Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4770-H4778
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4548, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 686 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 686
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 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. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
[[Page H4771]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. This bill would authorize appropriations for the
fiscal year for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the
Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system.
{time} 1030
This is must-do legislation. It is also the most robust Intelligence
Authorization Act the House has ever considered, and it is consistent
with the Defense appropriations bill the House passed yesterday by an
overwhelming vote of 403 to 17.
The classified annex to the committee report, which includes
information on the budget and personnel levels, is available to all
Members of the House of Representatives, subject to a requirement of
clause 13 of rule XXIII.
This rule permits only those Members of the House who have signed the
oath set out in clause 13 of House rule XXIII to have access to the
classified information. Simply, this means they must agree not to
release the information they see.
Intelligence has been, rightly so, recognized as a critical weapon in
the global war on terrorism. Resources for, and demands on, the U.S.
intelligence community have increased dramatically in the 2\3/4\ years
since September 11, 2001, and the attacks we all remember.
This increase is even more dramatic when one takes into consideration
the depth of the cutbacks, underinvestment, and the near fatal loss of
political support for the intelligence community in the prior
administration.
That is why I am pleased that this bill authorizes more money than
last year, even including the supplemental. This is the type of
investment that our intelligence community deserves.
This legislation continues the sustained effort and long-term
strategy to bring human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery
intelligence, and other intelligence systems and disciplines to life
successfully.
H.R. 4548 also continues a similar commitment to build and maintain
the analytic expertise and depth of coverage necessary to make wise and
timely use of the information collected.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the CIA and all the members
of our intelligence community who do make a vital contribution to our
Nation's security.
I agree with President Bush that this is a mission of service and
sacrifice in a world of great uncertainty and risk. America's
commitments and responsibilities span the world in every time zone.
Every day our intelligence community helps us to meet those
responsibilities.
This bill provides the President with the intelligence tools needed
to win the war on terrorism; and to that end, I urge my colleagues to
support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the American intelligence apparatus is
broken is well-known. In the global war on terror, the most important
weapon we have to protect the Nation and its people is intelligence.
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.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence falls far short of what our
intelligence community has requested and what the American people
expect. Now listen up. This bill provides less than a third of the key
operational funding the intelligence agencies have told us that they
need to prevent the next terrorist attack. The scheme for funding the
counterterrorism operations is to give the agencies, listen, I want my
colleagues to hear this, they are going to give them a third of the
money they need, and then after the election they will come back and
ask for the other two-thirds. Does this sound like we are concerned
about the intelligence community? Does it sound like we are worried
that we are at war? The answer is no. The election is the deciding
point on when we come back and ask for the money.
The plan will starve the counterterrorism efforts, leaves the
intelligence community anemic. Funding the intelligence community in
bits and pieces, a portion now and a supplemental after the election,
is not only irresponsible, it is reckless. Senior intelligence
community officials have said that operating this way could jeopardize
key counterterrorism operations. That is what they tell us.
Sadly, this year the bill fell victim to partisanship and the cold
hard fiscal realities of tax cuts and spending caps. Every single
Democrat member voted against favorably reporting this bill, and this
is unprecedented. Typically, the importance of this bill trumps
personal ideologies or the prevailing partisan winds; but knowing the
ranking member and the other Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I know that they must have very serious
concerns to vote against the authorization bill.
Five dedicated distinguished Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, including the gentlewoman from California
(Ranking Member Harman), offered five important amendments to the bill.
However, the Committee on Rules tossed out four of these vital
substantive amendments. The Committee on Rules will not allow the full
House to consider and debate and amend to withhold a portion of the
funding until the Secretary of Defense provides all information
concerning the dealings of the Department of Defense and Ahmed Chalabi.
This is information to which Congress is entitled. This is information
the American people want to know. Who was this man who had such an
incredible effect and so much influence on whether or not we went to
war? What did we do besides give him $33 million?
Members will not be able to consider an amendment to restructure our
dilapidated intelligence apparatus. Shockingly, the committee
Republicans even made out of order an amendment to fully fund American
counterterrorism efforts.
Yesterday, a member of the Committee on Rules tried to suggest that
the amendments were proposed for political reasons. Far from it. Our
Nation's security is at risk, and the integrity of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Democrats, and all Democrats, should not be
questioned.
Reported out of committee on party lines, the rule does make in order
an amendment to express the sense of Congress and support of the
intelligence community and an amendment expressing the sense that the
world is a safer place now that Libya has dismantled its weapons of
mass destruction. These amendments were presumed to take precedence
over the ones that really dealt with the committee and its budget. They
do nothing to improve American counterterrorism operations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a seriously, fatally flawed bill; but, again,
the Committee on Rules has muzzled debate on some of the most important
issues concerning American intelligence operations. This is a double
blow. It is another Committee on Rules strike against deliberation,
discussion, and serious consideration; and it is a strike against the
safety of America.
I am shocked at the rule and the underlying legislation before us
this morning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that the
full House
[[Page H4772]]
can participate in a comprehensive debate on the most important issue
confronting us today and to consider the vital amendments to improve
the intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time, and I am glad that we are focusing on this very important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, having served in that very distinguished group of
bipartisan members concerned about intelligence for 8 years.
I wish to rise in strong support of this bill we are presenting to
our colleagues and to the American people, the Intelligence
Authorization Act. This is a well-thought-out bill, developed over many
months of comprehensive deliberation, which provides much-needed
guidance and support for the global, and let me emphasize that, the
global war on terrorism and efforts to combat the very real threats to
our national security.
We live in a dangerous world. Reminders of that harsh fact of 21st-
century life face us on many fronts. Threats that were unimaginable
just a few years ago have now become reality. Suicide bombers, anthrax,
dirty bombs, these are but a few of the litany of weapons our enemies
threaten us with.
To meet this new threat, our Nation requires a much more flexible and
responsive intelligence community. H.R. 4548 helps provide that
flexibility; and, importantly, it provides the increased funding to
aggressively wage war on terrorism. Make no mistake, H.R. 4548
dramatically, let me emphasize that, dramatically increases
counterterrorism funding.
As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the
8 years that I have been privileged to serve in that body, one of my
greatest concerns has been the lack of sufficient numbers of
intelligence analysts and officers fluent in the languages that our
enemies speak. This capability deficiency has literally crippled our
ability to independently gather and evaluate information. It means that
we have increasingly relied on contract linguists and allied
intelligence services to translate information and to follow up leads.
It means, for example, that there are literally miles and miles of
captured Saddam Hussein documents that are still waiting to be read,
translated, and made available for our analysis.
We have made substantial investment in technology, and rightly so;
but more investment is necessary in human capital, people who serve as
our eyes and ears at far distant points on the globe, and just adding
to the numbers in our cadre is not enough by itself. We need
individuals who are language proficient and possess an understanding of
the culture being penetrated, who know and are able to appreciate not
only who was saying what but also are conversant with the nuances and
able to discern the true meaning of what is being said.
Of course, particularly in view of my position as chairman of the
Committee on Science, I can appreciate the value of investment in
technology; but that alone is not enough. There is no substitute for
people. A satellite hundreds of miles in the heavens might be able to
detect the movement of people or machines, and that is important; but
it does not compare in value to someone inside a cell in Iraq or
Afghanistan monitoring the words or actions of the bad guys.
For this reason, I have been part of a concerted effort over the past
several years to place greater emphasis on and secure needed funds for
a significant upgrading of our language program for the intelligence
community.
Our committee has put together a broad and comprehensive package of
language provisions. We establish a civilian linguistic reserve corps.
We fund and expand existing programs that have demonstrated success. We
look for creative ways to develop and utilize the vast talent pool that
already exists in our country. We support the National Virtual
Translation Center; and perhaps most importantly, we try to establish a
culture in the intelligence community where language skills become an
integral and necessary part of the job. It is the most important
legislative effort on foreign languages since the Boren Act of 1992.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 is a worthy bill. It takes many of the
necessary steps to ensure that our Nation's intelligence capabilities
remain relevant in the 21st century. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) is bringing forward an excellent package in what is his
final authorization as chairman. He has performed exceptionally well
during particularly challenging times, and he has presented us with a
bill that all Members can and should support.
I urge support of the rule and the base bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on the Committee on Rules and for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
previous question, which I understand will be offered, because it
deprives our colleagues of the opportunity to strengthen the
Intelligence Authorization Act.
Strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on
terrorism; and make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings
of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33-
year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of
our enemy. Our brave men and women of the intelligence community are on
the frontlines fighting that enemy.
{time} 1045
They risked their lives for our freedom, and they deserve our
unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule
deprives them of that support.
H.R. 4548 provides less than one-third of the key counterterrorism
funding the intelligence community has told us it needs to fight the
war on terrorism. Less than one-third. Members of our committee had
proposed an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism operations. This
rule denies us the opportunity to consider that amendment.
I think it is irresponsible of us to shortchange our counterterrorism
efforts, particularly when we know al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups
are planning attacks against us right now. By providing one-third of
the counterterrorism funding, the majority's bill essentially says to
the brave men and women of the intelligence community, you can count on
operations for 3 or 4 more months, but after that, that is rough, until
next April. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does, and that
is not acceptable.
A better rule, a much better rule would have allowed the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell),
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) of our committee to fix
this bill with an amendment that would have provided for 100 percent of
the funding that the intelligence agencies say they need. Their
amendment would have done away with the dangerous practice of budgeting
by supplemental, of saying let us kick this problem down the road. And
in this case, let us kick it down the road until well after the
November election.
A rule limiting amendments may be appropriate for other legislation,
but this legislation is different, and here is why. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, much of our work is classified and, therefore, is not
discussed in the open. However, a large portion of our work on the
intelligence policy is unclassified and is contained in the public
portion of our legislation. This information does not compromise our
intelligence sources and methods, and for that reason we asked the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to hold the markup of the public
portion of our bill in public.
On a party-line vote, the majority refused. Therefore, these
amendments have never been debated or voted on in public, even though
they are not classified and even though they would, if adopted, be part
of the public part of our bill.
[[Page H4773]]
Mr. Speaker, there is no secret law in the United States, and it is
anathema to this House to stifle open debate about important policy
issues. For that reason, it is important that the full House have the
opportunity to debate these amendments. This rule kills that debate,
shuts down any effort to fully fund counterterrorism, and tries to
sweep this issue under the rug. Well, this issue is too important, too
vital to our national security to be swept under the rug.
The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
offered five amendments, all of which were good, all of which would
have strengthened the bill and strengthened our oversight. All but one
were rejected by this rule. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because
instead of having a rule that could bring us together under one
bipartisan banner, we have a rule that ensures this bill will trigger a
bitter partisan divide.
In case the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the Republicans
have not noticed, the terrorists did not check our party labels before
launching their attacks against us on 9/11, and they will not check
them when they launch the next attack. I would have hoped that we could
debate the bill not just as Democrats and Republicans, but as
Americans. And for the sake of the country and for the sake of national
security, I am sorry that the majority let us down.
Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the
previous question.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
As a member of the committee now for 6 years, I want to say a special
word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be the last bill that he will present to
the House of Representatives, as he is retiring from the House at the
end of this year.
It is a great, great loss for the House of Representatives. I know it
is a great loss for the people of Florida, who he represents, and it
truly is a great loss for the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the intelligence community. As someone who served in
the CIA prior to coming to the House of Representatives, he has done as
good a job as anyone on the committee, and certainly been an exemplary
Chair of the committee. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for
the time and energy and devotion that he has given to the intelligence
community, to the CIA, to people, men and women, all over the world who
work so hard to collect the information and do the good professional
work. He has been dedicated to them, he has been dedicated for them.
And so I say congratulations to Porter Goss, and I think all House
Members should do that for the work that he has done for the House and
for the intelligence community.
As we debate the bill, I will obviously be speaking out on a number
of things that I think are important, but let me just say this: I think
it is unfortunate that bipartisanship has deteriorated. It no longer
exists with this committee. Maybe our committee was the last bastion of
bipartisanship, but apparently it is gone. And I think it really began
a year ago when we considered our authorization bill.
I introduced into the record and put into the record a memo that came
over from the other body that talked about a game plan on the part of
the Democrats to politicize the intelligence process, not only in this
body but also in the other body. And I am going to put that memo in the
record again this year, because I think it was the beginning of the
deterioration of bipartisanship for intelligence. That is unfortunate
and sends the wrong message.
Congratulations Porter Goss, we have a good bill, and I hope all
Members will support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I find this rule very disappointing. It effectively
shuts down debate on an amendment to fully fund the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence's key counterterrorism operations. It is
unusual for me to speak out like this, but 4 or 5 weeks ago it hit me,
the current intelligence authorization bill that we are going to
consider today is just not strong enough. It authorizes less than a
third of the funds that the intelligence agencies need for key
counterterrorism operations next year. That is just not right at a time
when our Nation is under threat of terrorist attacks.
The administration admits that this is not sufficient funding, and
says it will seek more money after November. But there is ample
evidence that al-Qaeda may try to strike before November. If there is
another terrorist attack, do we want the next 9-11 Commission to find
that we in Congress failed in our duty to fully fund counterterrorism
in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?
We sit there day in and day out in closed session, windowless rooms,
for hours on end listening to the intelligence agencies tell us how
critical the funds are that the committee authorizes. They routinely
criticize the practice of funding them in these small bits and pieces
rather than in a full year, the way we are supposed to do it. They have
told us how this prevents them from planning effectively, and they have
told us they have to rob Peter to pay Paul while they wait for the
additional funds to arrive. And they will probably not receive those
additional funds that they need until April or May of next year, if at
all.
This ridiculous practice of shortchanging intelligence at the start
of the year has also been roundly criticized on a bipartisan basis by
members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The agencies
have indicated with some precision the additional funds that they will
need in the coming year for counterterrorism. There is no excuse for
failing to make sure that the intelligence community has the resources
it needs to protect against the next terrorist attack.
The amendment that I had intended to offer would have fully funded
key counterterrorism operations in the next year for the agencies, as
they have said they need them, 100 percent of the funding. And we had a
detailed schedule of authorization to specify how the money should be
spent. So this was not a blank check, as some have said.
The question before Congress is quite simple: Do we fully fund the
global war on terrorism or do we want to take the chance that our
intelligence community can make due until sometime next year? As it
stands now, it is clear what the majority's answer is to this question.
And with this rule the majority has made clear that they do not want to
debate this issue. That is just not right, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), another member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me this time, and I thank both my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee.
We are selected by the leadership, we are asked to serve, we are asked
to uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of what goes on in that
committee, and we are asked to reassure the Members of the House that
do not have the type of access that we do that we are in fact doing our
job. So let me assure every Member, Republican and Democrat, we are
doing our job.
There is a difference today, and I do not hold the individuals on the
other side of the aisle responsible. I think the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) put it well, politics is alive and well in
Washington. It is an election year, and I think that strings are
getting pulled. And I make a pledge to the Members on that side of the
aisle: That when this bill has passed, and I hope you vote for it on
final passage, that we will work together in that committee. We will
make sure that the tools are available to our intelligence community.
We will make sure that the workings and the oversight are good enough
that we can look our fellow Members in the eye and say we are doing our
job.
[[Page H4774]]
But I think today we need to look back at why we are here. Sure, we
are here because of the intelligence threat that exists today and the
need for intelligence to grow, but we are here because of the
devastation to the intelligence community in the 1990s. We are here
because human intelligence was not important to anybody in this town.
We are, in fact, trying to rebuild. And when I heard Director Tenet
stand up in front of the independent commission and talk about 5 years,
here was a man being honest at what it took to recruit people that
could infiltrate; that we could take individuals who could fluently
speak Arabic.
We have to remember that we went from a Cold War need for
linguistics, which was Russia and Eastern Europe, to now a need for
Arabic and a lot of different tribal languages that exist, and you
cannot do it overnight and you cannot do it for no money. The reality
is that both sides suggest funding levels at about the same, and that
is above where the administration's request was. We have differences on
how we get here. That is leadership and it is politics mixed in with
it.
I am confident we can put politics aside and we can get passed not
only this rule debate but the debate on the bill. Because the important
thing is that our intelligence community knows that this Congress is
united. We are united behind them, we are united behind the effort, we
understand the value of what they do as it relates to the safety of the
troops that we have who defend this country every day.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also highlight the
leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss). This will be a tremendous loss to the Congress, the entire
Congress. The dedication of this man, the leadership, his experience
and what he has brought to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is invaluable. I am sure his years of community service
are not over with his decision to leave Congress. But with him we lose
a tremendous resource in our ability to understand and to become better
in the world as it relates to our intelligence.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I rise today to support my colleagues, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) particularly, in opposition to
the rule that shuts off debate on fully funding the intelligence
community's counterterrorism operations. I do this reluctantly, and I
do not do this very often.
I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
this should have been the opportunity for us to fully debate this
issue, because there is no real debate as to whether this bill, when we
get to the bill, provides full funding to the intelligence community
for this global war on terrorism. We all know that this bill does not
do that, and we have fallen into the trap ourselves. We are
perpetuating the trap of continuing to fund the intelligence community
in fits and starts, in bits and pieces.
The war in Iraq, as difficult as it is, is a war. The war on global
terrorism, as unpredictable as it is, is a real war. Every day we are
faced with warnings, with threats that we are going to be attacked,
soon, between now and the elections.
{time} 1100
Every administration, or at least the past several administrations,
have fallen into this trap of using supplementals as a way to slowly
but surely face the budget issues that we have to face. We are saying
here today that we want to stop that, that we want to break that habit,
that we want to up front tell the agencies what they will get and let
them then tell us what they need so we can perform our oversight.
This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle have admitted
through the hearing process, this year, last year as well, that we have
got to stop this practice. The administration says this is not enough
money this year; that later, whatever ``later'' means, we will get to
the point where we will get to more funding.
This is not the way to do it. So today we must send a clear message
that ``business as usual'' is no longer acceptable. Today we must put
politics aside and do what is right for our intelligence community and
for our national security. Today we must make sure the intelligence
community has the resources it needs.
Oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, obviously I
follow these things very closely, and I wish to point out to all my
colleagues that the other body, their version of this bill closely
mirrors ours, but is less generous, and that bill passed the other body
by a unanimous vote, minority and majority. They are following our
lead. I would suggest that we should evidence that same spirit of
bipartisanship in this body.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work,
and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her hard
work.
Mr. Speaker, I did take some notice of my good friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I appreciated his remarks
about the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). I agree. I think he
has done an excellent job. But none of us are perfect. I think there
was an exception here. I actually thought that he would plus-up this
counterterrorism budget.
But here we are, and I rise to oppose the rule on the Intelligence
Authorization Act. In particular, I am surprised that a number of
Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably those of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), mine and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), which would fully fund the counterterrorism
budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
I wish the Republicans had been willing to debate this issue head on,
rather than hide behind a procedure.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than one-third of the funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. The
intelligence agencies will have a tough time accomplishing their
mission if they do not receive full funding for the counterterrorism
operations.
At CIA, these funds do not go to the paper clips and photocopiers.
They go towards mounting counterterrorism operations on every
continent. They go towards collecting information on preventing
terrorist attacks. They go towards funding operations in Afghanistan,
to prevent resurgence of the terrorist sanctuaries in the remote
mountains. They go towards working with partner governments on
counterterrorism. They go towards capturing key al Qaeda leaders.
When there is uncertainty about funding, according to the agencies'
testimony, it causes the agencies to hold off on operations,
potentially putting lives in danger and ruining intelligence collection
operations.
The administration officials have admitted they are not fully funding
counterterrorism in this bill, but will send a request for the rest of
the funds after the election, while at the same time urgently warning
of a possible terrorist attack before the election. I say to my good
friends and colleagues here today, what should the American people
expect us to do? Is it acceptable to wait until after the election,
when we already know what we need to do?
No, it is not acceptable. The American people expects us to debate
these issues fully and openly and not hide behind procedures. If, as
the administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack on the U.S. this summer, my colleagues in the majority will wish
they had debated and settled the Peterson amendment, rather than
squashing the debate. We will all wish that we had acted and fully
funded counterterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I fully urge the rejection of this rule, so that the
important issues like the shortfall for counterterrorism in this bill
can be properly debated.
[[Page H4775]]
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that obviously we are praising the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in light of the fact that this is
going to be the last intelligence authorization bill that he will be
presiding over before his retirement from this institution.
We had a very interesting discussion in the Committee on Rules
yesterday about this issue of funding. As I listened to my friend from
Iowa speaking about the fact that if we possibly saw another terrorist
attack on the United States, we would all bemoan the fact we have not
provided adequate funding, it seems to me that the statement that was
made by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee yesterday before the
Committee on Rules is a very important one to note. He is not concerned
about the issue of funding, he is actually concerned about the
management of the level of funding that we have right now. This view
that all you need to do is throw a tremendous amount of money at a
problem and that somehow is a panacea, that it is an insurance policy,
is, I think, unfounded.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important for us to note that the
proper management over this program is the most important thing for us
to do now, because we do feel that there is an adequate level of
funding. So I strongly support this rule, I strongly support the
underlying bill, so that we can come and work in a bipartisan way for
what we all want to do, and that is ensure, ensure, that we never see
another September 11, 2001, on our soil.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating the chairman, who
has served so honorably as a Member of the House and for all of these
years as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
and wish him our absolute best.
I join my colleagues today in standing up in support of stronger
intelligence. That is what this debate is about.
This bill is simply too weak and dangerously underfunds the
intelligence efforts that are so absolutely essential to preventing the
next big terrorist attack. Every American will understand that 100
percent is 100 percent. You cannot be committed 100 percent to funding
if you only fund 33 percent, one-third, of the entire counterterrorism
budget.
Opponents of the amendment to fully fund counterterrorism
intelligence throw around a lot of numbers to try to argue that the
level of funding in this bill is adequate. But you need to know only
one thing: The President knows this is not enough funding, and said in
his transmittal letter of May 12 of this year that he will ask for the
rest of the money ``in early 2005.'' That is an admission that this is
not fully funded, and that is what we are debating.
The problem is the terrorists are not waiting until early 2005. There
are indications that they plan to conduct a major attack inside the
United States before the end of the year, according to administration
officials. The CIA cannot wait until early 2005 to plan its operations
to prevent that next attack.
Senior officials testified repeatedly to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that the practice of funding counterterrorism
by supplemental makes it impossible for them to plan, this is what they
said to all of the members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and it forces them to rob Peter to pay Paul in an effort
to make due.
Does this body really want to make the men and women of the
intelligence community make do when so much is at stake? They are the
tip of the spear. We have to give them the resources they need. It is
our job now, not in early 2005.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic, some people up
here on the floor say we are not spending enough. They have never
served in the military. They vote to cut defense.
The last speaker, the gentlewoman from California, in 1993, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1996, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1998, the Iraq
Liberalization Act, regime change, she voted yes; in 2002,
authorization for military force, she voted no; in 2003, Iraq
supplemental appropriations, she voted no; in 2003, intelligence
authorization, to increase funding, she voted no.
This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. I have got some very good friends on
this committee. Some of them I hunt and fish with. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), during the Ronald Reagan funeral, I had tears
in my eyes. She reached over and grabbed my hand to console me.
That is the kind of friendship that we have on this committee, and I
think one of the saddest things I see is the partisanship coming out in
election-year politicking. We will still be friends after this. You
say, oh, this is not partisan. That is the spin. But it is, Mr.
Speaker. It is sad, and I hate to see it.
All the way through, you have people that have fought the Republican
Party on prescription drugs, Leave No Child Behind, energy, tax relief,
the environment. You think the Republicans are the meanest people in
the whole world, no matter what we do. But never before on this bill
has it been so partisan, and I think it is sad, a sad day on this House
floor, and election year politics.
I think when you look at yesterday's vote on defense appropriations,
which is the authorization for this bill, most of my colleagues voted
for that. That was less funding than this. The Senate has less funding
in the bill. But what our great chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) did, is restrict some of the flow of the funding. We have
taken and analyzed and cut a lot of waste, fraud and abuse out of every
bill, defense, education, all these bills, and we have put the money to
good use.
I think it is even sadder right now that we have got folks that
choose to go along with their Democrat leadership. When you all elected
your liberal Democrat leadership, we rejoiced, because we know there is
a bill to cut the tax break for the rich in the next Bill, and we knew
exactly what was going to happen to show the differences between
Republicans and Democrats from your liberal leadership. But what is sad
is how that leadership is driving some of the good people within your
party to be partisan, and I think that is even sadder.
The defense authorization, I sat clear through that thing, and the
gentleman that is filing ethics violations, that is leaving this body
this year, filing ethics violations, demanded he see the Taguba report.
Well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) just so happened to
have it on the desk. And, guess what, that individual has not even read
the report.
There are 11 investigations going on. The Ronald Reagan event stopped
hearings. There has never been a hearing that any member of this
committee has asked for that we have not gotten, whether it is on
Chalabi, whether it is on the prisons, or whether it is on other issues
within that party.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is one of the most bipartisan
chairmen, and I think the gentlewoman from California would agree
Mr. Speaker, I also sit on the Defense Authorization Committee, and
one of the liberal members said, ``Well, we want the Secretary of
Defense to step down.'' He said, ``You know, I pray for you every day,
Mr. Secretary. You are a good, respected man, but maybe you ought to
step down.'' And I told the Secretary, next time someone prays for me,
I hope they are not trying to put a knife in my back in the
partisanship that is going on.
I think it is sad here today, we hunt and fish together, we are
friends. But this is wrong. Vote for this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
[[Page H4776]]
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time
to rise in opposition to this rule.
First let me just say that like all of us in this House that
represent communities around this great Nation of ours, I am proud of
the job that our men and women are doing in the war against terrorism,
whether they are in the military, whether they are in the intelligence
community or civilians.
{time} 1115
I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a
veteran. But to me, today, the issue is about oversight and about
funding the effort.
I think debate is healthy. I think we should exchange ideas and, yes,
maybe even political philosophies from time to time. We go to the
intelligence community and we ask them, what is it that you need? How
much money will it take to get the job done? They tell us, they give us
a budget, they give us a proposal; and then we come back and say, we
can only give you 33 percent of that money. Do they give us 33 percent
effort? No. They give us 100 percent, so we should fund them at 100
percent.
So why are we doing that? I am sure that our men and women that are
putting their lives on the line are asking that very same question:
Why? To them, it is not about politics, it is not about budgets, it is
not about deficits, or even supplementals. To them, it is about support
for their effort. To them, it is about funding that effort at 100
percent, and not giving them 33 percent and an IOU or a check-is-in-
the-mail promise. It is about support for our men and women in an
effort that is very important to our country.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we must do better; and, most of all,
to the men and women of this body, we must do our job.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support the bill
and the fine work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
chairman of our committee; and I am certain that sometime today we are
going to hear more about Abu Ghraib prison. I want to put things in
context about the politics of what this town has become.
Mr. Speaker, I stand amazed and disappointed in the self-righteous,
politically motivated diatribes coming from the other side about Abu
Ghraib for the last several months. The guilty parties in the Abu
Ghraib prison incidents are currently before the military justice
system. They will be tried and justice will be carried out.
This House, the other body, the President, the Vice President, the
Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Adviser
have all gone on record to express outrage over the abuses at the
prison, as they should have.
But what I find especially appalling is the deafening silence from
the other side following the savage beheadings of American civilians
Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
These cowardly terrorist organizations seek to intimidate our people
through barbaric acts of demonic cruelty on American citizens.
While members on the other side have mentioned Abu Ghraib by name, 45
times since January during recorded debate on the House Floor, only
four times did a Democratic member utter the name Nick or Nicholas
Berg. No Democrat, not one single Democrat, has even mentioned Paul
Johnson, the Lockheed Martin employee kidnapped in Saudi Arabia,
cruelly beheaded, and videotaped for the world to see.
We are a self-policing society. We will punish those who commit
abuses at Abu Ghraib. However, I would expect the Democrats in this
body to express equal outrage over the savage killings of Nick Berg and
Paul Johnson.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to break their silence and end their
indifference to the atrocious acts of cruelty perpetrated on innocent
Americans.
Too many are playing politics with Abu Ghraib, trying to score
political points, while we have 200,000 troops fighting the war on
terror and standing strong for America in the Middle East and Central
Asia.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at what the previous speaker
has just said. What does he mean that no Democrat has expressed any
outrage? Has the gentleman polled every Democrat in the country? Does
he know that no Democrat has expressed outrage over the beheading of
American citizens?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not spoken on
this floor. Not spoken on this floor. Not a word entered into the
Record. I have checked with the Parliamentarian and the Clerk, not one
mention of those names.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I just think that
is an outrageous statement to make, and I do not believe that anybody
in America is going to be impressed by that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule on the
fiscal year 2005 Intelligence Authorization Act. In response to some of
the comments made by our colleagues on the other side, let me just make
this statement: this issue is not about politics; it is about national
security.
Now, it is important in our work here in the House that we put
America first. Equally important is a focus on ensuring that the men
and women protecting us in the intelligence agencies and in the
military have all the support and resources that they need.
I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out
of order, notably the Peterson amendment which would fully fund the
counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than a third of the additional funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. This one-
third comes from the contingency emergency reserve fund that the
President asked for on May 12, which is designed to bridge the gap
between the budget request and a supplemental funding request that will
not happen until after the election.
In his May 12 letter to the Speaker, President Bush said, ``I have
pledged to our troops that we will have all the resources they need to
accomplish this vital mission.'' Yet, the intelligence agencies have
told us in hearing after hearing that the current process of funding
counterterrorism operations by supplemental has hampered their ability
to plan and operate. And despite the President's lofty words, we know
that the intelligence troops do not have all of the resources they need
to accomplish the counterterrorism mission.
As a former county executive, I can relate to the agency's need to
plan right to achieve success, and so I am concerned that these
budgeting practices have to stop, for the good of the country and
national security.
I was disappointed that the Republican majority on the Committee on
Rules did not allow this amendment to come to the floor for debate.
This issue needs to be debated. The public needs to know, we need to
know, we need to debate this issue of national security.
If, as administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack this summer, we will all wonder if we could have done more to
protect America. The answer to that question today is yes. For one
thing, we could be debating the Peterson amendment today and finding a
way to get the intelligence agencies the counterterrorism funding that
they need.
I urge the rejection of this rule. It is so important that all of our
intelligence agencies have the resources they need to deal with the
issue of national security.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for allowing me this time to speak.
I do want to begin by giving my great congratulations to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for tremendous service on this
committee and for a tremendous bill which does exactly what this
country's intelligence services need. It is actually a bill which
should have been bipartisan but, for the first time, was not bipartisan
in the committee.
[[Page H4777]]
I think I would like to begin with correcting some of the
misstatements that have been made on the floor. First of all, this bill
fully funds the base amount for every salary paycheck in the
intelligence community. Not one intelligence community employee is
going to go without a paycheck at the end of 3 months. It is just plain
wrong to assert that, and I wanted to correct that.
I also wanted to say that, with regard to the funding of the
contingent emergency reserve, this bill sets forth, I believe, the
proper oversight for this committee. We have budgeted for one-quarter
of the year, authorized for one-quarter of the year in order to give
flexibility to the war on terrorism. This is an opportunity for us to
exercise our oversight and exercise our oversight by giving smaller
slices of the pie so we can control the money, where it is spent and
how it is spent in our oversight authority, rather than giving a slush
fund out there that can be spent without proper control.
We will fully fund the war on terrorism. I am struck by the dichotomy
of each of the previous speakers on the Democratic side who voted
yesterday in support of the Defense Appropriation bill which funds the
war on terrorism to the same numbers that we have in this bill, and
each one of my Democratic colleagues voted ``yes,'' with the exception
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who was absent.
So to stand here and say that you do not believe we are funding the
war on terrorism when you supported the appropriation in the same
amount strikes me as one of politics.
The last thing we want to do is have the intelligence community as a
political wedge in the war on politics. They do not deserve it. This
country does not deserve it. I am concerned that by what we are doing,
by issuing these proclamations about not funding the war on terrorism,
is giving aid and support to those people who are trying to attack this
country.
More fiscal responsibility is certainly in this bill; more oversight
by the Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is exactly what this bill will do.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis
and Counterintelligence, I wanted to speak briefly about the points
that are dealing with the analysis part of this bill because it is so
critical and so important. This rule and this bill support the goals
that our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expressed
for years, and that is the importance of a well-trained, professional,
and experienced staff.
Like many other components of the intelligence community, analysis is
not a capability that can be developed overnight. It takes years of
investment in people, technology, and training to create analysts
capable of connecting the dots. Today, with this bill, through this
rule, we will have more dots to connect than ever before. We can
collect all we want, but if there is nobody to synthesize, analyze, and
look at this information and deliver the proper and correct message to
our Nation's policymakers, then there is little benefit to this country
by standing here and politicizing this bill and the intelligence
community over what we are doing.
That is why I am pleased to stand here and support the rule, support
this bill, and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on
what I believe to be a very fair and fundamentally correct bill to fund
our intelligence community and to support this country's war on
terrorism.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
The American public, the citizens of America, are looking to us, to
the Congress, to provide oversight over the intelligence community. My
colleague, the gentleman from California, said that our committee has
never been denied a hearing that we wanted. That may be true if one
defines ``hearing'' very broadly. Yes, members of the intelligence
community from the various agencies have come to meet with us; but we
never learned, for example, that Mr. Rumsfeld actually approved ghost
detainees, detainees who would be kept out of the system. We never
really got level answers about the search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. It is a long, long list of things that we have
been denied because we just did not ask exactly the right question.
The debate this morning is not about how many billions of dollars
precisely will be added to the counterterrorism budget; it is whether
they are going to present the budget to us in such a way that it is
impossible for the committee to exercise oversight. That is what is at
issue. By funding these programs through supplemental appropriations
rather than through the normal appropriations process with
authorization oversight, they dodge responsibility. They dodge the
oversight. That is what is at stake here today. That is what this rule
is denying, the American public the oversight that they expect, that
they need for our national security, denying that that will be carried
out by the committee.
So we are talking about a much more fundamental, longer-term issue;
and for that reason, this rule is very flawed and should be opposed.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson); and, I might add, she is the only female
military officer in this body.
{time} 1130
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
North Carolina for the time.
I rise to support this rule today. I have listened to this debate
with some concern because I think there are things being said that just
are not being straight with people. I want to talk about two of them in
particular.
The first has to do with the funding levels that are authorized in
this bill. The truth is here in the Congress, we have an arcane way of
doing things some times. We have an authorizing bill that really sets
the programs and the outlines of the programs that we intend to fund.
But the money, the real money is put in the defense appropriations bill
that we passed overwhelmingly yesterday from this House with what we
call an open rule, which means anyone can come down this floor and move
to change money around or increase counterterrorism funding. If one was
serious about this, that is where the real money was, in the defense
appropriations bill.
So what we hear this morning is more about posturing and politics
than it is about policy. And that is really sad on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that heretofore has been absent that kind of
discussion.
And the second thing I wanted to raise is this issue of vigorous
oversight. I have been an advocate for vigorous oversight in a wide
variety of things. And I have been one of the principal advocates in
the Committee on Armed Services for greater oversight of the Pentagon,
including of Abu Ghraib, and cosponsored an amendment to do so with my
colleague the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
In this Congress, there are some committees that are vigorous about
it and some that are not. I served on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence a couple of Congresses ago, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is one that is. Its members work very hard,
ask tough questions. Many of them are when the cameras are off, and
that is the way it has to be. But I am also particularly pleased at
their openness to non-members of the committee participating in that
process.
I have, from time to time, requested special briefings and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made that possible for
me. No other committee in the House tends to be so open to that on the
part the of non-members.
The structure of this bill encourages the continued vigorous
oversight by the Congress of expenditure in the intelligence world.
This is the kind of bill that we should be proud of as a Congress, as
an example of vigorous oversight of one branch of government over
another. We have to rebuild our intelligence services, particularly
human intelligence and analysis. But this is too important to make a
partisan issue.
After this is all over today, I hope that my colleagues will
reconsider their decision to inject partisanship
[[Page H4778]]
and election year politics into the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. It has always been above that and, for the good of the
Nation, should remain above that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will close. I
urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will
allow the House to vote on a critical amendment that was defeated on a
straight party line vote last night at the Committee on Rules.
The amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would
fully fund the counterterrorism needs of the intelligence community by
increasing by 100 percent the funds authorized in the contingency
emergency reserve. What many Members may not realize is that the
President's budget request covered just a fraction of the intelligence
community's counterterrorism requirements, less than a third. They say
the rest of the funds will be requested only after the November
election.
Well, the Nation's intelligence agencies have indicated that they
need additional funds and the Peterson amendment will make sure that
they receive them now, not after November elections.
Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is not now and has never been a
partisan issue. After 9/11, Republicans and Democrats stood side by
side on the steps of the Capitol united in our effort to root out
terrorists and to keep America safe. It is hard for me to understand
why Republicans would now actively work to keep the House from
adequately funding the counterterrorism efforts.
The intelligence bill has long been considered in this House under an
open rule. Any Member who wished to bring an amendment to the floor
could do so, but last year things began to change. Republicans started
to pass rules that restricted amendments, that allowed them to pick and
choose which amendments could be debated in the floor of the House.
This year they have taken it too far.
The Peterson amendment is far too important not to be considered and
is far too important to be subject to petty partisan games. It deserves
a separate vote here on the floor today.
So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the
previous question. Let me make it very clear that a no vote will not
stop the House from taking up the intelligence bill and will not
prevent any of the amendments made in order from being offered.
However, a yes vote will mean that the House will not have the
opportunity to fully fund the Nation's counterterrorism needs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues in closing
that there is more money in this bill than ever before. There is more
money for counterterrorism than ever before. And whatever is needed
will be provided, as always been the manner of this House and the other
body to do.
I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) because he has always worked in a very bipartisan manner on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which all of us appreciate
greatly, and with his background in intelligence, of course, that has
been extremely important to have him there. We are going to miss him
greatly, both as a chairman and as a long-serving, well respected
Member of Congress from Florida.
So we wish him only the best as he goes on whatever new challenges he
may take on.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this structured rule,
and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs.
Myrick, for yielding me this time.
H. Res. 686 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration
of H.R. 4548, the FY2005 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005. It is
a fair and balanced rule that deserves the support of the House. It
makes in order a total of ten (10) separate amendments to the
underlying bill, three from members of the minority and the remainder
from members of the majority. These ten amendments were more than half
of the 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying measure, H.R.
4548, which authorizes funding for critical intelligence programs for
FY2005.
I want to commend Chairman Goss for bringing this legislation to the
floor. As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for the past eight years, the gentleman from Sanibel,
Florida has served this country with honor, integrity, and distinction.
His tenure has been marked by a tireless effort to improve and reform
our nation's intelligence capabilities. He has never wavered in his
steadfast desire to invest in this critical government function, and
while there is still work to be done, his leadership has helped the
intelligence community deal with a turbulent global environment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 provides the tools necessary for a strong and
effective U.S. intelligence mission as we wage a war against terrorism.
Intelligence efforts serve as the first line of defense against
terrorism and oppression. Without a strong commitment to this effort,
our freedoms and this democracy are vulnerable to the fear and terror
of others.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that the blessings of liberty
afforded to the citizens of this great nation are preserved under any
possible means. By passing H.R. 4548, we are upholding this intention.
As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 686.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 686--Rule on H.R. 4548 Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2005
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Peterson of Minnesota or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
SEC. 105. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO
FULLY FUND THE NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAM.
The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101
for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the elements listed in such section for the
Contingency Emergency Reserve, as specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102, are
increased 100 percent.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4824-H4855
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 686 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4548.
{time} 1641
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4548, and I ask my colleagues
on both sides of this great House to support this bill. Casting their
vote is a vote of confidence, respect, and deep admiration for the
honorable and heroic patriots who toil quietly, and usually without
notice, throughout the intelligence community in order to keep
[[Page H4825]]
us safe, prosperous, and free in this wonderful country. It is
imperative that these men and women understand in these troubled times
that this House holds them in the highest regard and appreciates that
the work accomplished by them is critical to the defense of our liberty
and security. Amid great sacrifice and often intense conditions, the
men and women of the intelligence community continue to perform their
missions with great energy and admirable devotion to duty. We commend
these officers. The security of our Americans at home and abroad truly
relies on their success.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues like the Defense appropriation bill
that passed yesterday on a vote of 403 to 17, then this bill should
equally please my colleagues today. Yesterday's Defense appropriation
bill was coordinated closely with the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and our funding levels are very, very close. The
Intelligence bill currently before the House, however, authorizes
funding slightly above the level the appropriators set for intelligence
funding. In fact, this Intelligence bill funds the intelligence
community at its highest levels in history. It exceeds the total fiscal
year 2004 appropriated level for the intelligence community, including
all supplementals, approximately by hundreds of millions. As my
colleagues know, we cannot be totally precise on the numbers we speak.
For all intelligence programs in this bill, the committee authorizes a
total of approximately 16 percent over the President's February
request.
This bill increases investment in human intelligence and the
capabilities that they represent for us, the core mission of our
intelligence community. It improves intelligence analysis, coverage in
depth, so that we have more focused, sharper information for our
decisionmakers. It strengthens intelligence community language
capabilities across the board, through both improved legislative
authorities and initial investment, so we have the people who know the
languages we need to know to do our job.
It improves the structure and management of the disparate elements of
the intelligence community's information technology systems by creating
an intelligence community Chief Information Officer, hopefully to get
better coordination so that we can overcome some of the problems we
learned as we reviewed the events of 9/11. It bolsters U.S.
counterintelligence resource capabilities; and, specifically, it adds
22 percent above the President's request for human intelligence and
human-related programs. That is the core business of intelligence.
Substantial increases in funding for improved analytical capabilities,
as I have said, are included.
Significant additional amounts for information technology
infrastructure, what we call enterprise architecture, is included, and
information-sharing capabilities, which are critical. Tens of millions
are included for improved foreign language capabilities.
This money has been carefully applied; it is carefully managed. This
bill is very close to the bill passed unanimously out of our sister
committee in the other body, with one major exception, of course, that
they did not have the benefit of the contingent emergency relief fund
during their consideration.
{time} 1645
So, it is fair to say that our bill is more generous to the global
war on terror than the other body's version, and that bill enjoys
bipartisan support, unanimous bipartisan support I am informed.
Some in the minority have suggested that voting down this bill
somehow better supports our intelligence community and makes our
country safer. In my view, that is a convolution to the point of
absurdity. They say if an attack happens before the election, it will
somehow be our fault for not funding the global war on terror.
I would point out that the 2004 fiscal year goes on until October,
and any shortage of resources would be of interest to those who did not
support the $87 billion supplemental bill for fiscal year 2004.
All I would say is that the majority in the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence voted to support the men and women of the
intelligence community in this bill today. We did not vote against the
community and we did not shortchange the community in the global war on
terrorism.
Now, there is an irony here. For years, I have been trying to get
more support for intelligence. Usually the record will show that
usually the cutting amendments have come from certain Members of the
minority, as is their right. Now, it seems my sin is to bring forth a
bill that spends not enough on intelligence rather than too much.
Frankly, I think I should declare victory and say thank you all for
listening.
But I will be disappointed, on a serious note, if at the end of this
day, Members on all sides cannot agree that this bill authorizes proper
sums carefully managed and properly coordinated with the appropriators
and the other affected committees.
This is a very good bill with many important aspects that I have
outlined. Indeed, it is with some hope I note the classified version of
the minority views in their very first paragraph admit as much. Members
who took the time to come up to the committee spaces to review the
classified annex, which is available to all Members as usual, have seen
the important work this committee has done.
Our work is not done in the public with klieg lights all the time.
But it is a little misleading to suggest, as some have, that the
committee product is less worthy because we do take seriously the
responsibility, our commitment it is, to safeguard properly classified
material by using closed sessions. That, incidentally, has been the
practice for all the recent Congresses that I have been on the
committee.
We must also be mindful that our enemies watch and hear what we say.
Our audience is the American people primarily. Those are the people to
whom we are accountable and responsible and proud of the work we do,
and are pleased to share it with them. But, unfortunately, our enemies
are listening too, and we are a Nation at war. Sometimes the enemy is
able to gauge their conduct on how this body acts. They are able to use
psychological warfare to drive wedges. They also could gain an enormous
advantage if we do not take the appropriate opportunities to keep from
public discourse our committee discussion on the sensitive intelligence
matters that we are charged with overseeing. And when we have that
debate in committee, I like the committee to have the full range of
conversation, so we start out with the idea in closed session and then
we winnow out what we can talk about in public, which is why we are
here today talking about what we can talk about in public.
For the past 7-plus years, I have been working to refit the
intelligence community for its future, with the members of the
committee, for whom I am extremely grateful, to posture it for the days
ahead. We have always worked hard on the committee to create a
constituency for intelligence inside and outside of this institution.
We have insisted that the committee be both supportive advocates and
constructive overseers. None of like gotcha politics when it comes to
national security.
I have tried to engage the past two administrations on the needs to
retool the Intelligence Community for smarter, better days ahead, and I
have had the full support of the committee in our efforts so far. This
bill continues that effort. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 4548--Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2005
The Administration supports House passage of HR 4548, which
authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for the
conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government. The committee-
reported bill authorizes funding that strengthens core
intelligence capabilities and supports intelligence
activities that would sustain the Global War on Terror.
Now more than ever before, our Nation's security relies on
accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence--and the
challenges facing the intelligence community are difficult
and complex. This makes it vitally important for the
administration and Congress to work together to provide the
intelligence community with the tools and resources it needs
to enhance our national security posture, win the Global War
on Terror, and reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
[[Page H4826]]
We are making advances in our ability to collect, process,
and analyze intelligence information. Although not part of
this bill, crucial innovations such as the PATRIOT Act and
the Terrorist Threat Integration Center are helping us to
protect our homeland by sharing information better than ever
before. The President has also expressed his interest in
working with Congress, when the time is right, to examine
structural reforms that may be needed to improve our
intelligence capability in the future. The upcoming reports
of the Senate intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission,
along with the work of the Commission on Intelligence
Capabilities Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, will
provide important information that will help Congress and the
Administration in this effort.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
to support the vital work of the intelligence community,
especially its counterterrorism activities, to assure
continued strong, flexible intelligence capabilities, and to
refine certain provisions in this bill, including relating to
procurement, to ensure that these provisions maintain the
flexibility the President needs to most effectively manage
the ongoing war against terrorists of global reach.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, strong intelligence is our first line of
defense in the war on terrorism. And make no mistake, we are at war.
The gruesome beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and
yesterday's murder of 33-year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark
reminders of the nature of our enemy.
Our brave men and women in the intelligence community are on the
front lines fighting that enemy. They risk their lives for our freedom
and they deserve our unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr.
Chairman, this legislation deprives them of full support. This bill
provides less than one-third of the key funding that the intelligence
community has told us they need to fight the war on terrorism. Less
than one-third.
I want to use my time to engage the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) in a brief dialogue on this important issue. I would like to ask
my colleague directly, on my time, Mr. Chairman, does this bill provide
all of the counterterrorism funding that the intelligence agencies have
told our committee they need for the coming year? Yes or no.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, officially yes, because we do have the
statement of support from the administration on this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that response, but the
classified schedule of authorizations in the majority's bill
specifically states that the additional funds are only for the first
quarter of the year. Well, that is woefully inadequate.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) all proposed
an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism. Let me demonstrate exactly
what this full funding amendment does. The majority's bill funds only
first quarter ops tempo for counterterrorism. The full funding
amendment, which we hope to offer, funds a full year for
counterterrorism.
The majority's bill gives the CIA 11 percent less than fiscal year
2004 funding, whereas the full funding amendment we had hoped to offer
gives the CIA 5 percent more than 2004 funding. The majority's bill
funds only 5 percent of the NRO's CT budget, 19 percent of NSA's CT
budget, 26 percent of NGA's CT budget, and 35 percent of the CIA's CT
budget. The full funding amendment funds 100 percent of these budgets.
Finally, the majority's bill provides no supplemental funding for
critical CT HUMINT support functions whereas the full funding amendment
provides full funding for all the HUMINT support functions.
In short, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4548 is too weak. What is the President
going to tell the American people when they learn that we are going to
have a gap in counterterrorism funding next year? There could be a gap
of 3 to 4 months before we pass a new supplemental. And during that
gap, our Nation will be at unnecessary risk at a time when, for
example, we will be having events like the presidential inauguration
and the Super Bowl.
The majority has twisted itself into a pretzel trying to justify this
weak bill, all the while bemoaning the harmful impact of budgeting-by-
supplemental on our intelligence community's ability and our
committee's ability to do robust oversight.
Jim Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations, gave a speech
this week in which he said that, ``there is no end in sight'' to the
terrorist threat we face. Terrorism is no longer a one-time emergency.
It is no longer something we should scramble around to fund. It is our
way of life. It is our central national security challenge. And if the
White House or the majority does not understand that, then we are in
serious danger.
In our committee we offered several amendments to strengthen
intelligence and strengthen oversight. They were common sense measures.
Yet, all of them were rejected on party line votes.
Mr. Chairman, we know terrorists are actively planning to attack us
again. We know there is nuclear material out there that is unaccounted
for for sale to the highest bidder. We know the next attack will be
followed by the usual Washington hand-wringing about why we did not do
more.
The rule under which we debate today has squandered an opportunity to
do much more. We have lost an opportunity to strengthen intelligence,
to strengthen congressional oversight, to retire the soon-to-be-vacant
DCI position and replace it with a 21st century organization capable of
integrating 15 intelligence agencies into one intelligence community
and to keep full faith with the brave men and women who are on the
front lines at this hour risking their lives for our freedom.
This bill is weaker, far weaker than the American people deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a world controlled by terrorists
or threats of terrorists is not acceptable. A world controlled by
dictators or dictatorial regimes or corrupt regimes is not acceptable.
The United States of America is vulnerable on many fronts to these
types of threats, but the more effective our intelligence operations,
the better we are at what we do in the field of intelligence, whether
it is technical intelligence or human intelligence. The more effective
our intelligence is, the more secure America is and will be.
I believe we did very well in the area of overhead technology, as
well as other types of technology, many of which we cannot even talk
about here in this open session today, but we have not done nearly as
well on human intelligence. And today's world requires a very effective
human intelligence capability.
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I have discussed this
many, many times, because, as we appropriate for the intelligence
activities, we work very closely with my colleague as he authorizes
intelligence activities.
This bill, while I am sure you will hear much debate today that it is
not a perfect piece of legislation, is a very good step toward making
our intelligence capability far more effective. And I would say again,
effective intelligence is good security. The more effective the
intelligence is, the more secure our Nation and our people.
I commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for the good
work that he has done in preparing this legislation. I know that there
will be serious debate. There will be amendments that will be offered.
But I have to give credit to the chairman for having produced a good
product.
I hope that the House will vote on this bill in big numbers. While we
worked together in developing our appropriations bill that we passed
yesterday, we actually came up with our own conclusions, but our
conclusions were very similar in to those in this authorization.
So I support the bill and I commend the chairman.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the House Committee on
Armed
[[Page H4827]]
Services, the committee on which I was honored to serve for 6 years.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. It provides for
the programs and activities in our national intelligence agencies. As
the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq have taught us,
timely and accurate intelligence is so vitally important in both
protecting our country domestically as well as enabling us to act
militarily.
I view this bill from the perspective of having served on the
Committee on Armed Services for over 25 years, and also as a former
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Year in and
year out, both of the bills from the Committee on Armed Services as
well as Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence historically passed
the House with broad bipartisan support.
That is why I am troubled by the path the intelligence authorization
bill has taken this year. I cannot remember the last time an
intelligence bill passed out of committee on a party line vote or when
amendments offered in committee were all voted down on a party line. I
am also disappointed that the Committee on Rules only made in order one
Democratic amendment.
{time} 1700
What is all the more disappointing is that apparently the reason for
the posture of this bill is that the majority has been unwilling to
provide as much funding for counterterrorism activities as intelligence
agencies have told the committee they need. I would remind my
colleagues that we are now in a war against terrorism. I would think
that we should make sure that all the funding goes into the
counterterrorist area.
So although this bill may provide an overall increase in funding,
which is a positive note for these intelligence activities, the details
really are important. It is unfortunate we cannot increase the budget
in the places that need to have it the most; and though I will favor
this bill, I must express my disappointment, my deep disappointment at
the shortage in this area.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a chairman of a subcommittee of
the committee.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of
H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis,
and Counterintelligence, I can say unequivocally that H.R. 4548 is one
of the best, most far-reaching, most constructively critical, and
urgently needed authorization bills that I have been involved in.
The bill makes urgently needed fixes to the CIA's human intelligence
collection capability that even the DCI suggested was 5 years away from
being adequate. I do not believe we can or should wait 5 years, and it
also authorizes a very sizeable amount beyond the DCI's base request to
ensure we keep up the maximum possible operational tempo against the
counterterrorism and counterproliferation targets, both inside and
outside the theater of war.
In the area of analysis, significant new funds will be provided to
address a critical concern: the simple lack of analytical depth. The DI
analytical cadre is badly in need of bench strength and real expertise.
We have been burning up our analysts in wartime conditions and shipping
the majority of them to cover pressing counterterrorism requirements
since the mid-1990s without being able to adequately backfill
positions.
Those analysts need to have the right skills, firsthand exposure to
countries or issues they cover, cultural appreciation and, if at all
possible, the necessary foreign language skills in order to be
effective, and H.R. 4548 addresses all of these issues, particularly
with regard to language, which has consistently been a high-priority
item for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a pressing
need for the whole intelligence community.
The bill addresses counterintelligence shortfalls, ensures that the
necessary infrastructure for field operations, training, and a host of
other important activities are adequately funded, and brings
astonishingly new technical tools into play.
The bill continues the committee's long-standing efforts to get the
CIA's dangerously flawed compensation reform plan back on track; and it
demonstrates that we strongly support a more aggressive, risk-taking,
innovative intelligence collection posture. Such a posture would
finally give us a fighting chance to penetrate terrorist groups. It
would also allow us to tackle other hard-target countries, countries
that have plans and intentions to do us harm.
Overall, H.R. 4548 demonstrates that we are going to back up our
spies and our analysts when it counts the most.
To my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this war
we are in is not just about Iraq or about Afghanistan or about where
Osama bin Laden may be hiding. It is truly a global war on terrorism
with significant global challenges; and these include money laundering,
illicit traffic, the preaching of hate, kidnapping, extortion, and even
at the national level, as we saw, the Madrid train bombing and the
elections that followed.
It is a war that is going to take time to win. It is a war that is
going to take fortitude to win, and it is a war that is going to take a
substantial and continued investment in our intelligence community.
I ask my distinguished colleagues to support H.R. 4548 for the sake
of our Nation's security. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have
decided that it is not important to provide for the intelligence
community in the middle of the global war on terrorism, and I say it
could not be more important.
This bill moves us closer to acquiring the capabilities and
directions that are needed not only to win the war on terror but to win
the peace in Iraq and to make sure we do not forget about the rest of
the world. We must never forget that the actions of others affects U.S.
national security interests. We must never retreat in the face of evil.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4548 because it is urgently needed. The Nation
simply cannot afford to shortchange its men and women out on the
frontlines.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, those of us on this side of the aisle feel
it is important to fund stronger intelligence in the global war on
terror, and it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a dedicated member of our committee.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time, and I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman, and the ranking member for the hard
work that they always put into these kinds of efforts and legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is much that we expect from our military, from
our intelligence personnel, and from our civilian employees in what we
call this war on terrorism. We all take a great deal of pride in their
work, their professionalism, their dedication, and, yes, sometimes the
sacrifice that they make by making the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of
our great Nation.
So my question this afternoon is, When we expect so much from them,
why can we not expect the same from ourselves? Why can we not put
together a piece of legislation that supports them with the same
dedication, the same professionalism, the same level, 100 percent, of
the funds that are required for them to succeed?
In this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to see that some
focus in this bill is on improving the functioning of the new
intelligence analysis element of the Department of Homeland Security. I
was also pleased that the bill, in general terms, recognizes the
importance of sharing information between the Federal, local, and State
levels and also the Federal levels such as the FBI.
I was, however, Mr. Chairman, disappointed that the bill did not
include language supportive of focusing on the necessary resources of
the El Paso Intelligence Center, such as enhancing the key
contributions that it makes towards homeland security through
intelligence analysis and information sharing. Just as the committee
has increasingly supported the FBI's joint terrorism task forces as a
potentially useful model for information sharing, EPIC is also a
successful model for focusing intelligence and law enforcement
resources on protecting the U.S. Southwestern border.
I am most disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not include
a
[[Page H4828]]
provision like the Peterson amendment, which would have funded the
intelligence requirements at the full 100 percent level in this war on
terrorism. This is not about whether we supported the $87 billion
supplemental, not about politics. It is not about anything other than
giving the full amount of resources that are necessary to dedicated
personnel in the field.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a valued member of the
committee and distinguished Member.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, our enemies are watching us. The terrorists
know it is an election year, and they want us to become divided. They
believe that a terrorist act against our country will influence our
elections. They have a belief that democracy can be divided; yet they
underestimate the passion of our citizens and their patriotism.
Despite the decision of minority Members to play politics with this
bill, I believe we all are united against our enemies. These are
serious times, and it is important that we send a message to our
enemies that we cannot be divided. Support this intelligence bill. Send
the message.
It sends the message that we are on the offensive to eliminate the
threats to our homeland. Our intelligence community needs to know the
United States Congress supports them 100 percent.
This bill increases the funding for the global war on terrorism. It
increases by 22 percent our human intelligence. It supports our effort
on counternarcotics to eliminate the 17,000 Americans that die every
year from drug-related causes and the $160 billion annually in health
care, social, and criminal costs. We have provided extra funding for
the DCI to tackle this problem in this country.
On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bid farewell to my
colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I
have enjoyed serving under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss), and I think we are all fortunate that he was in the
Chair immediately following September 11. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) was the right man for our country when we needed an
intelligence community with expertise, intelligence, moral clarity, and
compassion. We will miss him.
I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter), who will also leave, and wish him good luck on his future
endeavors. I have been proud to serve with both of them.
Immediately after September 11, the esteemed chairman of the
Committee on International Relations came to this floor and quoted the
words of Sir Winston Churchill which he wrote 6 decades ago:
``Civilization will not last,'' Churchill wrote, ``freedom will not
survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of
mankind unite together to defend them.''
We were united on September 11. Let us unite today. Let us support
the Intelligence authorization bill. Let us do it because it is the
right thing to do.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his hard work. I
agree with some things that have been said about the gentleman's good
work. I actually thought, and I do not say this in anything but a
gentleman's way, I thought he would accept our idea to fully fund
counterterrorism. He surprised me, but I still do not take away from
his good work, and I want him to understand that.
But the debate over the Intelligence authorization bill this year has
been a hard fight. There are some serious disagreements about what the
best bill to protect the American people ought to look like.
I believe this bill has not gone far enough to strengthen
intelligence and strengthen oversight.
We, in this House and on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, have not shied away from standing strong and debating
these issues head-on. I believe what the American people deserve is our
best effort to support what we believe is right.
A lot of good work has gone into the bill. As the ranking Democrat on
the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and
Counterintelligence, I am glad to see funding and support for analysis.
As we have reviewed the intelligence on Iraq's WMD, it has become
clear to us that analysis did not have the ability to examine the
reliability of sources. It now appears, for example, that all four
sources that Secretary Powell relied upon to describe Iraq's mobile
bioweapons facilities were not solid. I hope that this bill's support
will improve the quality of analysis so that a future Secretary of
State has better intelligence at his or her disposal.
I am also pleased to see investment in long-term HUMINT needs, the
hiring and training of new case officers. The demands of the
counterterrorism campaign have been great and the intelligence agencies
have worked hard to meet those demands, but the war in Iraq has
stretched our resources. According to The Washington Post, one of the
largest intelligence efforts since the Vietnam War is under way there.
I am concerned that the demands Iraq has placed on our intelligence
resources have left large parts of the world alarmingly undercovered.
While this bill makes long-term investments, the bill falls short on
addressing some of the most urgent needs. This bill only provides one-
third of the additional funds the intelligence agencies say that they
need to fight terrorism.
The President will not send the rest of the funding request to
Congress until after the election, at the same time that he is urgently
warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. To me, this
state of affairs is unacceptable.
I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, What should the
American people expect us to do? They expect us to do what is right to
provide them safety through funding counterterrorism. I hope the
President will send this supplemental funding request to Congress
before then so we can get on with the business of protecting the
American people.
I had hoped that this bill would have been stronger, stronger in its
support to the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it as we go
through the conference.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman in
the well who just finished that I would have been pleased to have the
opportunity to try and work out his amendment if we had seen it ahead
of time before committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
{time} 1715
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for the next fiscal year. Yes, we are at war. We are
at war and a different kind of war than we have seen before. We are at
war with an enemy who has no identity, who has no uniform and has no
country. And I agree with the statement that was made earlier. I see no
end in sight for this war. But, Mr. Chairman, I also see no end to the
funding in sight for the intelligence community who does such a good
job of providing us with valuable information.
The President said it right at the podium there just past February
when he said we are a Nation of many responsibilities, but the primary
responsibility of this country and this government is the safety of the
American people. We are discussing the authorization for funding,
funding that was passed yesterday in the defense appropriation bill. We
disagree on the funding levels, yes. We also disagree on whether or not
we should create a new bureaucracy, a new level of bureaucracy to head
up what I call a super spy organization for the intelligence community.
[[Page H4829]]
But as we move forward with the changes that are being made today
over at the CIA with the retirement of Director George Tenet, we need
to also keep in sight those who are doing the job and make sure that
they have the funds and the funds that would be available under this
authorization to perform their duties.
We will debate the differences, the differences we have based on the
different political parties, the different philosophy, and then we will
vote on those differences later on in this process, but I urge those on
both sides of the aisle that when it comes to the final passage of this
authorization, we should all vote yes. We should vote to support those
who are in harm's way gathering information so that we will have the
correct information, as best as possible, to fight the war on terrorism
and protect the American people.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss) that our amendments were shared in advance and
our views on budgeting by supplemental have been known for years and
are shared by the majority.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a courageous member of our committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, here in general debate, I
feel it is necessary to repeat what I said earlier for the sake of
colleagues who may be listening in their offices before they come down
here to vote.
This authorization bill has a lot of good things in it, and I want to
commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and my colleagues
for the work that they have put together in this bill. And to the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), I want to say that this Member
will miss you when you are gone next year, and we appreciate your
leadership.
But this bill just is not strong enough. It does not fully authorize
funds for the intelligence community's key counterterrorism operations.
It authorizes less than a third of the funds that the intelligence
agency needs for key counterterrorism operations next year, and that is
just not the right thing to do when the Nation is under threat from
terrorism.
The administration has said that they are going to send down another
supplemental request next year, but there is ample evidence that al
Qaeda is plotting to strike us again this year, next year and into the
future.
This bill leaves 3 to 4 months open funding before a supplemental
bill can get through this Congress. If there is another terrorist
attack, do we want the next 9/11 commission to find that the Congress
failed in our duty to fully authorize funding for counterterrorism? I
think not.
In the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we sit up there
for hours listening to the different agencies tell us how critical it
is for these funds to be authorized. They roundly criticize the
practice of funding them on recurring supplementals. Supplementals
prevent them from planning effectively. They prevent us from doing
adequate oversight. They have to rob Peter to pay Paul while we wait
for these additional funds to arrive, and they will probably not
receive those funds until sometime next year, in April or May, and as I
said, it is going to leave 3 or 4 months open.
Supplementals have also been roundly criticized on our committee by a
bipartisan membership in the committee. The agencies have indicated
with some precision that additional funds that they will need in the
coming year, what they are, and we have addressed that.
So the question before the Congress is quite simple. Do we want to
fully authorize funds for the intelligence community's counterterrorism
requirements, or do we not? As it stands now, the majority answer to
that question is no, and I think we need a stronger bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire the status of the time on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a dedicated member of our committee, who is
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical
Intelligence.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), and I want to say to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss) that I have enjoyed his service on this
committee. And even though we have had strong differences here at the
very end, we have enjoyed his dedication to these issues and we will
miss him.
To the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), of course, I count
on your leadership and your dedication to the field as well.
Mr. Chairman, I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Technical and Tactical Intelligence, and I served with the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) on the other side of the aisle. And we
have had another good year as well, and despite my differences over the
counterterrorism funding, I want to talk about positive aspects of this
bill that I do support.
In addition to the investments in human intelligence and language
skills, the bill strengthens our Nation's tactical and technical
collection and analytical capabilities.
I am proud to say that H.R. 4548 advances the analytical efforts at
the Missile and Space Intelligence Center, known as MSIC, which is in
Huntsville, Alabama, my Congressional district.
MSIC works to assess the capabilities of surface-to-air missiles that
continue to be proliferated across the globe by illicit arms
traffickers and terrorist groups threatening both military and civilian
aircraft. And those men and women there at MSIC work very hard to make
sure that we are right on the edge of analyzing that material, and we
provide them the skills and the tools and the funding to do that with.
At this time, also I want to thank my colleague from the Alabama
delegation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) who is also on
this select committee. He looks after Alabama's involvement through the
Missile and Space Intelligence Center through those good people there
that work on those issues, and we in north Alabama thank our lower
Alabama native for his dedication and support there as well.
But we will continue with this effort to make sure that we give the
field the tools that they need to do the work that they should be able
to do. A better understanding of the threat capability is needed, and
this is a bill that provides for that as well.
So all in all, I think this is a good bill, and in spite of my strong
feelings that we should have fully funded counterterrorism, there are
strengths in this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
her leadership in the committee, and to the chairman of the full
committee, who has given much for this country, both in service and in
representing his congressional district, as well as this committee, I
salute him, and we all salute him for it.
To the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who will be leaving
the House of Representatives, I salute him as well for his wonderful
service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Chairman, last week was really quite an extraordinary week for
those of us who serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. Breaking with past precedent, all committee Democrats
voted against the intelligence authorization bill in the committee
markup. And there was one primary reason for that, and that is that
counterterrorism is underfunded significantly, by two-thirds, in this
authorization bill.
I have said more than once you cannot have a 100 percent commitment
to counterterrorism and the global war on terrorism if you are only
going to fund it by 33 percent.
We have failed, I believe, to do everything we can to strengthen the
oversight. Truth is the oxygen of democracy, and it is the
responsibility of members of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence to pursue the truth through strong oversight.
We offered amendments to fully fund the intelligence community's
counterintelligence operations, and we offered amendments in the
committee to
[[Page H4830]]
strengthen oversight. They were rejected by the majority. I offered the
amendment at getting the straight story on the Defense Department's
relationship with a man by the name of Ahmad Chalabi.
I want to know why the Department invested so much political and
financial capital in a man with such a checkered past. The CIA
terminated its relationship with him because it found him to be
unreliable. The State Department could not account for how he was
spending U.S. Government funds. And despite the obvious warning signs,
the Defense Department could not wait to give him more money. Now we
are finding out that Mr. Chalabi's organization may have fed the
intelligence community misleading or fabricated information on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. He may have been instrumental in
persuading the administration that the Iraqi people would welcome U.S.
soldiers with open arms, rather than improvised explosive devices.
That is why we have come to the floor. That is why we have come to
the floor with our objections. Bipartisanship means that people come
together. It does not mean that one side stands and says, you have to
meet us 100 percent in order to make it bipartisan. We should be able
to agree on the money for counterterrorism and for stronger oversight.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me add to what I said in the rule about
the chairman. No one in this House, for the last 10 years, has done
more for the intelligence community, for the people who work in the
intelligence community than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). No
one has.
As a former CIA agent, he came to the House with the kind of
experience that I think most of us would relish, and he took it to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has done an
extraordinary job. Now, does anybody believe that somebody like Porter
Goss is going to sell short the intelligence community; is going to
sell short the men and women who work in dark places in the world? It
is not even believable.
He has been working at it for 10 years as a member of the committee,
8 years as the chairman, and he served as an officer of the CIA. This
is nonsense for you to be coming to the floor trying to persuade
people, the American people or Members of the House, that the chairman
of the committee is going to sell short the CIA. Baloney. Do not
believe it. If you are watching this on C-SPAN, do not believe it.
This guy has been committed to this stuff his whole life. You think
he is going to take the committee down this primrose path? Of course,
he is not. So do not come here with your charts and do not come here
with your staged speeches and try and diminish the work this fellow has
been doing on behalf of people all over this world to collect
intelligence and do a good job.
No better person here in this House to talk about intelligence and
funding it and making sure that we have the money to do it than Porter
Goss. And we thank him for his service. Thank God he was the Chair of
the committee when 9/11 happened.
And for people who come to the floor and have voted against
opportunities to fund defense and to fund counterintelligence, really,
to me, you have no standing here when you come down here and say we are
selling it short. You know it is baloney. You know it is not factual.
And you know that the American people are not going to buy it. This guy
is not going to sell the intelligence community short.
Bipartisanship ended this year, but it started last year with a
document in the other body, where a whole game plan was laid out where
the Democrats were going to try to diminish this administration and use
the intelligence community to do it. That is not right. It is not fair
to people who work hard in this business, who spend their careers
trying to find people who want to do harm to America. But that is the
way it is. That is what happens around here.
And you have fallen into this trap where your leadership has decided
they are going to use the intelligence community to try to diminish the
work of people who work hard, for no good reason except for political
gain. You know what? People in the House are not going to buy it.
I say support the bill. It is a good bill. It is a bill that was
drafted in a way that will help the intelligence community do the hard
work that needs to be done.
{time} 1730
It will provide the funding that needs to be provided, and it is a
tribute to the chairman of the committee. This is his last bill. And
for those of my colleagues to stand on the floor and diminish that, I
think is wrong.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a reasonably recent and very dedicated member of our
committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there are a few good features in this bill.
For example, the bill supports the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research funding request and provides additional
funding for enhanced training of State Department intelligence
activities. Following my request last year when my amendments with
regard to foreign language instruction were rejected and the leadership
assured me that we would take care of it this year, I worked closely
with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on a number of
important provisions. I am pleased to acknowledge the work that he did.
Nearly $29 million of the $33 million in language programs that we find
in this bill were what I had specifically recommended or even written.
They will do a number of things to improve our proficiency in critical
languages.
But I am very disappointed in a number of failures. There was a
commonsense amendment I offered to provide foreign language instruction
for students of science and engineering at American universities. It
was a simple idea. We need it. It was voted down on party lines. But
the fundamental problem, and this is what we keep coming back to today,
all the world knows that there have been some major intelligence
failures. We read it in the world's press. In fact, too often we read
about these things in the world's press a day or two after critical
people have come before our committee and failed to tell us what we
need to know in order to exert oversight.
The reason we are talking about the underfunding here is because the
approach that the administration is taking, the approach that the
leadership here is endorsing is funding by supplemental appropriations.
It removes the oversight process. A large fraction of the funding for
counterterrorism is now removed from the oversight process, and it
compromises the work of this committee, it compromises the work of this
Congress, and it results in a fundamentally flawed authorization bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence but was also on
probably the most recent delegation back from Iraq, and I appreciate
the extra effort that he and his colleagues made.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4548, the Intelligence
Authorization Act. I am disappointed by some of the rhetoric that we
have heard from the other side of the aisle today. The last speaker on
the other side of the aisle referenced the unwillingness of the
committee to accept an amendment. The problem is, there are other
committees in this House that have jurisdiction. I have similar bills
in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence accepted a significant portion of what the
gentleman from New Jersey presented. We accepted it. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce passed on jurisdiction, meaning that even
though we have responsibility to review it, we respect the leadership
of the chairman of the committee, we respected the work of the members
of this committee, and we respected and realized how important it was
to get that done. So we passed on it and we said, let the intelligence
bill carry this forward.
[[Page H4831]]
But when it comes to the little amendment, there is no thank you, no
thank you to the Committee on Education and the Workforce for passing
the majority of what this individual wanted and letting it go without
jurisdiction.
What I have learned out of this process is that perhaps the next time
the gentleman from New Jersey proposes an amendment, we maybe accept
the amendment with a realization that says the committee of
jurisdiction also ought to have the process and also ought to have the
opportunity to review.
This chairman has led the committee graciously and effectively for a
long period of time. Members on the other side of the aisle are talking
about funding. When they had the opportunity to fund the intelligence
community earlier this year, the majority of the minority said, No, we
are not going to give the intelligence community the money that they
need. Thankfully, the will of the House went in the other direction.
What has happened in this process is a breakdown in bipartisanship.
It has characterized this committee for as long as it has been on the
Hill. I hope that as we move forward, as we move through conference we
can come back to a bipartisan approach that the men and women in the
field look to each and every day. They want to know that the people
here in Washington and the people around the country support the
effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the last speaker for his sincere
efforts at bipartisanship.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ruppersberger), our rookie on the committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, first I think I do have to respond
to some of the comments made from the colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. I do respect each and every member of this committee, and
this committee should be bipartisan, and our goal is U.S.A. first. I
think some of the comments that were made have to be addressed.
First, there is a lot of respect for our chairman, the gentleman from
Florida. This is not about a personal attack on the gentleman from
Florida. I respect the gentleman from Florida. I respect what he has
done as it relates to the intelligence community throughout his career.
He has done a great job. However, I was elected to come to the Halls
and the floor of Congress to debate issues. It seems to me that the
majority thinks that if we disagree on an issue that we are being
unpatriotic. That is just not so. We disagree on one major issue and
that is the major issue of the funding of counterterrorism. That is
what the issue is here today.
My comments are basically about NSA. I happen to represent Maryland's
Second Congressional District. NSA is located in my district. I want to
acknowledge General Hayden and all the members of NSA both in Iraq and
Afghanistan and throughout the world that do a superb job.
Unfortunately, the American people should know more about what they do,
but we cannot really talk about that.
The bill also makes some reductions in several NSA programs that I
believe are too deep. All of the affected programs are essential to
NSA's overall technology modernization program, which is key to the
future success of the agency. I hope that these reductions will be
addressed in conference with the Senate.
Congress last year transferred the authority to review and approve
NSA's acquisitions programs to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition in the Defense Department. NSA and the Under Secretary are
faithfully implementing this direction, and NSA is, in my judgment,
making good progress in restoring confidence in its acquisition
management capabilities.
I want to express again my appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida. He is an honorable man. He has done a great job. We have a
disagreement on an issue. Again, I ask the majority to understand,
because we disagree does not mean we are being political. It means that
we think this is in the best interests of the United States of America
and its national security.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from California, the ranking member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for her steady leadership on so many
issues that are very, very grave related to our national security. Let
me just say that I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an issue very
briefly that is of great importance, that is, ensuring that our Federal
intelligence dollars are not used to support groups or individuals
engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to assure
her that I understand and fully support the general principle reflected
in her point and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I also
want to assure the gentlewoman that, as this bill moves forward, we
will be mindful of the issue and will try to be helpful.
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for her attention to this issue. I
look forward to working with her.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of our committee
who is probably better known as a world-class pilot.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the chairman for yielding time. I am just an
old man today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to invoke two names: Jack Murtha and Ike
Skelton. If you watched the defense bill go through here, both in
authorization and appropriations, those gentlemen do not care who is
President or who has the majority. They fight tooth, hook and nail for
the military, for intelligence, and this Nation. I always felt that
this committee that I serve on did the same thing, until, as it has
been mentioned, last year, unfortunately in election year politics, the
Democrat leadership has forced, I think, or at least led some of the
more thoughtful members to be partisan. That is the saddest thing.
In the rule, I talked about the gentlewoman from California. During
Ronald Reagan's burial, I had tears in my eyes. I could not hold them
back. She reached over and took my hand to console me, patted my hand
and said, ``Duke, isn't it good to be friends?'' I would tell the
gentlewoman from California, we are good friends and the members on the
committee I hunt and fish with, a lot of them. Some of the ladies I do
not.
What is so disappointing, and I tell my friends on the other side, we
could do this just like Ike Skelton and Jack Murtha and after sitting
in the committee for several hours and watching the intentional
partisanship, intent just to hurt the President, even though you know
there were a couple of those amendments that I wanted to vote for, but
there was no way I was going to vote for them after that and that is
sad. I think that we can do better in this committee. We will have
dinner together. We will hunt, we will fish, and we will cry together;
but I just think it is sad at this.
Porter Goss is the finest chairman in defense that I have ever seen
in 14 years. His experience at CIA and on this committee, sometimes
during the committee I get upset, but the gentleman from Florida is
levelheaded, sits there and meets with the ranking member and tries to
work through these bills in a very bipartisan way. I think we do
ourselves a disservice today in some cases.
I ask Members to vote for this bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4548. Am I
the only one that finds it odd that my colleagues from the other side
are in the position of saying, ``Well, you know, I voted for this thing
before I voted against it''? Every one of them voted for it yesterday
in the Defense appropriations bill.
Nevertheless, I am proud to serve as a member of this Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and it is a distinct privilege to
serve as a crossover member on the House Committee on Armed Services.
This bill takes the
[[Page H4832]]
lead in defense intelligence and fully supports the Secretary of
Defense and his initiatives to transform the Department for the future.
I think we have a large, but responsible, spending plan here, including
the contingent emergency reserve fund; and the challenge will be to
integrate these initiatives into baseline efforts for the purpose of
fighting terrorism.
{time} 1745
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed, sincerely disappointed, that my
friends on the other side did vote against this bill in committee. It
is a sad departure from what we normally do in that committee. But it
is a good bill. It properly supports intelligence.
I will submit my entire statement at this time in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4548. I am proud to
serve as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and it is a distinct
privilege to serve as a crossover-Member on the House Armed Services
Committee. I would like to commend the Chairman, Mr. Goss, for bringing
this bill to the floor at a time when it is needed most in our
country's history.
H.R. 4548 addresses a critical need for the Intelligence Community
and the Department of Defense's architectural strategy, integration,
and information sharing among classic intelligence activities (like
SIGINT and IMINT) and innovative or dynamic disciplines such as
Measurement and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT), and Human
Intelligence (HUMINT) that is being increasingly relied on, in our
current global conflicts.
This bill takes the lead in Defense Intelligence and fully supports
the Secretary of Defense and his initiatives to transform the
Department for the future. I think we have a large, but responsible
spending plan here, including the Contingent Emergency Reserve Fund,
and the challenge will be to integrate these initiatives into baseline
efforts for the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I would however, also like to express my sincere
disappointment on the decision of the minority Membership of the
Committee not to vote for this bill. This is a bad departure from the
strong tradition of bipartisan support for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill properly supports the
Intelligence Community, and provides our best and first line of defense
for America. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4548.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is actually known as the
chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and otherwise known
as our colleague and friend.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
And let me just say that when we put the defense bill together, put
together with bipartisan support, passed the committee unanimously, we
bolted on $25 billion in supplemental for this next year. 2.2 billion
of that, after consultation with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss), we put into the intel side which went into his intel budget.
That is only for a couple of months. It was understood that was just
for a couple of months.
And I would say to the gentlewoman who said we have underfunded
counterterrorism to hold on to her horses because we have got a
supplemental coming up for 2005, which will have a large intel piece to
it and she will be tired of voting for intel increases.
So there is no cut to the intel budget. This was always intended to
be a bridge. And everybody, everybody, on both sides of the aisle, we
passed this thing 60 to zero in the committee, an overwhelmingly vote
in the full House. It was only be supposed to be for a couple of months
at the end of this year so our intel people and the people that wear
the uniform would have that bridge in the winter months of this year.
So I want to applaud the gentleman for everything he has done. We did
this with total synchronization, total coordination, and we have got a
great budget for the folks who carry out the intel duties for this
Nation.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. Harman asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to our last speaker that
the DOD appropriations bill is a $400 billion bill, a small fraction of
which is for intelligence. In my view, that is not the place for this
debate about fully funding counterterrorism intelligence. The
intelligence bill is where we should make our stand. And I do
appreciate the gentleman from California's (Mr. Hunter) clarification,
as he just said, that the additional counterterrorism funding in his
bill is only for a couple of months.
That is the point we are trying to make, Mr. Chairman. We all are
patriots. We all support the troops. We all support our intelligence
personnel. We just think that the primary mission of the intelligence
community ought to be funded in the base bill, the one we are voting on
today.
Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Authorization bill represents the
culmination of many months of work by our community to provide the
intelligence community with the resources it needs to safeguard our
national security. It also presents an opportunity to lay down
important oversight markers so that we can fulfill our constitutionally
mandated duty to provide oversight of the intelligence community. The
Intelligence Committees were created for precisely this reason, and if
we simply become a rubber stamp for the administration, then we might
as well cease to exist.
At the outset, let me commend our diligent staff on both sides of the
aisle for their hard work and late nights, and let me commend all
members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for their focus and
dedication to getting it right. Four of them, the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), will leave us this year, and I wish them fair
winds. I also want to explain the gentleman from Florida's (Mr.
Hastings) absence. Our thoughts are with him as he cares for his ailing
mother.
Mr. Chairman, this debate has been very difficult, certainly for me.
As everyone here knows, over five terms in Congress, I have voted for
every intelligence authorization bill and every defense authorization
bill, and I have often worked to try to plus-up amounts in those bills.
The brave men and women of the intelligence community rely on us.
Without us, they cannot do their job. I have traveled around the world
and visited with them, and their bravery and courage speaks volumes
about how much they love this country.
For all of these reasons, I stand here today with a heavy heart
because I feel that unfortunately and needlessly, this bill could have
and should have provided for stronger intelligence and stronger
oversight.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the gentlewoman the
reason we bolted on $25 billion, not $50 billion, not $75 billion, with
a piece of that being carried for her committee was because we have a
war in two theatres which is ebbing and flowing. We cannot see into the
future. We may need more money in January and February than projected
$50 billion or even $75 billion. So I would just say to the
gentlewoman, there is plenty of money for current operations. Nobody is
being short-changed in this year.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could just respond
to the gentleman, and I would be happy to yield again if I have any
more time if he wants to respond to what I have to say, I appreciate
that comment, but mine is a bit different. I understand that we may not
fully know what we need. That is why we have supplementals. But in this
case we do fully know what we need. We know what the agencies in the
intelligence community need for counterterrorism because they have told
us, and the amendments we wish had been in order had an unclassified
piece, which basically says we should fully fund counterterrorism, and
a classified piece, where we carefully allocated across the
intelligence community all the money these agencies have told us they
need. They told us it is hard to plan for their year without knowing
for sure that they will get money.
[[Page H4833]]
And the last point I want to make to the gentleman, and I do
appreciate what he is saying, is that I do not think we will pass
another supplemental until sometime after the first quarter of next
year. We will be gearing up in a new Congress, and if we pass the
supplemental in next March or April, as I pointed out in my earlier
remarks, we may have a gap in funding counterterrorism just at the time
when we have the presidential inauguration and the Super Bowl, and
those are huge events were maximum counterterrorism efforts are needed.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentlewoman that I
too have looked at requirements. And intel requirements in those two
war-fighting theatres, Afghanistan and Iraq, are as difficult for the
intel experts to project as it is for our defense experts, our people
who are leading uniformed troops, and there is plenty of money to carry
this bridge. This is a bridge fund, and I might say 60 out of 60
people, Republicans and Democrats, agreed this was a good number, and
this had the $2.2 billion intel piece embedded in it when we passed it.
So I can just tell the gentlewoman there is not going to be a gap.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to assure the gentlewoman that I associate
myself with stronger intelligence. Her poster, I think, is excellent,
and I am delighted that we all agree on that.
Second of all, I want to tell the gentlewoman that I totally agree
that the form is not pretty. I do not like supplementals either. We
work with what we have to work with. But the substance, I think, came
out as well as it could. And I want to thank the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services for reaching out to help us with the
bridge.
In a more direct answer to the gentlewoman's question a while ago
about what requests were, and I am going to be very candid, these were
the requests we were working with. And they are not for the whole year,
but they are the requests to deal with the war on terror. And we
actually come up with 32 percent more than what the CIA requested, 100
percent of what DIA requested, 39 percent more than what NSA requested,
88 percent more than NRO, and 19 percent more than NGA.
So we are way ahead in bridging. But obviously, her point is we have
not gone for a whole year, and we all understand that. The question is
will there be a short-change? And my answer is no. And the problem I
have with her solution that she had proposed, somewhat belatedly, if I
may say that, and I will come to that point if I have time, is that
authorized money without appropriated money behind it is monopoly
money, as we all know, and that was part of the problem.
Now let me go to the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) point,
which I think was a very poignant point and I have huge regard for the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as we all do: What happened this
year? And the answer is that normally we do work out all of our
differences before we bring our bill out. We get them done in
committee. This year we are on a schedule. I thought we had all our
differences worked out. I honestly did not know we were going to have
some of these amendments that she came up with until a couple of hours
before the meeting. I asked that they try to be worked out. Apparently
they were.
Normally we need more than 2 or 3 hours to work out something as
important as a budget. So I do not think there is any bad intention.
What I think is that there is more work to be done, and there will be
an opportunity between now and the conference.
I urge support for this bill because I think it is a great place to
go forward.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important
Intelligence Authorization, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
First of all, I want to congratulate Porter Goss not only for his
work on this legislation, but also for his distinguished career as a
servant for the people.
Everyday, Porter Goss has come to work with one thought in mind: How
do I make this country a better and safer place?
Porter, we are going to miss you when you leave this House.
I had hoped that the Minority would give you the respect you deserve
and work with you on this bill.
Instead, they want to play politics.
I have to hand it to the Minority. They have taken the strategy that
the best defense is a good offense to its extreme.
They have no defense when it comes to their pathetic record on
intelligence funding. So they try to cloud the issue by saying that we
are not spending enough on intelligence.
What makes this strategy laughable is the fact that just yesterday,
House Democrats voted overwhelmingly for intelligence funding in the
Defense Appropriations bill.
Yesterday, the funding was just right. Today, they are simply
shocked, shocked, that we don't spend enough.
Why the sudden change of heart? Politics, of course. Pure politics.
Throughout the 1990's, leading Democrats offered amendment after
amendment to slash Intelligence funding. They offered amendment after
amendment in an effort to hamstring the C.I.A. And the Clinton White
House not only ignored the Intelligence Community, they disdained it.
Bill Clinton himself rarely allowed the CIA Director into the Oval
Office.
Let's not kid ourselves. The left wing of the Democratic Party has a
long tradition of hostility to the C.I.A. They have never been
comfortable with the world of intelligence gathering.
Even after 9-11, many in the Minority have sought to decimate
intelligence funding. These same Members who today claim the pending
bill is inadequate, voted against emergency supplemental intelligence
funding last year.
For members of the Democratic Party to come to the House floor and
say that they could do it better than Porter Goss is simply not
believable.
Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community deserves better than
partisan political stunts.
Without intelligence, we cannot win the war on terror.
Intelligence funding helped bring to justice Saddam Hussein and his
evil sons, Qusay and Uday. And it has assisted in the death of or
capture of 42 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam regime and
of more than 2,700 Al-Qa'ida leaders and foot soldiers around the
globe.
Perhaps most important, in the United States, nearly 200 suspected
terrorist associates have been charged with crimes with the help of
quality intelligence information.
We are doing the right thing with this authorization. Vote to make
America safer. Vote for this Intelligence Authorization.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
several aspects of the legislation that we consider, H.R. 4548, the
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2005. It is ridiculous that of
eight quality amendments offered at the Rules * * *.
The most important of the eight amendments offered but not made in
order, the Peterson-Cramer-Boswell amendment, would have fully funded
the counterterrorism activities of the intelligence community at the
amount that the intelligence agencies have suggested be requested. All
nine Democrats who serve on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence voted unanimously to support this amendment at its markup.
Mr. Chairman, without this important amendment, our intelligence
capabilities will be handicapped. The outlays called for in the
Peterson-Cramer-Boswell amendment would have provided for additional
oversight over intelligence, which is critical, especially in light of
the state of confusion that we see in this Administration's
intelligence program.
Like President Bush's request in his FY 2005 Budget, H.R. 4548
proposes to fund only a small fraction of the intelligence agencies'
counterterrorism requirements. Only 20 percent of the funding
requirements for the CIA Counterterrorism Center were called for in the
Bush Budget. The fact that the administration then requested a
supplemental allocation for the first quarter of FY 2005 evidences the
dire need for these monies.
The intelligence community should not have to rely on supplemental
funding to carry out its core functions! In the wake of 9/11 and new
episodes of terrorism violence almost daily, it is not comforting to
know that our intelligence community is operating on supplemental
``crutches.'' While this nation sits in a vulnerable state, the
Administration puts us on ``ice'' until November elections. Very scary.
The CIA Counterterrorism Center has had to wait for supplemental
funding for 80 percent of its requirements! Reports from the Houston
FBI's Field Intelligence Group (FIG), there have been several reports
that one of Houston's major sources of vulnerability, either the
airports, the Port of Houston, or the nuclear South Texas Project will
be hit by al-Qaeda ``sleeper cells.'' We need the most effective
counterterrorism resources available to prevent such an occurrence.
Waiting for supplemental funding will not keep our families safe,
[[Page H4834]]
especially with upcoming events that would attract a potential
terrorist such as the Democratic and Republican National Conventions,
the November elections, and Independence Day celebrations.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that, should this legislation pass, the
conferees address the fact that less than one-third of what the
intelligence agencies have suggested is provided in the proposal.
Therefore, I would fully support a motion to recommit for purpose of
incorporating the critical addition of outlays to counterterrorism that
are needed to secure our homeland.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support a motion to recommit.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
Though I certainly recognize the legitimate national security role of
our intelligence community, I have concerns about this authorization
and the questionable role played by components of the intelligence
community.
Specifically, I am concerned about our history of secret regime
changes carried out by our intelligence apparatus. More often than not,
we see many of the problems we face today were created as a result of
this unwise practice of forcibly changing regimes in secret.
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA
overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator.
This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in
1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hardline
Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United
States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its war with
Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam
Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war
again against Saddam's Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided
weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in
power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden
struck out against the United States. The United States then went to
war against that Taliban government.
I am also concerned about the efficacy of our intelligence community.
The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but seldom do my
colleagues ask what exactly we are getting for our constituents' money.
It may be unfair that we only hear about the intelligence community's
failures and shortcomings, but we cannot help but be concerned over so
many 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 the intelligence community to detect and prevent the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community
failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat.
We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the
United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq's
relationship with al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence
community relied heavily--perhaps almost exclusively--on Iraqi exile
and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq
and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally
misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have
passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret
pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears
to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre-
determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well.
These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in
human lives and dollars. 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.
I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and instead begin
looking for new ways to strengthen the legitimate functions of our
intelligence community so as to better protect the borders and citizens
of the United States.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 4548
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified schedule of authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Intelligence Community Management Account.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by
law.
Sec. 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 303. Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Information
Management.
TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Sec. 401. Permanent extension of Central Intelligence Agency voluntary
separation incentive program.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 501. National Security Agency Emerging Technologies Panel.
TITLE VI--EDUCATION
Subtitle A--National Security Education Program
Sec. 601. Provision for annual funding.
Sec. 602. Modification of obligated service requirements under the
National Security Education Program.
Sec. 603. Improvements to the National Flagship Language Initiative.
Sec. 604. Establishment of scholarship program for English language
studies for heritage community citizens of the United
States within the National Security Education Program.
Subtitle B--Improvement in Intelligence Community Foreign Language
Skills
Sec. 611. Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Language and
Education.
Sec. 612. Requirement for foreign language proficiency for advancement
to certain senior level positions in the intelligence
community.
Sec. 613. Advancement of foreign languages critical to the intelligence
community.
Sec. 614. Pilot project for Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps.
Sec. 615. Codification of establishment of the National Virtual
Translation Center.
Sec. 616. Report on recruitment and retention of qualified instructors
of the Defense Language Institute.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2005 for the conduct of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the following elements of
the United States Government:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(2) The Department of Defense.
(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(4) The National Security Agency.
(5) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
and the Department of the Air Force.
(6) The Department of State.
(7) The Department of the Treasury.
(8) The Department of Energy.
(9) The Department of Justice.
(10) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(11) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(12) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(13) The Coast Guard.
(14) The Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The
amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and
the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2005,
for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the elements listed in such section, are those
specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
prepared to accompany the bill H.R. 4548 of the One Hundred
Eighth Congress.
(b) Availability of Classified Schedule of
Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made
available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and House of Representatives and to the President. The
President shall provide for suitable distribution of the
Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within
the executive branch.
SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director
of Central Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian
personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year
2005 under section 102 when the Director of Central
Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the
performance of important intelligence functions.
(b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of
Central Intelligence shall notify promptly the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate whenever the Director exercises the authority
granted by this section.
SEC. 104. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management
Account
[[Page H4835]]
of the Director of Central Intelligence for fiscal year 2005
the sum of $318,395,000. Within such amount, funds identified
in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in
section 102(a) for advanced research and development shall
remain available until September 30, 2006.
(b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the
Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of
Central Intelligence are authorized 310 full-time personnel
as of September 30, 2005. Personnel serving in such elements
may be permanent employees of the Intelligence Community
Management Account or personnel detailed from other elements
of the United States Government.
(c) Classified Authorizations.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are
also authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account for fiscal year 2005 such
additional amounts as are specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a).
Such additional amounts for research and development shall
remain available until September 30, 2006.
(2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the
personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the
Intelligence Community Management Account as of September 30,
2005, there are also authorized such additional personnel for
such elements as of that date as are specified in the
classified Schedule of Authorizations.
(d) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in section 113 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404h), during
fiscal year 2005 any officer or employee of the United States
or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the staff
of the Intelligence Community Management Account from another
element of the United States Government shall be detailed on
a reimbursable basis, except that any such officer, employee,
or member may be detailed on a nonreimbursable basis for a
period of less than one year for the performance of temporary
functions as required by the Director of Central
Intelligence.
(e) National Drug Intelligence Center.--
(1) In general.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated in subsection (a), $29,811,000 shall be
available for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Within
such amount, funds provided for research, development,
testing, and evaluation purposes shall remain available until
September 30, 2006, and funds provided for procurement
purposes shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
(2) Transfer of funds.--The Director of Central
Intelligence shall transfer to the Attorney General funds
available for the National Drug Intelligence Center under
paragraph (1). The Attorney General shall utilize funds so
transferred for the activities of the National Drug
Intelligence Center.
(3) Limitation.--Amounts available for the National Drug
Intelligence Center may not be used in contravention of the
provisions of section 103(d)(1) of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3(d)(1)).
(4) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Attorney General shall retain full authority over the
operations of the National Drug Intelligence Center.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal
year 2005 the sum of $239,400,000.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay,
retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be
increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may
be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits
authorized by law.
SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not
be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of
any intelligence activity which is not otherwise
authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United
States.
SEC. 303. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.
(a) Establishment of Position Within the Office of the
Director of Central Intelligence.--Subsection (e)(2) of
section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
403) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (G); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph (G):
``(G) The Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Information Management.''.
(b) Duties.--Section 102 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 403) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection (h):
``(h) Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Information Management.--(1) To assist the Director of
Central Intelligence in carrying out the Director's
responsibilities under this Act, there shall be an Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence for Information Management
who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Assistant Director of
Central Intelligence for Information Management is the chief
information officer of the intelligence community.
``(2) Subject to the direction of the Director of Central
Intelligence, the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence
for Information Management shall--
``(A) manage activities relating to the information
technology infrastructure and enterprise architecture
requirements of the intelligence community;
``(B) have procurement approval authority over all
information technology items related to the enterprise
architectures of all intelligence community components;
``(C) direct and manage all information technology-related
procurement for the intelligence community; and
``(D) ensure that all expenditures for information
technology and research and development activities are
consistent with the intelligence community enterprise
architecture and the strategy of the Director of Central
Intelligence for such architecture.
``(3) An individual serving in the position of Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence for Information Management
may not, while so serving, serve as the chief information
officer of any other agency or department, or component
thereof, of the United States.''.
(c) References.--Any reference to the Assistant Director of
Central Intelligence for Administration in any law,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
States shall be deemed to be a reference to the Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence for Information Management.
TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SEC. 401. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension of Program.--Section 2 of the Central
Intelligence Agency Voluntary Separation Pay Act (50 U.S.C.
403-4 note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively.
(b) Termination of Funds Remittance Requirement.--(1)
Section 2 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 403-4 note) is further
amended by striking subsection (i).
(2) Section 4(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 8331 note) is amended by
striking ``, or section 2 of the Central Intelligence Agency
Voluntary Separation Pay Act (Public Law 103-36; 107 Stat.
104)''.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 501. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
PANEL.
The National Security Agency Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. 402
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 19. (a) There is established the National Security
Agency Emerging Technologies Panel. The panel is a standing
panel of the National Security Agency. The panel shall be
appointed by, and shall report directly to, the Director.
``(b) The National Security Agency Emerging Technologies
Panel shall study and assess, and periodically advise the
Director on, the research, development, and application of
existing and emerging science and technology advances,
advances on encryption, and other topics.
``(c) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
shall not apply with respect to the National Security Agency
Emerging Technologies Panel.''.
TITLE VI--EDUCATION
Subtitle A--National Security Education Program
SEC. 601. PROVISION FOR ANNUAL FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Title VIII of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (Public Law 102-183;
105 Stat. 1271), as amended by section 311(c) of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public
Law 103-178; 107 Stat. 2037), is amended by adding at the end
of section 810 the following new subsection:
``(c) Funding From Intelligence Community Management
Account for Fiscal Years Beginning With Fiscal Year 2005.--In
addition to amounts that may be made available to the
Secretary under the Fund for a fiscal year, the Director of
Central Intelligence shall transfer to the Secretary from
amounts appropriated for the Intelligence Community
Management Account for each fiscal year, beginning with
fiscal year 2005, $8,000,000, to carry out the scholarship,
fellowship, and grant programs under subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), respectively, of section 802(a)(1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 802(a)(2) of such Act
(50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(2)) is amended in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or from a transfer under
section 810(c)'' after ``National Security Education Trust
Fund''.
SEC. 602. MODIFICATION OF OBLIGATED SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b)(2) of section 802 of title
VIII of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1992 (Public Law 102-183; 105 Stat. 1273), as amended by
section 925(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1578), is
amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B), and inserting
the following:
``(A) in the case of a recipient of a scholarship, as soon
as practicable but in no case later than three years after
the completion by the recipient of the study for which
scholarship assistance was provided under the program, the
recipient shall work for a period of one year--
``(i) in a national security position that the Secretary
certifies is appropriate to use the unique language and
region expertise acquired
[[Page H4836]]
by the recipient pursuant to such study in the Department of
Defense, in any element of the intelligence community, in the
Department of Homeland Security, or in the Department of
State; or
``(ii) in such a position in any other Federal department
or agency not referred to in clause (i) if the recipient
demonstrates to the Secretary that no position is available
in a Federal department or agency specified in clause (i); or
``(B) in the case of a recipient of a fellowship, as soon
as practicable but in no case later than two years after the
completion by the recipient of the study for which fellowship
assistance was provided under the program, the recipient
shall work for a period equal to the duration of assistance
provided under the program, but in no case less than one
year--
``(i) in a position described in subparagraph (A)(i) that
the Secretary certifies is appropriate to use the unique
language and region expertise acquired by the recipient
pursuant to such study; or
``(ii) in such a position in any other Federal department
or agency not referred to in clause (i) if the recipient
demonstrates to the Secretary that no position is available
in a Federal department or agency specified in clause (i);
and''.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to carry out the amendment made by subsection
(a). In prescribing such regulations, the Secretary shall
establish standards that recipients of scholarship and
fellowship assistance under the program under such section
802 are required to demonstrate to satisfy the requirement of
a good faith effort to gain employment as required under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(2) of such
section.
(c) Applicability.--(1) The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall apply with respect to service agreements entered
into under the David L. Boren National Security Education Act
of 1991 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not affect
the force, validity, or terms of any service agreement
entered into under the David L. Boren National Security
Education Act of 1991 before the date of the enactment of
this Act that is in force as of that date.
SEC. 603. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NATIONAL FLAGSHIP LANGUAGE
INITIATIVE.
(a) Increase in Annual Funding.--Title VIII of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (Public
Law 102-183; 105 Stat. 1271), as amended by section 311(c) of
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-178; 107 Stat. 2037) and by section 333(b) of
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
(Public Law 107-306; 116 Stat. 2397), is amended by striking
section 811 and inserting the following new section 811:
``SEC. 811. FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL FLAGSHIP LANGUAGE
INITIATIVE.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2003
and 2004.--In addition to amounts that may be made available
to the Secretary under the Fund for a fiscal year, there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each
fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 2003, $10,000,000, to
carry out the grant program for the National Flagship
Language Initiative under section 802(a)(1)(D).
``(b) Funding From Intelligence Community Management
Account for Fiscal Years Beginning With Fiscal Year 2005.--In
addition to amounts that may be made available to the
Secretary under the Fund for a fiscal year, the Director of
Central Intelligence shall transfer to the Secretary from
amounts appropriated for the Intelligence Community
Management Account for each fiscal year, beginning with
fiscal year 2005, $12,000,000, to carry out the grant program
for the National Flagship Language Initiative under
section 802(a)(1)(D).
``(c) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--Amounts made
available under this section shall remain available until
expended.''.
(b) Requirement for Employment Agreements.--(1) Section
802(i) of the David L. Boren National Security Education Act
of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1902(i)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A) In the case of an undergraduate or graduate
student that participates in training in programs under
paragraph (1), the student shall enter into an agreement
described in subsection (b), other than such a student who
has entered into such an agreement pursuant to subparagraph
(A)(ii) or (B)(ii) of section 802(a)(1).
``(B) In the case of an employee of an agency or department
of the Federal Government that participates in training in
programs under paragraph (1), the employee shall agree in
writing--
``(i) to continue in the service of the agency or
department of the Federal Government employing the employee
for the period of such training;
``(ii) to continue in the service of such agency or
department employing the employee following completion of
such training for a period of two years for each year, or
part of the year, of such training;
``(iii) to reimburse the United States for the total cost
of such training (excluding the employee's pay and
allowances) provided to the employee if, before the
completion by the employee of the training, the employment of
the employee by the agency or department is terminated due to
misconduct by the employee or by the employee voluntarily;
and
``(iv) to reimburse the United States if, after completing
such training, the employment of the employee by the agency
or department is terminated either by the agency or
department due to misconduct by the employee or by the
employee voluntarily, before the completion by the employee
of the period of service required in clause (ii), in an
amount that bears the same ratio to the total cost of the
training (excluding the employee's pay and allowances)
provided to the employee as the unserved portion of such
period of service bears to the total period of service under
clause (ii).
``(C) Subject to subparagraph (D), the obligation to
reimburse the United States under an agreement under
subparagraph (A) is for all purposes a debt owing the United
States.
``(D) The head of an element of the intelligence community
may release an employee, in whole or in part, from the
obligation to reimburse the United States under an agreement
under subparagraph (A) when, in the discretion of the head of
the element, the head of the element determines that equity
or the interests of the United States so require.''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to
training that begins on or after the date that is 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Increase in the Number of Participating Educational
Institutions.--The Secretary of Defense shall take such steps
as the Secretary determines will increase the number of
qualified educational institutions that receive grants under
the National Flagship Language Initiative to establish,
operate, or improve activities designed to train students in
programs in a range of disciplines to achieve advanced levels
of proficiency in those foreign languages that the Secretary
identifies as being the most critical in the interests of the
national security of the United States.
(d) Clarification of Authority to Support Studies Abroad.--
Educational institutions that receive grants under the
National Flagship Language Initiative may support students
who pursue total immersion foreign language studies overseas
of foreign languages that are critical to the national
security of the United States.
SEC. 604. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR ENGLISH
LANGUAGE STUDIES FOR HERITAGE COMMUNITY
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Scholarship Program for English Language Studies for
Heritage Community Citizens of the United States.--(1)
Subsection (a)(1) of section 802 of the David L. Boren
National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1902) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) awarding scholarships to students who--
``(i) are United States citizens who--
``(I) are native speakers (commonly referred to as heritage
community residents) of a foreign language that is identified
as critical to the national security interests of the United
States who should be actively recruited for employment by
Federal security agencies with a need for linguists; and
``(II) are not proficient at a professional level in the
English language with respect to reading, writing, and
interpersonal skills required to carry out the national
security interests of the United States, as determined by the
Secretary,
to enable such students to pursue English language studies at
an institution of higher education of the United States to
attain proficiency in those skills; and
``(ii) enter into an agreement to work in a national
security position or work in the field of education in the
area of study for which the scholarship was awarded in a
similar manner (as determined by the Secretary) as agreements
entered into pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(A).''.
(2) The matter following subsection (a)(2) of such section
is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``or for the
scholarship program under paragraph (1)(E)'' after ``under
paragraph (1)(D) for the National Flagship Language
Initiative described in subsection (i)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``For the
authorization of appropriations for the scholarship program
under paragraph (1)(E), see section 812.''.
(3) Section 803(d)(4)(E) of such Act (50 U.S.C.
1903(d)(4)(E)) is amended by inserting before the period the
following: ``and section 802(a)(1)(E) (relating to
scholarship programs for advanced English language studies by
heritage community residents)''.
(b) Funding.--The David L. Boren National Security
Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 812. FUNDING FOR SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
HERITAGE COMMUNITY RESIDENTS.
``(a) Funding From Intelligence Community Management
Account.--In addition to amounts that may be made available
to the Secretary under the Fund for a fiscal year, the
Director of Central Intelligence shall transfer to the
Secretary from amounts appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account for each fiscal year, beginning
with fiscal year 2005, $4,000,000, to carry out the
scholarship programs for English language studies by certain
heritage community residents under section 802(a)(1)(E).
``(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts made available under
subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.''.
Subtitle B--Improvement in Intelligence Community Foreign Language
Skills
SEC. 611. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--Section 102 of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Language and Education.--(1) To assist the Director of
Central Intelligence in carrying out the Director's
responsibilities under this Act, there shall be an Assistant
Director of
[[Page H4837]]
Central Intelligence for Language and Education who shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
``(2) The Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Language and Education shall carry out the following duties:
``(A) Overseeing and coordinating requirements for foreign
language education and training of the intelligence
community.
``(B) Establishing policy, standards, and priorities
relating to such requirements.
``(C) Identifying languages that are critical to the
capability of the intelligence community to carry out
national security activities of the United States.
``(D) Monitoring the allocation of resources for foreign
language education and training in order to ensure the
requirements of the intelligence community with respect to
foreign language proficiency are met.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2) by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) Through the Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Language and Education, ensuring the foreign
language education and training requirements of the
intelligence community are met.''; and
(3) in subsection (e)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new
subparagraph (H):
``(H) The Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Education and Language.''.
(b) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which
the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Language
and Education is first appointed under section 102(i) of the
National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a),
the Assistant Director shall submit to Congress the following
reports:
(1) A report that identifies--
(A) skills and processes involved in learning a foreign
language; and
(B) characteristics and teaching techniques that are most
effective in teaching foreign languages.
(2)(A) A report that identifies foreign language heritage
communities, particularly such communities that include
speakers of languages that are critical to the national
security of the United States.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ``foreign
language heritage community'' means a community of residents
or citizens of the United States--
(i) who are native speakers of, or who have fluency in, a
foreign language; and
(ii) who should be actively recruited for employment by
Federal security agencies with a need for linguists.
(3) A report on--
(A) the estimated cost of establishing a program under
which the heads of elements of the intelligence community
agree to repay employees of the intelligence community for
any student loan taken out by that employee for the study of
foreign languages critical for the national security of the
United States; and
(B) the effectiveness of such a program in recruiting and
retaining highly qualified personnel in the intelligence
community.
SEC. 612. REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR
ADVANCEMENT TO CERTAIN SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS
IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
(a) In General.--Section 104 of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-4) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(i) Requirement for Foreign Language Proficiency for
Certain Senior Level Positions in the Central Intelligence
Agency.--(1) An individual may not be appointed to a position
in the Senior Intelligence Service in the Directorate of
Intelligence or the Directorate of Operations of the
Central Intelligence Agency unless the Director of Central
Intelligence determines that the individual--
``(A) has been certified as having a professional speaking
and reading proficiency in a foreign language, such
proficiency being at least level 3 on the Interagency
Language Roundtable Language Skills Level or commensurate
proficiency level on such other indicator of proficiency as
the Director determines to be appropriate; and
``(B) is able to effectively communicate the priorities of
the United States and exercise influence in that foreign
language.
``(2) The Director shall carry out this subsection through
the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Language
and Education.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (i) of section 102 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403), as added
by section 611(a), is amended in paragraph (2) by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Making determinations under section 104(i).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to appointments made on or after the
date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(d) Report on Exceptions.--The Director of Central
Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report that
identifies positions within the Senior Intelligence Service
in the Directorate of Intelligence or the Directorate of
Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency that should be
exempt from the requirements of section 104(i) of the
National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a),
and that includes the rationale for the exemption of each
such position identified by the Director.
SEC. 613. ADVANCEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CRITICAL TO THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
(a) In General.--Title X of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C.) is amended--
(1) by inserting before section 1001 (50 U.S.C. 441g) the
following:
``Subtitle A--Science and Technology'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subtitles:
``Subtitle B--Foreign Languages Program
``program on advancement of foreign languages critical to the
intelligence community
``Sec. 1011. (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary
of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence may
jointly establish a program to advance foreign languages
skills in languages that are critical to the capability of
the intelligence community to carry out national security
activities of the United States (hereinafter in this subtitle
referred to as the `Foreign Languages Program').
``(b) Identification of Requisite Actions.--In order to
carry out the Foreign Languages Program, the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence shall
jointly determine actions required to improve the education
of personnel in the intelligence community in foreign
languages that are critical to the capability of the
intelligence community to carry out national security
activities of the United States to meet the long-term
intelligence needs of the United States.
``education partnerships
``Sec. 1012. (a) In General.--In carrying out the Foreign
Languages Program, the head of an element of an intelligence
community entity may enter into one or more education
partnership agreements with educational institutions in the
United States in order to encourage and enhance the study of
foreign languages that are critical to the capability of the
intelligence community to carry out national security
activities of the United States in educational institutions.
``(b) Assistance Provided Under Educational Partnership
Agreements.--Under an educational partnership agreement
entered into with an educational institution pursuant to this
section, the head of an element of an intelligence community
entity may provide the following assistance to the
educational institution:
``(1) The loan of equipment and instructional materials of
the element of the intelligence community entity to the
educational institution for any purpose and duration that the
head determines to be appropriate.
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating
to transfers of surplus property, the transfer to the
educational institution of any computer equipment, or other
equipment, that is--
``(A) commonly used by educational institutions;
``(B) surplus to the needs of the entity; and
``(C) determined by the head of the element to be
appropriate for support of such agreement.
``(3) The provision of dedicated personnel to the
educational institution--
``(A) to teach courses in foreign languages that are
critical to the capability of the intelligence community to
carry out national security activities of the United States;
or
``(B) to assist in the development of such courses and
materials for the institution.
``(4) The involvement of faculty and students of the
educational institution in research projects of the element
of the intelligence community entity.
``(5) Cooperation with the educational institution in
developing a program under which students receive academic
credit at the educational institution for work on research
projects of the element of the intelligence community entity.
``(6) The provision of academic and career advice and
assistance to students of the educational institution.
``(7) The provision of cash awards and other items that the
head of the element of the intelligence community entity
determines to be appropriate.
``voluntary services
``Sec. 1013. (a) Authority To Accept Services.--
Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code,
and subject to subsection (b), the Foreign Languages Program
under section 1011 shall include authority for the head of
an element of an intelligence community entity to accept
from any individual who is dedicated personnel (as defined
in section 1016(3)) voluntary services in support of the
activities authorized by this subtitle.
``(b) Requirements and Limitations.--(1) In accepting
voluntary services from an individual under subsection (a),
the head of the element shall--
``(A) supervise the individual to the same extent as the
head of the element would supervise a compensated employee of
that element providing similar services; and
``(B) ensure that the individual is licensed, privileged,
has appropriate educational or experiential credentials, or
is otherwise qualified under applicable law or regulations to
provide such services.
``(2) In accepting voluntary services from an individual
under subsection (a), the head of an element of the
intelligence community entity may not--
``(A) place the individual in a policymaking position, or
other position performing inherently government functions; or
``(B) except as provided in subsection (e), compensate the
individual for the provision of such services.
``(c) Authority To Recruit and Train Individuals Providing
Services.--The head of an element of an intelligence
community entity may recruit and train individuals to provide
voluntary services accepted under subsection (a).
``(d) Status of Individuals Providing Services.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), while providing voluntary services
accepted under subsection (a) or receiving training under
subsection (c), an individual shall be considered to
[[Page H4838]]
be an employee of the Federal Government only for purposes of
the following provisions of law:
``(A) Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code (relating to compensation for work-related injuries).
``(B) Section 552a of title 5, United States Code (relating
to maintenance of records on individuals).
``(C) Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code (relating
to conflicts of interest).
``(2)(A) With respect to voluntary services accepted under
paragraph (1) provided by an individual that are within the
scope of the services so accepted, the individual is deemed
to be a volunteer of a governmental entity or nonprofit
institution for purposes of the Volunteer Protection Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 14501 et seq.).
``(B) In the case of any claim against such an individual
with respect to the provision of such services, section 4(d)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 14503(d)) shall not apply.
``(3) Acceptance of voluntary services under this section
shall have no bearing on the issuance or renewal of a
security clearance.
``(e) Compensation for Work-Related Injuries.--For purposes
of determining the compensation for work-related injuries
payable under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
an individual providing voluntary services accepted under
subsection (a), the monthly pay of the individual for such
services is deemed to be equal to the amount determined by
multiplying--
``(1) the average monthly number of hours that the
individual provided the services, by
``(2) the minimum wage determined in accordance with
section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)).
``(f) Reimbursement of Incidental Expenses.--(1) The head
of an element of the intelligence community entity may
reimburse an individual for incidental expenses incurred by
the individual in providing voluntary services accepted under
subsection (a). The head of an element of the intelligence
community entity shall determine which expenses are eligible
for reimbursement under this subsection.
``(2) Reimbursement under paragraph (1) may be made from
appropriated or nonappropriated funds.
``(g) Authority To Install Equipment.--(1) The head of an
element of the intelligence community may install telephone
lines and any necessary telecommunication equipment in the
private residences of individuals who provide voluntary
services accepted under subsection (a).
``(2) The head of an element of the intelligence community
may pay the charges incurred for the use of equipment
installed under paragraph (1) for authorized purposes.
``(3) Notwithstanding section 1348 of title 31, United
States Code, the head of an element of the intelligence
community entity may use appropriated funds or
nonappropriated funds of the element in carrying out this
subsection.
``regulations
``Sec. 1014. (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Director of Central Intelligence jointly shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out the Foreign Languages
Program authorized under this subtitle.
``(b) Elements of the Intelligence Community.--Each head of
an element of an intelligence community entity shall
prescribe regulations to carry out sections 1012 and 1013
with respect to that element including the following:
``(1) Procedures to be utilized for the acceptance of
voluntary services under section 1013.
``(2) Procedures and requirements relating to the
installation of equipment under section 1013(g).
``Definitions
``Sec. 1015. In this subtitle:
``(1) The term `intelligence community entity' means an
agency, office, bureau, or element referred to in
subparagraphs (B) through (K) of section 3(4).
``(2) The term `educational institution' means--
``(A) a local educational agency (as that term is defined
in section 9101(26) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(26))),
``(B) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002) other than institutions referred to in subsection
(a)(1)(C) of such section), or
``(C) any other nonprofit institution that provides
instruction of foreign languages in languages that are
critical to the capability of the intelligence community to
carry out national security activities of the United States.
``(3) The term `dedicated personnel' means employees of the
intelligence community and private citizens (including former
civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been
voluntarily separated, and members of the United States
Armed Forces who have been honorably discharged or
generally discharged under honorable circumstances, and
rehired on a voluntary basis specifically to perform the
activities authorized under this subtitle).
``Subtitle C--Additional Education Provisions
``assignment of intelligence community personnel as language students
``Sec. 1021. (a) In General.--The Director of Central
Intelligence, acting through the heads of the elements of the
intelligence community, may assign employees of such elements
in analyst positions requiring foreign language expertise as
students at accredited professional, technical, or other
institutions of higher education for training at the graduate
or undergraduate level in foreign languages required for the
conduct of duties and responsibilities of such positions.
``(b) Authority for Reimbursement of Costs of Tuition and
Training.--(1) The Director may reimburse an employee
assigned under subsection (a) for the total cost of the
training described in subsection (a), including costs of
educational and supplementary reading materials.
``(2) The authority under paragraph (1) shall apply to
employees who are assigned on a full-time or part-time basis.
``(3) Reimbursement under paragraph (1) may be made from
appropriated or nonappropriated funds.
``(c) Relationship to Compensation as an Analyst.--
Reimbursement under this section to an employee who is an
analyst is in addition to any benefits, allowances, travels,
or other compensation the employee is entitled to by reason
of serving in such an analyst position.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
National Security Act of 1947 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 1001 and inserting the following new
items:
``Subtitle A--Science and Technology
``Sec. 1001. Scholarships and work-study for pursuit of graduate
degrees in science and technology.
``Subtitle B--Foreign Languages Program
``Sec. 1011. Program on advancement of foreign languages critical to
the intelligence community.
``Sec. 1012. Education partnerships.
``Sec. 1013. Voluntary services.
``Sec. 1014. Regulations.
``Sec. 1015. Definitions.
``Subtitle C--Additional Education Provisions
``Sec. 1021. Assignment of intelligence community personnel as language
students.''.
SEC. 614. PILOT PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN LINGUIST RESERVE CORPS.
(a) Pilot Project.--The Director of Central Intelligence
shall conduct a pilot project to establish a Civilian
Linguist Reserve Corps comprised of United States citizens
with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages who
would be available upon a call of the President to perform
such service or duties with respect to such foreign languages
in the Federal Government as the President may specify.
(b) Conduct of Project.--Taking into account the findings
and recommendations contained in the report required under
section 325 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306; 116 Stat. 2393), in conducting
the pilot project under subsection (a) the Director of
Central Intelligence shall--
(1) identify several foreign languages that are critical
for the national security of the United States;
(2) identify United States citizens with advanced levels of
proficiency in those foreign languages who would be available
to perform the services and duties referred to in subsection
(a); and
(3) implement a call for the performance of such services
and duties.
(c) Duration of Project.--The pilot project under
subsection (a) shall be conducted for a three-year period.
(d) Authority To Enter Into Contracts.--The Director of
Central Intelligence may enter into contracts with
appropriate agencies or entities to carry out the pilot
project under subsection (a).
(e) Reports.--(1) The Director of Central Intelligence
shall submit to Congress an initial and a final report on the
pilot project conducted under subsection (a).
(2) Each report required under paragraph (1) shall contain
information on the operation of the pilot project, the
success of the pilot project in carrying out the objectives
of the establishment of a Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps,
and recommendations for the continuation or expansion of the
pilot project.
(3) The final report shall be submitted not later than 6
months after the completion of the project.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Director of Central Intelligence
for each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 in order to
carry out the pilot project under subsection (a) such sums as
are specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
referred to section 102.
SEC. 615. CODIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL
VIRTUAL TRANSLATION CENTER.
(a) In General.--Title I of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 402 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``national virtual translation center
``Sec. 119. (a) In General.--There is an element of the
intelligence community known as the National Virtual
Translation Center under the direction of the Director of
Central Intelligence.
``(b) Function.--The National Virtual Translation Center
shall provide for timely and accurate translations of foreign
intelligence for all other elements of the intelligence
community.
``(c) Facilitating Access to Translations.--In order to
minimize the need for a central facility for the National
Virtual Translation Center, the Center shall--
``(1) use state-of-the-art communications technology;
``(2) integrate existing translation capabilities in the
intelligence community; and
``(3) use remote-connection capacities.
``(d) Use of Secure Facilities.--Personnel of the National
Virtual Translation Center may carry out duties of the Center
at any location that--
``(1) has been certified as a secure facility by an agency
or department of the United States; and
``(2) the Director of Central Intelligence determines to be
appropriate for such purpose.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for that Act
is amended by inserting after
[[Page H4839]]
the item relating to section 118 the following new item:
``Sec. 119. National Virtual Translation Center.''.
SEC. 616. REPORT ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF QUALIFIED
INSTRUCTORS OF THE DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
on methods to improve the recruitment and retention of
qualified foreign language instructors at the Foreign
Language Center of the Defense Language Institute. In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider, in the
case of a foreign language instructor who is an alien, to
expeditiously adjust the status of the alien from a temporary
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence.
(b) Report.--(1) Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on the study conducted under subsection (a), and shall
include in that report recommendations for such changes in
legislation and regulation as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means the following:
(A) The Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate.
(B) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the substitute is in order except the
amendments printed in House Report 108-561. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to
amendment and shall not be subject to be a demand for division of the
question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Goss:
In section 104(e)(1), strike ``$29,811,000'' and insert
``$37,811,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It restores the funding
for the National Drug Intelligence Center to the levels contained in
the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request. In fact, a number of
actions were taken in committee regarding NDIC this year in response to
an ongoing investigation into activities there. This amendment does
nothing to affect these investigations that are ongoing in any way. It
does not change in any reporting requirements nor does it lift any
fences that were put in place. But what it does do is it restores the
authorization level to include $8 million that had been cut from the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget request.
I am doing this to address the concern that the cut might
significantly impact the important mission of the National Drug
Intelligence Center, and the reason I have brought the amendment
forward is because I wanted to have the distinguished gentleman from
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who I felt has actually
been the person who is most instrumental in this particular program,
have as much time as he wanted to address this issue. I wanted to make
sure he had the opportunity.
In any event, I am assuming he would support the amendment. In the
absence of knowing nothing beyond that, I am going to suggest that this
amendment be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask to
control the time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) may control the time.
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment to restore the level of
funding requested for NDIC, the National Drug Intelligence Center. I
was concerned to learn that these funds had been cut, as have others
for key satellite programs, and I am pleased that the chairman has now
decided to restore the level of funding the Center needs to carry out
its important counternarcotics mission. Hopefully we will address other
shortfalls that some on our side have identified in the conference.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make an additional comment about a
subject the chairman raised at the end of general debate, and that was
when he called additional budget authority monopoly money. I certainly
share his view that we should appropriate the funds that we authorize.
That is why this side wants to authorize additional funds and then
hopefully to get them appropriated. I have spoken to the highest levels
of this administration about my keen view that the amount of money to
fully fund counterterrorism for fiscal year 2005 is not so great.
{time} 1800
It is not a big budget buster, certainly not as big as many other
requests made by this administration.
I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the room, for whom
I have high regard. It would be my hope that sometime soon, even
perhaps in the defense appropriations bill that comes out of
conference, we will increase the funding for counterterrorism for
fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, pending the arrival of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), if he is able to be here, I would be very
happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the man with whom our committee
works very closely. He is the appropriator for our business, and we are
indeed indebted and grateful for the kind attention and the generosity
that he bestows on the intelligence community.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding, and I appreciate the comments of the ranking member
as well.
It was my privilege to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for some years, and I have great respect for the work you
are about.
I must say that while the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
and I have discussed this amendment and I know of his concerns and I am
very supportive of his concerns, in the meantime, I really asked for
the time because I am a bit disconcerted about what I sensed from the
general debate as I was watching it over C-SPAN from my office.
There appears to be developing here a level of kind of partisanship
that I am not used to seeing when we discuss intelligence. There is
absolutely no question that intelligence work does not know a partisan
divide, if things are happening as they should, and to see that
developing in the committee is most disconcerting to this Member.
Over the years, we all know that intelligence funding was way, way
below where it should be. The development of that lack of funding took
place as the Congress some years ago was radically reducing defense
spending. In those days, I used to say as defense spending is coming
down, intelligence spending should go up, because the Commander-in-
Chief needs better and more information at such a time, rather than
less.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that during the 1990s, there
were significant impacts that were negatively affecting our
intelligence programming. In recent years, we have seen a movement in
the other direction.
In the bill that came off the floor yesterday, there was a reflection
of all of our concern. Indeed, within the base bill, the appropriations
for defense, we spent more than was in the President's budget. And in
the Committee's action on the amendment that came from the
administration for some $25 billion, we provided substantial amounts of
additional funding for intelligence work.
There is little doubt of the priority of this president, this
administration, in making sure we have adequate funding, and I feel
very strongly that we should know that especially the Commander-
[[Page H4840]]
in-Chief does not see partisan value in this work.
The committee is a great committee, but there is a divide here that,
I must say, reflects more than normally membership divide. If, at the
staff level, we have people who are reacting for purely partisan
purposes or their own biases, that is disconcerting to me. It is not
healthy for the community, it is not healthy for our national defense,
it clearly is not healthy for our intelligence community.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the amendment. Not knowing
that there would be a contrary wish from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), whose guidance I would follow very closely
on this, I am going to make that assumption. I hope that is a correct
assumption and has the support of the other side, as we have heard
expressed.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it has our support.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gallegly
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gallegly:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE VII--REFORM OF DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
SEC. 701. DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Period of Designation.--Section 219(a)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``Subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a''
and inserting ``A''; and
(B) by striking ``for a period of 2 years beginning on the
effective date of the designation under paragraph (2)(B)''
and inserting ``until revoked under paragraph (5) or (6) or
set aside pursuant to subsection (c)'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall review the
designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the
procedures set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the
designated organization files a petition for revocation
within the petition period described in clause (ii).
``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--
``(I) if the designated organization has not previously
filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the
petition period begins 2 years after the date on which the
designation was made; or
``(II) if the designated organization has previously filed
a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the
petition period begins 2 years after the date of the
determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.
``(iii) Procedures.--Any foreign terrorist organization
that submits a petition for revocation under this
subparagraph must provide evidence in that petition that the
relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) have
changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation with
respect to the organization.
``(iv) Determination.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving
a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph,
the Secretary shall make a determination as to such
revocation.
``(II) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider
classified information in making a determination in response
to a petition for revocation. Classified information shall
not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains
classified, except that such information may be disclosed to
a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial
review under subsection (c).
``(III) Publication of determination.--A determination made
by the Secretary under this clause shall be published in the
Federal Register.
``(IV) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Secretary shall
be made in accordance with paragraph (6).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Other review of designation.--
``(i) In general.--If in a 6-year period no review has
taken place under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
review the designation of the foreign terrorist organization
in order to determine whether such designation should be
revoked pursuant to paragraph (6).
``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place
pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for
revocation that is filed in accordance with that
subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to
procedures established by the Secretary. The results of such
review and the applicable procedures shall not be reviewable
in any court.
``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Secretary
shall publish any determination made pursuant to this
subparagraph in the Federal Register.''.
(b) Aliases.--Section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Amendments to a Designation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may amend a designation
under this subsection if the Secretary finds that the
organization has changed its name, adopted a new alias,
dissolved and then reconstituted itself under a different
name or names, or merged with another organization.
``(2) Procedure.--Amendments made to a designation in
accordance with paragraph (1) shall be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register. Subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of subsection (a)(2) shall apply to an amended
designation upon such publication. Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (4),
(5), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (a) shall also apply to
an amended designation.
``(3) Administrative record.--The administrative record
shall be corrected to include the amendments as well as any
additional relevant information that supports those
amendments.
``(4) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider
classified information in amending a designation in
accordance with this subsection. Classified information shall
not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains
classified, except that such information may be disclosed to
a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial
review under subsection (c).''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (c)'';
(B) in paragraph (6)(A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or a
redesignation made under paragraph (4)(B)'' and inserting
``at any time, and shall revoke a designation upon completion
of a review conducted pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of paragraph (4)''; and
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``or redesignation'';
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``, or the revocation of
a redesignation under paragraph (6),''; and
(D) in paragraph (8)--
(i) by striking ``, or if a redesignation under this
subsection has become effective under paragraph (4)(B),'';
and
(ii) by striking ``or redesignation''; and
(2) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of the designation in
the Federal Register,'' and all that follows through ``review
of the designation'' and inserting ``in the Federal Register
of a designation, an amended designation, or a determination
in response to a petition for revocation, the designated
organization may seek judicial review'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, amended designation,
or determination in response to a petition for revocation''
after ``designation'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, amended designation,
or determination in response to a petition for revocation''
after ``designation''; and
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, amended designation,
or determination in response to a petition for revocation''
after ``designation'' each place that term appears.
(d) Savings Provision.--For purposes of applying section
219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act on or after the
date of enactment of this Act, the term ``designation'', as
used in that section, includes all redesignations made
pursuant to section 219(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(B)) prior to the date of
enactment of this Act, and such redesignations shall continue
to be effective until revoked as provided in paragraph (5) or
(6) of section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
SEC. 702. INCLUSION IN ANNUAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE COUNTRY
REPORTS ON TERRORISM OF INFORMATION ON
TERRORIST GROUPS THAT SEEK WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION AND GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Inclusion in Reports.--Section 140 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22
U.S.C. 2656f) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by inserting ``any terrorist group known to have
obtained or developed, or to have attempted to obtain or
develop, weapons of mass destruction,'' after ``during the
preceding five years,''; and
(B) by inserting ``any group designated by the Secretary as
a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the
Immigration
[[Page H4841]]
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189),'' after ``Export
Administration Act of 1979,'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(C)(iii), by striking ``and'' at
the end;
(3) in subsection (b)(1)(C)--
(A) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
(B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new
clause:
``(iv) providing weapons of mass destruction, or assistance
in obtaining or developing such weapons, to terrorists or
terrorist groups; and''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
(D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) efforts by those groups to obtain or develop weapons
of mass destruction;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply beginning with the first report under section 140
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988
and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f), submitted more than one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gallegly) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very important to the question of how
our government spends its resources fighting international terrorism.
The amendment streamlines the very burdensome and time-consuming
procedure for redesignating a group as a foreign terrorist
organization, thereby allowing the Federal Government to focus on
actually fighting terrorism and preventing new attacks.
Under existing law, the U.S. Government must devote significant
amounts of its counterterrorist resources to the terrorist organization
redesignation effort. This bureaucratic process must take place every 2
years, even though the vast majority of these groups do not even
dispute their designation. And, as we all know, some groups, such as al
Qaeda, openly boast of their terrorist activity.
This amendment would make two principle changes to the law. First, it
would replace the requirement to formally redesignate terrorist
organizations every 2 years with a procedure that allows the groups to
petition the Secretary of State at 2-year intervals to have their
designation revoked. It would also require the Secretary to review each
group's designation every 6 years.
Let me be clear. This amendment does not change the procedure for
placing a group on the foreign terrorist organization list. The
government must still undergo the same lengthy process that exists
today.
What changes under the amendment is the every 2 year redesignation
process. Currently, the burden is on the State Department and other
agencies to demonstrate that a group should stay on the list. This
amendment shifts the burden to the terrorist organization to petition
the government to be removed from the list. A terrorist group can
petition the government every 2 years. Even if a terrorist group does
not petition for formal removal from the terrorist list, the government
must still review the designation every 6 years.
By streamlining the process, the State Department and other agencies,
including our intelligence services, can focus on designating new
groups as terrorist organizations and focus on preventing new attacks.
For example, last year, 29 of the 37 organizations on the foreign
terrorist list were due for redesignation. As a result, the State,
Justice, Treasury and the intelligence community spent thousands of
hours in preparing a detailed administrative record for each of these
groups.
Meanwhile, back in March, the State Department designated for the
first time the group, Ansar al-Islam, as a foreign terrorist
organization based in north Iraq. The group has been linked to al Qaeda
and is known to have participated in attacks on both U.S. troops and
Iraqi civilians. The designation of Ansar al-Islam took longer than it
should have, because over the preceding 6 months, Federal
counterterrorism groups were bogged down in the redesignation of large
numbers of terrorist groups.
The modified redesignation requirement proposed by the amendment will
still provide designated terrorist groups with plenty of procedural
safeguards. For example, a group can still request a court review of
designation within 30 days after its first designation. In addition,
the amendment allows organizations to petition the Secretary every 2
years to revoke its designation. If that review is not to the group's
satisfaction, the designation can still be challenged in court.
The amendment also establishes a new, expedited procedure for
handling the situation in which a terrorist group changes its name or
uses new aliases.
The language on foreign terrorist organizations is identical to the
provisions contained in an en bloc amendment to the Department of State
authorization bill that was passed by a voice vote here on the floor.
Given the importance of this measure, I introduced it as a separate
bill. It was approved by the Subcommittee on International Terrorism,
Nonproliferation and Human Rights on March 17. In addition, this
provision has the support of both the State Department and the
Department of Justice.
Lastly, section 702 of my amendment requires that the State
Department's annual report on terrorism include information on
countries and terrorist groups that are seeking to obtain weapons of
mass destruction. Experts on terrorism, both within and outside the
government, agree that the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction is the most dangerous security threat faced by the United
States and our allies. Therefore, it makes absolute sense to have the
State Department's main report on terrorism discuss this linkage.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment, but I will
control the time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to support the author of this amendment for his
carefully crafted amendment and excellent remarks. I believe it is
imperative that we maintain an effective and efficient process for
designating foreign terrorist organizations and understand better the
threat posed by those terrorist organizations and their links to
weapons of mass destruction.
I understand, as the gentleman said, that the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on International Relations have been
working on a stand-alone bill to require the Secretary of State to
review designations every 4 years, not every 6, as this amendment
provides.
I think this additional flexibility would be a good thing and would
suggest, for example, that a bill, which I assume will be taken up at
another time, should include a provision allowing the Secretary of
State to remove groups from the list of foreign terrorist organizations
if they renounce terrorism. This is one way of using our soft power
instead of relying solely on military power to influence groups on the
list. I would hope that these details and others could be worked out
separately, or in the conference on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that from 1999 to 2000, I
served as a member of the so-called Bremer Commission on Terrorism,
headed by former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, who now serves as civil
administrator in Iraq. The issue of listing groups and states as
terrorist actors was something we considered carefully. In fact, we
spoke out about one such state.
I think this is an excellent tool to help defeat the threats we face.
I really want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly)
for offering this improvement to our intelligence authorization bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for offering this amendment.
[[Page H4842]]
In 1996, following a series of terrorist attacks throughout the
world, Congress acted to make clear that this country is not to be used
as a staging ground for those who seek to commit acts of terrorism
against persons in other countries.
One of the components in the Committee on the Judiciary's 1996 anti-
terrorism legislation was to authorize the Secretary of State to
designate foreign terrorist organizations, or FTOs, that threaten U.S.
residents or the national security of the United States.
Seven years of experience with the designation process has shown that
it is needlessly burdensome, draining resources that are needed in the
war on terrorism. There are now some 37 designated FTOs, and the
redesignation of each requires intensive interagency review and the
preparation of a voluminous administrative record. Which can take
months, of course.
Few of the designated FTOs ever challenge their designation. For
example, it is unlikely that al Qaeda will seek judicial review of the
Secretary's designation of them as FTOs in the D.C. Circuit Court.
Nevertheless, every 2 years the Federal Government must compile the
record against them.
State and Justice Department officials have informed the Committee on
the Judiciary that the cost of repeatedly proving that FTOs have
retained their terrorist characteristics diverts resources from other
pressing counterterrorism work, including pursuit of additional
designations.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gallegly) addresses each of these concerns in a way that still
assures appropriate review. The text of this amendment tracks language
in a bill that has been reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary.
This amendment would free up critical anti-terrorism resources that are
now expended on the onerous and, for most groups, largely pointless
task of redesignation, while assuring that affected groups have the
opportunity to seek appropriate review.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my support for this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), for her positive comments and for the support.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE DISMANTLING AND REMOVAL OF
LIBYA'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Libya has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism
by the Department of State each year since 1979.
(2) A German court found the Libyan Government guilty of
the East Berlin La Belle disco bombing of 1986, in which two
US servicemen were killed.
(3) A Scottish court in January 2001 found a former Libyan
official guilty of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
(4) Libya received and deserved world's condemnations for
these horrific acts against innocents.
(5) In March 2003, while Coalition Forces were preparing to
liberate Iraq, Libya quietly approached members of the
intelligence services of the United States and United Kingdom
and indicted a willingness to discuss Libya's weapons of mass
destruction programs.
(6) On December 19, 2003, after nine months of intense
negotiations, Libya publicly announced that it was prepared
to eliminate all elements of its clandestine nuclear and
chemical weapons programs.
(7) The United States, the United Kingdom, partners in the
Proliferation Security Initiative and key arms control
agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), have worked in a multilateral and concerted
fashion with Libya in an effort to completely dismantle
Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to
deliver them.
(8) Because of the hard work by the men and women of the
intelligence community, United States policymakers were able
to work successfully to convince Libya to relinquish its WMD
programs.
(9) On January 27, 2004, a cargo plane flew from Libya to
Knoxville, Tennessee, carrying 55,000 pounds of equipment and
documents relating to Libya's nuclear weapons and missile
programs.
(10) Documents relating to those programs indicate that
Libya had purchased a virtual ``turnkey facility'' to produce
parts for gas centrifuges together with assistance to
assemble and test these centrifuges, and was otherwise
attempting to develop a large uranium enrichment plant which
could have produced enough fuel for several nuclear bombs a
year.
(11) On January 24, 2004, Libya announced that it would
accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
(12) On March 4, 2004, Libya submitted its Chemical Weapons
Convention declaration, including a full declaration of its
chemical weapons, an inventory of its production capacity, a
description of any industrial activity that could be involved
in making illegal weapons, and a plan for destroying any
banned materials.
(13) All of Libya's known chemical munitions have since
been destroyed and the country's stocks of mustard gas have
been consolidated within a single secure facility under the
supervision of the OPCW.
(14) On May 6, 2004, a cargo ship departed Libya for the
United States carrying an additional 1,000 tons of weapons of
mass destruction equipment, including centrifuge parts and
components needed to enrich uranium, the Libyan uranium
conversion facility and all associated equipment, five SCUD-C
missiles and launchers, and two partial missiles.
(15) In testimony before the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives on May 10, 2004,
Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance,
Paula DeSutter, indicated that Libya had signed the
additional protocol for the IAEA in Vienna and announced
``the complete dismantlement of Libya's longest range and
most sophisticated missiles and the elimination of all of
Libya's declared chemical munitions''.
(16) International inspectors and monitors are expected to
remain on the ground with full cooperation from Libya to
ensure that Libya possesses no biological weapons programs
and that its weapons of mass destruction programs have been
fully dismantled and or converted to civilian use.
(17) The United States and Libya currently are engaged in
talks to enter a third phase of negotiations focused on
follow-up, verification, and long-term monitoring to ensure
that Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and the
means to deliver them have been completely dismantled, as
well as plans for the retraining of Libyan scientists and
technicians for peaceful work.
(18) Libya's cooperation with international inspectors and
revelations about procurement networks have helped identify
numerous black market suppliers in an ``international
supermarket'' for nuclear parts and weapons designs that also
has aided such countries as Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
(19) Other countries voluntarily have dismantled their
weapons of mass destruction programs, but Libya is the first
and only country on the Department of State's list of State
Sponsors of Terrorism to do so.
(20) Libya's decision to shed it pariah status and divest
itself of its weapons of mass destruction programs can be
directly attributed to the demonstrated resolve of the United
States in the global war against terrorism, the liberation of
Iraq by United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces, and
the adoption of policies in targeting and seizing shipments
of such weapons.
(21) It is appropriate to pursue a policy of cautious and
deliberate re-engagement with Libya based upon verifiable
results, but the United States should not restore full
diplomatic relations with Libya unless and until Libya has--
(A) agreed and submitted to comprehensive monitoring of the
full dismantling of its weapons of mass destruction programs;
(B) severed all links to and support for acts of
international terrorism;
(C) ceased all support for insurgency groups which have
destabilized countries in Africa;
(D) demonstrated respect for human rights and the rule of
law;
(E) implemented its pledge to cooperate in the further
investigation of the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103; and
(F) settled all legal claims relating to past acts of
international terrorism, including but not limited to the
bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 and the La Belle Discotheque.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the world has been made safer with the dismantling and
removal of Libya's weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them;
(2) this would not have been possible if not for the
demonstrated resolve of the United
[[Page H4843]]
States in the global war on terror and in the liberation of
Iraq by United States and Coalition Forces;
(3) the President should be commended for having the
courage to undertake those policies which persuaded Libya to
agree to relinquish such weapons; and
(4) other countries such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea,
should follow Libya's example, and voluntarily dismantle
their weapons of mass destruction and submit their programs
to international inspections.
{time} 1815
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE DISMANTLING AND REMOVAL OF
LIBYA'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Libya has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism
by the Department of State each year since 1979.
(2) A German court found the Libyan Government guilty of
the East Berlin La Belle disco bombing of 1986, in which two
US servicemen were killed.
(3) A Scottish court in January 2001 found a former Libyan
official guilty of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
(4) Libya received and deserved world's condemnations for
these horrific acts against innocents.
(5) ``As a result of Libya's support for international
terrorism and its destabilizing role in the international
community, the United States maintained a comprehensive
economic embargo on Libya for more than two decades, which
was aided by multilateral sanctions imposed by United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 731 and 742 in 1992, and which
together hobbled the development of the Libyan economy.''
(6) In March 2003, while Coalition Forces were preparing to
liberate Iraq, Libya once again quietly approached members of
the intelligence services of the United States and United
Kingdom and indicted a willingness to discuss Libya's weapons
of mass destruction programs, as it had previously in the
1990's.
(7) On December 19, 2003, after nine months of intense
negotiations, Libya publicly announced that it was prepared
to eliminate all elements of its clandestine nuclear and
chemical weapons programs.
(8) The United States, the United Kingdom, partners in the
Proliferation Security Initiative and key arms control
agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), have worked in a multilateral and concerted
fashion with Libya in an effort to completely dismantle
Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to
deliver them.
(9) Because of the hard work by the men and women of the
intelligence community, United States policymakers were able
to work successfully to convince Libya to relinquish its WMD
programs.
(10) On January 27, 2004, a cargo plane flew from Libya to
Knoxville, Tennessee, carrying 55,000 pounds of equipment and
documents relating to Libya's nuclear weapons and missile
programs.
(11) Documents relating to those programs indicate that
Libya had purchased a virtual ``turnkey facility'' to produce
parts for gas centrifuges together with assistance to
assemble and test these centrifuges, and was otherwise
attempting to develop a large uranium enrichment plant which
could have produced enough fuel for several nuclear bombs a
year.
(12) On January 24, 2004, Libya announced that it would
accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
(13) On March 4, 2004, Libya submitted its Chemical Weapons
Convention declaration, including a full declaration of its
chemical weapons, an inventory of its production capacity, a
description of any industrial activity that could be involved
in making illegal weapons, and a plan for destroying any
banned materials.
(14) All of Libya's known chemical munitions have since
been destroyed and the country's stocks of mustard gas have
been consolidated within a single secure facility under the
supervision of the OPCW.
(15) On May 6, 2004, a cargo ship departed Libya for the
United States carrying an additional 1,000 tons of weapons of
mass destruction equipment, including centrifuge parts and
components needed to enrich uranium, the Libyan uranium
conversion facility and all associated equipment, five SCUD-C
missiles and launchers, and two partial missiles.
(16) In testimony before the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives on May 10, 2004,
Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance,
Paula DeSutter, indicated that Libya had signed the
additional protocol for the IAEA in Vienna and announced
``the complete dismantlement of Libya's longest range and
most sophisticated missiles and the elimination of all of
Libya's declared chemical munitions''.
(17) International inspectors and monitors are expected to
remain on the ground with full cooperation from Libya to
ensure that Libya possesses no biological weapons programs
and that its weapons of mass destruction programs have been
fully dismantled and or converted to civilian use.
(18) The United States and Libya currently are engaged in
talks to enter a third phase of negotiations focused on
follow-up, verification, and long-term monitoring to ensure
that Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and the
means to deliver them have been completely dismantled, as
well as plans for the retraining of Libyan scientists and
technicians for peaceful work.
(19) Libya's cooperation with international inspectors and
revelations about procurement networks have helped identify
numerous black market suppliers in an ``international
supermarket'' for nuclear parts and weapons designs that also
has aided such countries as Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
(20) Other countries voluntarily have dismantled their
weapons of mass destruction programs, but Libya is the first
and only country on the Department of State's list of State
Sponsors of Terrorism to do so.
(21) Libya's decision to shed it pariah status and divest
itself of its weapons of mass destruction programs can be
directly attributed to decades of United States and
multilateral economic sanctions against Libya, the
demonstrated resolve of the United States in the global war
against terrorism, the liberation of Iraq by United States
Armed Forces and Coalition Forces, and the adoption of
policies in targeting and seizing shipments of such weapons.
(22) It is appropriate to pursue a policy of cautious and
deliberate re-engagement with Libya based upon verifiable
results, but the United States should not restore full
diplomatic relations with Libya unless and until Libya has--
(A) agreed and submitted to comprehensive monitoring of the
full dismantling of its weapons of mass destruction programs;
(B) severed all links to and support for acts of
international terrorism;
(C) ceased all support for insurgency groups which have
destabilized countries in Africa;
(D) demonstrated respect for human rights and the rule of
law;
(E) implemented its pledge to cooperate in the further
investigation of the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103; and
(F) settled all legal claims relating to past acts of
international terrorism, including but not limited to the
bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 and the La Belle Discotheque.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the world has been made safer with the dismantling and
removal of Libya's weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them;
(2) this would not have been possible if not for decades of
United States and multilateral sanctions against Libya, the
demonstrated resolve of the United States in the global war
on terror and the liberation of Iraq by United States and
Coalition Forces;
(3) the President and previous Administrations should be
commended for having the courage to undertake those policies
which persuaded Libya to agree to relinquish such weapons;
and
(4) other countries such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea,
should follow Libya's example, and voluntarily dismantle
their weapons of mass destruction and submit their programs
to international inspections.
Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modified amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, though I
will not object, I want to be sure that the language that has not been
read is consistent with the language I just reviewed.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that that is
the case.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H4844]]
Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about the genesis of this
amendment. Early in February, as a senior member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, I was asked to lead a delegation for
a mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. That delegation included the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking
member of the committee, and there were four others. There were six of
us. We planned a most ambitious schedule for 6 days: six countries, 6
days.
Our purpose was not to determine the progress on the Constitution,
important though that was; not to check on the morale of the troops,
important though that always is; not to check on how we were spending
our money on the reconstruction, and that too is very important. Our
purpose as members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
was to meet with members of the intelligence community on-site in that
war zone to hear from them in their own words their assessment of the
situation. I want to compliment all of the members of that delegation
for the outstanding contribution they made to that mission.
But before we were going and still in the planning stages, I had a
call from the State Department, Ambassador Burns, who directs the Near
East desk. He said, Mr. Chairman, I would like you and the delegation
to consider making an addition to your trip, another stop. I said, have
you looked at our schedule? Six countries in 6 days. We do not have
time to wind our watch. He said, let me talk to you about it. Then he
came up to Capitol Hill; and in the secure sanctuary of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence rooms on the fourth floor of the
Capitol, he said, We would like you to go to Libya. We would like your
delegation to meet with Colonel Qadhafi. I said, Are you kidding? Are
you serious? Libya is engaged in state-sponsored acts of terrorism
against American citizens. It has endured U.N. sanctions; that has been
going on for 20 years; disregarded world condemnation, and dismissed
diplomatic settlements. What has changed? And he said, in the secure
sanctuary of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence quarters on
the fourth floor of the Capitol, There is movement; There is progress.
We think it would be very valuable for your bipartisan delegation to go
to Libya to meet Colonel Qadhafi, because we want to demonstrate in
tangible form that if he begins to cooperate with us, we will cooperate
with him.
After checking with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), she
agreed. She thought it would be a good idea, and off we went. We spent
8 hours in the country, the final 2 hours in a tent in the middle of
the Libyan desert outside of Surt, Colonel Qadhafi's hometown. We
talked about weapons of mass destruction. We talked about the war on
terrorism. We talked about the shooting down of Pan Am Flight 103,
which has a searing impact on my soul forever more because there were
35 students from Syracuse University on that flight. We talked about
all of the gut-wrenching issues that are so important to our security
and the security of the Free World, and it was a meaningful discussion.
And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) can characterize it
from her standpoint what she thought of it.
Then we completed the rest of our mission. We went to Jordan, we went
to Iraq, we went to Afghanistan, we went to Turkey. This was a world-
wind visit of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, very
serious business, doing very important work. As a matter of fact, 3 of
the 6 days, we did not even sleep in a hotel; we slept in the airplane.
We got back home, and we reported everything to the committee and to
the State Department.
Since then, there has been a great opening up with Libya. Colonel
Qadhafi, I do not think he went to bed one night and suddenly woke up
and said, Hey, those guys are right and I have been wrong. I am going
to change my ways. I think he looked around at the world and he said,
the war on terrorism could negatively impact him like it negatively
impacted his neighbor to the north, who is now behind bars, Saddam
Hussein. I think he said that he wants to be concerned about his legacy
and in what shape he was going to leave that country. I think he
decided that it would be best to cooperate.
What has happened since then? He has turned over the weapons of mass
destruction, he has made his country open for inspection, and he is
cooperating fully.
Does that mean we can clap our hands and say, boy, is this not a
great victory? Although it is a great victory as far as it goes, and it
does prove that leadership really results in something positive if we
work together. But the fact of the matter is, we have to continue to be
cautious, but we have to be very deliberate.
That country is moving in the right direction. Let us hope they
continue that movement. We want signals to be sent to others. We want
Iran and North Korea and other nations, others who are on the list of
countries that sponsor state terrorism, to get the message; and we
think that this amendment that I am offering, this sense of the
Congress amendment, will do the right thing in the appropriate way.
Let me add that there are a number of Members on both sides of the
aisle that have worked very cooperatively on this. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) had some suggestions for language. That is what
my modifying amendment includes, the suggestions he made. That is the
way we work best together, when we reach across the center aisle and
find common ground.
So I would urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will
control the time on this side; and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) not only
for the amendment but for, as he said, engaging the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) in a constructive effort to improve the
amendment, and I think it is a lot better. Frankly, I wish that our
bill that we are considering and voting on today had engaged the
minority more constructively at an earlier stage; I think it would have
been a lot better.
I do support the Boehlert amendment. I fondly remember our trip, six
countries, 6 days. I think the gentleman left out Sicily, so we might
add 7 countries in 6 days.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The only reason we left out Sicily, because the initial
was 6 countries in 6 days; but as the gentlewoman will recall, when we
added Libya, there were requirements on the pilots in that they could
not fly a certain amount of time beyond their standard time, so we
could not go any farther than Sicily. We had to exit Libya, but we
could not go any farther than Sicily, so we stayed overnight and got up
the next morning and off we went.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thought our Sicily
stop was outstanding, which is why I brought it up.
But I think that the improvements made to this amendment by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) are noteworthy. What he did, as
I understand it, was to insert a bit of the history here, the role of
sanctions initiated by President Reagan, the role of international
legal negotiations to get Libya to renounce terrorism and turn over
terrorism suspects to international courts, and the role of diplomacy
in previous administrations and by the British and others before the
beginning of this administration. Though this administration did play a
role, and I commend it, in President Qadhafi's stunning decision to do
the right thing, that should be reflected, and is, in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will put two very important articles on this subject
in the Record. One is by Dr. Flynt Leverett entitled ``Why Libya Gave
Up the Bomb'' from the January 23, 2004, New York Times; and the second
is a Middle East Institute Policy Brief by two former assistant
Secretaries of State and former ambassadors, Martin Indyk and Edward S.
Walker entitled ``What Does Libya's Disarmament Teach About Rogue
States?'' dated April 7, 2004.
Finally, let me make two other points. We have seen in recent days
troubling allegations that Colonel Qadhafi was himself involved in
ordering assassinations of Saudi leaders. These
[[Page H4845]]
are, of course, press reports. But these stories remind us that the
success of our policies toward Libya remain an open question, and I am
sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) agrees with me that we
need to be clear-eyed and diligent to make certain that these promises
by Colonel Qadhafi are kept, and that in other respects, he does not
convert to any of his old habits.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the sponsor of
the amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let
me stress we have to be cautious, but deliberate. But as a favorite son
of the gentlewoman's State, the great President that we just lost, I am
reminded of his admonition: trust, but verify.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments
and strongly agree with them.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just mention that on that trip that
was described, we did spend a day and evening in Baghdad. It was my
second visit. We met with troops, but we also met with all of our
intelligence personnel at the scene in addition to the leaders of the
CPA. What is troubling about that, and I believe the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss) has commented on this in another appearance,
our appearance yesterday in the Committee on Rules, because the timing
of our trip was February 2004. While we were in Baghdad, General Taguba
was doing his investigation of prison abuse and so forth in Baghdad,
and we were never told by these intelligence leaders that that
investigation was ongoing. That was wrong. That diminishes our
oversight, and those folks whom we support as robustly as we can need
to be fully candid with our committee, especially when we are seeking
them out to try to help them.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that I support the
gentleman's amendment as improved by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos).
[From the New York Times, 23 January 2004]
Why Libya Gave Up on the Bomb,
(By Flynt Leverett)
Washington.--As President Bush made clear in his State of
the Union address, he sees the striking developments in
relations with Libya as the fruit of his strategy in the war
on terrorism. The idea is that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's
apparent decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction was
a largely a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, which
thus retroactively justifies the war in Iraq and holds out
the prospect of similar progress with other states that
support terrorists, seek weapons of mass destruction and
brutalize their own people.
However, by linking shifts in Libya's behavior to the Iraq
war, the president misrepresents the real lessons of the
Libyan case. This confusion undermines our chances of getting
countries like Iran and Syria to follow Libya's lead.
The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to
the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's
first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should
even be given to the second Clinton administration. Tired of
international isolation and economic sanctions, the Libyans
decided in the late 1990s to seek normalized relations with
the United States, and held secret discussions with Clinton
administration officials to convey that message. The Clinton
White House made clear that no movement toward better
relations was possible until Libya met its responsibilities
stemming from the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
These discussions, along with mediation by the Saudi
ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan,
produced a breakthrough: Libya turned over two intelligence
officers implicated in the Pan Am 103 attack to the
Netherlands for trial by a Scottish court, and in 1999
Washington acquiesced to the suspension of United Nations
sanctions against Libya.
Then, in the spring of 2001, when I was a member of the
State Department's policy planning staff, the Bush
administration picked up on those discussions and induced the
Libyans to meet their remaining Lockerbie obligations. With
our British colleagues, we presented the Libyans with a
``script'' indicating what they needed to do and say to
satisfy our requirements on compensating the families of the
Pan Am 103 victims and accepting responsibility for the
actions of the Libyan intelligence officers implicated in the
case.
We also put an explicit quid pro quo on the table: if Libya
met the conditions we laid out, the United States and Britain
would allow United Nations sanctions to be lifted
permanently. This script became the basis for three-party
negotiations to resolve the Lockerbie issue.
By early 2003, after a Scottish appeals court upheld the
conviction of one of the Libyan intelligence officers, it was
evident that our approach would bear fruit. Indeed,
Washington allowed the United Nations sanctions against Libya
to be removed last summer after Libya reached a compensation
agreement with the Pan Am 103 families and accepted
responsibility for its officials' actions.
But during these two years of talks, American negotiators
consistently told the Libyans that resolving the Lockerbie
situation would lead to no more than elimination of United
Nations sanctions. To get out from under the separate United
States sanctions, Libya would have to address other concerns,
particularly regarding its programs in weapons of mass
destruction.
This is the content in which Libyan officials approached
the United States and Britain last spring to discuss
dismantling Libya's weapons program. The Iraq war, which
had not yet started, was not the driving force behind
Libya's move. Rather, Libya was willing to deal because of
credible diplomatic representations by the United States
over the years, which convinced the Libyans that doing so
was critical to achieving their strategic and domestic
goals. Just as with Lockerbie, an explicit quid pro quo
was offered: American officials indicated that a
verifiable dismantling of Libya's weapons projects would
lead the removal of our own sanctions, perhaps by the end
of this year.
The lesson is incontrovertible: to persuade a rogue regime
to get out of the terrorism business and give up its weapons
of mass destruction, we must not only apply pressure but also
make clear the potential benefits of cooperation.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take
this approach with other rogue regimes, notably Iran and
Syria. Until the president is willing to employ carrots as
well as sticks, he will make little headway in changing
Iranian or Syrian behavior.
The president's lack of initiative on this point is
especially disappointing because, in the diplomatic aftermath
of the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has a singular
opportunity to effect strategic realignments by both Iran and
Syria. Well-placed Iranians, including more pragmatic
elements of Iran's conservative camp, have indicated through
diplomatic channels and to former officials (including
myself) their interest in a ``grand bargain'' with the United
States. Basically, Tehran would trade off its ties to
terrorist groups and pursuit of nuclear weapons for security
guarantees, a lifting of sanctions and normalized relations
with Washington.
Likewise, senior Syrian officials--including President
Bashar al-Assad himself, in a conversation in Damascus last
week--have told me that they want a better strategic
understanding with the United States. To achieve this,
however, Washington needs to be willing to spell out what
Syria would get in return for giving up its ties to
terrorists and its chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.
As Mr. Assad told me, Syria is ``a state, not a charity''--if
it gives up something, it must know what it will gain in
return.
One reason the Bush administration was able to take a more
constructive course with Libya was that the White House,
uncharacteristically, sidelined the administration's
neoconservative wing--which strongly opposes any offer of
carrots to state sponsors of terrorism, even when carrots
could help end such problematic behavior--when crucial
decisions were made. The initial approach on the Lockerbie
case was approved by an informal coalition made up of
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and
Secretary of State Colin Powell. Likewise, in the lead up to
the negotiations involving Libyan weapons of mass
destruction, the neoconservatives at the Pentagon and in the
shop of Under Secretary of State John Bolton were left out of
the loop.
Perhaps a coalition among members of the State Department's
bureau of Near Eastern affairs and the National Security
Council's more pragmatic elements can chart a similar course
involving Iran and Syria. However, until the administration
learns the real lessons of the Libyan precedent, policy
toward other rogue regimes is likely to remain stuck in the
mind of ideology.
Flynn Leverett, a visiting fellow with the Saban Center for
Middle East Politics at the Brookings Institution, was senior
director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security
Council from 2002 to 2003.
____
[From the Middle East Institute, April 7, 2004]
What Does Libya's Disarmament Teach About Rogue States?
(By Ambassador Martin S. Indyk; Ambassador Edward S. Walker)
Summary. Ambassadors Martin Indyk and Edward Walker
discussed the bilateral negotiations begun in 1999 between
the United States and Libya that led to Libyan leader Colonel
Mu'ammar Qadhafi's radical change in foreign policy. These
talks began during the Clinton Administration as part of a
broader strategy that sought to ``graduate'' rogue states
into the international community and establish normal
relationships with the United States. Although initially wary
of the process, the Bush Administration successfully forged
ahead with the secret negotiations bringing about the recent
rapprochement between the two countries.
Brief. When the secret US-Libyan negotiations began in
1999, Libya was engaged in an effective campaign in the
United Nations to cease the multilateral sanctions imposed on
[[Page H4846]]
it by the international community. The United States was in a
difficult position because it was the only member that
refused to lift the sanctions and therefore was in danger of
becoming isolated in the Security Council. Had the United
States merely vetoed a new UN resolution to lift the
sanctions, the international consensus that made the
sanctions regime effective would have eroded, and this
potentially would have led to the failure of the US
objectives regarding Libya: the halting of state sponsorship
of terrorism, an admission of responsibility for the bombing
of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the
payment of compensation to families of Pan Am Flight 103's
victims.
A New Strategy. The United States' primary short-term goal
in the negotiations was to maintain the sanctions. At the
same time, the US was pursuing a new strategy that went
considerably beyond a policy of containment. The goal of this
broader strategy was to try to change the behavior of rogue
states and ``graduate'' them into the international community
and normalize relations with the United States. Libya was a
good test case for this new strategy because the broad
international consensus that Colonel Qadhafi's actions were
unacceptable provided the US with more flexibility. As for
the Libyan goals, Qadhafi, having abandoned his pan-Arab
aspirations, made a deliberate tactical decision to
normalize relations with America.
The Negotiations. The negotiations began in May 1999, with
Musa Kusa, Colonel Qadhafi's head of intelligence services,
leading the Libyan delegation. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt strongly backed
the process and at times even provided logistical support.
The US put forth two initial conditions which Colonel Qadhafi
fulfilled immediately: first, that Libya halt all efforts in
the UN to have the sanctions lifted; and second, that the
bilateral dialogue be kept secret. Surprisingly, Libya was
prepared to accept subsequent US requirements with little
negotiation. Among the additional requirements were the
closure of all terrorist camps in the country, acknowledging
responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 terrorist operation,
paying compensation to families of the victims, and
disclosing weapons of mass destruction (at the time only
consisting of chemical weapons, as Libya had yet to begin a
nuclear weapons program).
Ambassador Indyk suggested these negotiations could have
proceeded more quickly, possibly concluding prior to the 2000
election season, had the United States not periodically
instituted new demands to ensure Colonel Qadhafi's
consistency and compliance. Another complicating factor was a
strong and vocal anti-Libyan constituency among the families
of Pan Am Flight 103 victims who slowed down the
reconciliation. The negotiations were also put on hold for
the 2000 American presidential elections out of concern that
the process would be leaked to the press and result in a
scandal. Once elected, although initially wary of the
process, the Bush Administration resumed talks in a more
public forum and ``took them to their natural conclusion,''
which has led to the recent public US-Libyan rapprochement.
Although this has been a success story for this new
strategy, it is not necessarily applicable to all rogue
states. There were specific conditions with regard to Libya
that made the process work. First, the international
community was united in condemning Libya's terrorist actions.
Though the United Nations contemplated lifting sanctions, the
international consensus against Libya was largely still
intact. Second, the United States had shown previously that
it was willing to use military force against Libya, after the
1986 West Berlin nightclub bombing. Finally, Qadhafi had a
change of heart. He decided that he wanted American companies
specifically to develop Libya's oil fields and this strongly
influenced his decision-making. The United States was able to
use the carrot and the stick effectively throughout the
process, and Colonel Qadhafi consistently reinforced his
willingness to comply with US demands.
The Ambassadors added that one way to improve this type of
strategy in the future would be for the US Administration to
articulate from the outset the final goals of the engagement
and identify concrete steps for compliance. On a final note,
both Indyk and Walker believe that the new approach has been
very effective and extend credit to the George W. Bush
Administration for seeing this unusual policy to its
conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will complete the balance of my time by
just once again emphasizing that all is not over, all is not hunky-
dory, as the phrase goes; but there has been significant movement in
the right direction, thanks to good intelligence, thanks to firm and
decisive leadership. But we have to go forward with the admonition that
we trust, but verify.
So I would urge strong support of this amendment for all the reasons
that have just been enumerated by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) and this gentleman, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on my
amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Boehlert Amendment to
the Intelligence Authorizations bill for 2005, H.R. 4548, due to the
language which suggested that the war against Iraq and the policies of
our commander-in-chief were the major factors in Libya's change with
respect to the development of nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction. It was, in fact, concerted multilateral economic and
diplomatic pressure which brought Libya's leader, Col. Qaddafi, to his
senses to cut a deal to end U.S. and multilateral sanctions and relieve
Libya's diplomatic isolation. I agree with the Ranking Member of the
International Relations Committee, who insisted that language be added
noting the effect sanctions had on the Libyan leader's policies.
However, I cannot support legislation which suggests that the
President's policy in Iraq played the major role in affecting policy in
Tripoli.
I also voted against the Rogers Amendment. Though I agree with many
of its provisions, I cannot support its partisan tone.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents another
example of the Republican leadership playing politics with important
matters of national security. The decision of Libya to renounce its
program to develop weapons of mass destruction represents an important
victory for U.S. diplomatic and foreign policy efforts. However, the
attempt to directly tie that success to the war in Iraq is not
supported by the facts. Consequently, while I agree with much that is
contained in this amendment, I will not engage in this politically
motivated farce.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION,
AND INTERROGATION OF TERRORISTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
TO THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the people of the
United States were too often brutalized again and again by
deadly terrorist violence, as evidenced by the hundreds of
American deaths in the Beirut and Lockerbie bombings, the
attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of
the Khobar Towers military barracks, the bombing of the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the vicious
attacks on the USS Cole in 2000.
(2) The terrorist violence targeted against the United
States became more emboldened after each attack, culminating
in the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001, which killed thousands of
innocent Americans, including innocent women and children.
(3) Since September 11, 2001, the citizens of the United
States have remained the priority target of terrorist
violence, with journalists and employees of non-governmental
organizations being held hostage, tortured, and decapitated
in the name of terror.
(4) Congress has authorized the President to use all
necessary and appropriate means to defeat terrorism ; and on
numerous occasions since September 11, 2001, and throughout
the Global War on Terror, the interrogation of detainees has
yielded valuable intelligence that has saved the lives of
American military personnel and American citizens at home and
abroad.
(5) The interrogation of detainees has also provided highly
valuable insights into the structure of terrorist
organizations, their target selection process, and the
identities of key operational and logistical personnel that
were previously unknown to the Intelligence Community.
(6) The lawful interrogation of detainees is consistent
with the United States Constitution.
(7) The abuses against detainees documented at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq were deplorable aberrations that were not part
of United States policy and were not in keeping with the
finest traditions of the United States military and the
honorable men and women who serve.
[[Page H4847]]
(8) The loss of interrogation-derived information would
have a disastrous effect on the Nation's intelligence
collection and counterterrorism efforts and would constitute
a damaging reversal in the Global War on Terror during this
critical time.
(9) The apprehension, detention, and interrogation of
terrorists are essential elements to successfully waging the
Global War on Terror.
(10) The interrogation of detainees can and should continue
by the United States within the bounds of the United States
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the apprehension, detention, and interrogation of terrorists
are fundamental to the successful prosecution of the Global
War on Terror.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My amendment is pretty simple. It expresses the sense of Congress
that the apprehension, detention, and legal interrogation of terrorists
is imperative to winning the war on terrorism and stopping the
barbarians.
The terrorist thugs that we are fighting today are well-organized,
well-financed forces who have publicly declared war on the United
States of America and the Free World. They have a global network of
hide-outs and cells, set up solely to wage war on the United States and
kill innocent American citizens.
{time} 1830
They have carried out attack after attack on Americans. They attacked
the USS Cole. They attacked our barracks. They attacked our embassies,
and we will always remember the highly coordinated attacks of September
11 on our own land.
This Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and
appropriate means to defeat terrorism. On numerous occasions since
September 11 and throughout the global war on terror, the interrogation
of detainees has yielded valuable intelligence. This intelligence has
saved the lives of American military personnel and American citizens at
home and abroad. The interrogation of detainees has also provided
highly valuable insights into the structure of terrorist organizations
and their target selection process and the identities of key
operational and logistical personnel who were previously unknown.
The reported abuses against detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq has led some to question our interrogation policy. Make no
mistake. What happened at Abu Ghraib was not part of U.S. policy, not
keeping with the finest traditions of the United States military.
The careers of those people are over. They are being punished.
However, the deplorable actions of some should not jeopardize the use
of interrogation by our armed services, and we should not let it
tarnish the sterling representation of our military.
The loss of interrogation-derived information would have a disastrous
effect on our Nation's intelligence, collection and counterterrorism
efforts. It would constitute a damaging reversal in the global war on
terror at this critical time.
Support this amendment for the safety of our troops for Americans all
over the globe, and for the war on terror. It is imperative that lawful
interrogation of detainees continue, and this Congress ought to support
it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks to control the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will
control the time on our side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment, though I wish it had
included a clear statement about the importance of U.S. obligations to
adhere to international laws, conventions and treatises to prevent
torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of human beings.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most troubling aspects of this whole
detainee issue, besides the absolutely reprehensible abuse of
prisoners, is the all-out assault on the rule of law that is clearly
revealed in legal memos that seem to justify abuse and even torture of
detainees.
None of us is naive here, and as a member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe in the importance of
interrogations and understand that interrogations can yield information
that protect thousands or millions of Americans. We have to interrogate
prisoners, but over the many years of our country's history, we have
always done those interrogations consistent with the rule of law, and
only recently have some very troubling memoranda surfaced at the
highest levels of the Justice Department and the Defense Department
that raise questions and that actually assert that the President of the
United States in his role as commander in chief could actually be above
the law.
I thought, Mr. Chairman, that we had defeated that idea at Runnymede
centuries and centuries ago and that our country was built on a
foundation of the rule of law, and I worry, Mr. Chairman, that if we do
not observe the rule of law, not only do we undercut our moral
authority, but we endanger our troops who might be treated just the way
some of our people are treating other troops.
Now, let me add quickly that the beheading of Americans and other
nationals is absolutely outrageous, and nowhere do I think that
behavior is consistent with even rational or humane behavior. It is
abhorrent and appalling, and I strongly condemn it.
But in conclusion, I think it is important that we support this
amendment, but I think it is also important that as we do support this
amendment, we think about the fact that the rule of law must always
apply as we treat detainees and proceed with the important work of
interrogations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) for her comments, and I agree that it is
barbarous what is going on over there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Johnson) for bringing this amendment forward and for yielding me the
time.
As my ranking member has said, the use of interrogation is absolutely
critical. It is a very important tool in the war on terrorism. Getting
information timely, not only saves lives for our forces, but in the
type of unconventional war we are fighting today, it is critical to
know where the next bad surprise is going to come from, because these
folks do not fight fair, as you say.
Equally, in order to protect the tool that we have, the proper use of
interrogation, we need to prevent the abuse of interrogation. We all
understand that, and unfortunately, I think that those of us who
understand it and have looked into it are a little puzzled by the
fixation that the liberal media has assigned to some of this, what I
would call, aberration problem that took place at Abu Ghraib, which was
admittedly terrible, but I believe it is an aberration.
I would like to point out to the American people that our committee
does have oversight over interrogation, and we have looked into what
has happened in the intelligence aspects, the interrogation aspects. We
have had numerous briefings, and we had a rather full-scale day of
hearings settled for, I guess it was last Friday. Unfortunately, that
was preempted by the sad events with President Reagan's, the national
day of mourning for State ceremony for former President of the United
States, Ronald Reagan. So the government was closed, and obviously we
have had to postpone.
But we are on top of the hearings in keeping up with this, and we
have reams of material and reports, and we are obviously going to have
more, because more reports are taking place.
[[Page H4848]]
I think the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is very, very
important. We must not lose sight that interrogation is a critical
tool, and despite the hype and the sensationalism that the liberal
media is fixing on, and it is a shame they do not talk more about the
cruelty and the barbarity, as the gentleman has alluded to, of the
enemy than they do of some people who got out of control on our team.
I would also like to say that for the record, it is my understanding,
and we do not know all of the facts yet, that perhaps the reason that
the gentlewoman did not get an intelligence briefing in February while
she was in Iraq is because the prisoners that were involved, we are
finding out, were prisoners of crimes, of murder and rape and so forth,
and not necessarily subjects of intelligence interest.
Now, that needs to be pursued further, but you can understand that if
they are just criminals, that there would not be a huge reason to go
out and get the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence involved,
its abuse of prisoner handling, if that is the issue.
So we have got an area of jurisdiction there where we will sort out.
I do think that it is extremely important that we support this
amendment. And I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward. I think
it is a huge improvement to our bill, and I will be very happy to
accept it from our perspective.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas that I
appreciate his comments welcoming my comments. That, again, is in the
spirit of bipartisanship. We all do better when we are bipartisan.
I would just also make a comment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss). I certainly agree that a lot of material is in our committee
spaces, but we will consider an amendment later this afternoon on this
subject of the committee's ability to oversee the detainee problem.
Some of us remain skeptical that our committee has gotten all the
material we need and certainly skeptical that we have gotten adequate
candid testimony from administration officials.
I would also point out to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that
while we were in Baghdad, we should have been told about some issues
directly relevant to our jurisdiction, such as this issue of ghosting
of detainees as described by General Taguba in his report, and that is
the placing of detainees without revealing their numbers or their
identity in prisons so that, as I understand it, the International Red
Cross and other outside observers would not be aware of their
existence. This is a serious issue directly relevant to our
jurisdiction. I believe that it was known to those we met with in
Baghdad and they should have informed us; at least that is my personal
opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), another member of our committee to comment on the Johnson
amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment by our colleague from Texas
indeed states a correct proposition that the detention and lawful
interrogation of terrorists is fundamental to our national security.
The key word, of course, is ``lawful.'' And perhaps the amendment could
have been improved by spelling out more explicitly the importance of
adhering to international convention, international law, international
standards.
There is no doubt that the gentleman from Texas has the admiration
and appreciation of every Member here in this body for his service, and
no one knows better than he, he has very personal and strong reasons
for caring about the treatment of detainees and prisoners. And, in
fact, I just wanted to underscore the point that I am sure the
gentleman knows better than I, that the reason we do adhere to
international standards, is for the protection of our own servicemen
and women who may indeed become prisoners themselves.
We certainly deplore the barbaric treatment of Americans, Koreans and
others by the terrorists. We understand that non-state terrorists
sometimes do not feel bound by the international standards, but the
gentleman's legislation with an emphasis on the word ``lawful'' makes a
good point.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a point about the fact
that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) had invited several of
us on the committee to go to Guantanamo on two different occasions. We
spent 2 full days on two separate occasions touring and observing and
paying attention. And there is absolutely no question the work that
goes on there is absolutely critical to our ability to win the war on
terror. And it is absolutely critical to our work and the work of law
enforcement people in this country to find those people that are still
here in America, trying to hurt our country and trying to hurt our
system.
And that is why the amendment of the gentleman from Texas is so
important because it does point up the importance of the work that goes
on. And the work that goes on in the Guantanamo is very professional
work. It is done by the book. It is done in a way that, I think, has
elicited the kind of information that has really helped those in this
country and around the world get the information they need.
And so I support the amendment and I support those that are doing the
hard work in Guantanamo because it will make a difference in our
ability to win the war on terror.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I see no additional speakers on our side. I
support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I advocate lawful and legal
interrogation, and it must continue because it does save lives on our
side. And I would also like to point out that the Bush administration
has recently declassified and released hundreds of pages of internal
documents that show that torture against detainees has never been
authorized and will never be authorized by our Nation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the amendment because
while the Abu Ghraib prison abuses should not be part of the United
States' policy, the evidence is not clear that it was not part of the
policy of the Bush administration. Given the disturbing documents that
are coming to light, this amendment seemed to be partisan wishful
thinking rather than a clear expression of policy supported by
objective analysis.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in House
Report 108-561.
{time} 1845
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SUPPORT FOR THE EFFORTS OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The men and women of the intelligence community are the
backbone of the Nation's efforts to gather and collect the
intelligence which is vital to the national security of the
United States.
(2) The men and women of the intelligence community are
great patriots who perform their jobs without fan fair and
all too often without receiving the proper credit.
(3) The men and women of the intelligence community are
combating vastly different threats to the Nation's security
compared to their Cold War colleagues.
[[Page H4849]]
(4) Threats to the United States have evolved through the
use of technology and non-state actions, demanding
alternatives to traditional diplomatic actions.
(5) The 1995 ``Deutch Guidelines'' regarding the
recruitment of foreign assets impeded human intelligence
collection efforts and contributed to the creation of a risk
averse environment. Despite repeated efforts by the
intelligence oversight committees of Congress to convince the
Director of Central Intelligence to drop the guidelines,
these guidelines stood until formally repealed in 2001 by an
Act of Congress.
(6) The President's budget request for the intelligence
community fell by 11 percent from 1993 to 1995.
(7) Congress cut the President's budget request for the
intelligence community each year from 1992 through 1994.
(8) The cutbacks in resources and political support during
the middle of the previous decade has caused nearly
irreversible damage.
(9) Widespread risk aversion in clandestine HUMINT
collection and intelligence analysis resulted from lack of
resources and, more importantly, of political support for the
mission during the middle of the previous decade.
(10) Unnecessarily cumbersome legal impediments to the
clandestine HUMINT collection mission were raised during the
middle of the previous decade, leaving our intelligence
officers unable to penetrate legitimate target organizations,
such as terrorist groups.
(11) Congress and the current President have worked
cooperatively to restore funding, personnel levels, and
political support for intelligence.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the intelligence community should be revitalized by
investing in the missions, people, and capabilities of the
community; and
(2) the efforts of the men and women of the intelligence
community should be recognized and commended.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
I rise today, and I am not one that normally comes to the floor; but
given my time as a special agent with the FBI and watching the
intelligence community get really abused in the 1990s and to see this
very partisan debate engaged in this Intelligence authorization, I felt
compelled to come to the floor, at least to try to interject some
common sense and some plea that we could get back to the serious work
of protecting the United States of America. One way we do that is we
stand tall and we stand together and we commend those who are risking
their lives every day in what is an art, a skill, to some degree a
science, of collecting intelligence around the world.
The 1990s was brutal to intelligence collection. Funding was reduced.
As a matter of fact, the number of intelligence operatives declined by
27 percent from 1992 to 1999. From 1991 to 1997, the number of stations
declined by 30 percent. The number of assets declined by 40 percent.
The intelligence reporting declined by approximately 50 percent. As a
matter of fact, George Tenet said in front of the commission, When I
became DCI, I found a community and a CIA whose dollars were declining
and whose expertise was ebbing.
There was a feeling in the community of intelligence that they were
the stepchild; they were the sinister folks who we did not need to
spend money on anymore, who had passed their prime after the close of
the Cold War. They became the great awful folks that we wanted to blame
for a lot of things.
As a matter of fact, in the Deutch guidelines of 1995, they basically
said that CIA operatives around the world could not associate with
unsavory characters. I have to tell my colleagues that as an agent of
the FBI, if you were not dealing with some unsavory characters, you
were not catching bad guys. That is exactly what we needed to do. My
colleagues can imagine the morale and the confusing message that we
send to somebody who is risking their life in some remote corner of the
world, dealing with somebody who would just as soon slit your throat as
to say hi, and say to them, boy, you cannot deal with unsavory
characters to save and defend the United States of America; it might
embarrass us somewhere along the way.
Well, if we are going to defeat terrorism, we need to deal exactly
with those unsavory characters. The gentlemanly days of Ivy League
spies are over. The threat today are those who behead their hostages.
The threat today are those who use illegal operations and criminal
enterprise to conduct horrible acts against the United States,
including flying airplanes into buildings.
So what we do by this amendment is say, yes, we have made some
mistakes; yes, we did not hold you in high regard in the last decade,
but we do today and we appreciate your work. You will not be on TV. You
probably will not write a book. You probably will not be famous, but
you are risking your life every single day for the defense of the
United States.
I talked to a CIA station chief just this weekend who said our
business is really to steal secrets, and all we want is the
appreciation of what we do, the art of getting to them before they get
to us.
These are great Americans, and when we tell them not to do something,
they will not do it. When we tell them that we care and believe in
them, they are going to do it. So this amendment is exactly that. It is
us standing together, trying to set aside our partisan differences on
what should never be a partisan issue, the safety and security of the
United States of America.
So, to every FBI agent who gets up in the morning and worries that on
their watch something bad is going to happen, to every CIA agent, to
every other intelligence operative that we have employed by the United
States of America who stands tall as a patriot for their Nation, we
ought to say today, we recognize we did not treat you well, but we
understand how valuable you are today, and we will stand with you. We
will stand with you all the way. We are going to give you the resources
you need, and we are going to give you the respect that you should
command.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks to control the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and
I will control the time on our side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say to the sponsor of the amendment that all of us in
this House, on a bipartisan basis, recognize and respect and honor the
heroism and sacrifice of the men and women in the intelligence
community. I have spoken to it two or three times already today. That
is not the issue. The issue is additional language in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) for the time.
First, we appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Rogers)
service, and I agree with a lot of the comments he made about coming
together and supporting our men and women who really toil in the
intelligence community. They toil tirelessly in the shadows for sake of
our Nation's security.
Today, we have heard complaints about our side being involved in
partisan politics when, in fact, we are just trying to debate an issue
that we disagree on; but I believe that certain parts of this amendment
deal with a lot of politics, and I think it is important when we deal
with the issue of politics that we then follow the facts because we
need to be bipartisan as it relates to intelligence.
The problem with this amendment, basically, is that the facts are as
follows: first, the cuts in the Intelligence budget began after the
first Bush administration. The first President Bush ordered a 17.5
across-the-board cut in intelligence staffing from 1991 to 1997.
Now, let us talk about the reasons for some of these cuts. It was the
end of the Cold War. The entire intelligence community was going
through a transition that we are still going through today. So let us
follow the facts.
House Republicans supported a 6 percent cut in President Clinton's
Intelligence budget by voice vote in 1992. The Republicans have
controlled the Congress in the last 10 years, which includes the purse
strings. In 1996, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense; the
gentleman from Florida (Mr.
[[Page H4850]]
Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and
Senator Warner were cosigners of the Brown-Rudman report calling for
further staffing reductions in intelligence, 3 years after the World
Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Senate Republicans cut $400 million from President Clinton's
Intelligence budget in 1998, and these cuts were later restored.
In 1999, President Clinton's CIA Director, George Tenet, secured the
largest single increase in intelligence funding in 15 years.
House Republicans increased President Clinton's fiscal year 2000
budget by just 1 percent.
From 1990 to 2003, overwhelming bipartisan majorities have supported
every intelligence budget by a roll call or voice vote.
I think we all recognize what this amendment really is. Let us get
back to national security, and let us get away from the politics.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), whose service
in the CIA has been unparalleled, and his service to his country is
unmatched.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I rise in support of the amendment. As my colleague from Michigan
mentioned, I spent 10 years in the Central Intelligence Agency. For all
of those 10 years, I was a case officer. Five of those 10 years I
served abroad on what I feel are difficult and dangerous missions. We
have people today overseas serving under similarly difficult and
dangerous conditions.
The life of a CIA officer operating undercover overseas is not easy.
They are required to penetrate a host government, a terrorist
organization, or some other entity that may do harm to our Nation. Of
definition, you are going to be dealing with unsavory characters. Of
definition, you are going to have to do things that you would not
normally do to accomplish your mission.
This is stressful and this is dangerous, and so you can imagine what
it must be like to operate in this environment when the DCI in 1995
issues the Deutch Guidelines, where cumbersome legal impediments are
placed upon the clandestine operative in his or her effort to
accomplish their mission.
I think this resolution correctly points out some of the difficulties
that we have encountered over the last 3 years, and I would argue that
some of those difficulties were encountered on both sides of the aisle,
no question about it.
But I think it is also incumbent that we use this opportunity, this
Intelligence authorization bill to discuss some of these issues so the
American people better understand how regulations like the Deutch
regulations, which sound good on the surface, which restrict us from
dealing with unsavory characters, in fact, work to defeat the
fundamental mission of our intelligence men and women operating
undercover overseas.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to agree with the comments of the last speaker and commend his
service as part of the Central Intelligence Agency. He brings great
expertise to this House, and I as one Member value it enormously.
He may not know that the Bremer Commission on which I served
recommended that the Deutch Guidelines not apply in the case of
recruitment of terrorist spies. We, too, found that, though well-
intended, and I believe they were well-intended, those guidelines
inhibited the aggressive recruitment of people who had the
qualifications to penetrate the worst terrorist organizations, which we
need them to do. Yes, these are unsavory characters, and yes, we need
them, provided that they are reasonably vetted so that we know that
they are reliable, but nonetheless, yes, we need them. I do not want to
be heard to be ambivalent about this at all.
A few years ago, our committee found that those guidelines had not
been rescinded; and on a bipartisan basis, we directed that the DCI
rescind them and replace them, and that was done at our direction. That
was one of our impressive bipartisan actions, and so I would just point
out that, while the language of this amendment commending our people in
the field who take risk on our behalf is excellent, the problem we are
having on this side is with the findings that very narrowly focus on a
very few years of history.
The history is longer, and let me say in the spirit of bipartisanship
that we all got it wrong after the Cold War. We all thought the world
would be more peaceful. We all thought there would be a peace dividend.
That is why the 41st President, President Bush, began to draw down both
the Defense and Intelligence budgets, anticipating a more peaceful
world, which obviously did not come to pass.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, well, I know that we like to have it both
ways around here, all of us do; but you cannot have it both ways. You
cannot come to the floor tonight and say that we are not doing enough
and then vote against this amendment.
This amendment says that in the 1990s we did not put enough money in.
You all know that. The cash cow when Clinton came into office was
Defense and Intelligence, and what he did was he took the cash cow and
he used the money for a lot of other things as all of you supported
over there.
So the idea that we are not doing enough but they did enough sort of
belies belief here, and what the gentleman's amendment talks about is
the fact that in the 1990s they took the cash cow, which was
Intelligence and Defense, emasculated it, drew it down as far as they
could and used it on a lot of other things. These charts prove that.
Then the idea that the former head of the CIA, President Herbert
Walker Bush, did not do that, that is fiction, too. You all know that.
So you cannot come here and have it both ways. You cannot say you are
saying that the chairman did not put a good mark up here because he did
not fund fully the things that you want and yet during the 1990s they
did. You know what, it does not work that way, but I guess it does work
that way because you can come here and say anything you want; but the
facts are the facts.
The gentleman has a good amendment, and you all ought to be
supporting that.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much more time do we have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) has 5
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has the right to
close.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
that the findings section of this amendment claims there was a funding
reduction in the Intelligence budget of 11 percent between 1993 and
1995. This narrow period matches a period when President Clinton was in
office and Democrats still controlled the Congress.
{time} 1900
But the decline commenced in the first Bush administration, in 1990,
as the Soviet empire was collapsing. And the trend continued through
the 6-year period of Republican control of Congress until 9-11.
It is good that we have increased the budget. I hope everyone in this
House supports those increases. Certainly those of us on this side of
the debate are talking about full funding of counterterrorism, because
it turns out that the world was not more peaceful after the fall of the
Berlin Wall. The world was more dangerous, and all of us underestimated
the lethality of the threats we faced.
In hindsight, we all, over three administrations, should have done a
lot more. In foresight, hopefully together on a bipartisan basis, we
will.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of this debate is not without
its dangers. While this evening's discussion is ostensibly about the
intelligence reauthorization, and I welcome
[[Page H4851]]
the more temperate approach tonight has, on other days the vituperative
words here and also on the campaign trails, I believe, may have harmful
consequences that demand our attention.
We may be responsible for giving weapons of intelligence to the
terrorists themselves. In World War II, the Germans launched V2 rockets
towards England and waited to learn where they fell. Newspaper and
radio accounts of the damage could help the Nazis adjust their fire
accordingly.
Now, you do not have to be a psychologist to understand the behavior
of terrorists towards us is based upon the feedback they get from us.
Are they getting their ideas and marching orders from the evening news?
Politicians look to incite anger and blame over gas prices. Does this
lead to bombing of refineries?
Politicians raise doubt about Iraqi security strength. Is that why
they attack police barracks?
Politicians questioned if Iraqi leaders were ready to take over. Did
that contribute to assassinations of Iraqi leaders?
Politicians screamed about enemy prisoner abuse. Did that contribute
to the capture, torture, and decapitation of American citizens?
And politicians questioned if Americans could tolerate casualties of
our soldiers. Could that be encouraging attacks on our troops?
Terrorists watch the evening news for our reactions to their crimes,
listen to our speeches, listen for calls to run away, watch the polls,
and are emboldened by any sign we are weakening, and are thwarted by
signs we remain steadfast. We tell them where, how, and how severe to
strike next. Our intelligence is important here.
After U.S. politicians began to apply the words ``Vietnam'' and
``quagmire'' in Iraq, al Qaeda added the same words to their daily
lexicon.
Terrorists are looking for ways to sway public opinion. Look at
Madrid. And now the ultimate question before them is: How will a direct
attack on the U.S.A. affect our fall elections?
I believe these concerns are real. But even if only a remote chance
of a link, should we not stop, think, and ask where we must draw the
line.
And while we deliberate the intelligence bill tonight, let us stop
aiding the enemies of freedom through politicized debate here or on the
campaign trails. Unless we do, we risk having the blood of Americans on
our hands. I say support the amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) has 4
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) has \1/
2\ minute remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would subscribe to the comments of the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I would like to point out the problem
with this amendment. It says it is the sense of Congress that the
intelligence community should be revitalized by investing in its
missions, people, and capabilities of the community. And, of course,
that the efforts of the men and women of the intelligence community
should be recognized and commended.
This is commendable. This is what we would like to do. But if you
read the findings of this, you find out what is really at play here. It
is a gratuitous swipe at an administration that has long been out of
office.
If, in fact, we want to revitalize the community by reinvesting in
its missions, we should be doing exactly what we have been talking
about today, funding counterterrorism at something more than 30 percent
of what the community, these people, say they need to carry out their
missions and the capabilities that they need. Yes, we should revitalize
by reinvesting. That is what we are asking to do today.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume just to clarify and point out that in fiscal year 1993,
President Bush requested a 4 percent increase, and the Democrat
Congress that year cut the request by 10 percent, effectively reducing
the funding by 5 percent from the 1992 appropriation.
I understand the politics of being a convert to intelligence. Thank
you. Let us stand together and say, okay, that time has gone, we are
going to move forward, we are going to stand with the intelligence
community.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I actually urge support of this. When
something bad is going to happen, we want to make sure that it is the
bad guys that get us and not the good guys. And we are concerned that
we have not, in our own country, focused enough on that subject.
I think this amendment helps the good guys and hurts the bad guys, so
I urge its support.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not think we have any further speakers on this amendment, but I
would like to enter into a dialogue with the amendment's sponsor to
suggest to him that we might agree by unanimous consent that the sense
of Congress in his resolution be the entire resolution.
We strike the findings, because our side feels that they are not
complete and that some of them may be misleading. And that, as I said,
on a bipartisan basis we all were wrong in 1990 when the wall came down
and we expected a more peaceful world.
Would the gentleman be amenable to striking the findings and having
his resolution be the Sense of Congress, as he has drafted it, which I
would predict would be adopted unanimously?
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, facts are very stubborn things.
Given the sense of where the intelligence community is today, they are
beleaguered at every corner. For years, their hands were tied behind
their back. And now you have commissions coming out and say, gee, we
tied your hands and now we are faulting you for not being super heroes
and doing super work without the funding and resources.
I think it is accurate, and I think we should make that statement
that we all recognize those shortcomings of 1990s, but we will stand
with you today. It is an important commitment for the morale of the
intelligence officers in the field.
Ms. HARMAN. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed
in that answer only because I think there is plenty of blame to go
around over three or four administrations and findings that made that
clear, I think, would be more helpful.
Let me reiterate my strong view, and the view of everyone that I can
imagine on our side, that we support the men and women of the
intelligence community. That is something I have said over and over and
over again in our committee briefings, hearings, and travels.
Everywhere we go around the globe, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) and I and others have traveled to places like Pyongyang, and
Baghdad and Kabul and Libya and elsewhere. We have always thanked the
men and women of the intelligence community with whom we have met.
I wish that this would have been drafted on a bipartisan basis with
what we would view as a fairer statement of findings over a longer
period of time. I think that that would do more honor to the capable
men and women who are now in harm's way. So I regrettably urge a ``no''
vote on this amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Rogers
Amendment recognizing the vital, groundbreaking work of our
intelligence community.
As a former FBI special agent, I well understand the importance of
human intelligence gathering. The patriots of our intelligence
community are frequently unsung heroes, not receiving due credit for
their tireless efforts. Due to the nature of their work, they don't
make the headlines, but their work will continue to derail terrorist
activities and thus prevent headlines from being made.
Mr. Chairman, we're facing significant new threats in the post-Cold
War era, and certainly since September 11, 2001. New hot spots have
emerged throughout the world, and new havens for terrorists and their
supporters. The threats we encounter are no longer solely state-based,
and require new methods to combat them.
Unfortunately, changing our Cold War ways has not kept pace with
these new threats. It
[[Page H4852]]
has taken too long to reverse the Church Commission's outdated and
overreaching reforms that crippled our intelligence abilities,
restricting human intelligence and limiting people from getting out in
the field. The 2002 Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks confirmed
that the lack of reliable human sources in al Qaeda ``significantly
limited the [intelligence] community's ability to acquire intelligence
that could be acted upon before the September 11 attacks.''
While human intelligence can be the force multiplier in many
instances, our intelligence community has not received the funding or
the support it requires to conduct operations. Through the leadership
of Chairman Goss and others, we're continuing to work toward
revitalizing the community, giving our operatives what they need to
continue their work and respond to the new threats we face. Their work
stands at the center of our global war on terrorism.
I salute Mike Rogers for introducing this amendment to recognize the
dedication and importance of our intelligence community, and thank
Chairman Goss for crafting this authorization to meet our current and
future threats.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ackerman
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ackerman:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:
SEC. 304. REPORTS ON PAKISTANI EFFORTS TO CURB PROLIFERATION
OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TO FIGHT
TERRORISM.
(a) In General.--The Director of Central Intelligence shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress classified
reports on the following matters:
(1) The efforts by the Government of Pakistan, or
individuals or entities in Pakistan, to acquire or transfer
weapons of mass destruction and related technologies, or
missile equipment and technology, to any other nation,
entity, or individual.
(2) The steps taken by the Government of Pakistan to combat
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related
technologies.
(3) The steps taken by the Government of Pakistan to
safeguard nuclear weapons and related technologies in the
possession of the Government of Pakistan.
(4) The size of the stockpile of fissile material of the
Government of Pakistan and whether any additional fissile
material has been produced.
(5) The efforts by the Government of Pakistan to fight Al
Qaeda and the Taliban as well as to dismantle terrorist
networks operating inside of Pakistan.
(6) The efforts by the Government of Pakistan to establish
and strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan.
(b) Deadline for Submittal of Reports.--(1) The Director of
Central Intelligence shall submit the first report required
under subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) The Director shall submit subsequent reports required
under subsection (a) on April 1 of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
and 2009.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the following:
(A) The Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Weapons of mass destruction.--The term ``weapons of
mass destruction'' has the meaning given such term in section
1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996. (Public Law 104-201).
(3) Missile equipment and technology.--The term ``missile
equipment and technology'' has the meaning given such term in
section 74(a)(5) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2797c(a)(5)).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686 the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, President Bush announced a 5-year, $3
billion aid package for Pakistan in return for Pakistan's continued
cooperation in the global war on terrorism. At that time, the
President, through his spokesman, said that Congress would be looking
closely at Pakistan's efforts on nuclear nonproliferation, on combating
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups, and the
reestablishment of democracy.
Without question, Pakistani cooperation in the war on terrorism will
be key to our success. Yet since the President's announcement, the
media has been filled with reports of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan's nuclear
network, where it turns out two-thirds of the axis got their nuclear
technology and that Khan's agents tried to sell it to the other third.
In addition, there have been recent reports of uneven cooperation
from Pakistan with regard to terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda in
particular. These reports reach to the very heart of the
administration's justification for supporting Pakistan.
Lastly, I do not think anyone can credibly say that the so-called
referendum on General Musharraf's rule, or the parliamentary elections
held last year, were either fair or free. Real democratization in
Pakistan just does not seem to be high on General Musharraf's list, and
we must do much more than to pretend it is high on ours.
My amendment would require the Director of Central Intelligence to
issue a classified, that is classified report to the appropriate
committees of Congress regarding, one, the efforts of any Pakistani
entity or individuals to acquire or transfer weapons of mass
destruction and related technologies or missile equipment and
technology to any other nation, entity, or individual; two, Pakistan's
efforts to curb proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
means to deliver them; three, Pakistani steps to ensure that their own
nuclear weapons are secure; four, Pakistani efforts to dismantle
terrorist networks operating inside Pakistan, including but not limited
to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; and, finally, five, Pakistani steps to
restore democracy.
The point, Mr. Chairman, of my amendment, is to help Members
establish, on a classified basis, some of the facts about Pakistan's
efforts and cooperation on all of these subjects. We will all be asked
to support substantial military and economic assistance to Pakistan
over the next several years, and I strongly support that proposition,
but I believe that Members should understand the whole picture as they
are being asked to approve this substantial assistance.
While I understand that executive agencies generally do not like
reporting requirements, we are a coequal part of government, and we
have to learn the facts and the truth, we have to authorize and
appropriate the money, and we must be informed. I have personally, as
well as others have personally, tried to get the information from the
administration, particularly regarding A.Q. Khan, and those efforts
have been rebuffed.
I do not believe my amendment would be unduly burdensome to the CIA,
since they are supposed to be following the events in Pakistan anyway.
I am merely asking that they put their information into some useful
form for Members.
Mr. Chairman, the administration has said repeatedly and properly
that weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that they may be
acquired by terrorists is the single biggest threat facing the United
States, and in Pakistan, we have the epicenter of both of those
threats. Our relationship with Pakistan is a complicated one and
presents the United States with one of its most difficult near-term
foreign policy challenges. I think the Members must make intelligent
decisions regarding Pakistan, and we should have as much information on
a classified basis as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
[[Page H4853]]
Mr. Chairman, I do not have huge heartburn over this at all, but I am
a little concerned on a couple of points.
The first is that Pakistan is one of our strongest allies in a very
delicate part of the world with this global war of terrorism. I think
it is important to remember that Pakistan's stability and continued
cooperation in the war on terror is of paramount importance to the
United States' national interest at this time, and we all know it.
Without Pakistan's help, the war on terror would be much more difficult
to fight and to win.
Anyone who doubts Pakistan's commitment need only see last week's
report that Pakistani forces killed one of the country's best known,
most wanted pro al-Qaeda militants, that would be Nek Mohammed, in a
missile strike. Pakistani security forces have killed or captured
dozens of al-Qaeda operatives since 9-11 and have sustained significant
casualties in so doing, and considered high-level casualties there,
too, I am sorry to say.
President Musharraf, moreover, is walking a political tightrope in
helping us, as all of us who have been in that country know, yet he
believes that the war on terror must be won, and is willing to take
significant political, and I would say personal risk on his part to do
it.
The stories about A.Q. Khan's proliferation exploits were not a
surprise to the intelligence community. This was an example of very
good work, and it is work that is continuing.
{time} 1915
The intelligence community and State Department are working
diligently, constructively, carefully and quietly on the sensitive
matters referred to in this amendment. The committees of jurisdiction
are being kept well informed about the status of things.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, I know the
motivation is good, but nevertheless this requires the Director of
Central Intelligence to report to eight congressional committees on
Pakistan's efforts to curb WMD proliferation, fight terrorism,
safeguard nuclear weapons, strengthen Pakistan's democratic
institutions, and disclose the size of Pakistan's fissile material
stockpile. Actually that is happening. I think that is all going on. I
do not have any problem reiterating it, but I am a little concerned the
amendment might be misconstrued by some, given the sensitive state of
affairs in the region; and frankly I do not think it is helpful to U.S.
interests.
As I say, I think much of the oversight noted in what he is trying to
accomplish is already being done by the committees of jurisdiction. As
I say, I do not have huge heartburn over this, but I am worried that it
could upset a delicate balance.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman does not
have heartburn. I appreciate his sentiments. Nobody is suggesting that
we oppose aid to Pakistan.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and commend him for this amendment and rise in support.
I do agree with Chairman Goss that our committee is already studying
these issues. I also agree with Chairman Goss that these are touchy
issues because we certainly want to communicate our strong support for
the Government of Pakistan which has, after all, been an ally of ours
in this very, very difficult global war on terror and which continues
to take major risks on our behalf. So, yes, that is true.
On the other hand, I believe it is important to run to ground key
questions, including the breadth and scope of the proliferation headed
by A.Q. Khan, the number of customers, the degree of cooperation with
other rogue states, and whether at any level there was complicity of
the Pakistani Government. These are tough questions, and I think that
what is requested in this amendment, which is a report on these
questions, will certainly burden the agencies. Yes, it will. On the
other hand, it will give us some answers that we need.
On balance, I think it is commendable that we focus additional
attention on the damage done with respect to proliferation around the
world by A.Q. Khan and his network and we recognize that there is a
place, I think the place is now, in our consideration of these issues
to get the clear answers we deserve.
I support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be read. It is short.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be read in full.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Shays:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the head of each element
of the intelligence community, including the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the intelligence elements of the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the Department of the Treasury
should make available upon a request from a committee of
Congress with jurisdiction over matters relating to the
Office of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program of the United
Nations, any information and documents in the possession or
control of such element in connection with any investigation
of that Office by such a committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I obviously move the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, before you came to Congress doing business, were you
ever ripped off? Just plainly and simply ripped off? Mr. Chairman, this
oil-for-food program is a rip-off to trump any scheme or action
perpetrated on any member of any country anytime anywhere. This oil-
for-food program got hijacked, pure and simple.
The way it worked was, Iraq complained about not having enough money
to buy food or medicine for its people, so the United Nations frankly
in what turned out to be a moment of great generosity set up a program
whereby a limited amount of Iraqi oil could be brought to market and
sold to willing buyers for the purpose of generating revenue that Iraq
could then use through the United Nations to buy food and medicine for
its people.
Lo and behold, the grand bazaar of Baghdad turned out to be a rip-off
of all rip-offs. Saddam Hussein hijacked this program, arguably with
the knowledge beforehand of certain members of the United Nations staff
responsible for oversight to make sure this did not happen and lined
his pockets with up to $10 billion of surcharges and levies on this
program. Over the course of the oil-for-food program, $67 billion worth
of oil was sold. Half of that $67 billion in turn was used to purchase
food and medicine and other supplies for the benefit of the Iraqi
people. Keep in mind that under the United Nations resolution that set
this program up, the purpose of these oil sales was to provide food and
medicine to the starving and unhealthy population in Iraq.
However, let me tell my colleagues what the dictator of Baghdad
purchased for the people of Iraq in part. The people of Iraq were asked
to consume 1,500 ping-pong tables. They were provided with all sorts of
soft ice cream machines. They purchased overpriced dental chairs from
China. They even were able to acquire a warehouse full of undelivered
wheelchairs and cigarettes. They paid $2 billion for presidential
palaces. They bought 300 Mercedes-Benz sedans. They paid for a $200
million Olympic stadium. They bought limos. They even bought defective
ultrasound machines from Algeria to feed their people with.
The purpose of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment is to
harness
[[Page H4854]]
the energies and talents of America's agencies to help us get to the
bottom of this. There is absolutely no rationale for allowing this kind
of a rip-off to occur. The gentleman from Connecticut's amendment
directs American agencies to cooperate with the different committees of
Congress to get to the bottom of this.
I would close, Mr. Chairman, by, in effect, pardon my phrase,
throwing back at the Secretary-General his words. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan said, ``I want to get to the truth and I want to get to the
bottom of this.'' Mr. Chairman, we want the truth as well. We want some
answers. We want to know, what was the purpose of Cotecna in this
dynamic process? How come we had to send stuff through Jordan at
discounts of upwards of 67 percent to true value? How come we were able
to ship stuff through Syria for only a 33 percent discount? This thing
begs for an investigation. Interestingly enough, between Benon Sevan
and Kojo Annan and the people who were responsible for this, the future
holds answers that are just going to fascinate us all.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will
control the time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of congressional oversight, I
believe that information should be readily available to those
congressional committees of jurisdiction conducting investigations,
including investigations of the U.N. oil-for-food program. Therefore, I
am happy to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut and feel it is very constructive.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, one of the issues we have been
debating today is the issue of oversight with respect to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. I am a member of that committee, but
I am also a member of the Subcommittee on National Security of the
Committee on Government Reform of which the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) is our chairman. I support this amendment. I find that the
gentleman from Connecticut is taking his responsibility for oversight
very seriously. Not only has he ruled and really been in charge of this
committee and trying to seek and follow the facts but he has gone to
Iraq. He has done his investigation. It is important that we follow the
facts and that we move forward because this oil-for-food program is a
rip-off. People were taken advantage of. Our citizens were taken
advantage of, as were the Iraqi citizens. We must follow this
investigation.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. OSE. The gentleman from Maryland is very accurate in terms of
talking about the oil-for-food program. I just want to highlight one
thing. Some of the revenues that were used in this program in effect
were used to buy food that had spoiled. We paid people to deliver food
under this program that was spoiled. And Saddam collected commissions
or levies or tariffs or something on it. We need to get to the bottom
of this. I cannot tell the gentleman how pleased I am to have both
sides interested in making this happen.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Reclaiming my time, there is also an issue of Mr.
Chalabi, who made allegations that he had evidence concerning this
issue. We had under oath certain representatives representing Mr.
Chalabi that were going to come forward with evidence. That did not
occur. It is important that we move forward in a bipartisan way and
follow the facts.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
do not think I need to use the whole debate, particularly given the
gracious support of both sides of the aisle, the chairman of the full
committee and ranking member, and say that they have always been a
pleasure to work with. I thank the gentlewoman from California so much
for all the work that she does and the gentleman from Florida. The
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) has been a tremendous
supporter for our efforts. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has
really brought out a lot in the hearing that we had.
We know that we could not allow the sanctions to deprive Iraqi
citizens of food and medicine. The problem was they did not get the
food they paid for and they did not get the medicines they paid for,
because Saddam Hussein was basically allowed to run the program with
the oversight of the U.N. that chose not to provide oversight,
particularly the Chinese and the Russians who did not believe that
there should even be sanctions and did not go out of their way to make
this system work.
So we had countries that knowingly allowed Saddam to rip off his own
people. He undersold oil and then got huge kickbacks, and he overpaid
for commodities and got huge kickbacks, $4.4 billion in the
overcharges, the surcharges for the oil and the kickbacks on
humanitarian purchases and an estimated $5.7 billion going through
Syria. The Syrians and the Russians and, frankly, the French were not
helpful in this process.
What I rejoice in was that this story was really outed by the free
press in Iraq. We all knew that this was a corrupt program; but what
happened was the Iraqi Governing Council, some in it, leaked
information to their now free press that printed the names of almost
300 people. Well over 200. They were high-ranking government officials
including, frankly, Kofi Annan's son allegedly involved, Benon Sevan in
charge of the program, and so we have now an investigation of the U.N.
But Mr. Volker will tell you, it is kind of like being in the Senate.
It is unanimous consent. He has to get the cooperation of everyone. He
does not have the ability to just say, I want this information. If I
don't get it we're going to subpoena it. So he is first looking at the
U.N. and what they are doing to try to, in my judgment, go carefully to
build credibility so he can go after what he thinks are more serious
problems. The bottom line is we need to encourage much more aggressive
activity on the part of the U.N. We can only do that if we get the
information, information from the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and our criminal justice system. I want to also compliment
the Committee on International Relations. They are working so well with
our subcommittee and our subcommittee is working so well with them.
{time} 1930
We are trading information. There is more than any one committee can
do, and ultimately I think we will get to the truth of it. I just would
say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) was absolutely correct
when he said that this is one of the largest rip-offs to any country,
and it was a community rip-off by other nations. They allowed Saddam to
make billions of dollars at the expense of his own people.
And it really suggests why in some cases some countries may not have
been interested in our allowing the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, getting
this information that will expose him. I think they all thought it
would just be quiet and that this program would continue ad infinitum.
I have spoken longer that I have chosen. I do not really have
anything else to say other than to thank my colleagues and to them on a
bipartisan basis we are going to get at the truth.
From its inception in 1996, the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program
(OFF) was susceptible to political manipulation and financial
corruption. Trusting Saddam Hussein to exercise sovereign control over
billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases invited the
illicit premiums and kickback schemes now coming to light.
But much is still not known about the exact details of Oil-for-Food
transactions. That is one reason my Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened a hearing on
April 21st: to help pierce the veil of secrecy that still shrouds the
largest humanitarian aid effort in history.
This much we know: The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1
billion from this
[[Page H4855]]
program: $5.7 in smuggled oil; $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks on
humanitarian purchases through the Oil-for-Food Program. There is no
innocent explanation for this.
At the hearing, the Subcommittee heard the program, while successful
in many ways, was riddled with corruption and the independent efforts
of the Iraqis to investigate the fraud was being stifled by the
Coalition Provisional Authority.
We want the State Department, the CPA, the intelligence community,
and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-for-
Food transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency
embarrasses some members of the Security Council.
Two months ago, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan assured me he wants
to get to the bottom of this scandal and restore faith in the ability
of the U.N. to do its job. Subsequently, the Secretary General
appointed Paul Volcker to lead an independent panel to look into the
Oil-for-Food Program.
While Mr. Volcker brings expertise and prestige to the task, we are
concerned about the slow pace of the U.N. investigation. The Volcker
panel has just announced the hiring of senior staff. Nevertheless, they
continue to say an interim report, possibly this summer, will address
the conduct of U.N. employees and allegations about the Secretary
General's son involvement.
But we also need to know more than what just happened at the U.N. We
also need to know what happened at the U.S. Mission. We need to know
what our intelligence community knew and knows.
Many of the allegations are true, we just don't know which ones yet.
We should be long past asking whether something went wrong in OFF. It's
time to find out exactly what went wrong and who is responsible.
Our staff has been through the minutes of the U.N. ``661 Committee''
of Security Council members responsible for sanctions monitoring and
oversight of OFF. Those minutes tell a story of diplomatic obfuscation
and an obvious, purposeful unwillingness to acknowledge the program was
being corrupted. Questions about oil or commodity contracts were
dismissed as dubious media rumors beneath the dignity of the U.N. to
answer, while Saddam was given the undeserved benefit of every doubt.
We cannot ignore the profoundly serious allegations of malfeasance in
the Oil-for-Food Program. To do so would be to deny the Iraqi people
the accounting they deserve and leave the U.N. under an ominous cloud.
This is the Iraqi's money we're talking about, so the Iraqi Governing
Council and its successor should get cooperation from the CPA and the
State Department in conducting its inquiries.
In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean,
transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy
should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not
systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of political
profiteering.
This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations
and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any
found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity.
That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption. In
order to do that we need for the intelligence community to better
assist the Congress in its investigations.
Mr. Chairman, this Sense of Congress will help address the
difficulties many committees have had obtaining information and
documents--especially from the intelligence community--pertaining to
the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. This amendment should reinforce the
importance Congress places on the Oil-for-Food investigations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I have stated earlier and others on our side have stated, we
support this amendment. We think congressional oversight matters.
Committees can make a big difference, and on a bipartisan basis we
think this amendment should be supported by the whole House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON EVIDENCE OF
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND AL-
QAEDA.
(a) Audit.--The Inspector General of the Central
Intelligence Agency shall conduct an audit of the evidence of
any relationship, existing before September 11, 2001, between
the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, referenced in all
intelligence reporting of the Central Intelligence Agency,
including products, briefings and memoranda, distributed to
the White House and Congress.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General
shall submit to Congress a report on the audit conducted
under subsection (a).
____________________
Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4859-H4880
[[Page H4859]]
House of Representatives
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush told the Nation, ``You can't distinguish
between al Qaeda and Saddam.'' That assertion was one of the key
justifications for the war in Iraq.
At the appropriate point in the debate, I shall enter into the Record
16 similar assertions by leading members of the administration and
several other relevant documents.
Those assertions have, like the White House's other claim that Saddam
Hussein had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, not found
substantiation in fact. I quote 27 top-level U.S. diplomats and
military commanders who have said, ``The administration . . . justified
the invasion of Iraq . . . by a cynical campaign to persuade the public
that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda . . . The evidence did not
support this argument.''
One week ago, the 9-11 Commission published staff statement number 15
entitled ``Overview of the Enemy,'' which found no credible evidence of
a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The
staff statement was the product of professional people, all of whom
were jointly appointed by both the Republican chairman and the
Democratic vice chair of the Commission. Included among these staff
people are former analysts with the intelligence agencies,
investigators and academics.
Instead of accepting the finding of this Commission, which Congress
and the President established in order to find the definitive answer to
this and other questions, the Vice President went on national
television to question the credibility of the Commission. He repeated
the assertion that the administration has made so many times, and he
said he ``probably'' has more information than the Commission about
ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Does the administration have more information than the Commission, or
does it not? Is the White House informing the public of substantiated
facts, or is the White House engaged in what could be called a cynical
campaign to disinform the American public?
As the St. Petersburg Times editorial of yesterday stated, ``We don't
know what information the Vice President is referring to, but we do
know this: Every important public charge that the White House and its
supporters did make against Iraq in the months leading up to war, such
as the purchase of nuclear weapons materials from Africa, meetings
between al Qaeda and Iraqi operatives in Prague, and mobile biological
weapons labs in the Iraqi desert, have been discredited . . . The
bipartisan Commission's credibility isn't in question. The
administration's is. That is the most important reason for the Vice
President to come forward and produce the evidence he alluded to.''
That is the question the Kucinich-Tauscher amendment seeks to answer.
Submission by Dennis J. Kucinich in Support of the Kucinich/Tauscher
Amendment to H.R. 4548, June 23, 2004
The Kucinich/Tauscher amendment has been endorsed by:
Admiral Stansfield Turner, former DCI 1977-1981;
Greg Thielmann, former State Department Intelligence
official;
Coleen Rowley, in her personal capacity, former FBI
official;
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst;
Gene Betit, former Army Intelligence official;
Ray Close, former CIA chief of station, Saudi Arabia;
David MacMichael, former National Intelligence Council
analyst;
Mel Goodman, professor at National War College;
Col. Patrick Lang, retired U.S. Army Special Forces;
Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, at DIA;
Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence
analyst;
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs),
Steering Committee;
Center for American Progress.
____
These are just 16 of the many assertions by members of the
Administration about the existence of a collaborative,
operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
``You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.''
President George Bush, White House website (9/26/2002).
``He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaida.''
President George Bush, President Outlines Priorities, White
House (11/7/2002).
``Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including
members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he
could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help develop their own. . . . Imagine those 19 hijackers with
other weapons and other planes--this time armed by Saddam
Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate
slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none
we have ever known.'' President George Bush, President
Delivers ``State of the Union'', White House (1/28/2003).
``Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing
ties to terrorist networks. . . . Iraq has also provided al
Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training,''
President George Bush, President's Radio Address, White House
(2/8/2003).
``We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source
of terrorist funding,'' President George Bush, President Bush
Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White
House (5/1/2003).
``[Iraq] had the capacity to make a weapon and then let
that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist
network.'' President George Bush, Meet the Press (2/8/2004).
``His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda
going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda
terrorists.'' Vice President Richard Cheney, Remarks by the
Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership
Conference, White House (12/2/2002).
``He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass
destruction to terrorists for use
[[Page H4860]]
against us.'' Vice President Richard Cheney, Vice President's
Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/
30/2003).
``We know that he has a long-standing relationship with
various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda
organization.'' Vice President Richard Cheney, Meet the
Press, NBC (3/16/2003).
``. . . in Iraq we've had a government--not only was it one
of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had
oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an
established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . .
.'' Vice President Richard Cheney, Vice president Dick Cheney
Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House
(10/3/2003).
``We'll find ample evidence confirming the link . . .
between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They
have worked together on a number of occasions.'' vice
President Richard Cheney, Transcript of interview with Vice
President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
``I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a
connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.'' Vice
President Richard Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
``It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and
other terrorist network and a terrorist state like Saddam
Hussein who has that weapons of mass destruction. As we sit
here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They are there.''
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld
Interview with Jim Lehrer, PBS (9/18/2002).
``We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of
senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible
chemical- and biological-agent training. And when I say
contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda.'' Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department Regular Briefing,
Defense Department (9/26/2002).
``They have occurred over a span of some eight or ten years
to our knowledge. There are currently al-Qaeda in Iraq.''
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld Live
Interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/
2002).
``The regime plays host to terrorists, including Al Qaida,
as the president indicated.'' Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld; Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular
Defense Department Briefing, Defense Department (1/29/2003).
____
Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change
the official statement
The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for
the planning and execution of American foreign and defense
policy. Collectively, we have served every president since
Harry S Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are
Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush.
But we all believe that current Administration policies have
failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national
security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are
at stake. We need a change.
From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an
overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying
upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the
concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of
the United Nations. Instead of building upon America's great
economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a
coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and
to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more
by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own.
It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war
from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of
Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons
of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade
the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the
attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this
argument.
Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and
women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed
gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military
occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls
throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth
are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and
a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been
so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and
distrusted. No loyal American would question our ultimate
right to act alone in our national interest; but responsible
leadership would not turn to unilateral military action
before diplomacy had been thoroughly explored.
The United States suffers from close identification with
autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and from the
perception of unquestioning support for the policies and
actions of the present Israeli Government. To enhance
credibility with Islamic peoples we must pursue courageous,
energetic and balanced efforts to establish peace between
Israelis and Palestinians, and policies that encourage
responsible democratic reforms.
We face profound challenges in the 21st Century:
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal
distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization,
terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in
the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious
confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military
force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they
demand patient, coordinated global effort under the
leadership of the United States.
The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp
these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise
to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style
or substance. It is time for a change.
signatories
The Honorable Avis T. Bohlen: Assistant Secretary of State
for Arms Control, 1999; Ambassador to Bulgaria, 1996
(District of Columbia).
Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret.; Chairman, President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee; 1993; Ambassador to
the Court of Saint James, 1993; Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, 1985; Commander in Chief, United States Pacific
Command (Oklahoma).
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Davidow; Ambassador to Mexico,
1998; Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs, 1996; Ambassador to Venezuela, 1993; Ambassador to
Zambia, 1988 (Virginia).
The Honorable William A. DePree; Ambassador to Bangladesh,
1987; Director of State Department Management Operations,
1983; Ambassador to Mozambique, 1976 (Michigan).
The Honorable Donald B. Easum; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1975;
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1974;
Ambassador to Upper Volta, 1971 (Virginia).
The Honorable Charles W. Freeman, Jr.; Assistant Secretary
of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993; Ambassador
to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1989 (Rhode Island).
The Honorable William C. Harrop; Ambassador to Israel,
1991; Ambassador to Zaire, 1987; Inspector General of the
State Department and Foreign Service, 1983; Ambassador to
Kenya and Seychelles, 1980; Ambassador to Guinea, 1975 (New
Jersey).
The Honorable Arthur A. Hartman; Ambassador to the Soviet
Union, 1981; Ambassador to France, 1977; Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs, 1973 (New Jersey).
General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC, Ret.: Commander in Chief,
United States Central Command, 1991; Deputy Chief of Staff,
Marine Corps, 1990; Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit
Depot, Parris Island, 1987 (Massachusetts).
The Honorable H. Allen Holmes: Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations, 1993; Ambassador at Large for
Burdensharing, 1989; Assistant Secretary of State for
Politico-Military Affairs, 1986; Ambassador to Portugal, 1982
(Kansas).
The Honorable Robert V. Keeley: Ambassador to Greece, 1985;
Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980; Ambassador to Mauritius, 1976
(Florida).
The Honorable Samuel W. Lewis: Director of State Department
Policy and Planning, 1993; Ambassador to Israel, 1977;
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization
Affairs, 1975 (Texas).
The Honorable Princeton N. Lyman: Assistant Secretary of
State for International Organization Affairs, 1997;
Ambassador to South Africa, 1992; Director, Bureau of Refugee
Programs, 1989; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1986 (Maryland).
The Honorable Jack F. Matlock, Jr.: Ambassador to the
Soviet Union, 1987; Director for European and Soviet Affairs,
National Security Council, 1983; Ambassador to
Czechoslovakia, 1981 (Florida).
The Honorable Donald F. McHenry: Ambassador and U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1979
(Illinois).
General Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, USAF, Ret.: Chief of
Staff, United States Air Force, 1990; Commander in Chief,
Pacific Air Forces, 1988; Commander, 12th Air Force and U.S.
Southern Command Air Forces, 1987 (Oregon).
The Honorable George E. Moose: Representative, United
Nations European Office, 1997; Assistant Secretary of State
for African Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Senegal, 1988;
Director, State Department Bureau of Management Operations,
1987; Ambassador to Benin, 1983 (Colorado).
The Honorable David D. Newsom: Secretary of State ad
interim, 1981; Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs, 1978; Ambassador to the Philippines, 1977;
Ambassador to Indonesia, 1973; Assistant Secretary of State
for African Affairs, 1969; Ambassador to Libya, 1965
(California).
The Honorable Phyllis E. Oakley: Assistant Secretary of
State for Intelligence and Research, 1997; Assistant
Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration,
1994 (Nebraska).
The Honorable Robert Oakley: Special Envoy for Somalia,
1992; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1988; Ambassador to Somalia,
1982; Ambassador to Zaire, 1979 (Louisiana).
The Honorable James D. Phillips: Diplomat-in-Residence, the
Carter Center of Emory University, 1994; Ambassador to the
Republic of Congo, 1990; Ambassador to Burundi, 1986
(Kansas).
The Honorable John E. Reinhardt: Director of the United
States Information Agency, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State
for Public Affairs, 1975; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1971
(Maryland).
General William Y. Smith, USAF, Ret.: Chief of Staff for
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 1979; Assistant to
the Chairman, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
1975; Director of National Security Affairs, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs, 1974 (Arkansas).
The Honorable Ronald I. Spiers: Under Secretary General of
the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989; Under
Secretary of State
[[Page H4861]]
for Management, 1983; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1981; Director,
State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 1980;
Ambassador to Turkey, 1977; Ambassador to The Bahamas, 1973;
Director, State Department Bureau of Politico-Military
Affairs, 1969 (Vermont).
The Honorable Michael E. Sterner: Ambassador to the United
Arab Emirates, 1974 (New York).
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN, Ret.: Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, 1977; Commander in Chief, Allied
Forces Southern Europe (NATO), 1975; Commander, U.S. Second
Fleet, 1974 (Illinois).
The Honorable Alexander F. Watson: Assistant Secretary of
State for Inter-American Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Brazil,
1992; Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations,
1989; Ambassador to Peru, 1986 (Maryland).
____
[From the St. Petersburg Times, June 22, 2004]
Where's the Proof?
If Vice President Cheney has secret evidence of a link
between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, he has an obligation to
share it with the 9/11 commission.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney vehemently dispute
the 9/11 commission's conclusion that no ``collaborative''
relationship existed between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's
regime, and the vice president says he ``probably'' has seen
incriminating evidence that the commission has not reviewed.
If so, the Bush administration has an obligation to share
that evidence with the commission immediately. Members of the
commission, who were appointed by the president, are cleared
to see the most sensitive classified information, and the
administration agreed more than a year ago to provide all
documents the commission needs to complete its investigation
into the worst terrorist attacks in our nation's history.
Evidence of a more substantial link between al-Qaida and
Hussein wouldn't just bolster the administration's case for
having gone to war in Iraq; it also could help to complete
the picture of al-Qaida's planning and support prior to 9/11.
The White House also has an obligation to share any such
information with the American people and the world community.
We live in a representative democracy, not an autocracy, and
our government cannot successfully wage war for reasons that
are not understood and supported by the public. We also are
dependent on the cooperation of other governments around the
world in the war against terrorism, and that support depends
on our credibility.
We don't know what information the vice president is
referring to, but we do know this: Every important public
charge that the White House and its supporters did make
against Iraq in the months leading up to war--such as the
purchase of nuclear weapons from Africa, meetings between al-
Qaida and Iraqi operatives in Prague and mobile biological
weapons labs in the Iraqi desert--has been discredited.
No substantive evidence on the record supports the
administration's claim that Iraq presented an immediate
threat to U.S. security. Members of the 9/11 commission are
understandably reluctant to engage in a semantic argument
with the White House over the meaning of a ``collaborative''
relationship, but Thomas Kean, the Republican chairman of the
commission, notes that al-Qaida had more substantial links to
the governments of Iran and Pakistan prior to 9/11 than it
had to Iraq.
The 9/11 commission's reports have been meticulous,
straightforward and persuasive. They have dealt with Iraq
only to the extent that allegations about Hussein's possible
role in aiding al-Qaida prior to the attacks had to be
investigated and put to rest. The bipartisan commission's
credibility isn't in question. The administration's is.
That's the most important reason for the vice president to
come forward and produce the evidence he alluded to.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks to control time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to control the time. I am not in
opposition to the amendment, but I do have some remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which
calls for the CIA's Inspector General to submit a report to Congress
detailing evidence of any relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime
and al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. This report will help augment
an already public record of such a relationship.
On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Federal Grand Jury issued an indictment
against Osama bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged in a long-
term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas. The same indictment
states that ``al Qaeda reached an agreement with the government of Iraq
and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons
development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of
Iraq.''
I would like to enter at the appropriate time the 1999 indictment
into the Record.
An Iraq defector to Turkey told the London Sunday Times that he saw
bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. And I would also like to
enter at the appropriate time the July 14, 2002, London Sunday Times
article on this issue into the Record.
In October, 2000, an Iraqi intelligence operative was arrested along
the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to ``Jane's
Foreign Report.'' This respected international newsletter reported that
the operative was shuttling between Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda's
number two man and that throughout 2003, in the portion of northern
Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein, an Ansar al-Islam official admitted to
Kurdish newspapers that when Ansar al-Islam was established in 2001, al
Qaeda operatives offered a gift of $300,000 to assist the group in
conducting suicide operations against Americans.
An al Qaeda leader went to Iraq after he was injured in Afghanistan
in May, 2002. Once he recovered, he traveled to Lebanon where he met
with Hezbollah just before the October, 2002, assassination of USAID
official Lawrence Foley in Jordan. After Zarqawi's return to Iraq, he
met with Ansar al-Islam officials in January, 2003, according to
several AI terrorists arrested in Britain.
Zarqawi is currently in Iraq taking credit for suicide car bombings
against innocent Iraqis and coalition forces.
More recently Abdul Rahman Yasin remains the only member of the al
Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at
large from the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq where U.S. forces
recently uncovered a cache of documents in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit
that show Yasin received both a house and monthly salary from Iraq.
A 9-11 Commission staff working paper stated that there appears to be
no evidence that Iraq was linked to the September 11 attacks on the
United States, but several Commission members have corrected the record
recently to state that ``The Vice President is saying that there were
connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't
disagree with that,'' and that the Commission has ``found contacts
between al Qaeda and Iraq, that some of it is shadowy, but there is no
question that the contacts were there.''
I would like to submit at the appropriate time the transcript of the
Talk Radio News Service questioning of 9-11 Commission members Hamilton
and Kean following the hearing of the 9-11 Commission on Thursday, June
17, 2004.
Lastly, we should not forget that Iraq was designated as the state
sponsor of terrorism for more than a decade, including this
administration as well as previous administrations.
I urge this amendment be adopted so we can further augment our
understanding of the nature of any relationship between al Qaeda and
the Hussein government.
Indictment
In the United States District Court--Southern District of
New York, United States of America v. Usama bin laden,
Defendant.
count one--conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the united states
The Grand Jury charges:
Background: Al Qaeda
1. At all relevant times from in or about 1989 until the
date of the filing of this Indictment, an international
terrorist group existed which was dedicated to opposing non-
Islamic governments with force and violence. This
organization grew out of the ``mekhtab al khidemat'' (the
``Services Office'') organization which had maintained (and
continues to maintain) offices in various parts of the world,
including Afghanistan, Pakistan (particularly in Peshawar)
and the United States, particularly at the Alkifah Refugee
Center in Brooklyn. From in or about 1989 until the present,
the group called itself ``Al Qaeda'' (``the Base''). From
1989 until in or about 1991, the group was headquartered in
Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. In or about 1992, the
leadership of Al Qaeda, including its ``emir'' (or prince)
USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and its military command
relocated to the Sudan. From in or about 1991 until the
present, the group also called itself the ``Islamic Army.''
[[Page H4862]]
The international terrorist group (hereafter referred to as
``Al Qaeda'') was headquartered in the Sudan from
approximately 1992 until approximately 1996 but still
maintained offices in various parts of the world. In 1996,
USAMA BIN LADEN and Al Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan. At all
relevant times, Al Qaeda was led by its ``emir,'' USAMA BIN
LADEN. Members of Al Qaeda pledged an oath of allegiance to
USAMA BIN LADEN and Al Qaeda.
2. Al Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons.
First, the United States was regarded as ``infidel'' because
it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's
extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States
was viewed as providing essential support for other
``infidel'' governments and institutions, particularly the
governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel
and the United Nations, which were regarded as enemies of the
group. Third, Al Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United
States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation
Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993. In particular, Al
Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military
forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian
peninsula) following the Gulf War. Fourth, Al Qaeda opposed
the United States Government because of the arrest,
conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al Qaeda
or its affiliated terrorist groups, including Sheik Omar
Abdel Rahman.
3. Al Qaeda has functioned both on its own and through some
of the terrorist organizations that have operated under
its umbrella, including: the Islamic Group (also known as
``al Gamaa Islamia'' or simply ``Gamaa't''), led by co-
conspirator Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman,'' the al Jihad group
based in Egypt; the ``Talah e Fatah'' (``Vanguards of
Conquest'') faction of al Jihad, which was also based in
Egypt, which faction was led by co-conspirator Ayman al
Zawahiri (``al Jihad''); Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and a
number of jihad groups in other countries, including
Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea,
Kenya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Algeria, Tunisia,
Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Chechnya,
Bangladesh, Kashmir and Azerbaijan. In February 1998, Al
Qaeda joined forces with Gamaa't, Al Jihad, the Jihad
Movement in Bangladesh and the ``Jamaat ul Ulema e
Pakistan'' to issue a fatwah (an Islamic religious ruling)
declaring war against American civilians worldwide under
the banner of the ``International Islamic Front for Jihad
on the Jews and Crusaders.''
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic
Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its
associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of
working together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al
Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq
that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that
on particular projects, specifically including weapons
development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the
Government of Iraq.
5. Al Qaeda had a command and control structure which
included a majlis al shura (or consultation council) which
discussed and approved major undertakings, including
terrorist operations.
6. Al Qaeda also conducted internal investigations of its
members and their associates in an effort to detect
informants and killed those suspected of collaborating with
enemies of Al Qaeda.
7. From at least 1991 until the date of the filing of this
Indictment, in the Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere out of
the jurisdiction of any particular state or district, USAMA
BIN LADEN, a/k/a ``Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden,'' a/k/a
``Shaykh Usamah Bin-Laden,'' a/k/a ``Mujahid Shaykh,'' a/k/a
``Abu Abdallah,'' a/k/a `QaQa,'' the defendant, and co-
conspirator not named as a defendant herein (hereafter ``Co-
conspirator'') who was first brought to and arrested in the
Southern District of New York, and others known and unknown
to the grand jury, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly
combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and
with each other to injure and destroy, and attempt to injure
and destroy, national-defense material, national-defense
premises and national-defense utilities of the United States
with the intent to injure, interfere with and obstruct the
national defense of the United States.
Overt Acts
8. In furtherance of the same conspiracy, and to effect the
illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed:
a. At various times from at least as early as 1991 until at
least in or about February 1998, USAMA BIN LADEN, the
defendant, met with Co-conspirator and other members of Al
Qaeda in the Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere;
b. At various times from at least as early as 1991, USAMA
BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, made efforts to
obtain weapons, including firearms and explosives, for Al
Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups;
c. At various times from at least as early as 1991, USAMA
BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, provided training
camps and guesthouses in various areas, including Afghanistan
and the Sudan, for the use of Al Qaeda and its affiliated
terrorist groups;
d. At various times from at least as early as 1991, USAMA
BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, made efforts to
produce counterfeit passports purporting to be issued by
various countries and also obtained official passports from
the Government of the Sudan for use by Al Qaeda and its
affiliated groups;
e. At various times from at least as early as 1991, USAMA
BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, made efforts to
recruit United States citizens to Al Qaeda in order to
utilize the American citizens for travel throughout the
Western world to deliver messages and engage in financial
transactions for the benefit of Al Qaeda and its affiliated
groups;
f. At various times from at least as early as 1991, USAMA
BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, made efforts to
utilize non-Government organizations which purported to be
engaged in humanitarian work as conduits for transmitting
funds for the benefit of Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups;
g. At various times from at least as early as 1991, Co-
conspirator and others known and unknown to the grand jury
engaged in financial and business transactions on behalf of
defendant USAMA BIN LADEN and Al Qaeda, including, but not
limited to: purchasing land for training camps: purchasing
warehouses for storage of items, including explosives;
transferring funds between bank accounts opened in various
names; obtaining various communications equipment, including
satellite telephones; and transporting currency and weapons
to members of Al Qaeda and its associated terrorist
organizations in various countries throughout the world;
h. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of
the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other
ranking members of Al Qaeda stated privately to other members
of Al Qaeda that Al Qaeda should put aside its differences
with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the
Government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group
Hezballah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy,
the United States and its allies;
i. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of
the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other
ranking members of Al Qaeda stated privately to other members
of Al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed on the
Saudi Arabian peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and
Yemen, should be attacked;
j. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of
the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other
ranking members of Al Qaeda stated privately to other
members of Al Qaeda that the United States forces
stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should
be attacked;
k. Beginning in or about early spring 1993, Al Qaeda
members began to provide training and assistance to Somali
tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in
Somalia;
l. On October 3 and 4, 1993, members of Al Qaeda
participated with Somali tribesmen in an attack on United
States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of
Operation Restore Hope, which attack killed a total of 18
United States soldiers and wounded 73 others in Mogadishu;
m. On two occasions in the period from in or about 1992
until in or about 1995, Co-conspirator helped transport
weapons and explosives from Khartoum to Port Sudan for
transshipment to the Saudi Arabian peninsula;
n. At various times from at least as early as 1993, USAMA
BIN LADEN and others known and unknown, made efforts to
obtain the components of nuclear weapons:
o. At various times from at least as early as 1993, USAMA
BIN LADEN and others known and unknown, made efforts to
produce chemical weapons;
p. On or about August 23, 1996, USAMA BIN LADEN signed and
issued a Declaration of Jihan entitled ``Message from Usamah
Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden to His Muslim Brothers in the Whole
World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of
Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two
Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula''
(hereafter ``Declaration of Jihad'') from the Hindu Kush
mountains in Afghanistan. The Declaration of Jihad included
statements that efforts should be pooled to kill Americans
and encouraged other persons to join the jihad against the
American ``enemy'';
q. In or about late August 1996, USAMA BIN LADEN read aloud
the Declaration of Jihad and made an audiotape recording of
such reading for worldwide distribution: and
r. In February 1998, USAMA BIN LADEN issued a joint
declaration in the name of Gamaa't, Al Jihad, the Jihad
Movement in Bangladesh and the ``Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan''
under the banner of the ``International Islamic Front for
Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders,'' which stated that Muslims
should kill Americans--including civilians--anywhere in the
world where they can be found.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 2155(b).)
Mary Jo White,
United States Attorney.
____
[From the Sunday Times (London), July 14, 2002]
Militia Defector Claims Baghdad Trained Al-Qaeda Fighters in Chemical
Warfare
(By Gwynne Roberts)
A former colonel in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen, one of
Iraq's most brutal militias,
[[Page H4863]]
has claimed that he trained with fighters from Osama Bin
Laden's Al-Qaeda terrorist network in secret camps near
Baghdad. The defector, who fled to Turkey three years ago,
says that as long ago as 1997 and 1998, Islamic extremists
were being taught how to use chemical and biological weapons.
Their instructors, he says, were from a military
intelligence organisation known as Unit 999, which ran a six-
month course for ``foreigners'' including the Iranian
opposition organisation Mojahedin-e Khalq and the Turkish-
Kurdish PKK rebel movement as well as Al-Qaeda.
Colonel ``Abu Mohammed'', whose real name is being withheld
to protect him and his family near Ankara, says American
officials who debriefed him in 1999 showed little interest in
his information. If true, however, his story may acquire
fresh significance as America seeks evidence of a link
between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden that could help it to
justify an attack on Baghdad. In recent months several
defectors have spoken of secret training camps in Iraq where
Arabs from all over the Middle East have been trained in
sabotage techniques by Mukhabarat (intelligence) instructors.
Mohammed said he was recruited into Saddam's Fedayeen in
1997 and trained at two secret facilities--at Salman Pak,
southeast of Baghdad, and at the Unit 999 camp, northwest of
the Iraqi capital. His first encounter with Bin Laden's
fighters occurred at Salman Pak when he was on an
induction course to become a Fedayeen officer, he said.
``We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and
Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queueing
for food.
(The major) said to me: `You'll have nothing to do with
these people. They are Osama Bin Laden's group and the PKK
and the Mojahedin-e Khalq.
``They train for three months at Unit 999 and another three
at the Mukhabarat school in Salman Pak. So there are two
camps where they train Bin Laden's people.''
Mohammed said he had attended another training course at
Salman Pak and Unit 999 a year later, spending 15 days at
each facility. Here, once again, he encountered Al-Qaeda
fighters undergoing specialised sabotage training.
``There was training in the use of biological and chemical
weapons there but they were not Iraqis doing it--only
foreigners,'' he said.
``They were trained to put materials into small containers
and study the biological effects. In the training areas there
is a field especially for weapons of mass destruction. Here,
experts hold lectures and conduct biological experiments--
theoretical experiments, of course--on how to place
explosives or how to pollute specific areas, water and public
places and ventilation systems as well as power stations.
They had maps of the USA, Britain, Turkey, Iran and Saudi
Arabia.''
Mohammed's claims illustrate the challenge American
officials face in determining the quality of information from
defectors whose hatred of the Iraqi regime may lead them to
embellish their accounts.
The intelligence services have struggled to find convincing
evidence of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Saddam's secular
regime has little in common with Bin Laden except for a
shared hatred of America and Israel.
However, Abbas al-Janabi, who spent 15 years as personal
assistant to Uday, Saddam's son, before fleeing to the West
in 1998 and who is regarded as one of the most reliable
senior defectors, is convinced that there is a connection
between Bin Laden and Saddam. Last week he said he had learnt
that Iraqi officials had visited Afghanistan and Sudan to
strengthen ties with Al-Qaeda. He also knew of a top secret
centre near Baghdad where ``foreigners'' trained with Iraqis.
``This was a sort of factory for turning out instructors,''
Janabi said. ``They trained both Iraqis and foreign
nationals. Suicide squads were trained in sabotage techniques
using weapons of mass destruction. They were well paid, well
fed and their families well looked after.'' Janabi
predicted that in the event of war with the West, Saddam
would deploy bio-weapons including smallpox.
The training described by Mohammed and Jannabi raises the
possibility that Iraq has been passing on expertise learnt
from the East Germans during the cold war. At Massow, a camp
just south of Berlin, secret police instructors taught Iraqis
how to attack civilian targets using chemical and biological
warfare agents.
A former Stasi lieutenant-colonel said: ``The courses
emphasised chemical weapons which attack the nervous system.
They were also taught how to deploy bacteriological weapons--
influenza, anthrax and yellow fever.''
In a Kurdish prison in Sulaimaniya, northern Iraq, further
corroboration of claims that Saddam and Bin Laden have co-
operated has come from an Iraqi who has admitted working for
the Mukhabarat. He said that Bin Laden's second-in-command,
the Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, had met Saddam in
Baghdad in 1992. ``I was one of the people responsible for
his protection,'' he claimed.
The prisoner seemed well informed about Unit 999. Men
attached to Al-Qaeda had been dispatched, from there to
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sudan and to a base in Somalia from
where they were reassigned, he said. Some fighters trained by
the Iraqis had joined Al-Ansar Al-Islam, the Allies of Islam,
a militant Islamic group based in eastern Kurdistan.
Acts of terror by this group are beginning to pose a
serious threat to stability in the area. Al-Ansar is blamed
for trying to assassinate Dr Barham Salih, prime minister of
the Kurdish regional government, in April. Two would-be
assassins were killed and a third was captured. During the
subsequent investigation the captive reportedly admitted that
Al-Qaeda had recruited him in Jordan.
There is also growing evidence that Bin Laden's supporters
are crossing through Iran from Afghanistan to join AlAnsar.
Inhabitants of Halabja, the town gassed by the Iraqi army in
1988, live in fear of Al-Ansar reprisals against anyone
considered pro-western.
With the prospect of American intervention in northern Iraq
looming, Al-Ansar could prove dangerous. Its objective is to
overthrow the pro-western Kurdish regional governments and to
set up an Islamic state modelled on the Taliban's rule in
Afghanistan.
____
[From Global Security.org, Dec. 14, 2002]
Salman Park--Iraq special Weapons Facilities
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly
secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both
Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking
planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage,
and assassinations.
The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a
peninsula caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately
five kilometers (km) from the arch located in the town of
Salman Pak. The facility area comprised more than 20 square
km, and might have been known as a farmers (or agricultural)
experimentation center. The peninsula was fenced off and
patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside and to
the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the
larger built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other
for his half-brother, Barazan alTikriti. A main paved road
ran through the center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula.
Plans were made in the mid-1980's to develop the Salman Pak
site into a secure biological warfare research facility. Dr
Rihab Taha, head of a small biological weapons research team,
continued to work with her team at al-Muthanna until 1987
when it moved to Salman Pak, which was under the control of
the Directorate of General Intelligence.
Located at the facility are several buildings. The probable
main research building at the site is a modern building,
composed of twenty four rooms, housing a major BW research
facility. Using current technology the research area alone
had sufficient floor space to accommodate several continuous
flow or batch fermenters that could produce daily sufficient
anthrax bacteria to lethally assault hundreds of square
kilometers. Adjacent to the research building is a storage
area which contains four munitions type storage bunkers with
lighting arrestors. Two of these bunkers have facilities for
storage of temperature sensitive biological material.
Approximately a mile down the road from the research area is
a complex US intelligence believe to be an engineering area.
One building in this complex was thought to contain a
fermentation pilot plant capable of scale up production of
BW agents. A construction project comprising several
buildings was begun in early 1989 adjacent to the
engineering area, and was near completion in 1990. This
new complex was assessed as a pharmaceutical production
plant. As such, this facility would have an extensive
capability for biological agent production.
Salman Pak, located 30-40 km SE of Baghdad, engaged in
laboratory scale research on Anthrax, Botulinum toxin,
Clostridium, perfringens (gas gangrene), mycotoxins,
aflatoxins, and Ricin. Researchers at this site carried out
toxicity evaluations of these agents and examined their
growth characteristics and survivability.
Equipment-moving trucks and refrigerated trucks were
observed at the Salman Pak BW facility prior to the onset of
bombing, suggesting that Iraq was moving equipment or
material into or out of the facility. Information obtained
after the conflict revealed that Iraq had moved BW agent
production equipment from Salman Pak to the Al Hakam suspect
BW facility.
The Qadisiya State Establishment [aka Al-Qadsia], involved
in the program to produce Al Hussein class missiles, is
apparently located nearby, along with the Al-Yarmouk facility
which according to some reports was associated with the
chemical munitions program [and which other reports place at
Yusufiyah].
Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror
training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two
defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked
for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which
had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six
months since 1995. Training activities including simulated
hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a
Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct
sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were
members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage,
assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants
trained on the other side of the camp, in an
[[Page H4864]]
area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The
militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups
of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There
were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp
at one time.
____
[From townhall.com, June 18, 2004]
Wrong Again
(By Richard Miniter)
Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in
Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network
news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that
they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield
casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one
American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far
outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of
mounting, pointless deaths.
That is why it is important to remember why we fight in
Iraq--and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S.
troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And
many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation.
A wealth of evidence on the public record--from government
reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from
major newspapers--attests to longstanding ties between bin
Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.
Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute
this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the
evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell
that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at
large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces
recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's
hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and
monthly salary.
Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's
Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by
Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's
mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to
intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell,
who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council
on February 6, 2003.
Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents
had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and
bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in
Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell. An al Qaeda operative now
held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden
had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all
terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell
told the United Nations.
In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that
Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had
journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar,
Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr.
Hijazi is ``thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in
Iraq,'' the Guardian reported.
In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative,
Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by
Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a
respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that
Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman
al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London
Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al
Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which ``emphasizes the
value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist
attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.'')
As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as
a ``liaison'' between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr.
Powell told the United Nations.
Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from
Yusuf Galan--who is charged by a Spanish court with being
``directly involved with the preparation and planning'' of
the Sept. 11 attacks--that show the terrorist was invited to
a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used
his ``al Qaeda nom de guerre,'' London's Independent reports.
An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as
``Abu Mohammed,'' told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of
London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in
1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's
Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the
training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound
run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack
planes with knives--on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed
recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: ``We were met
by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali
Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food.
(The major) said to me: `You'll have nothing to do with these
people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and
Mojahedin-e Khalq.' ''
In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son
Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told
reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and
al Qaeda.
The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish
prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard
during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri
was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was
present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin
Laden associates ``converged on Baghdad and established a
base of operations there,'' Mr. Powell told the United
Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the
secretary said, they supervised the movement of men,
materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
In 2001, an al Qaeda member ``bragged that the situation in
Iraq was `good,' '' according to intelligence made public by
Mr. Powell.
That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al
Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His
specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces,
he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When
Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern
Iraq. Zargawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002
murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured
assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from
Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice
escaped to Iraq.
Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed
Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003,
according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington
Post.
Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until
the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a
senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror
network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture
chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. ``Where did they go, where
did they look?'' said the secretary. ``They went to Iraq.''
Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to
purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He
called his relationship with Saddam's regime ``successful,''
Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to
transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested
by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told
his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New
Yorker magazine.
Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence
Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces,
a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to
bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the
organization offered to recruit ``youth to train for the
jihad'' at a ``headquarters for international holy warrior
network'' to be established in Baghdad.
Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-
Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr.
Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden
in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His
acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he
organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks
on Americans, ``three bin Laden operatives showed up with a
gift of $300,000 `to undertake jihad,' '' Newsday reported.
Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group
operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam
Hussein--and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to
Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told
a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's
group was funded by ``Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad.''
After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are
believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds
inside northern Iraq.
Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a
longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending
that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists
like bin Laden.
In fact, there are plenty of ``Stalin-Roosevelt''
partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim
dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common
purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate
for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the
Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing
defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden
regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and
believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on
the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past
ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi
Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain
Saddam.
The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with
Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in
federal courts that the terror network was always desperate
for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100
difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians
made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the
1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter
he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to
see a doctor.
Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to
support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin
Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine.
Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth
at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small
school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile,
Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.
[[Page H4865]]
So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash
seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden.
CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate
Intelligence Committee: ``Iraq has in the past provided
training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It
also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda
associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized
the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this
information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence.
It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it
is corroborated by multiple sources.
The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas
operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the
technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis
called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda this would be a
fearsome weapon in an enclosed space like a suburban mall or
subway station.
____
[From Talk Radio News Service, June 17, 2004]
(Excerpt from the media availability following the hearing
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States. Participants: Thomas Kean, Commission
Chairman; Lee Hamilton, Commission Co-Chairman.)
Question. The Associated Press is reporting this morning
that President Bush has disputed your finding that there was
no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Kean. Well, what we're going on is the evidence we have
found. What we have found is that, were there contacts
between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of it is shadowy, but
there's no question they were there. That is correct. What
our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence
that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq
and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the
United States.
Mr. Hamilton. I must say I have trouble understanding the
flack over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that
there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's
government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is
what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a
cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam
Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with
regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me
the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has
drawn, are not that apparent to me.
____
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for helping to
demonstrate the very reason why it is important to have an Inspector
General's audit because of all the conflicting information. So I
appreciate his presenting his side.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), our ranking member.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I believe that having the CIA Inspector General conduct an impartial
independent audit of the intelligence reporting on this matter is a
good idea, and I support his amendment.
Let me just mention something that I do not believe has come up the
debate, and that is that there is a real difference pre-war and post-
war. From my review of the sources provided to our committee on the
nature of this relationship, I have concluded that pre-war there were
contacts but no operational relationship. Post-war is a different
story. Post-war there is an operational relationship between terrorists
and folks on the ground in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer there, but
there is a massive both recruiting and enabling effort in Iraq for
terrorists around the world. Iraq has now become fly paper.
Let me just suggest to the amendment's sponsor that the results of
the audit should be made public. I think that might help eradicate some
of the confusion that has been discussed.
I think his amendment is a public service, and I support it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I
resent the implication that the President did something wrong. And I
would like to read.
``That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff
unaccounted for. I thought the President had an absolute responsibility
to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9-11 you have got to
demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process. I
supported what he did going into Iraq. What I was far more worried
about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've
always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and al Qaeda, as well
as North Korea giving away nuclear components.''
This is President Bill Clinton. And al Qaeda was there in Iraq. Al
Qaeda had significant ties to that. Saddam Hussein paid people to blow
themselves up in Israel and kill American citizens. So the implication
that al Qaeda was not in Iraq I oppose. But I do not oppose going in
and researching exactly what those were.
[From Time Magazine, June 28, 2004]
You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against
the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited
until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went
in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or
financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the
Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better
off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the
Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the
Palestinians and Israelis would be increased.
At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998,
this is the proper language: there were substantial
quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some
bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin,
chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we
ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few
missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of
nuclear laboratory capacity.
After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President,
you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these
three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass
destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful
chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting
there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this,
so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and
all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first
responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure
that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks
cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts
of fissile material. I've got to do that.
That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of
stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an
absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ``Look,
guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein
lets us finish the inspection process. You couldn't
responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these
stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was
far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give
it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North
Korea's nuclear and missile capacity. I don't expect North
Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the
end of their country. But if you can't feed yourself, the
temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why
I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're
the President, and your country has just been through what we
had, you want everything to be accounted for.
on whether the Iraq war was worth the costs
It's a judgment that no one can make definitively yet. I
would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his
job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since
the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it
work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't
agree with the timing of the attack. I think if you have a
pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be
better off, and it might help the process of internal reform
in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid
of Saddam's tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more
vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any
open society is going to be more vulnerable than any tyranny
to that.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate the remarks of
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because it is important
to set the record straight, let the facts come out and see where
everything was.
I would remind everybody that for a whole year, post-9-11, when
intelligence people would come and brief our committee, I would ask
what was the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and
repeatedly their answer was none. In one case, one individual said
there might have been, if we stretch it, one instance. But I think it
is important that we get to the bottom of this. This is a right way to
do it. This is something that the whole House should support, and I
applaud the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to thank all my colleagues for their perspectives as to
why
[[Page H4866]]
this is a necessary amendment and comment that today that Admiral
Stansfield Turner has also endorsed this amendment. I want to thank the
chairman and ranking member for supporting it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Simmons
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Simmons:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. REPORT ON USE OF OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit
to Congress an unclassified report on progress made by the
intelligence community with respect to the use of Open Source
Intelligence (OSINT).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
{time} 1945
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my
amendment, and I thank the Committee on Rules and the distinguished
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for
endorsing this amendment. It is quite simple. It directs the Director
of Central Intelligence to prepare over a 6-month period a report on
the progress of open sources of intelligence.
Open-source intelligence refers to an intelligence discipline based
on information collected from open sources, generally available to the
public.
In the mid-1990s, it was my honor to command the 434th Military
Intelligence Detachment, a U.S. Army reserve unit affiliated with Yale
University and located in New Haven, Connecticut. With the active
participation of Chief Warrant Officer Tompkins and Sergeant Eliot
Jardines, our unit wrote the first handbook for open-source
intelligence for the U.S. Army.
Today, Mr. Jardines has provided me with some interesting photographs
that at first look like highly classified aerial photographs of the
uranium enrichment facility in Iran, and it shows here the enrichment
facility being built; and then in this photograph, it has been covered
with dirt, and you can see a large security or perimeter fence around
it.
A closer look at this aerial image again shows the construction of
the enrichment facility and then how it has been buried in Iran,
presumably to keep it a secret from the rest of the world.
These are not classified. These images were obtained from open
sources; and the beauty of open source in this particular instance, Mr.
Chairman, is that these images can be e-mailed around the country and
around the world for others to look at them and to assist in the
analysis process.
Why is open source so important? It is important because there is a
vast amount of information available in the public sector. It can be
shared. It can be shared with other countries. It can be transported
without concern about classification.
Recently, the Joint Military Intelligence Training Center published
an open-source exploitation guide. A few years previously, the ``Open-
source Quarterly'' published additional information on how we can
enhance our intelligence capabilities with open source, but this May
the U.S. Army distributed FM 2-0 on intelligence, and they left open
source out altogether. That is unfortunate, at a time when our
intelligence performance is being questioned.
At a time when every scrap of information is needed to piece together
the puzzle presented by terrorist operations, there could be no better
time than to incorporate the value of OSINT to our overall intelligence
product and make it available to our policymakers and our military
forces.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will
control the time on this.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want the gentleman to know that I support his amendment.
For years the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has extolled
the virtues of open-source reporting, as he calls it, OSINT. Often they
are the most reliable form of intelligence available, as his charts
illustrate. Yet, in spite of this, I believe the intelligence community
has not invested sufficiently in open sources of information, and I am
pleased that this amendment is being offered, and I think it improves
the bill we are debating.
On that subject, Mr. Chairman, let me just return to an earlier
conversation about full funding of counterterrorism. While we have been
spending the last 4 hours on the floor, a letter was received from the
DCI, George Tenet. It was addressed to me and to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss), and he states in his letter that he is
planning to release it. It is a comment on the majority report language
to the bill, and I just want to quote in part.
He says, this is a letter dated today: ``I find it hard to accept
that any serious observer would believe, as the committee apparently
does, that there is an unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism and
counterproliferation efforts or that we are placing too much emphasis
supporting the Nation's Iraq effort at the CIA. I am deeply
disappointed at the way the report has chosen to question the
leadership and capabilities of the clandestine service.''
Now, these are the opinions of DCI George Tenet. I would just point
out at this point in the debate that the minority was never consulted
about the majority report. We filed our own report, and I would just
like the record to reflect that these are the reactions of DCI George
Tenet to portions of the majority report.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who is
also a naval intelligence officer.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Simmons amendment.
Unlike some other amendments in this bill that are offered for partisan
advantage, this amendment is offered by a former CIA officer with
detailed knowledge of how the U.S. intelligence community works. To my
knowledge, there are only three current Members of Congress who work
with the CIA: our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
author of this amendment; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons);
and me, who is detailed to the CIA from navy intelligence.
This amendment seeks to change our intelligence culture to become
more effective in the age of the Internet. Today, every two-bit terror
organization in the world has a Web site broadcasting information on
its activities. Internet news, political parties, and foreign
government sites all offer new material to our intelligence community.
For years in the cold war, our enemies collected open-source data on
us, but we were forced to collect secret data on them. That is now
changing. There is a wealth of open-source data on our adversaries.
Every analyst in the community should be encouraged to use as much
current and accurate
[[Page H4867]]
open-source data as possible; and I applaud the gentleman, who knows
the CIA so well, for offering this amendment to keep our culture up to
date with the current technology.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) has 1
minute remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Simmons
amendment. To set the record straight, there is on this side an alumnus
of the intelligence community. I also used to work in the intelligence
community, and I can assure my colleagues that the agencies make much
less use of the wealth of open-source information than they could.
Open sources mean more than searching the Internet for printed
material or extending the reach of the foreign broadcast information
service. There are now commercial companies with high-quality imagery
from satellites. There is mature technology for using commercial radio
and television broadcasts as illumination sources to passively detect
and track aircraft. These techniques could be used to augment air
surveillance, for example. The Internet, as we are all aware, could be
exploited for many intelligence purposes and so on.
There is much we could do. Last year, I sponsored in this very
authorization bill a provision that required the intelligence community
to report to us on how new approaches of open-source intelligence would
be incorporated into intelligence products. Although that report is, I
am told, in final coordination now, we still have not received it. So I
think it is appropriate to put this language into the bill, not just
report language, so that the intelligence community will make full use
of open-source information.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague once again this evening for his
statement and offer strong support for the Simmons amendment.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very
appropriate comments, and I am glad to hear that we share a mutual
interest.
In closing, I would simply like to draw attention to a book called
``The New Craft of Intelligence,'' which focuses on open source. The
distinguished chairman of the Senate committee made the comment in the
preface, ``Secret intelligence alone cannot protect America.''
This amendment is designed to address that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, and associate myself with
a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence who knows his stuff.
All-source intelligence sometimes gets confused with open-source
intelligence. I think it is important to know that a huge percentage of
all-source intelligence is open-source intelligence and is very
valuable in the filters and the proper analysis. So I support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to give notice that I am going to put at
the proper time a statement of the Speaker of the House in the Record
in support of this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my support for this amendment and
point out one of the ironies, which is that our committee has been
learning much of what it needs to do its oversight from open sources,
rather than from the regular channels. I am glad we have open sources.
Otherwise, we would have very little information. So that is just
another reason why the gentleman's amendment is so useful, and I
strongly support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Simmons) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10, printed in House
Report 108-561.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Reyes
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Reyes:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:
SEC. 304. REQUIREMENT FOR IMMEDIATE SUBMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO DETAINEES OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Withholding of 25 Percent of Funding for Certain
Programs.--25 percent of amounts otherwise available to carry
out the functions or duties under the following programs may
not be obligated or expended until the date on which all of
the documents described in subsection (b) are submitted to
the appropriate congressional committees:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency Program.
(2) The Army Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities
Program.
(3) The General Defense Intelligence Program.
(4) The Joint Military Intelligence Program.
(b) Documents Described.--The documents referred to in
subsection (a) are all documents, including reports,
correspondence, legal memoranda, and electronic
communications related to the handling and treatment of
detainees under the custody and control of the United States
or individuals held on behalf of the United States in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--In this section,
the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the
following:
(1) The Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
(2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 686, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Intelligence authorization
bill aimed at getting the full story on the prisoner abuse issue at
places such as Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan.
The abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were reprehensible; I
think we can all agree on that. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle
have agreed on that, particularly after reviewing the now-infamous
photos behind closed doors that were made available to us on Capitol
Hill.
I am equally disturbed by the indictment of CIA contractor David
Passaro, who allegedly assaulted a detainee at a detention facility in
Afghanistan. This indictment is yet another sobering reminder that the
detainee abuses were not limited to the Abu Ghraib prison.
Make no mistake: interrogations are critical to the war on terrorism.
I know that; I respect that. They are one way of generating dots that
might lead to the intelligence community, providing information on the
next terrorist plot.
But the prisoner abuse issue and the broader issue of our
interrogation policy is one that cries out for stronger congressional
oversight. Congress has got to get that straight and has got to get the
story and understand how interrogations may have gone off track.
Anything short of that would be a breach of faith with the American
public which expects us to conduct vigorous oversight on issues of
importance such as this.
The intelligence community has been trying to get the straight story
on Abu Ghraib. We have had five hearings thus far. But, frankly, the
witnesses that have appeared before our committee have not been very
forthcoming, in my opinion. Nor up until last night has the
[[Page H4868]]
Department of Defense been very forthright with key documents for the
committee, documents that we have requested, including documents from
the Defense Department, which they promised to provide to our
committee.
Our sixth hearing was to be an all-day affair, the majority's chosen
topic that day: the value of interrogations. While that is a legitimate
area of inquiry, it is not what I would call hard-hitting oversight,
nor would it have enhanced our understanding of the events that
occurred at Abu Ghraib.
My amendment would strengthen oversight in the Intelligence
authorization bill. It would hold the executive branch's feet to the
fire by fencing a large sum of money until the committee received all
the documents related to the handling and the treatment of detainees in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. It is intended to
underscore the seriousness of the prisoner abuse issue and the
committee's determination to get the straight story. It will take the
Department of Defense little time at all to comply with this request
from our committee.
I offered this amendment during the committee's consideration of this
bill. Although the amendment was defeated on straight party lines, I am
pleased to report that yesterday the Department of Defense finally,
finally, sent over a large batch of documents on interrogation policy.
It included many of the documents that the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence was seeking, but not all of them. For example, it did
not include the standard operating procedures for Guantanamo Bay which
Major General Jeff Miller promised the committee; and it did not
include documents related to interrogation policy in Iraq, signed by
Lieutenant General Sanchez.
{time} 2000
Nor does it include Brigadier General Karpinski's December 2003
response to the Red Cross.
This authorization bill needs to be stronger on oversight. We need to
do our job properly. We should not fall for the administration's
selective provision of documents simultaneously released to us and to
the media.
The majority's report language called this amendment a petty action
masquerading as a good gesture. Petty or not, this amendment and other
actions generated pressure that yielded results, which is more than a
few hearings have accomplished to date.
I believe that there is more to the interrogation story, like the
revelation last week that Secretary Rumsfeld ghosted a detainee at the
request of CIA Director Tenet in direct conflict of testimony presented
to our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
For this and many other reasons that we have well documented, I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This particular amendment was given very careful consideration in the
committee, and it was voted down. We will have some reasons, and I am
going to yield in a few minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons), not yet, to explain some of them, as the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence.
But I think its it is important to note that our committee has really
led, I think, very responsibly in the area of oversight. We have had, I
believe it is five hearings now; we have something like close to 7,000
pages in seven or eight different categories. We are getting full
cooperation. I do not understand exactly why it is there is a feeling
that we need to go forward and shut down the money to the people who
are carrying the war on terrorism because we feel they we are not
getting enough cooperation. If we got much more cooperation, I would
not have any staff available to prepare this bill, we have so many
documents to work with. So there is no question that the oversight is
being done.
I think to say this was a petty gesture posing as a grand gesture or
whatever the language was is not off-base. It is unnecessary. I think
we hashed this out in our committee, and I am sorry it has come back
again. We are doing our job.
Now, before I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I do
need to point out that, indeed, I just received the mail, my mail
apparently does not come in quite as rapidly, but I too got the letter
from Director Tenet; and it appears that Director Tenet is also having
a problem with his mail, because he is referring here to language in a
draft that is no longer relevant in making a complaint about language
that does not exist.
It is true that in our report, and I will be happy to read on page 23
the offending language. The offending language is this: ``The CIA must
collect against all types of targets needed to gain the insights and
the plans and intentions of our adversaries, be they terrorists,
political, economic, military in nature. Countering the threat from
terrorism is, of course, and should be at the top of the CIA's list of
collection priorities, but the Central Intelligence Agency must
continue to be much more than just a ``central counterterrorism
agency'' if America is to be truly secure, prosperous, and free.
I do not think anybody disagrees with that. We have weapons of
proliferation, we have counternarcotics efforts, we have racketeering,
things going on. What we are saying here is what every member of the
committee knows, that we have insufficiency of capability in the
intelligence community to do all the tasks we need to protect America
from all of the threats that are out there. And I quite agree that that
is a matter that we have all expressed concern on, and that is what we
have done.
I think for the Director to come back and suggest that there is an
unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism is a stretch; and I think he has
had bad staff work, and I hope he takes care of it.
The second thing I would point out in the same letter is something
that we have reported on today, and I am quoting: ``The damage done by
inattention to the clandestine service during the first half of the
1990s cannot be repaired in the blink of an eye.''
We all know that. We all know we have an insufficiency problem, and
we all understand that we have a threat that is serious and that we are
trying to deal with it, and this bill builds back capability to deal
with it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), not only for what it says, but for
what it does as well.
This amendment would withhold funding to the men and women of the
intelligence community at the very time when they are engaged in the
global war on terror. Let us be clear, Mr. Chairman, about what this
amendment really does. They say it fences, but it really cuts, and I
will explain that in a minute, it cuts vital intelligence funding. This
is not just another innocuous document request.
This amendment cuts 25 percent of the funding going to our most
critical intelligence program until Congress receives all of the
documents relating to detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay,
and elsewhere. The amendment does not name which documents; it just
says all of the documents. That is as open-ended a question as any
request could be, and I dare say that it would be impossible to ever
satisfy that request.
What is really happening here is an attempt to play politics with
intelligence funding at a time when we are at war. It is stunning to me
to see this sort of thing happening. It is not right, and it should not
happen. We should not be cutting off the funds for these agencies.
This is not the time to play politics or to be withholding
intelligence funding. The ranking member says she is for more
intelligence funding, and I believe that; yet she and her colleagues
supported this measure in committee. It seems to me that if they were
serious about the funding of the war on terrorism, they would not be
offering this amendment.
[[Page H4869]]
American intelligence collectors and soldiers are under constant fire
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and yes, elsewhere; and American civilians are
being kidnapped and beheaded in gruesome videotaped ceremonies, and all
the while this is happening, the opposition wants to withhold
intelligence funding.
Mr. Chairman, the idea that someone is trying to hide documents from
Congress or that the administration is stonewalling and is not
providing the documents is foolishness. The committee has received
excellent cooperation to date from the Defense Department and the CIA.
This is just petty politics masquerading, as they say, as a grand
gesture.
Here are the facts: earlier this month, the committee made an
official request to Secretary Rumsfeld for the documents. That request,
which was signed by both the HPSCI chairman and ranking member, is
being honored. We have received thousands upon thousands of pages of
documents, including the Miller report, the Ryder report, the Taguba
report, and the Army's official interrogation manual.
Just yesterday, we received hundreds of pages of documents that
included Presidential memos on al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, and
internal DOD memoranda and Justice Department legal documents. We are
getting the documents as fast as they can be gathered and forwarded to
us.
The committee has held five, yes, five full committee meetings thus
far on the detainee hearing. Our sixth hearing, the most substantial we
have planned for to date, was scheduled for the same day as the Reagan
funeral, so we had to reschedule it for July 13, 2004. But that hearing
is going forward and will be an all-day affair, with three separate
panels and some very senior people to talk to us about the detainee
policy and procedures.
Mr. Chairman, we are getting the documents we requested. Let me also
add that, as I said before, we have had a total of 63 different
hearings on this between the Senate and the House on this issue. I
think we are getting excellent cooperation. If we ask much more of
these people on this issue, they will not be able to fight the war on
terrorism; they will have to be here defending their position on this
issue day in and day out.
This amendment is unnecessary, and it would only hurt the brave men
and women who are out there trying to protect us.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind my colleague that we have provided a specific list of
documents that we required that have not been complied with. And as to
giving them to us as quickly as they possibly can, how long does it
take to have somebody copy the interrogation procedures of Guantanamo
Bay and provide them to the committee? It takes at the most maybe a
day, so they have not been forthcoming.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, what is the list the gentleman is referring
to? The letter that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I
have written we have had response to, and we are getting more response.
What list is the gentleman referring to, may I ask?
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, we have a comprehensive list of documents
that have been put together. I will be glad to furnish it to the
chairman.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is this a list
that the committee has taken action on that has not been responded to?
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, this was a list that we compiled of
documents that were promised to us through the hearing process.
Mr. GOSS. May I ask who compiled the list? Who signed this request?
Mr. REYES. It was signed by the committee staff based on questions
that we had and documents that had been provided.
If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend and colleague and
the former ranking member of this committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to rise in support of
the Reyes amendment. I wanted to go back to the Rogers amendment just
for a second, and I wanted to compliment the ranking member for
opposing it.
Mr. Chairman, I served on the committee from 1990 to 1998. There was
an understanding at the end of the Cold War, this was during the first
Bush administration, that we were going to cut Defense by about 30
percent, 33 percent, but intelligence would be protected and held at
about a 10 percent cut. It was believed that everything within this
Defense budget should be reduced at that point in time.
So this was the policy laid down by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
This created the base for us, and when the new administration came into
office in 1993, Jim Woolsey was the head of the CIA, and he felt that
they had to make some contribution. But we protected Intelligence. We
protected it at the time.
So the gentleman's information, the gentleman from Michigan's
information, here is inaccurate; and I think it is too bad, really,
that this is in these findings, because we all want to support the
intelligence community tonight. But I could not support these findings.
I could not ask one single Member of the Democratic Party to support
these findings, because they are inaccurate. They are not correct, and
they are distorted. Also, I thought we had a rule around here that we
are not supposed to disclose intelligence information. I guess
percentages do not count, but saying that the budget was cut a certain
percentage, I think, is a mistake, and to acknowledge that publicly is
a mistake.
So I just wanted to stand up here tonight and say this: the Reyes
amendment is about not getting to the bottom of this. I remember when
my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and I were on
the committee together. We had every investigation imaginable into the
Clinton administration. One could not think up something that we did
not investigate. We went along with that, because we felt that doing
the investigations was the right thing.
Now, on this one, guys, if we do not get to the bottom of this
Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi prison thing, and if we do not insist that we
get the information, I will be up here with a resolution of inquiry to
demand that these Departments disclose this information.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague
for yielding. I guarantee, if the gentleman came up and took a look at
the record of what we are doing, have done and are continuing to do,
you would be proud that the committee is doing oversight properly.
Now, I would also like, if the gentleman will allow me, to quote from
the Director of Central Intelligence a letter.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take back my time. The gentleman
has time on his own now, and he can use his own time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 1 minute remaining and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the right to close.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I strongly support his amendment. I supported it in committee; I
support it now.
We have not had full cooperation from the administration. We have not
had candid testimony from witnesses. I would not say that this is a
petty gesture. I think it is a profound gesture to insist that the
oversight prerogative of our committee be respected and that the rule
of law always apply to the interrogation of prisoners.
{time} 2015
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to remind our
colleagues that Members on both sides of the aisle were exasperated
many, many times
[[Page H4870]]
because if we did not ask the right question or just the exact
question, we were not provided the information that was requested.
Secondly, how many times have we held hearings and the day or weekend
later we open up the newspaper and there is a conflicting story in
there about information that we had been provided in the meeting.
So it is about our responsibility to do our oversight, it is about
our responsibility to do this job right. I urge all Members to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond just to my good friend the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) by giving you a statement that we
just received from the Director of Central Intelligence. I just saw it.
I read it a minute ago. ``The damage done by inattention to the
clandestine service during the first half of the 1990s cannot be
repaired in the blink of an eye. It was severe.''
Now, the problem is you want it both ways. You said it was protected.
Actually, the administration did a pretty good job of trying to protect
the administration. It was the democratically controlled Congress that
cut the budget as we have pointed out earlier in this debate.
I will not defend or get involved in the Rogers amendment right now
because we are talking about another amendment. But I will hold this up
because this is why the problem exists. The promise was broken.
I quote, ``Now that that struggle, the Cold War, is over, why is it
that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' Now, that
kind of statement just before no votes on supporting the intelligence
community happens to have been made by such distinguished Members of
the Congress as Senator John Kerry. That was in May of 1997 from the
Record. I got books full of that stuff. There is no doubt where the
Record is. The Democratic party did not support the intelligence
community.
If I said anything incorrect, I would be very happy to allow my
colleague the opportunity on some other time to correct it, because he
did not allow me to correct that.
But I will say that I think that we have covered the point that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has asked. Is the letter that he is
referring to is the letter that was signed only by minority Members? Is
that the letter my colleague is referring to?
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Dicks
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dicks moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his preferential motion.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take very strong exception to what
the chairman of this committee, who I consider to be a personal friend,
said to attack the Democrats in this House. And I was the ranking
member of this committee for 4 years from 1994 to 1998. And we had
bipartisan support for intelligence. And I think this is wrong to try
to go back now and say after the Cold War was over, and there were some
efforts, and it was first by the Bush administration, to reduce the
money for defense. I mean, Dick Cheney was one of the biggest budget
hawks and cutters on defense. He cut the B-2, he tried to get rid of
the V-22, the F-15, F-16. One can go right down the list.
Colin Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They had what they
called the base force which was one-third less than the size of the
existing force. And as part of this downsizing, the intelligence
community was cut by 10 percent.
That was the policy of the first Bush administration that was
inherited by the Clinton administration. And I must say during the
years that I was on the committee under Dan Glickman as chairman and
Larry Combest and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) as chairman, we
were able to work on a bipartisan basis. And we supported intelligence.
Now, we did not throw money at it. We tried to make sure that we
invested wisely. We had to modernize all of our national technical
means. But this was done on a bipartisan basis.
I am very sorry to see this breakdown this year, for the first time
to see the partisanship enter into this. Because I do not think it is
in the best interest of our Congress or our national security, and
especially at a time when we are in a war-time situation. But to attack
the Democrats, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), I think
is uncalled for.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend his service to the Congress and
to the other body when we were both staffers. And I share his heat. I
was standing on this floor just half an hour ago or so saying we all
got it wrong. Mentioning the fact that starting in the first Bush
administration and continuing in the early part of the Clinton
administration, unfortunately, we disinvested in some critical parts of
our intelligence and defense because we thought the world was safer.
And to see the chairman of this committee, my friend, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), distort the record on the floor of the House
is really surprising to me, stunning to me. I do not believe we on this
side have done that. I think we have fairly shared across many
administrations the mistakes that were made.
As my colleague from Florida has pointed out many times, Mr.
Chairman, what changed at 9/11 was the audience. Then, finally, there
was the political will to act in ways that many of us on a bipartisan
basis thought were the correct ways way before 9/11. I commend the
gentleman from Florida for thinking they were correct before 9/11. But,
sadly, four hours of debate is reaching a very sorry end here.
The facts are the facts. The record should be accurate. And we on
this side are trying to create an accurate record. And one of the
things we have been urging is full funding of counterintelligence in
this budget and that counterintelligence, the facts will show, is not
fully funded.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have to use the time. Again, I just want
to say that during the time I was on the committee, we tried to do the
best we could for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
the intelligence community, we supported it. I am very proud of the
record that was achieved, was done on a bipartisan basis. I hope we can
go back to that.
I know it is painful when your person is in the White House and you
have to defend the administration and you want to fend off all these
investigations, I can just tell my colleague this, we investigated
everything under the sun when Bill Clinton was at the White House
because the majority party insisted on it. Now, when it is their person
as President of the United States, they are not so excited about
investigations and getting all this information. But I think it is
important for the American people that we do get the information, that
we do find out about these detainees, and that we do get in information
in a timely way.
If they are going to stonewall, then we will have to use other
tactics like a resolution of inquiry to get the information from the
Department of Defense.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the motion?
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I did not make any comment or hold up this
quote from the Congressional Record that indicates that Senator Kerry
had doubts about intelligence to be combative or confrontational or to
be insensitive or to in any way offend my colleagues on the other side.
Obviously, people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have
done a fabulous job over the years on a bipartisan basis. When he was
in the majority he did that, and I am certain to say that. My comment
is that when there was opposition to intelligence and year after year
efforts to cut the intelligence budget, they did come from the
Democratic side through the period of the 1990s.
I have the material here. I do not want to bore my colleague with it
or embarrass him with it, but vote after vote after vote. If he would
like to see it, come on over. If he wants me to
[[Page H4871]]
read it into the Record, I will read it into the Record, however he
likes.
The fact is that all the people who knew about intelligence worked
together to make it work. And we succeeded. And that was a good thing.
We did not succeed well enough.
Now, we can argue all day long and say because it was the Democratic
leadership in the House or the Republican leadership in the House or so
forth or because it was President Clinton did not care or did care,
however you are going to characterize it, we could debate that all day
long.
The facts are that the cutting amendments to intelligence came from
the Democratic side of the aisle and were supported over the decade of
the 1990s by large numbers of Democrats. That is all I am trying to
convey.
I thank God for the Democrats who saw the light and supported the
Intelligence Community, as I do now, and I see no reason why we cannot
continue. I was trying to refer, perhaps in a hurried way, to the
Congressional Record. As I say, I am happy to share it. I have no bones
to pick, and I am not trying to create any kind of a firestorm or throw
red meat out to the gentleman from Washington. I do not think this
serves any further purpose. I hope he accepts my explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The preferential motion was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) will
be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 3, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), amendment No. 4
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), amendment No. 5
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), amendment No. 7
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), amendment No. 8
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), amendment No. 9
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and amendment
No. 10 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Boehlert
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 335,
noes 83, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 291]
AYES--335
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--83
Abercrombie
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Emanuel
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCollum
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--15
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kline) (during the vote). Members are
advised they have 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). The Chair would advise Members to
check their votes on the voting board to rule out a potential
discrepancy between one of the voting stations and the board.
[[Page H4872]]
{time} 2055
Mrs. MALONEY, Messrs. NADLER, PASTOR, CONYERS, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs.
CAPPS, Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, ALLEN, NEAL of Massachusetts,
MICHAUD, Ms. DeLAURO, Messrs. THOMPSON of California, LYNCH, BROWN of
Ohio, LEVIN, DOGGETT, TOWNS, STRICKLAND, DELAHUNT, LARSON of
Connecticut, MEEHAN, INSLEE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. RUSH, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms.
ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. VAN HOLLEN, PASCRELL, Ms. SOLIS, Mrs.
NAPOLITANO, Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia, RAHALL, EMANUEL, Ms. MILLENDER-
McDONALD, Ms. BERKELEY, and Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, KANJORSKI and
KLECZKA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SANDLIN, GRAVES, and BAIRD changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 366,
noes 51, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 292]
AYES--366
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--51
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Blumenauer
Capuano
Conyers
Cummings
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--16
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
Linder
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2103
Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 195, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 293]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
[[Page H4873]]
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
Kolbe
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2110
Mr. WEXLER changed his vote from ``aye to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 293, I was
unavoidably detained off the Hill. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Shays
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419,
noes 0, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 294]
AYES--419
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
[[Page H4874]]
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2116
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 343,
noes 76, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 295]
AYES--343
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--76
Aderholt
Akin
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Collins
Culberson
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Granger
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Oxley
Petri
Putnam
Radanovich
Rogers (AL)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Souder
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--14
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2123
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Simmons
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Simmons) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 1, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 296]
AYES--417
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
[[Page H4875]]
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--1
Abercrombie
NOT VOTING--15
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Terry
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2130
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Reyes
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149,
noes 270, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
AYES--149
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Clyburn
Conyers
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--270
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
[[Page H4876]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Weiner
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2137
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4548) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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, pursuant to
House Resolution 686, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the committee of the
whole?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a revote on the Sam Johnson of
Texas amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though our soldiers have
been indicted and the President has released all his records, I would
like to know if we can compare the votes of those who voted for against
those who voted against.
Point of Order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though the President has
released all his records, I would like to ask, would we be able to
compare the votes of those who voted for and those who vote against
now?
Point of Order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair could not hear due to another
inquiry being made from the Chair's right. The gentleman from Texas may
state a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can we take a look and compare
the votes of those who voted for the amendment the first time against
those who voted for the amendment the second time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may take their own cognizance of
such matters.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized on his
point of order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of
order, because the point of order no longer lies, the phraseology
having been withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment on
which a separate vote has been demanded.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment:
At the end of title III (page 11, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION,
AND INTERROGATION OF TERRORISTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
TO THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the people of the
United States were too often brutalized again and again by
deadly terrorist violence, as evidenced by the hundreds of
American deaths in the Beirut and Lockerbie bombings, the
attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of
the Khobar Towers military barracks, the bombing of the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the vicious
attacks on the USS Cole in 2000.
(2) The terrorist violence targeted against the United
States became more emboldened after each attack, culminating
in the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001, which killed thousands of
innocent Americans, including innocent women and children.
(3) Since September 11, 2001, the citizens of the United
States have remained the priority target of terrorist
violence, with journalists and employees of non-governmental
organizations being held hostage, tortured, and decapitated
in the name of terror.
(4) Congress has authorized the President to use all
necessary and appropriate means to defeat terrorism; and on
numerous occasions since September 11, 2001, and throughout
the Global War on Terror, the interrogation of detainees has
yielded valuable intelligence that has saved the lives of
American military personnel and American citizens at home and
abroad.
(5) The interrogation of detainees has also provided highly
valuable insights into the structure of terrorist
organizations, their target selection process, and the
identities of key operational and logistical personnel that
were previously unknown to the Intelligence Community.
(6) The lawful interrogation of detainees is consistent
with the United States Constitution.
(7) The abuses against detainees documented at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq were deplorable aberrations that were not part
of United States policy and were not in keeping with the
finest traditions of the United States military and the
honorable men and women who serve.
(8) The loss of interrogation-derived information would
have a disastrous effect on the Nation's intelligence
collection and counterterrorism efforts and would constitute
a damaging reversal in the Global War on Terror during this
critical time.
(9) The apprehension, detention, and interrogation of
terrorists are essential elements to successfully waging the
Global War on Terror.
(10) The interrogation of detainees can and should continue
by the United States within the bounds of the United States
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the apprehension, detention, and interrogation of terrorists
are fundamental to the successful prosecution of the Global
War on Terror.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make
this a 5-minute vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304,
noes 116, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
AYES--304
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
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
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
[[Page H4877]]
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--116
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Fossella
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2157
Mr. NEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota moves to recommit the bill H.R.
4548 to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of title I (page 8, after line 4), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 105. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO
FULLY FUND THE NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAM.
(a) Increase.--The amounts authorized to be appropriated
under section 101 for the conduct of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the elements listed in
such section for the Contingency Emergency Reserve, as
specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
referred to in section 102, are increased 100 percent, and
such classified Schedule of Authorizations is modified
accordingly.
(b) Use for Counterterrorism Activities of the Intelligence
Community.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the increase in
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) may only
be used for counterterrorism activities of the intelligence
community.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the
committee.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
I want to explain to this House my request for a re-vote on the
Johnson of Texas amendment. Like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson), I believe that interrogations within the rule of law are
essential to protect American lives. However, clause 7 of his
amendment, upon rereading, I think was a bit difficult for many of us.
It says, ``the abuses were not part of United States policy,'' and I
think that statement is premature until we review all of the documents
and get additional testimony on the matter. That is why I requested
another vote.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The motion to recommit includes the 100 percent funding for
counterterrorism that we have talked about on this floor probably more
than some of my colleagues want to hear about. But we are very
concerned about this, and we are offering that again in this motion to
recommit.
I want everybody to be clear what is happening here. We kind of put
the cart before the horse. Yesterday we passed the Defense
appropriation bill, which had the money in it for these items. Today we
are doing the authorization. This is not the way we should be doing
things. We have the cart before the horse, if you will.
One of the reasons that we are doing this on this side is because we
were not really in the loop on these negotiations that took place where
they made the deal between the different committees to come up with
these amounts. The staff was involved in some of the discussions, but
the members were not. We did not get the final thing until about a day
before the markup, and during this process, our staff had told the
other side that we wanted 100 percent funding for counterterrorism, and
it was not in the bill, so we offered this amendment.
{time} 2200
And that is the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. And
folks need to understand that the agencies have come in and asked us
for a certain amount of money for counterterrorism. And what is in this
bill is about one-third of what was asked for.
Now, to go through the list, for example, there is only 5 percent in
this bill for the NRO, 19 percent for NSA, 26 percent for NGA, and 35
percent for the
[[Page H4878]]
CIA. So they put the most money into the CIA, but in this bill, it is
11.1 percent less money in 2005 for the CIA than it was in 2004. So
that is what is in this bill.
Now, obviously, everybody is going to know we are going to have a
supplemental to try to plus that up. But the problem is that these
agencies only have the money for the first 3 or 4 months, and we are
not going to get that supplemental done until later. And there is going
to be a gap. And that is a problem. Because the folks in the country
expect us to be focused on terrorism, to put our emphasis on
counterterrorism. And we do not think this bill gets us to where it
needs to be.
We do not want to be in this position. We try to work these things
out. But, frankly, we did not have the opportunity to work it out the
way it happened through the committee process. So we are here this
evening, asking your support to fund what the agencies say they need so
we have 100 percent of the money available for counterterrorism to do
what needs to be done to protect the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Boswell) who has worked with me on this amendment.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process. I look
over there at people I have a lot of confidence in, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) and many others, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
There are things that we have said that we really have wanted to do
over this process was to plus up the money for counterterrorism, simple
as that.
I say to the chairman, I really thought that would go. I realize he
did not have a lot of warning, but I did not think it took a lot to do.
When we went to the Committee on Rules yesterday, and we made our
presentation there, I said clearly, and the ranking member agreed, I
did not care who got the name on this thing. It did not make any
difference. If the chairman of the Committee on Rules wanted it, we did
not care. But we thought for the good of the country we needed to plus-
up the counterterrorism.
Because the threat is out there. We are told about it all the time.
We think about three major events that are coming up. And I even shared
a little bit with one of my grandchildren what I would do if they
wanted to go to one of those.
Now, the country is in peril. We got a lot going for us, I do not
need to start that argument, but all we wanted to do was to plus-up
counterterrorism and make it more viable and make it happen for the
safety of this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I hope not to use all my time. It is late. We
have had a long day. We have a heavy legislative day tomorrow. I simply
want to give Members my side of this, the committee's side of this.
We have debated extensively. I guess I will start from the point that
we have complaints from the other side of the aisle that we are not
spending enough money in intelligence for the war on terrorism is a
declaration of success that we have succeeded in getting the message
across that we have a war on terrorism that we need it to fund and
intelligence is important.
Because last year we lost a lot of Democrats on the authorization
bill. And this year I hope we do not lose any. Because I can tell my
colleagues about this bill. I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit because the bill takes care of our needs. We do provide for
the funding for the war on terrorism. It exceeds the President's
February request by 16 percent. It exceeds by hundreds of millions, I
cannot tell Members the exact number, but hundreds of millions. It is a
lot of money.
The intelligence appropriation for 2004, 2004 does not end until
October. Even when you include in the 2004 the supplemental, it is
still more. This bill has been coordinated with the House Committee on
Armed Services. We have had testimony to that effect today from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman, the House
Committee on Appropriations; we have had testimony today from the
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and from the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young) of the full committee. Their bills had
bipartisan support. And, as we all know, the bill of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) passed yesterday with strong bipartisan support.
This bill authorizes more funds than the defense appropriations bill,
which was voted on yesterday, but not many more. So there is not a
bunch of hollow dollars in it. There are a few. But I will say that if
you voted yesterday for the appropriation, there is no excuse not to
vote for the authorization today.
Now, when I came out here today, I was a little concerned that my
biggest problem was going to be selling to some of my colleagues that
this is the largest intelligence authorization in history. It is the
largest intelligence authorization in history. It is supported by the
administration as the right bill, it is coordinated properly. We are
prepared to do business with the Senate, which has passed their bill on
a unanimous bipartisan vote. I think we have done our job well. And I
hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can see that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Florida has made
his case. And before we go to vote on this and then into final passage
of this bill, I just wanted to salute the gentleman from Florida. He
has many great years of service as chairman of this committee.
This is the last intelligence authorization that the gentleman from
Florida will handle. He is retiring at the end of this year. We salute
him as a great Member of this body and a great patriot. We thank him
for his service.
Mr. GOSS. I thank the Speaker.
I am sufficiently embarrassed to say I very much appreciate that and
I am going to sit down. I hope that the applause on the other side of
the aisle was for the right reason. And I thank my colleagues, and I
urge support of the bill and oppose the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 224, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
[[Page H4879]]
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2227
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360,
noes 61, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 300]
AYES--360
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--61
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
Matsui
Miller, George
Mollohan
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--13
Bereuter
Berman
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Israel
McDermott
Rangel
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
[[Page H4880]]
{time} 2234
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and Mr. MARKEY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4880
AUTHORIZING CLERK TO MAKE CHANGES IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 4548,
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4548, just passed, that the Clerk be
authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary
to reflect the actions of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
______________
