Congressional Record: November 22, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E2399
H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT
______
speech of
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2417. I voted for this bill earlier this year, but I cannot support it
today.
I have concerns about a provision in the conference report that would
expand financial surveillance authority of our intelligence agencies. I
also had concerns about this provision in the first version of the bill
that passed the House, but I supported the bill then in the hope that
the language would be further clarified in the final conference report.
It has not been.
Whereas currently banks, credit unions, and other financial
institutions are required to provide certain financial data to
authorized intelligence agencies and the Treasury Department, this
legislation would expand the list of institutions to include car
dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos, and other businesses.
This expanded definition of "financial institution" may indeed be
necessary for effective counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and
international operations of the United States. But since this will
represent such a significant expansion of the powers of our
intelligence agencies, I believe it is important that it be clear and
not go further than necessary.
In particular, I am concerned that the language in the conference
report only vaguely limits this expanded definition to financial
information. I understand that report language makes this distinction
more explicit, but that bill conferees objected to including this
clarifying language in the conference report itself. The legislative
intent of this provision is to expand surveillance in the area of
financial--not other--information, but there are no assurances that
this intent will be observed when the legislation is implemented.
Mr. Speaker, this provision in the conference report involves the
privacy rights of Americans--rights that I believe strongly we must
protect even as we work to combat terrorism. Because I'm concerned that
this conference report does not strike the right balance, I am voting
against it today.
____________________
Congressional Record: November 23, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E2423
H.R. 2417, THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE
REPORT
______
speech of
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, it is with great dismay that I rise to
oppose H.R. 2417, the Fiscal Year 2004 Intelligence Authorization
Report.
The Republican Leadership inserted a controversial provision in the
FY04 Intelligence Authorization Report that will expand the already
far-reaching USA Patriot Act, threatening to further erode our
cherished civil liberties. This provision gives the FBI power to demand
financial and other records, without a judge's approval, from post
offices, real estate agents, car dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers
and many other businesses. This provision was included with little or
no public debate, including no consideration by the House Judiciary
Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. It came as a
surprise to most Members of this body.
It is of great concern that the Republican Leadership, along with the
Administration and Attorney General Ashcroft, would seek to include
such a non-germane, controversial provision into what should otherwise
be a nonpartisan bill. Furthermore, the Republican Leadership, in the
Senate defeated an attempt to "sunset" this provision when they
considered it. It is clear the Republican Leadership and the
Administration would rather expand on the USA Patriot Act through
deception and secrecy than debate such provisions in an open forum. The
freedoms and civil liberties of the American people are too important
to allow such an irresponsible, abusive power play by the Majority.
The importance of our intelligence community has grown significantly
in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the subsequent,
continuing campaign against terrorism. The FY04 Intelligence
Authorization Report includes a number of positive, beneficial
provisions designed to improve our counterintelligence capabilities,
strengthen our ability to share information between the federal
government, local and state officials, and provide for our intelligence
officers and their families. It is unfortunate that such a
controversial provision had to be included.
____________________
Congressional Record: November 23, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E2428-E2429
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
______
speech of
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concerns over the
Intelligence Authorization Conference Report. I do not agree that
Members of Congress should vote in favor of an authorization that most
know almost nothing about--including the most basic issue of the level
of funding.
What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is
something that should outrage every single American citizen. I am
referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI
powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and
financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal
police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from
businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and
more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This
was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have
jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of
the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the
enormously unpopular "Patriot II" legislation that was first leaked
several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the
Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece
at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and
unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this
bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.
I also have concerns about the rest of the bill. One of the few
things we do know about this final version is that we are authorizing
even more than the president has requested for the intelligence
community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but we
must ask what we are getting for our money. It is notoriously difficult
to assess the successes of our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps it
is unfair that we only hear about its failures and shortcomings.
However, we cannot help but be concerned over several such failures in
recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad
intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of our
federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11
attacks. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our
intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the
nature of the
[[Page E2429]]
Iraqi threat. These are by any measure grave failures, costing us
incalculably in human lives and treasure. Yet from what little we can
know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would
hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our
intelligence needs, perhaps returning to an emphasis on the proven
value of human intelligence and expanded linguistic capabilities for
our intelligence personnel.
I am also concerned that our scarce resources are again being
squandered pursuing a failed drug war in Colombia, as this bill
continues to fund our disastrous Colombia policy. Billions of dollars
have been spent in Colombia to fight this drug war, yet more drugs than
ever are being produced abroad and shipped into the United States--
including a bumper crop of opium sent by our new allies in Afghanistan.
Evidence in South America suggests that any decrease in Colombian
production of drugs for the US market has only resulted in increased
production in neighboring countries. As I have stated repeatedly, the
solution to the drug problem lies not in attacking the producers abroad
or in creating a militarized police state to go after the consumers at
home, but rather in taking a close look at our seemingly insatiable
desire for these substances. Until that issue is addressed we will
continue wasting billions of dollars in a losing battle.
In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting
this dangerous and expensive bill.
____________________
Congressional Record: December 9, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E2491
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
______
speech of
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one provision of the
conference report before us today, which causes me to vote against the
entire measure.
This legislation authorizes classified amounts in fiscal year 2004
for 14 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities
of the U.S. government--including the CIA and the National Security
Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense
Department, the FBI, the State Department, the Homeland Security
Department, and other agencies. H.R. 2417 covers CIA and general
intelligence operations, including signals intelligence, clandestine
human-intelligence programs and analysis, and covert action
capabilities. It also authorizes covert action programs, research and
development, and projects to improve information dissemination. All of
these are important and vital programs, which I support.
I am voting against this measure today, however, to draw attention to
a provision which I believe should have been the subject of more
rigorous congressional analysis than merely an up-or-down vote as part
of a larger conference agreement. This measure expands the definition
of "financial institution" to provide enhanced authority for
intelligence community collection activities designed to prevent, deter
and disrupt terrorism and espionage directed against the United States
and to enhance foreign intelligence efforts. Banks, credit unions and
other financial institutions currently are required to provide certain
financial data to investigators generally without a court order or
grand jury subpoena. The conference agreement expands the list to
include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos and other
businesses.
This provision allows the U.S. government to have, through use of
"National Security Letters," greater access to a larger universe of
information that goes beyond traditional financial records, but is
nonetheless crucial in tracking terrorist finances or espionage
activities. Current law permits the FBI to use National Security
Letters to obtain financial records from defined financial institutions
for foreign intelligence investigations. While not subject to court
approval, the letters nonetheless have to be approved by a senior
government official. The PATRIOT Act earlier had altered the standard
for financial records that could be subject to National Security
Letters to include the records of someone "sought for" an
investigation, not merely of the "target" of an investigation.
While this new provision of law included in the conference report
does not amend the PATRIOT Act, I agree with the six Senators who
recently wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee and asked them not
to move ahead with such a significant expansion of the FBI's
investigatory powers without further review. As they stated, public
hearings, public debate and legislative protocol are essential in
legislation involving the privacy rights of Americans. As a member of
the House Financial Services Committee, I am concerned that these new
provisions of law could be used to seize personal financial records
that traditionally have been protected by financial privacy laws. The
rush to judgment following the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to
the rapid enactment of the PATRIOT Act, a measure which has caused
substantial concerns among many Americans who value our
constitutionally-protected liberties. Now that we are able to legislate
in this area with a lessened sense of urgency, I urge my colleagues to
step back and return this provision of H.R. 2417 to committee, where it
can undergo the rigors of the normal legislative process so that
Congress, and all Americans, can pass an informed judgment upon its
merit.
____________________
