intelligence community sometimes so depends on.
I am disappointed that this bill does not include my proposal to
authorize $10 million for two programs designed to increase language
proficiency in America. Inadequate language capabilities actually
threaten our national security. We must invest more in the creation of
a workforce possessing requisite language skills; and to do this we
must build greater proficiency throughout the country. We must increase
the pool. There is bipartisan agreement on that, I believe, in the
committee.
I appreciate the chairman's commitment to finding a comprehensive
solution to intelligence community deficiencies, indeed, national
deficiencies in our language capabilities. I look forward to doing that
with the chairman in the next session on, as in so many things in this
committee, a bipartisan basis.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very dedicated member of
our committee who is well known for other capabilities as well.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan effort. The members,
the people that have been on the committee and the new members I think
have done a good job, and especially the staffs. Everybody should vote
for this bill. It is good however, I have some concerns that I would
like to bring up, not about the bill, but about the intelligence
process.
For years, our military has been drawn and cut down in half. If you
look at the Air Wings, the number of services, the number of tanks, the
number of ships, the number of Marine Corps, the number of Air Wings
that we have, it has almost been cut in half, but yet we ask our
military to do almost four times what they did during previous years.
Now, how does that effect the intelligence community? Because every
time DOD is deployed, our intelligence agents have to deploy with them.
We spread them thin. And there are Members in this body and the other
body that continually, through their liberal views, choose to cut
defense and intel to pay for social programs.
Now, those in many cases are the same Members that I have heard get
up on this floor and in the other body talk about, oh, how devastating
it is that we do not have enough body armor for our troops or we cannot
upgrade Humvees or that George Tenent should be replaced. But in some
cases, those same Members have voted to cut the funding necessary to
give those individuals the tools they need to do their job, and that is
wrong.
You will not see that portion in any report that we have done either
in this body or the other body, because I do not think they have got
the guts to put it in there. They will not point at themselves, because
they won't give our kids and our intel folks the funding that they
need.
We have older systems that have been drawn out. In the previous
administration, we went into Haiti and Somalia. Those places are the
hell holes of the Earth, and they are still there. Look at Kosovo, the
number of missions. You know how many tanks we sunk in Kosovo? Five. We
destroyed a country, but we had five kills and we wore out our
equipment. Guess what? CIA and intel and NSA, they were all involved in
that, and we spread them thin. So I would caution the Members who
chastise Mr. Tenent or any of the other leadership that we put in those
positions because we need to give them the tools to do their job. They
are hard working, dedicated individuals, spread to thin.
The other thing that I would bring up that upsets me is that there
have been some memos using this committee in the other body as a
partisanship tool to take a majority and the White House. That is
wrong. During a time of war, Mr. Speaker, that does disservice to this
Nation, to this committee and to the American people.
____________________
Congressional Record: November 20, 2003 (House)
Page H11673-H11677
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members it is
not appropriate during the debate to characterize actions or inactions
in the other body.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I would just point out that Members on our side strongly support the
women and men in the field who work in our intelligence community. I
assume the prior speaker is aware of that.
We also, to my knowledge, have not produced any memos around here
that could be characterized as divisive. We are all pulling in the same
direction, and that is, hopefully, to enhance our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), a senior member of our committee and a senior member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking
member, and she is my friend, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), our colleague on the other side who just spoke, has left
the room. For I did want to remind him what the ranking member just has
said and that is every member of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence vigorously and actively supports the intelligence
community in its entirety and fully recognizes the extraordinary and
dangerous work that they do on behalf of this great Nation.
I rise in support of this measure. As ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have had the
privilege to meet many talented and dedicated intelligence
professionals. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifices they have made to
ensure that United States interests both in
[[Page H11674]]
our homeland and abroad are protected. We must make a continued
investment in human resources, our greatest intelligence assets. This
bill does that by increasing funds available for language proficiency
maintenance and awards initiatives and providing specialized training
for collectors and analysts.
I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision similar to one
I offered on the House floor. It requires the intelligence community to
establish a pilot project to recruit people of diverse ethnic and
cultural backgrounds and those proficient in critical foreign
languages. Annual statistics, and the committee's November 5 public
diversity hearing demonstrate that the intelligence community continues
to lag behind the Federal workforce and the private sector in the
number of women and minorities in its ranks, especially in core mission
areas. Clearly, more must be done to increase diversity across the
intelligence community. I believe that this pilot project is another
important step in this regard.
Finally, it is important to note that this bill authorizes only part
of the operating funds for the intelligence community. A huge portion
of intelligence funds were provided in the $87 billion Iraqi
counterterrorism supplemental and in the supplementals that proceeded
it. I am extremely concerned about our government's increasing
overreliance on supplemental appropriations.
Budgeting by supplementals greatly undermines the committees's
ability to effectively oversee how funds appropriated by Congress are
spent. I fear this trend may lead to less accountability in the budget
building and accounting process, a perhaps unintended, but nonetheless
unacceptable, consequence.
On balance, this bill does much to enhance our Nation's international
security efforts. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support it.
I am prepared at this time to support this measure.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of the
committee.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
additional time.
I did want to mention in response to what the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt) said about the language issue, I have been charged
with the responsibility, with the help of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), for taking on this subject and seeking broadly
the sources of information to give us the best product. My hope is that
we will have a separate bill on the subject of language training and
recruitment before the House some 4 to 6 months after the next session
of Congress is convened.
I also wanted to speak further on the HUMIT issue. Our distinguished
colleague from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has emphasized the importance of
this issue very well, but I want to bring up a couple of other points.
I mentioned, of course, that we are focussed heavily on the terrorist
conflicts that create so many problems for us in places like
Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we do have global responsibilities. So
the intelligence community needs to continue to provide timely,
actionable intelligence on a host of potential threats from nuclear
proliferation threats on the Korean peninsula, from narcotraffickers in
the jungles of Colombia, from collapsing regimes in West Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize for our colleagues, and all Americans,
that we live in a new world and face new and more terrible threats. In
many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat was the
Soviet Union. Frankly, the intelligence community has been slow in
adapting to this new environment.
In the judgment of this Member, our intelligence service did not
reach out aggressively to recruit the human intelligence sources that
would have provided us with valuable information.
In our previous authorization bill, we corrected one of the reasons
for that failure in asset recruitment. Also, because of budgetary
restraints, the intelligence community in the mid-1990s lost far too
many of its skilled analysts whose job was to provide early warning.
This legislation provides much-needed funding to further rebuild a
dynamic, wide-ranging global analytical capability. But we should be
under no illusion. It takes years to develop skilled analysts who are
able to connect the dots and provide our policy makers with timely
information.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, we have made a start here. This is good legislation. I
urge its support and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there is an additional
speaker on the other side, and then the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) obviously has the right to close. I would reserve our
time until all speakers but the chairman have spoken.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
(Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this time that he
has offered me today.
I rise in deep concern over a provision in this legislation. Like
most of my colleagues, I supported H.R. 2417 when it came before the
House in June; but after tertiary review, I find that there is a
provision in the bill that potentially has long-reaching effects on
civil liberties. H.R. 2417 includes a provision that would expand the
FBI's power to demand financial records, without a judge's approval, to
a large range of businesses, vastly wider than their current authority.
Right now the FBI has the authority to serve subpoenas to traditional
financial institutions when investigating terrorism and
counterintelligence without having to seek a judge's approval. The law
understands the phrase ``financial institutions'' as we do: banks, loan
companies, savings associations and credit unions. Currently, these are
the types of institutions subject to administrative subpoenas.
The provision in this bill, however, uses a definition of financial
institutions to decide what organizations are subject to administrative
subpoenas. Under this bill, not only are the traditional financial
institutions like banks and credit unions affected but so are
pawnbrokers, casinos, vehicle salesmen, real estate agents, telegraph
companies, travel agencies, the U.S. Postal Service, just to name but a
few.
Winning the war against terrorism is indeed vital, Mr. Speaker, and
we must make sure that our law enforcement officials have the tools
necessary to engage this war and win these battles. The FBI's need for
authority to subpoena these groups in order to track and find and shut
down terrorist operations is not in question, and I do not question
that. However, under these provisions, the FBI no longer needs a court
order to serve such a subpoena on a new and lengthy laundry list of
financial institutions. With this legislation, we eliminate the
judicial oversight that was built into our system for a reason, to make
sure that our precious liberties are protected.
In our fight for our Nation to make the world a safe place, we must
not turn our backs on our own freedoms. Expanding the use of
administrative subpoenas and threatening our system of checks and
balance is a step in the wrong direction.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 4 minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am the concluding speaker on our side, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say first that the views of the prior speaker are views I
share. I am sad to hear that he will oppose the bill, but I certainly
agree that we need to be sure we are narrowing the reach of these
national security letters and limiting them only to financial
transactions. It is important that we find terrorists.
It is important that we track terrorist financing; but it is, by my
lights, risky to fail to include additional language in the bill or the
report that would make clear what our intent is. I hope this new
authority will not be
[[Page H11675]]
abused. I will certainly be watching it carefully, and I do appreciate
the fact that the prior speaker expanded on what abuses could
potentially occur.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the women and men who work
in our intelligence community around the world. I have been to austere
places all over the world, and I have met women and men who work in the
most dangerous conditions who put our security first, ahead of theirs,
and who leave their families at home and take enormous risks for our
country. I salute them. I know how dangerous their jobs are. I
appreciate what they do every single day.
And particularly, let me say today to our intelligence community in
Iraq and in Turkey and places that are under siege, I really appreciate
what they are doing. I thank them very much.
I also want to say thank you to the members of this committee. All of
them work hard. There is bipartisanship in this committee, and I thank
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the partnership we have had
over some years now.
Let me thank the hardworking staff on a bipartisan basis. Every one
of them works enormously hard, and I would just like to recognize the
eight minority staffers, most of whom are sitting around me right now:
Suzanne Spaulding, the minority chief of staff; Bob Emmett; John Keefe;
Beth Larson; Marcel Lettre; Kirk McConnell; Wyndee Parker; and Ilene
Romack. Thank you every day for what you do.
Let me just make three concluding points. First, facing tough issues.
It is absolutely critical at a time when security risks are expanding
around the world that we face tough issues; that Congress face tough
issues and ask tough questions; and that the intelligence community,
which tries hard but has not always delivered perfect products, face
tough issues, go through this lessons learned exercise and learn from
wrong judgments that were made or inadequate collection that occurred
so that the next products that are prepared by good people can be the
best possible products. Please let us face tough issues.
Second of all, I want to make the point that our oversight in this
committee on a bipartisan basis requires constructive criticism of the
intelligence community. We have done this over the years. Last year, we
issued a tough report. The Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland
Security, of which I was ranking member and Mr. Chambliss, who is now
in the other body, was chairman, issued a tough report on some of the
problems in intelligence leading up to 9/11. That report was
constructive criticism. Some of the recommendations we made have been
heeded; some have not. Constructive criticism, asking tough questions
are things we properly should do.
Finally, let me suggest again to the intelligence community that it
is important to engage in dialogue with this committee. Shrill press
releases are not dialogue. Quiet conversations, talking about how we
see things, what we think can be improved, why it needs to be improved,
will get the job done.
This bill provides many new resources, many, many new resources, and
is carefully crafted to suggest best directions for the intelligence
community. We have confidence in the people who work there. We are
proud of them. We thank them. We are trying to help them do better.
I urge support of this authorization conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
I just want to take a few minutes to congratulate my ranking member
for the superb job that she has done on her side of the aisle in this
conference report and throughout the year. To say she is hardworking
and dedicated does not quite get it. I have words here that say her
determination is fierce and she is definitely a force to be reckoned
with. That does not quite say it either. She is a very valuable asset,
and we are very grateful for her energies and suggestions and
leadership and the way she goes about her business.
This is her very first conference report as ranking member I think,
if I have got my history right; and she obviously was of significant
importance in bringing the report through for the authorization bill
that the House did, but she was also significantly helpful in the
negotiations with the other body which I am not allowed to mention.
I would also like to thank each and every member of HPSCI for their
undying dedication to the security of our Nation and the protection of
the people of the United States. That is what we do. Each member works
very hard learning the business of intelligence, and it is not an easy
subject. What they come to understand in that process is that this
Nation is far better off with our intelligence professionals than we
would be without them. I know sometimes the debate rages about whether
intelligence is an appropriate thing for gentlemen to be discussing in
a civilized society. Well, I can tell my colleagues we could not exist
without it.
The rank-and-file employees of the intelligence community every day,
as the gentlewoman has said, protect the very liberties we cherish.
They do it day in and day out; and as they go about gathering the
secrets and information necessary for our policy-makers to make the
very tough decisions they have to make, they incur a lot of risk. The
members of the HPSCI understand this pretty clearly. That is because we
have been out and about and talking to them. We do travel a lot. We go
to the places that not everybody wants to go to. We get into the issues
not everybody wants to fool around with. Frankly, that is why it is
easy to leave partisanship outside the door of the committee chamber.
Finally, I want to thank committee staff, all HPSCI staff, all sides,
both together, including, obviously, Democratic members and Republican
members and those who do not want to declare either side who we call
our support staff. Without staff support, it is obviously their
expertise, their dedication, our committee would not do much of
anything.
They do work late hours. I know that occasionally when I work late
hours I find them there. I find them occasionally when I come in early
I find them there. They do wonderful things for us, and they get very
little recognition. I know a lot of the work is tedious and mundane and
a lot of it is exciting, and I appreciate their contributions in all of
those areas.
The other thing I know for sure is the work space up there leaves a
lot to be desired, and I promise we are going to work on a lavatory
soon. We do feel the days have come when there is indoor plumbing, and
we should acknowledge that on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Everybody deserves congratulatory words today, and I want to thank
everybody, and I mean that very sincerely.
There is one person on the committee I am going to single out today,
though, who serves as the committee's budget director who is entitled,
I think, for specific recognition this year. Mike Meermans has served
the government for now, I am told, 30 years, in fact something in
excess of that. Among other jobs in the United States he served in the
United States Air Force, and he has been engaged by the government as
an Arab linguist. Mike has been with HPSCI since 1995. This is his 8th
year on the committee.
It has been a very trying year for Mike, whose college-age son early
in the year was diagnosed with cancer. Throughout his son's course of
treatment, Mike was by his side, I know, every step of the way, being a
great father, and all the while managing the committee's authorization
process, crunching numbers, writing the report language, negotiating
with the executive branch and with the other body, and frankly, getting
into mysteries in the intelligence community that I find too complex to
understand. He did all of this with energy, with fortitude and aplomb.
He is the manifestation of the wonderful and professional staff which
HPSCI is blessed with and is well served by.
I just wanted to say to Mike that he is appreciated not just for his
legislative talents but more so because he is a good guy. He is a nice
guy, a great father. His only purpose in serving HPSCI is actually to
make America stronger, and this year when he had family duties, he
understood those as well and met them.
To his wife, Lois, and their family, especially their son Brian, I
thank them for allowing him to work so hard for us, and I am sorry we
had to take
[[Page H11676]]
him away so much of the time. We are better and the Nation is stronger
because of him, and their pride in him is very well deserved. We share
that pride.
Mike, for you, thank you for all your hard work in years past, this
year especially. You made an extremely difficult year for you
personally a successful year for the committee. You made it seem
routine. We are all extremely happy to hear your son is on the mend and
recently received more good news from the doctors. Our prayers for
continuous good news are with you. You deserve our gratitude, and we
express it here now.
I also want to say that about a year ago we were just packaging up
the joint inquiry product. We had an extensive effort with our
colleagues in the other body to understand 9/11, what went wrong. We
came up with a good report. It was a long one. I think it steered us in
some directions that corrections have already been taken. It also
created a follow-on commission, the national commission, which is at
work now under the leadership of Governor Kean and former member Lee
Hamilton, for whom we have great admiration. I think that I should
point out to the people in the United States of America that we are
part of the review they are doing. We have invited them to conduct
oversight of how we do oversight. So the American people can be
reassured that there is oversight of the intelligence community, and
some of the things we cannot talk about are indeed watched by others.
My time has come to an end. We have had a good year. We look for a
better year ahead dealing with capabilities to make sure our country is
safer.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
and to note the Financial Services Committee's interest in three
sections of the report. All of the sections seek to improve this
country's ability to fight the financing of terrorists, and I
wholeheartedly support them.
Section 105 of the report establishes an Office of Intelligence and
Analysis within the Department of the Treasury, headed by an Assistant
Secretary appointed by the President after consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence. Formation of the office is necessary
because the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and its
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are essential tools in the fight
against the funding of terrorism, but today lack access to some
``secure'' information essential to that effort. Establishment of the
office creates a secure channel for that information to flow, as
necessary, to FinCEN and OFAC, and for them to send back appropriate
information.
Section 374 modernizes the definition of financial institutions that
may be served administrative subpoenas, as rigidly controlled by the
existing Right to Financial Privacy Act. When that Act was written,
banks were really the only ``financial Institutions'' a terrorist might
have used to stash or transfer money. As our efforts to stamp out
terror financing have become more successful, a lot of that activity
has moved over into other, less-traditional sorts of financial-services
businesses--even, for example, to dealers in precious commodities such
as gold or diamonds. The USA PATRIOT Act appropriately expanded the
definition of ``financial institution'' to include these other
financial-services businesses. This section establishes parity in the
definition of ``financial institution'' between the PATRIOT Act and the
RFPA, allowing the judicious use of administrative subpoenas in terror
cases to reflect this larger universe of businesses that might be
exploited. Here I must note my discomfort that the conference report
ignores the Financial Services Committee's request that Section 374
include the right to injunctive relief as provided for in Section 1118
of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
Section. 376 allows for the ``in camera'' review of sensitive
information that leads to imposition of `'special measures'' isolating
rogue countries or banks, as defined under Sec. 311 of the PATRIOT Act.
Under the previous version of Sec 311, there is no ability to protect
this sensitive information should it be necessary for the imposition of
the ``special measures,'' and that omission argues against use of the
powers as effectively as we would like. For example, if the Central
Intelligence Agency should have information that a bank were doing
business with a terrorist, it quite possibly would be counterproductive
to expose the CIA's sources and methods to indict individuals or shut
down the bank, but the Treasury's ``special measures'' under Sec. 311
could effectively isolate the bank if the sensitive information could
be used ``in camera.'' This section merely provides protection of that
sensitive information that might be used to support the imposition of
those measures.
Mr. Speaker, these three sections are all important tools in the
fight against terrorism, and I strongly support their inclusion. I
regret that Section 1118 was not reference in the report's Section 374,
and the Financial Services Committee reserves the right to address that
issue later. Meanwhile, I support the conference report and ask for its
immediate passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to a
provision in this conference report that intrudes on our civil
liberties and will do little, if anything, to protect us from
terrorism.
I think it is important that law enforcement have the powers it needs
to investigate acts of money laundering that are connected to terrorism
and espionage, but we must ensure those powers are reasonable and
appropriately crafted. Current law already gives the FBI the ability to
obtain financial records from various financial institutions, which are
defined as banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and credit unions, with
little or no judicial oversight. In fact, the government can delay
notification to a court that it has sought such records if it merely
certifies in writing that it required emergency access to the
documents.
Now, the FBI is seeking investigative authorities beyond what are
necessary for terrorism and intelligence investigations. Section 374 of
the conference report would give the FBI even more unfettered authority
by subjecting a broader group of ``financial institutions'' to the
FBI's special investigative authorities. The FBI would be able to seek
financial records not only from traditional financial institutions but
also from pawnbrokers, travel agencies, car dealers, boat sellers,
telegraph companies, and persons engaged in real estate transactions,
among others.
The record of the Bush administration demonstrates that this
provision is a significant intrusion on our civil liberties that will
not be used to protect us from terrorism. In the days after September
11, the administration demanded from Congress expanded powers to root
out terrorist activity. Congress granted much of those powers in the
form of the USA PATRIOT Act, but the administration has yet to justify
how it has used those powers to find the planners of the 2001 attacks
or to thwart other, planned attacks. Instead, the administration
returns to Congress with requests for more authorities, such as this
one, in a grab for power.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
conference report.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I stand today strongly opposed to the
Conference Report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for
FY 2004.
Although the House of Representatives recently voted in a bi-partisan
and overwhelming fashion to repeal Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, a
provision that threatens Americans' rights by allowing for ``sneak and
peak searches'', it appears the administration is poised to move ahead
with further actions that endanger civil liberties by slipping an
expanded PATRIOT Act power in the Intelligence Conference Report.
The hidden measure would significantly expand the FBI's power to
acquire financial records without judicial oversight from car dealers,
pawnbrokers, travel agencies, and many other businesses. Traditional
financial institutions like banks and credit unions are already subject
to such demands, but this dramatic expansion of government authority
will mean that records created by average citizens who purchase cars,
plan vacations, or buy gifts will be subject to government seizure and
analysis without the important requirements of probable cause or
judicial review.
This provision initially appeared in a leaked draft of so-called
``PATRIOT II'', a proposal the American public and Members on both
sides of the aisle in the House and Senate publicly rejected. It is now
clear the administration's strategy is to pass PATRIOT II in separate
pieces with little public debate and surreptitiously attached to other
legislation. This is far from an appropriate or democratic way to
handle issues that affect the fundamental liberties and freedoms of
Americans.
I urge the administration and the Attorney General to openly and
honestly return to Congress to discuss options that curtail, not
expand, the PATRIOT Act to make it consistent with the United States
Constitution. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the
Intelligence Conference Report and this unnecessary and dangerous
expansion of the government's assault on civil liberties.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page H11677]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________
Congressional Record: November 20, 2003 (House)
Page H11678
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
agreeing to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 2417, on which the
yeas and nays are ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264,
nays 163, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 649]
YEAS--264
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--163
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Case
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Pombo
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Simpson
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Buyer
Cubin
Davis (FL)
DeMint
Fletcher
Gephardt
Sherman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1415
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. McCOLLUM, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Ms.
BERKLEY, Messrs. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, BAIRD, ACKERMAN, JEFFERSON,
OBEY, HOEFFEL, Mrs. CAPPS, Messers. VAN HOLLEN, WYNN, PENCE, THOMPSON
of Mississippi, PALLONE, LANGEVIN, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. TANNER,
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. BISHOP of New York, JONES of
North Carolina, MANZULLO, LAMPSON, DINGELL, LEACH, HOLDEN, ROTHMAN, Ms.
LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. KIND, BALLANCE, McNULTY,
JOHNSON of Illinois, MATSUI, GREEN of Texas, TAYLOR of Mississippi,
HILL, GONZALEZ, COOPER, SANDLIN, CASE of Hawaii, ROSS, PRICE of North
Carolina, MILLER of North Carolina, ETHERIDGE, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr.
SPRATT, Mr. MOORE and Mr. BACA changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
