Congressional Record: December 7, 2004 (House)
Page H10994-H11029
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2845, INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM
PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 870 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 870
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 2845) to reform the intelligence community and the
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, and for other purposes. All points
of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. 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, this is a traditional rule for consideration of the
conference report for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference
report. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered
as read.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and approving
the underlying conference committee report on truly historic reform
legislation, S. 2845.
Mr. Speaker, final passage of this legislation today will be viewed
by many as one of the most noteworthy accomplishments of the 108th
Congress. Playing critical roles in getting us to this point in time
have been the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLAY), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and a
host of others. The American people owe these Members an enormous debt
of gratitude.
A world in which the enemy is easily identifiable has changed. We
face more and more states without solid institutions, national
consciousness and internal cohesion which are providing new threats
such as the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and an increasing
number of nonstate actors such as terrorist networks.
Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, but the last decade has
seen a rise in terrorist networks and their coordination amongst
themselves. Many terrorists groups actively share hostage-taking
tactics, weapons training, and planning techniques with one another.
More than ever the terrorist networks are finding it easier to blend
into society and are becoming harder for intelligence agencies to
track. Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey
put it best when he said, We have slain a large dragon, the U.S.S.R.,
but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of
poisonous snakes. In many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of.
The job of keeping track of these terrorist networks belongs to the
U.S. Intelligence Community, and we thank the CIA and all the other
members of
[[Page H10995]]
our Intelligence Community who make it a vital contribution to our
Nation's security.
More than ever, timely and accurate intelligence is recognized as a
critical weapon in the global war on terrorism. We have already begun
to rebuild our intelligence capabilities, and law enforcement and
intelligence agencies are now working closer together.
As the 9/11 Commission concluded, we are safer today than we were 3
years ago, but we are not safe enough. As such, great changes and
reform are needed. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 before us today will do much to keep America safe, and it is
important that we act to enact this legislation now. Protecting the
American people is the number one priority of this President and the
United States Congress.
This legislation builds on the steps we have already taken since the
attacks of September 11, 2001, and improves our intelligence-gathering
apparatus. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act is a
broad-based approach that seeks to reform our government agencies and
strengthen our Intelligence Community to make them more effective to
address the global terrorist threat.
Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for conference reports. I
urge support for the rule and for the underlying measure.
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, could the attacks of September 11 have
been prevented if someone had connected the dots? Could the war in Iraq
have been avoided if intelligence had been better? I honestly do not
know. But what both situations tragically highlight is one fundamental
truth: Our Nation needs intelligence reform.
The September 11 Commission report released over 5 months ago
outlined the gaps and weaknesses in our current intelligence system. It
also made 41 recommendations to Congress that, if implemented, would
make America safer.
Today the House at long last is poised to consider the conference
report to S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act. This measure
seeks to implement the core intelligence reforms recommended by the 9/
11 Commission and makes significant improvements to emergency
preparedness and aviation and border security.
Since July, Governor Kean and Representative Hamilton have tirelessly
worked to ensure their recommendations are not relegated to the
circular file of history. Throughout the summer, they testified before
congressional committee after congressional committee in the hopes of
building momentum before the third anniversary of the attacks. After
reading their fine report and participating in a hearing with them in
the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I, like most, if not all, of
my Democratic colleagues in the House, endorsed all 41 recommendations.
The Commission report attributed structural weaknesses as partially
to blame for the intelligence failures prior to the 9/11 attacks. A
culture of isolation and separation exists between the 15 intelligence
agencies that must be dismantled if we are to transform the environment
and foster information-sharing among government agencies. We need to
have a strong Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all
intelligence efforts.
It is my understanding that last-minute changes were made to the
conference report. We only received it an hour ago. I sincerely hope
that the final version of this report vests the new Director with the
people and the budget authority necessary to assert control over all 15
intelligence-collection agencies.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the men and women on the front lines in
Iraq and Afghanistan need to be assured that the intelligence they get
is good intelligence. No one in this body would ever agree to reform
our intelligence apparatus in any manner that would undermine our
soldiers.
Today we mark the 63rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Yesterday terrorists opened fire on Americans working in the U.S.
Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. Whatever changes we make cannot be
simply cosmetic. Our Armed Forces, Congress, the President, and the
American people need to have confidence in the quality of their
intelligence.
In the post-September 11 world Americans demand a national
Intelligence Community that works together for the benefit of the
national security, and Congress must act decisively to bring about
those structural reforms. The stakes are very high. There is no room
here for egos. There is no room for turf war. There is no room for
bureaucratic haggling.
The report also closes critical gaps in aviation and border security.
With respect to aviation security, it calls for the deployment of new
explosive-detection screening technologies for carry-on bags and blast-
resistant cargo containers. On border security the report calls for
unmanned aerial vehicles to be placed along the 5,500-mile border
between the United States and Canada, especially in areas far from a
legal port of entry. This is an issue I care deeply about as my western
New York district is a major gateway to Canada, the second busiest at
Niagara Falls, New York.
Ever since the 9/11 Commission recommendations were released in July,
there has been a steady drumbeat of support from my district. Like me,
my constituents believe that an overhaul to the Nation's intelligence
apparatus is critical to the future of this great land, and much of
what is being considered here today will accomplish this vital end.
Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that we could have passed these
reforms months ago, but the leadership did not want to act. Now, today,
they want us to consider the report under martial law, even though
Democrats have been ready to act for months. Moreover, if Democrats had
not insisted on a recorded vote to correct a taxpayer privacy provision
in the omnibus bill, Congress would not have returned to Washington,
and this bill would not have passed before adjournment.
Democrats have worked hard to make the country safer, and we look
forward to working with the new Director of National Intelligence to do
everything we can to make sure this tragedy is never repeated.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an active debate on this critical
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Atlanta, Georgia
(Mr. Linder) for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support both of this rule and the conference report.
This has been one of the most difficult conferences that we have ever
gone through, and I want to say at the outset that I want to
congratulate my two colleagues who led this, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) from the House side, and our Senate colleagues, Senator Collins
and Senator Lieberman who provided leadership there.
We had two bills the likes of which I had never seen such a major
disparity. H.R. 10, which emerged from this House, is one which I was
very proud to support. It included very important national security
provisions, very important provisions as it relates to immigration and
the problems that we saw with the deficiencies that led to what took
place on September 11 of 2001. I believe that the Senate measure
consisted solely of those provisions that emerged from the good work of
the 9/11 Commission.
I happen to believe that H.R. 10 was a much better piece of
legislation than the one that we have ultimately ended up with here
today.
{time} 1645
I will say this. I do believe that we have come a long way towards
taking steps that will ensure that we do not see another September 11
and that we have in place a structure which will ensure that we have
the intelligence capability to deal with conflicts on the
[[Page H10996]]
ground, wherever they exist in the world.
We know from having met with the family members of the victims of
September 11 that this is a very emotional issue. This has been an
emotional issue for all of us because, as we all know, we lost friends
on September 11. A plane went down a few miles from here into the
Pentagon, and we have heard, of course, from our colleagues who
represent New York and Pennsylvania of the loss there. I would like to
point to the fact that, tragically, all of those planes that took off
were headed to my State of California on September 11. So we have all
felt this.
The families appeared at the first meeting we had of this conference,
and we were all moved by the extraordinarily strong statements that
they made to us as we were preparing to meet there, and that is why the
work of this conference has been so important.
I want to congratulate the other House conferees who worked hard on
this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is sitting right
here, and while he is going to support the rule, I know that he has
chosen not to support the conference report. I will say, Mr. Speaker,
that the concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
has as it relates to the conference report are concerns that I share
right down the line.
A year ago last August, I was asked to join in leading the charge for
an effort to recall the Governor of California and to help Arnold
Schwarzenegger get elected Governor of California. One of the main
issues of that campaign was the fact that driver's licenses were ending
up in the hands of people who are here illegally, and they were used
fraudulently, and that is a real problem, and it is a real problem when
it comes to security.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has been a great
champion, and I have been pleased and proud to stand with him in our
attempt to ensure that we do provide standards as it relates to
driver's licenses because, again, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) pointed out in our conference this morning, Mohamed Atta
was using a fraudulent driver's license and was simply pulled over for
a traffic violation and told to appear in court. That would have been
after what he did on September 11, when he was one of those flying the
planes into the World Trade Center towers.
It also is, I think, very important for us to do everything we can to
secure our southern border, and my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose), who is going to be presiding over the sine die
adjournment of the 108th Congress later today or this evening, is a
person who offered an amendment to H.R. 10 which was designed to
complete a 3\1/2\ mile gap that exists in the 14-mile fence which was
put in during the Clinton administration with the support of Bill
Clinton, in a bipartisan way, with strong support here in the House and
the Senate, and it has been successful, with the exception of a 3\1/2\
mile gap that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Tijuana estuary.
I know we are all concerned about environmental quality, and I am
very concerned about the environment, and it has been an environmental
issue that has led to the delay in completion of that fence. The
presence of something known as the Bell's vireo bird nesting on that
fence has prevented completion of it. So, yes, we are all concerned
about the environment, but the real tragedy to me is the fact, and I
just flew over it a few weeks ago, the environment is plundered in this
area because of illegal border crossings. The fact that we are seeing
that area environmentally damaged because of that gap, it seems to me
that we need to look at that. Unfortunately, it is not included in this
measure, but I chose to sign this conference report and am supporting
this conference report today based on the fact that we are, in the
first must-pass piece of legislation we have in the 109th Congress,
going to have the opportunity to include these very important
immigration issues.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has done a great
job. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) did a great job. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) worked hard on this as well. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my colleague, has focused on
this very important chain-of-command issue, and I believe that he has
been right in pursuing it.
We are at an extraordinary time in our history. My colleague from
Rochester just mentioned the fact that today is the 63rd anniversary of
the tragic bombing that took place in Pearl Harbor; 2,400 lives were
lost there. We know that 3,000 plus lives were lost on September 11,
2001. Earlier today we saw the inauguration of the first democratically
elected President in the history of Afghanistan, and that could not
have come about, Mr. Speaker, were it not for strong, bold, dynamic
leadership on the part of the United States of America.
The United States of America is the only Nation on the face of the
Earth, the only Nation, that can effectively deal with the kinds of
challenges that we have. We have not done it unilaterally. It is not
doing it unilaterally today. We have never done it unilaterally. We
have done it with strong and building international coalitions. We will
continue to do that.
Passage of this legislation is simply a first step. It is a first
step, and that is the reason that I have chosen not to turn my back on
it and to get as much as we possibly can as we go down this road
towards doing even more to have a National Intelligence Director, and
make sure that that individual is strong and able to deal with
intelligence issues and to deal with the overall national and border
security questions that we have.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues again for the time and energy
and effort they have put in these past weeks and now months to come to
this point. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker
Hastert) and the President of the United States for the leadership that
they have shown in getting us to where we are today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New
York for yielding me the time to address this very critical and
important issue.
This bill has come about as a result of a very labored process, and
should it pass here today, which I assume it will, we should not
deceive ourselves into believing that we have accomplished the
objective that is necessary to accomplish in order to secure the
security of the people of the United States.
Getting good intelligence and having a good intelligence arrangement
is one thing, but the use of that intelligence, the interpretation of
that intelligence, the honest use of that intelligence is yet another
thing.
The intelligence agency must be an objective analyzer of secret and
complex information, not just a tool of the White House. The
intelligence agency must serve the interests of the Nation as a whole,
not serve the President politically.
It is increasingly obvious how the administration twisted and
tortured and distorted intelligence to support their decision to go to
war in Iraq. This bill does not solve that problem. It is up to the
membership of this House to deal with that issue, and the issue has not
yet been dealt with. We have not exercised the proper oversight to
determine why and in what ways the intelligence was distorted.
We need to secure the people of this country. The 9/11 Commission and
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report tells us that prior to
the attack of September 11, the administration had been warned dozens
of times that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United
States, but this administration failed to act on those warnings. Why?
This House has not exercised the appropriate oversight to understand
why the intelligence was not used by the administration the way it
should have been used.
The administration insisted on focusing its attention elsewhere,
including its obsession with Iraq prior to and after the attack of
September 11.
Paul Wolfowitz, for example, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and his
Under Secretary for Policy argued that there was a terrorist alliance
between the Hussein regime in Iraq and al Qaeda, despite the fact that
intelligence reports showed that no such alliance existed. Why was that
the case, and why has this House not exercised
[[Page H10997]]
its oversight responsibilities to determine why we were deceived and
the American people were deceived?
The same is true concerning the missing Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. We were told over and over and over again by everyone
across the administration, President, Vice President, Secretary of
Defense, National Security Adviser, in fact, the President right here
in this room from the podium behind me talked about weapons of mass
destruction and even gave us the vision of a mushroom cloud, suggesting
very clearly that there were atomic weapons that could be used. Why
have we not exercised our oversight responsibilities to determine why
that information was missing?
So that is the issue that we ought to be confronting not just today,
but as we go into the next Congress, confronting that issue in the way
it needs to be addressed.
Yes, it is fine to reform the intelligence procedures and
administration, restructure them, modernize them, make them perhaps
more compatible than they may have been with present-day needs, improve
the communication between one and another. That is one thing, and maybe
this bill will do that.
But why has the leadership of this House not asked these questions?
Why have hearings not been held? Why have the oversight
responsibilities of the leadership of the House not been exercised
appropriately in the way in which the Constitution requires they be
exercised?
At no time in the history of our country have we gone to war with
another Nation based on information so badly misinterpreted, twisted,
distorted and misrepresented. This House has an obligation to find out
why that was done, why we have lost so many lives of American
servicemen and women on the basis of that twisted, distorted,
misrepresented information.
Even today, when we are told that everything is going fine in Iraq,
we are learning from the intelligence agencies and learning it in ways
that are indirect, even surreptitious, that the situation in Iraq is
deteriorating, that the opposition there is increasing. In spite of the
fact that our servicemen were successful in Fallujah, nevertheless the
insurgency is growing stronger. That is what we are being told by the
intelligence agencies. We are told that indirectly. We do not get it
directly from the administration. They want a different picture to be
painted entirely, and this is what our responsibility is as Members of
the House of Representatives, to find out why this conflict exists and
why we are not getting to the bottom of it.
Why, when we are told things by the administration and later found
out that they are completely untrue, are we just to accept it, gloss
over it, pretend it did not happen? That seems to be the attitude that
has been taken by the majority here. It ought not to be. If we were
living up to our obligations, under the separation of powers, the
obligations in the Constitution, we would be adequately exercising our
oversight obligations and responsibilities on the issue of the way in
which this intelligence was misrepresented, distorted, tortured, and
why we are in the situation we are in today as a result.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 9/11 conference
report being considered.
I have had the privilege of serving on the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence thanks to the appointment from the gentleman from
Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for 6 years, and I want to stipulate for the
record that a number of reforms have taken place long before the 9/11
Commission was appointed, long before the 9/11 Commission report was
issued.
Immediately following what took place in New York and Washington and
the loss of 3,000 American lives, President Bush and his team and the
Congress put together a homeland security agency that combined 22
agencies at a cost of $40 billion. We created a TSA agency at all major
airports at a cost of $5.2 billion. Every airport is now secure, and
people do feel safe flying.
{time} 1700
We gave the airline industry $15 billion to secure airplanes and
cockpits, and now airplanes are safe to fly.
We enacted the PATRIOT Act, which now allows law enforcement agencies
all over the country to communicate with one another and has allowed
law enforcement officials to arrest people in this country who are
terrorists in Buffalo, New York, and Portland, Oregon, who were here
for no other purpose than to hurt Americans.
We contributed between $20 billion and $40 billion to the City of New
York to clean up what took place there after the 9/11 bombings and also
to compensate families for the loss of their loved ones. We created the
TTIC agency within the CIA and the FBI, and we created JTTFs, Joint
Terrorism Task Forces, in every major city so that there is
communication. Under Director Mueller, the FBI has been organized and
is doing a marvelous job.
We invaded Afghanistan, brought down al Qaeda at a cost of $18
billion, and a new president has been sworn in as of today. We invaded
Iraq, brought down Saddam Hussein; and the people there, for the first
time, have an opportunity and a chance to vote for their own leadership
in January.
The bottom line is this: the last 3 years, since America has been
attacked, have been years when the country has not been attacked. The
President deserves credit. We deserve credit here in Congress for the
work we have done to create these opportunities to fight terrorism. We
have not neglected our responsibilities, and we have not been sitting
around on our hands waiting for some recommendation from some
commission.
A thousand new FBI agents have been authorized and a thousand new CIA
agents have been authorized, and many of them are being hired. There is
a lot better communication between the CIA and the FBI today and the
executive branch of government.
I believe creating a National Intelligence Directorate is a huge
mistake. It is another bureaucracy. It is another layer of government.
It would not have prevented 9/11, and it will not prevent another 9/11.
We are fooling ourselves by creating this kind of public policy and
trying to lead people to believe that when we pass this bill today
America will be safer or America would have been safe prior to 9/11. It
will not happen.
We are going to create a monster that will not really inhibit the
ability of terrorists. We are going to have another terrorist attack.
This will not prevent it, and I urge my colleagues to read the bill and
look at the bill and think long and hard about the idea of creating
some sort of other bureaucracy on top of everything else, because I
just think it will not work.
We have done good work in the House, in the Senate, and with the
President's leadership have really done a good job in combating
terrorism. This bill is not good public policy. I hope Members will
look at it. I think it is the wrong approach, and that is why I oppose
it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and for her leadership.
Right after 9/11, the Congress had never been more united and
determined to work together in a bipartisan way to keep America safe
from further attacks. We got a great deal done in a short period of
time. It was a proud moment in this body's history. Unfortunately, it
did not last long enough. But today, the last act of this session of
Congress, passing this intelligence reform and anti-terrorism bill,
will be a heartening reminder to the American people that the two
parties can work together and live up to the ideal that was so often
repeated after 9/11: united we stand.
Mr. Speaker, 9/11 made the Cold War politics of containment obsolete.
We all knew we had to change and modernize our intelligence network to
be more agile, more proactive, to connect the dots across the agencies
in order to protect and anticipate attacks. That is the kind of network
that our new intelligence director will be able to lead. This is a true
anti-terrorism bill that will harden our borders, tighten our visa
restrictions, and strengthen our first responders: air, cargo, and
transport security.
[[Page H10998]]
The next Congress still needs to pass key recommendations to
strengthen our security, but this is a big step forward. I want to
thank the President, the minority leader, the Speaker and his Chief of
Staff, Scott Palmer, for their dogged efforts to give this country this
wonderful holiday gift.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for his willingness to
find a middle ground, and I want to thank my colleagues in the House
and Senate who played critical roles in this passage: the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), Senator Collins
and Senator Lieberman, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Ultimately, however, this is not our moment. This moment belongs to
the family members of the 9/11 victims, many of whom are with us
tonight in this Chamber. For more than 3 years they fought to turn
personal tragedy into public service. By sheer force of will they made
today's results inevitable by persevering when it seemed impossible.
They held vigils in the rain, they bowled over bureaucracies, they
courageously channeled their pain. Without them, there would have been
no 9/11 Commission and probably no major intelligence reform bill.
I saw a number of 9/11 families last night alone at a White House
vigil, their loved ones claimed by al Qaeda. As I stood there with my
husband, it drove home the fact that they did not do this for
themselves, but to ensure that all of us will never lose loved ones to
terrorism. I would like to recognize their ultimate act of service and
to thank them, especially Carol Ashley, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty
Casazza, Beverly Ecckert, Mary Fetchet, Monica Gabrielle, Bill Harvey,
Mindy Kleinberg, Carie Lemack, Sally Regenhard, Lori Van Auken and
Robin Wiener. Today, their words are much more important than mine.
Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record their personal statements, in
their own words, in support of this legislation.
An Open Letter to Members of the 108th Congress on the 9/11 Bill
Conference Report
December 7, 2004.
Dear Members of Congress: You have at last reached
consensus on a bill that will implement the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations. A vote on the Conference Report appears
imminent. We believe this conference report accomplishes our
main goal, which was to fix our nation's broken intelligence
system.
The passage of these reforms marks a critical point in a
long, three-year journey. We started as a diverse group of 12
individuals representing a number of 9/11 family groups who
shared a common loss. Our goals was to make our country
safer. Although at times our resolve was sorely tested, the
12 of us have remained steadfast refusing to ever give up.
Having reached this critical junction, we want to
acknowledge the many individuals who have helped us. We thank
all of the Members of Congress who voted for the
establishment of an independent 9/11 Commission. We thank the
ten 9/11 Commissioners who acted in a truly bipartisan manner
and produced a report whose 41 recommendations became a
roadmap for today's Conference Report.
We would also like to thank the individuals who have made
today's votes possible. In particular, we want to acknowledge
the leadership of President Bush, Speaker Hastert, Leader
Pelosi, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle. We
would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Conference
Chairman, Pete Hoekstra as well as the other principal
conferees Susan Collins, Jane Harman and Joseph Lieberman.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the hard work of the 9/
11 Commission Caucus led by Congressman Christopher Shays and
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.
While we thank you for your work on this historic
legislation, we must keep in mind that more work needs to be
done. One critical issue is reorganizing Congress so our
intelligence agencies will have the oversight required to
ensure it is doing its job. We look forward to working with
you in the 109th Congress, to help enact the remaining
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, and to make
our country as safe as possible for this generation and
generations to come.
Signed,
Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25; Kristen
Breitweiser, wife of Ronald Breitweiser, 39; Patty
Casazza, wife of John F. Casazza, 38; Beverly Eckert,
wife of Sean Rooney; Mary Fetchet, mother of Bradley
James Fetchet, 24; Monica Gabrielle, wife of Richard
Gabrielle; Bill Harvey, husband of Sara Manley Harvey,
31; Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg, 39; Carie
Lemack, daughter of Judy Larocque; Sally Regenhard,
mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28; Lorie
Van Auken, wife of Kenneth Van Auken, 47; Robin Wiener,
sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
conference report. The House-passed bill not only reformed our
intelligence community, it also secured our borders. Unfortunately, the
conference has left us with an incomplete product that does not secure
our border and, thus, makes us more vulnerable to another terrorist
attack.
At the beginning of this process I said that the object of this
legislation should be to prevent a future attack on the United States,
not to manage the consequences of that attack. This bill does not do
that. And the reason it does not do that is that while we will have
better intelligence, good intelligence is useless without good homeland
security.
The House bill followed the 9/11 Commission's common-sense
recommendation that we have Federal standards for driver's licenses.
The commission said, ``For terrorists, travel documents are as
important as weapons.'' Despite many attempts to keep these weapons
away from terrorists, the bill does not do the job.
In fact, the language in the conference report is worse than the
current law, and it practically invites terrorists to come into our
country and to apply for these critical identification documents. There
is no enforcement or certification at the national level. There is no
expiration of the licenses when the visas expire. There is no data-
sharing between the States. And any State can simply walk away from the
few requirements that are in the bill. That does not sound like
driver's license reform to me. Rather it sounds like a recipe for
disaster, the same kind of disaster that occurred on 9/11.
Remember that the 9/11 hijackers had multiple validly issued State
driver's licenses among them, and that is how they got on the
airplanes. That is what we were trying to stop by changing the
provisions in the conference report, and I regret that we failed. But I
can assure you that this issue is not going to go away.
We have also failed on asylum reform. Many terrorist aliens have
applied for asylum and then have been released from detention to plot
or commit their crimes. That must stop, and the provisions in the House
bill would have done that, but they too were dropped.
Terrorists are getting asylum today for two main reasons. First, our
government cannot even ask foreign governments what evidence they have
about terrorist activities of asylum applicants. Thus, the U.S.
Government must usually oppose asylum requests by arguing that the
applicant is lying. The Ninth Circuit has effectively barred
immigration judges from denying asylum claims on the basis of the
credibility of witness statements. That is crazy, because every jury in
the country judges the credibility of the witnesses in determining the
guilt or innocence of the defendant. The House bill would have stopped
that and removed that bar. The conference report does not.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit has been granting asylum to applicants
because their home government believes they are terrorists. It then
says, therefore they are being persecuted because of the political
beliefs of the relevant terrorist organizations. That is goofy. The
House stopped it, but the Senate would not go along; and the conference
report fails to deal with this issue.
These provisions are not too controversial. They are not irrelevant.
They are vital. And how could we face grieving families in the future
and tell them that while we might have done more, the legislative
hurdles were just too high? I, for one, cannot, and, therefore, oppose
the bill.
I have heard from many citizens from my district and across the
country who understand and want these provisions, and I thank them for
their support. I want to say to them, and to everyone else that is
listening, I will not rest
[[Page H10999]]
until these provisions are enacted into law. I will bring them up
relentlessly until this job is completed. The bill was a chance to
complete the job, and that chance was missed; but it will come again
soon.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to two of my fellow conferees,
the gentlemen from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier). The chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I think did
yeoman's work in cleaning up the problems with the chain of command in
order to protect our warfighters in the field and reduce casualties,
and the bill is an improvement over what was passed by the other body
on this. But that only applies to safety of troops overseas. It does
not deal with the issue of safety of Americans at home.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) in particular, were instrumental in trying to
support the driver's license and asylum reform provisions as well as
plugging the hole in the fence that needs to be plugged to prevent
aliens from streaming across the border. We ought to vote this down and
start over next year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and commend her service on the Committee on Rules. I rise to make
clear that I will not object to this rule waiving any points of order
which might lie against the conference report, a report that I strongly
support.
I will be speaking about the content of the bill once we move to
consideration of the conference report, where I will be managing the
time on our side, but I did want to rise to comment on some of the
claims that have been made in the debate so far, especially the claims
just made by the powerful and passionate chairman of the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
I would point out to our colleagues that the conference report, which
was the product of 3 months of intense negotiation, does contain
immigration reforms. All of the conferees, to my knowledge, believe
that immigration reform is necessary; and all of the conferees, and I
hope all of our colleagues, understand that our goal here is to make
certain that our immigration system does not enable terrorists to get
on airplanes or otherwise to harm our citizens. That is why in this
bill many of the suggestions made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and many of the provisions in the House bill were
accepted.
For example, the bill provides for 10,000 more border guards over 5
years. Ten thousand. It provides 4,000 more border inspectors over 5
years. It provides for 40,000 more detention beds over 5 years. These
are beds that will be used by those who might be deported.
So our point is that we want the immigration laws to work better. We
want to make sure that we know who is coming into our country, not just
at our southern border but also at our northern border. Most of us are
well aware that attempts to harm our country have come to us across our
northern border as well as our southern border. Indeed, one such
attempt was foiled just before the millennium, when a man trying to get
to Washington State from Canada was, fortunately, intercepted by an
adroit Customs agent. He was driving a rental car full of bomb material
intending to bomb LAX, a major international airport surrounded by my
congressional district.
{time} 1715
So, Mr. Speaker, I get this. Our borders are porous, and we need to
make them more secure. This bill does that.
In addition to that, this bill adds to our law enforcement tools,
addressing other issues with which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) was concerned. We toughen the penalties for terrorist
hoaxes. We create a new set of penalties for those who would use
shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down airplanes. We toughen the
penalties for material support of terrorists, and we add a provision
which enables us to punish the ``lone wolf'' terrorist, someone acting
alone, as Timothy McVeigh did, to harm our citizens.
The bottom line here is this carefully structured, bipartisan,
bicameral conference report does deal with these issues, as well as the
chain of command, which many of us felt was adequately protected in
current law, but which we addressed again to make sure everyone
understood we were dealing with it. The point I want to make is we took
these issues on, we came to the best resolution we could. This rule
permits us to vote finally on what I think is the best possible
conference report we could have developed under all of the
circumstances. It deals with the valid concerns of the families who
lost loved ones on 9-11, and it honors those they lost. I urge support
of this rule. I will rise later and urge support of the conference
report.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think a lot of Members
will thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for introducing
the legislation that actually identified the National Intelligence
Director well before the 9/11 Commission met to deliberate on this
particular subject matter.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Illinois ticked down
through the issues which have been successful in our addressing
terrorists and the fact it has been 3 years since a successful
terrorist attack in the United States, due in large part to the changes
illustrated by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
One thing he did not go into in real depth is the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, TTIC. That really is in its functionality, the
function of the National Intelligence Director and the organization
that puts all 15 agencies under one roof, requires them to work
together, and there has been no discussion about their effectiveness,
but there has certainly been a record of that effectiveness. I think we
have taken steps down that road.
I would point out when we establish a National Intelligence Director,
we are creating a formula for groupthink. It is not the opposite. If
you put someone at the top of an organization and give them hiring and
firing control, pretty soon they start to carve those square pegs into
round holes, and they will toe the mark, or they will find some folks
that will. The people in my office think like I do. The people in other
Members' offices think like they do because it is top-down management.
It produces groupthink, it does not avoid groupthink. Doing something
different and expecting it to be better just because it is different is
not a high standard of logic. It takes more to defend this issue and to
give this National Intelligence Director this control.
The history of success in intelligence in America and throughout all
of history has been nonlinear thinking, creative out-of-the-box people
who broke the mold and got into the minds of the people who they were
up against. They were outside-of-the-box thinkers who flew those planes
into us on September 11, and they are out there scheming today. We need
a creative system to be able to address that.
With regard to border control, I associate myself with the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), and particularly his
relentless attitude to bring these issues before this country over and
over until we do get it right.
Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of the methamphetamine in the State of Iowa
comes across the Mexican border. How much anthrax does it take to mix
into some methamphetamine to cause a disease all across America and
cause that kind of catastrophe?
To strike out the fence down between San Diego and Tijuana, something
this Congress has addressed several times, why has the Senate and why
has the resistant Members of the conference committee not gone back to
the Senate and said, accept the House changes? These are reasonable
changes that are good for intelligence and good for immigration and
border security. Instead, go back and look at the 19 terrorists that
did attack this country, and I challenge Members to name one of them
that would not be here today if
[[Page H11000]]
we were able to pass this bill that is before us.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 48 hours ago the departing
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, gave the
American public a wakeup call by telling them that their food and water
supply is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It is clear that the 9/11
bill is long overdue because the question is about good human
intelligence and coordination amongst U.S. intelligence agencies.
It is important to tell the truth to the American people that the 9/
11 terrorists did not get drivers' licenses illegally, they were legal
immigrants, they had legal documents. Not having a drivers' license
would not have stopped 9/11. They came in with legal immigration
documents.
The real reason for this bill is to get a Director of National
Intelligence to be able to give to the American people and all of those
who provide for homeland security the human intelligence to have us
thwart terrorists and protect ourselves against attacks by terrorists.
I would argue that this bill is long overdue, and I thank the 9/11
families. We owe them our greatest debt of gratitude. Tonight we will
pass this bill. I thank them so very much. I thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
for standing steadfast. I thank members of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security for understanding the difference for fighting for
real, comprehensive immigration reform, which we need to do and will do
in a fair and balanced manner. But what we need to do now is to say to
you your loss will never be forgotten, we will always be reminded of
your sacrifices, and tomorrow we will have a bill that will instill and
install a Director of National Intelligence whose ears will be
listening. And as they listen, they will be able to find out who is
coming across the southern and northern borders, who is tampering with
our water supply, and who is tampering with our food supply.
The question now is that of getting this bill passed even in the
lateness of the hour. I am gratified that we did resolve the issue of
military chain of command, but I knew that was going to be taken care
of because it was already in the bill, and as to drivers' licenses, we
do have standards for drivers' licenses because that language is in the
bill, even so that is a State issue that we can address later. Also we
cannot address immigration reform piecemeal as was attempted. We must
do it in a comprehensive manner. So this bill is ready for a vote.
I ask my colleagues to support this rule, and I ask my colleagues to
support this bill. My hat is off to those families and my greatest
sympathy goes to those families who lost loved ones on 9/11, and those
who lost their lives. Again I say we are sorry, we are sorry. This bill
must be passed today for the good of America.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because on
September 11, 2001, 19 men, all of whom either entered our country
illegally, overstayed their visas or obtained fraudulent visas, boarded
four airplanes and used them as bombs to kill thousands of our
citizens. The primary identification document that allowed them to
board those airplanes were State drivers' licenses. Nothing in this
bill would prevent those hijackers from using those same drivers'
licenses to board those same airplanes and to repeat the events of 9/
11.
If we do everything else to tighten our security and do not close
this loophole, we have intentionally ignored the event that brings us
to this day.
Some will say let us deal with it next year. I ask, Why not now? Why
not simply be honest with the American people and tell them we just do
not have the political will to take those drivers' licenses out of the
hands of would-be terrorists?
Do we think terrorists are going to play fair? Do we think terrorists
do not know they will continue to be able to obtain drivers' licenses
without proving lawful entry into this country?
Instead of getting tough on terrorists, this bill actually has some
built-in rewards. Yes, if you illegally enter this country, we cannot
deport you based on the same evidence that would have denied your entry
into this country if you asked us for permission to come in. What is
the reverse logic of that? It is like telling a burglar we are not
going to open our door and let you in our house, but if you break in,
we are going to give you free room and board.
Some say this is a bill that is tough on terrorists, even though the
death penalty has been removed as a punishment, even if they use an
atomic weapon or release the smallpox virus. Maybe the logic of that is
that terrorists do not really fear death, so why subject them to the
death penalty for their acts. And, if they happen to have qualified for
Federal benefits, they can still draw their Social Security while they
are serving their Federal prison term.
Mr. Speaker, the next time Members are standing in a line with other
American citizens at the airport as they are going through a body
search or somebody rifling through their baggage, just hope they do not
ask you if the associates of Osama bin Laden could still get on an
airplane using those same fraudulent drivers' licenses, because the
answer is yes. Do Members really feel more secure?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the 9/11 Commission
bill. Let me begin by thanking the leadership on both sides of the
aisle for their hard work. I want to thank the members of the 9/11
Commission for their work on a bipartisan basis, and of course I want
to thank the families from the 9/11 incident for their work as the
driving force behind this bill.
On September 11, 30 of my constituents were killed in attacks; 4 died
on American Airlines Flight Number 77, and 26 died in the Pentagon. The
term ``national security'' is not an amorphous one for my constituents.
In Prince George's County and Montgomery County, the Fourth
Congressional District, we live and work in the Nation's Capital, a
prime target for terrorists. This is why I have strongly urged my
colleagues to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations since their
release in July.
Let me be clear. This conference report is not a panacea, and, yes,
additional work needs to be done. But the status quo in our
intelligence infrastructure is unacceptable. I heard one of my
colleagues say we should not vote for this bill because it would create
groupthink. Groupthink is what we have had. This bill is designed to
address that concern and change it.
The report makes clear that had the United States intelligence
agencies communicated with each other, they could have connected the
dots and disrupted the 9/11 attacks. In response, this bill addresses
the recommendations of the Commission to prevent another attack and
rightly creates a National Intelligence Director. The position would
have budget authority to end the power struggle between the 15
disparate Federal agencies that are now engaged.
Currently, 80 percent of the intelligence budget falls under the
Department of Defense, not the Central Intelligence Agency or the other
13 agencies. As a result, we do not have the level of coordination that
we should. The National Intelligence Director with authority over
budget will address this.
Additionally, this bill bolsters transportation security by directing
the Department of Homeland Security to develop a national strategy for
transportation security. The bill adds 10,000 Border Patrol agents and
400 Customs agents over the next 5 years, as well as testing pilotless
surveillance planes to safeguard our borders.
The bill is not a panacea, but let me emphasize, we should not make
the perfect the enemy of the good. This bill is a good start. I urge
its passage.
[[Page H11001]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would ask Members to
kindly observe the time allotted and the gavel.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in favor
of the intelligence reform legislation that the House will consider in
a few moments.
Real reform of the Intelligence Community has been sorely needed, and
building upon the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and through a
thorough negotiation within Congress, we have a piece of legislation
that I believe will go a long way toward making the people of our
Nation safer. But I stand supporting this legislation knowing that more
can be done to protect people in high-density, high-threat areas, like
those in my home State of New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, the people of New Jersey deeply know the threat of
terrorism. We have suffered through terrorist attacks and live daily
with the possibility of future attacks. New Jersey is the most densely
populated State in the Nation, and at least a dozen sites within our
State have been placed on the FBI's National Critical Infrastructure
List.
The security of New York City and New Jersey is inextricably
intertwined. Each year, 212 million vehicles traverse our States'
tunnels, bridges and ferries, which must be protected by both New
Jersey and New York.
Of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's three airports,
the busiest by far is Newark International Airport.
Nearly 60 percent of all containerized maritime cargo processed by
all North Atlantic ports goes through the Port of New York and New
Jersey, and the vast majority of the cargo flows through New Jersey's
docks onto our rails, through our tunnels and onto our roads.
{time} 1730
Overall, 450,000 people commute from New Jersey to Lower Manhattan
every day. And New Jersey and New York's first responders, our fire and
EMT and police, have had a mutual-aid pact since the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing, sharing experience and helping in times of need to
protect our entire metropolitan area.
States like New Jersey are on the front lines of the fight for
homeland security. It distresses me to hear that language that would
have given States like New Jersey a more accurate allocation of
funding, based on population and threat, was taken out by the bill's
conferees in the conference committee.
I am looking forward to working in the next Congress with the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who has led the fight
for increased funding for high-threat, high-population areas by
creating the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the over 170 Members
that have voted in support of the UASI program earlier this year to
push for a logical approach to allocating security dollars based on
threat and population.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report that the rule
looks at and I want to focus on what I believe are some misconceptions,
particularly in the context of immigration provisions. Even though this
bill is about intelligence and reforming our intelligence process,
nothing stops the Congress from considering any other provision of law
necessary to protect the American people. If we want to use it as a
process to unravel what is trying to be done in intelligence reform,
that is another issue. The fact of the matter is that this report
actually has an enormous amount of immigration-related provisions. It
has over 100 pages of the bill with 43 sections of immigration-related
provisions in the conference report. If enacted into law, these 43
sections, 100-plus pages of provisions, would implement all of the 9/11
Commission's formal immigration-related recommendations.
On the driver's license issue that is often referred to, all of the
19 hijackers had documents to enter the country legally in the first
place. Therefore, stopping them from entering legally is a critical
issue, and that has been part of previous reforms that have taken
place. Plus, the conference report establishes tough new Federal
standards on the issues of State driver's licenses without creating a
national driver's license and gives States the powers to continue to
enforce, including insisting on in-person identification to receive a
driver's license.
Lastly, on the question of asylum, the comments that are constantly
made about gaming the asylum system were before the reforms that took
place. In 1996, an expedited removal system was established that has
required aliens arriving at a U.S. port of entry without proper
documentation to be detained and demonstrate a credible fear of
persecution before they could bring even their asylum claim before an
immigration judge. As I have said before, if we know a terrorist is in
our possession, I do not want to deport them and let them try to do
harm again to the United States. I want to arrest them, I want to
imprison them, I want to send them to jail; but I do not want to send
them back to go ahead and have another shot at us.
And at the same time, I want those people who truly come to the
United States because we have given asylum to people who are oppressed
from religious and other entities to have their shot. So it is the
immigration provisions that were reformed in 1996 and thereafter that
ensure that people cannot game the asylum provisions in order to do
harm to the United States.
Finally, as the Catholic bishops say, if you look at the 100-plus
pages and the 40 different sections, this is a major, significant
rewrite of the immigration law as it is in an intelligence bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I hear in the Chamber about the 9/11
families. Our hearts go out to them. But our hearts also go out to the
men and women we lose every day overseas in the military. Those losses
are also felt. We owe the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) our
gratitude for making this bill and those people safer.
I disagree with my colleague that just spoke. The bill without the
immigration provisions puts this country at great risk. Unfortunately,
if we do not vote for this bill that has other good provisions, by
voting against this bill you put this country at great risk. We have a
pledge from the Speaker, and his word is gold to both sides of the
aisle, that we will address these issues in January. And for the other
body, they better be ready for us to camp out at their front door,
because we are coming. And unless they bring this up, you are going to
have a mass of people fighting for these immigration issues. It is
wrong.
We had in the House a 4-mile section of fence that stops illegals
from coming across the border. Because of environmental concerns, the
chairman on the Senate side took that out. The illegals come through
there like a venturi tube. Go there and look. It is all beaten down. It
is terrible for the environment. But yet it is an issue for them. And
the chairman in the other body disregarded that because of environment
and disregarded the security of this country. That person should have
never been chairman on the other body to start with and let alone deny
the gentleman from Virginia in the military on that conference.
We will put these immigration provisions in, and they will be
addressed in the next Congress.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
not to make improper references to Senators.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has some very important
reforms of our intelligence agencies, and I support it. Chief among
them, the establishment of the national intelligence directorate as
well as the national counterterrorism centers. But while these changes
have attracted most of our attention, these changes
[[Page H11002]]
within our institutions, as tough as they have been for this Congress,
are the relatively easy part.
Among the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was
to strengthen our efforts at nonproliferation, to try to deal with the
problem of nuclear material, in particular, arriving in the wrong
hands. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden
have made it a top priority to obtain nuclear material, and some of the
strongest and most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are
to deal with that very real danger. In fact, as the President and
Senator Kerry both stated during the first Presidential debate, the
threat of nuclear terrorism is the number one national security threat
facing the country.
In addition to the organizational changes that we have all been
debating, there are provisions in this legislation that call for the
establishment of a national counterproliferation center that can attack
this problem of the proliferation of nuclear material as well as
chemical and biological material. It will help oversee operational
efforts to interdict this material and also recommended changes in the
international legal structure that will better help us deal with the
A.Q. Khans of the world, to deal with Iran, to deal with North Korea
and attack this very real danger to our country. My own language
applying RICO in this area as well as strengthening the dirty bomb
statutes has also been incorporated into the bill.
These steps are just a beginning. Many more far-reaching steps also
have to be taken if we are to deal with this risk of nuclear terrorism.
The NPT, as we have seen, has served us well for 40 years, but is now
showing its age. I think Iran is demonstrating that the purest and
simplest path to the bomb now runs through the NPT, not around it. We
would do well to pay attention to those recommendations of the 9/11
Commission that are the tougher steps to deal with the proliferation of
nuclear material; but this is a good first step, and I support it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
conference report because I strongly believe that all of the 9/11
Commission recommendations should be in it. The commission itself has
said that all of its recommendations should be adopted in their
entirety to ensure success in deterring terrorism. The law that we
passed establishing the 9/11 Commission directed them to investigate
all of the failures that led to 9/11, which included significant lapses
and loopholes in our immigration and border control system. The
commission made recommendations to fix our immigration and border
system. We put them in the House bill. It was passed out of this House
with 68 percent of this body voting in favor. They have now been
stripped out in the conference report.
Why are we not adopting all of the commission's recommendations to
strengthen America's ability to intercept individuals who pose
catastrophic threats? How quickly we forget that the 9/11 Commission
found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were, in their words,
potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. So why
does this bill not address the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for a
secure identification system? The 19 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly
issued U.S. driver's licenses between them. What were they using that
many for? They were moving around the country undetected and plotting
and planning. In fact, as many as eight of them were even registered to
vote. They then used those bogus licenses to board U.S. planes.
Why are we not addressing the commission's recommendations to crack
down on asylum fraud? The 9/11 Commission cited the Blind Sheik, Omar
Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He used
an asylum application to avoid deportation. How about Ramzi Yousef who
masterminded the first World Trade Center attack while free after
applying for asylum? It is a fact that terrorists have and continue to
abuse our asylum laws to stay in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the removal of these immigration and border security
provisions that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission was a grave
mistake. They are central to any legislation designed to prevent future
terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote
this bill down so we can include all of the 9/11 Commission
recommendations in it and not just the politically convenient ones.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I want to thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin I just wanted to take a minute to
congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), Senator Collins and Senator
Lieberman for their extraordinary effort in getting us to this point.
This Nation truly owes all of them a debt of gratitude for the diligent
effort they have put into reaching this bipartisan compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we will implement intelligence reform
before the close of the 108th Congress, and I rise in support of the
underlying bill. After 9/11, we clearly approached fighting the global
war on terrorism as we had the Cold War. But it became clear that we
needed to adapt our intelligence community, law enforcement agencies,
and military to fight the new global threats. The 9/11 Commission gave
us a blueprint for that mission, and this legislation will help us to
implement their vision. Cooperation among agencies and Departments will
be critical, and this measure shifts the mentality of our intelligence
community from ``need to know'' to ``need to share.'' It also makes
significant improvements to homeland security while avoiding some of
the controversial provisions included in earlier drafts.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am pleased that
this bill strikes a careful balance between creating a strong national
intelligence director and preserving the ability of our men and women
in uniform to gain access to the intelligence needed to be successful
on the battlefield.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for working in a bipartisan
fashion to craft a landmark measure that will truly make America safer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill. The underlying bill is not a solution to our problems,
but is a huge first step. Much more needs to be done. I would also like
to commend the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle who
worked so hard to put forth a really good bill and then fought to keep
most of it in the final draft. I urge them to come back in January with
an open mind and finish the work we have started.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the success of the 9/11 bill (S. 2845) is a
great victory for America. It will make America safer by establishing a
single individual who will be responsible for coordinating our
intelligence and who will be accountable to Congress and the American
people. The bill's success also demonstrates that our democratic
process works and that Americans can come together in a bipartisan way
to overcome the narrow interests of a few and meet the greatest
challenge of our age head-on.
It is fitting that the 9/11 bill is being considered by the House
today on the 63rd anniversary of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor,a
day on which 2,400 Americans died. The parallels between 9/11 and Pearl
Harbor are striking. In each instance there were warning signs before
the attack, and in each instance our government failed to connect the
dots.
Whether at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center, surprise is
everything involved in a government's failure to anticipate
effectively. The events of 9/11 defined a generation and laid bare our
nation's lack of preparation and a national strategy to deal with the
new threat of terrorism.
Passage of the 9/11 bill cannot by itself defeat the terrorist
threat. A vote in Congress will not capture Osama bin Laden or stop the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. But today we have given the U.S.
Government new tools to deal with a new enemy who, as enemies of old,
threatens our liberty and way of life.
Finally, the 9/11 bill was resuscitated on more than one occasion and
kept alive by the
[[Page H11003]]
sacrifice and perseverance of the 9/11 families. It will ensure that
their loved ones did not die in vain.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
{time} 1745
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 870, I call
up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2845) to reform the
intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
870, the conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
earlier today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) each will control 30
minutes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) is opposed to the bill?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the bill.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that both the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) are in support of the conference report.
Therefore, pursuant to clause 8(d) of rule XXII, the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) for 20 minutes each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
General Leave
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2845.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
accompanying S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
This conference report is the product of what may go down in the annals
of this institution as one of the most difficult and certainly one of
the most involved conferences ever.
Just over 7 weeks ago, we began to negotiate a compromise solution of
two very different bills that were both acting on the recommendations
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
more widely known as the 9/11 Commission. The negotiations have been
tough, long and sometimes extremely contentious. Now we have nearly
crossed the finish line. We have a conference report that conferees
have agreed to, and one that I believe should be enthusiastically
supported by the Members of the House.
It has been nearly 55 years since we have made such truly substantive
improvement to the overall management structure of the Nation's
Intelligence Community. This bill creates a Director of National
Intelligence, a Director who has dramatically improved authorities and
capabilities to manage and coordinate the disparate efforts of the
various intelligence components of the United States Government.
The bill also creates a National Counterterrorism Center that will
coordinate terrorism-related intelligence efforts and provide for
strategic operational planning of counterterrorism operations.
Mr. Speaker, the various law enforcement and border security
provisions in this bill will unquestionably improve domestic security
against terrorism. The same is also true for the restructuring of the
Intelligence Community. But I need to caution that these reforms will
take time to implement and, moreover, for the intended results to be
seen.
I am not under the false impression that by themselves, these
structural changes and enhanced authorities vested in the new Director
of National Intelligence will ensure perfect knowledge about our
enemies in the future. Those that would do America harm are clever,
they are secretive, and the asymmetrical threats that they can both
imagine and effect require us to be manyfold better at defense than
they need be on offense.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of my time, I want to thank
the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). She has
been a very good partner in working through this process. We have not
always been on the same side of the issues on the work on this bill,
but we have been steadfast in support of reforming the Intelligence
Community and making America safer.
The same can also be said for my colleagues from the Senate, Senators
Collins and Lieberman. They have been driving factors in getting this
legislation to a vote. Without them, I do not think we could have done
this. My whole-hearted congratulations and thanks to them, and also to
my colleagues on the House Republican Conference.
It has been a difficult time. As I have said earlier, we did not get
everything we wanted. I stand with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) on many issues he brought forward on driver's licenses
and immigration and look forward to working with him to move those
issues in the next Congress. They are needed to more fully round out
this package of what we need to secure America's safety.
But that should not stop us from taking the steps that we have today.
These are important steps in restructuring the Intelligence Community,
in law enforcement, in transportation security and in international
affairs. We need to move these forward today and then move forward on
the rest of the issues when we get back here in 2005.
The staff has worked incredibly hard to make this possible over the
last 7 weeks. They have worked long hours every day to get this bill to
where we are today. Without them, this simply could not have been
possible.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report on S. 2845 is a good piece of
legislation. It is necessary. We need to support it, and we need our
colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the new chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra), for his nice comments and for his enormous efforts at
restoring bipartisanship to our committee. He, Senators Collins and
Lieberman, House conferees on our side, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), have
contributed a great deal, an enormous amount, to the legislation we are
debating today. It is a good product, it is the right product, and I
urge all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support it.
Mr. Speaker, this day, December 7, is a date which will live in
infamy. So was September 11, 2001. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were the two
most tragic hours since America became a Nation.
President Roosevelt launched a clear-eyed investigation of the
intelligence lapses leading to Pearl Harbor, and since 9/11 we have
worked hard to understand why critical intelligence about the plans,
capabilities and whereabouts of the 9/11 hijackers fell through the
cracks.
Our intelligence system is broken. We have 15 intelligence agencies
with different rules, cultures and databases. Our Intelligence
Community operates on a 1947 business model designed to defeat the
Soviet Union, which was defeated in 1989. Fifteen years later, the
enemy is digital, but our organizational structure remains analog.
This long-overdue legislation will modernize our capabilities,
integrate our intelligence collection and analysis efforts, unify our
counterterrorist efforts and promote intelligence sharing. It will
promote the same jointness in
[[Page H11004]]
intelligence that has been the hallmark of our military's success since
the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much time, so I will forego describing the
bill. But in addition to thanking our conferees and the so-called ``big
four,'' I want to thank others who made this possible. They are the 9/
11 families who were the moral force beneath our wings. I want to say
to the families that your loved ones are holding a special spot in
heaven for you and for all that you did for the safety of our country.
I also want to thank another group of people who are not here. They
are the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies and who
wear the uniform, many of whom are on the front lines at this hour
risking their lives for our freedom. This legislation is designed to
give them the capabilities they deserve and need to win the war on
terrorism. They have our praise, our admiration and our full support.
Good people need better tools. We are going to provide those tools
today.
Mr. Speaker, December 7 will always remind us of the vulnerability of
our homeland, but once we pass this bill, it will also stand for
something else. It will stand for our resolve to make our Nation safer.
And, I might add, it is a fitting birthday tribute to Senator Susan
Collins, who worked so hard to make this effort possible.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to clarify two issues that are not stated
explicitly in this legislation but that were very much on the minds of
its drafters.
The first issue deals with the consolidation of power within the DNI
to protect intelligence sources and methods. Members of the public have
expressed concern that the increased authority of the Director of
National Intelligence could be abused to constrict the free flow of
information that is critical to our duties in the Congress and that the
authorities under this bill might be used, or abused, to unduly limit
the flow of information to the State and local governments and to the
public.
The sources of this concern are past uses of government secrecy--not
to protect classified information--but to limit, and occasionally to
intimidate, current and even former government employees from speaking
out. These measures have included over-classification and requirements
that government employees take polygraphs and sign unduly and overly
broad secrecy and non-disclosure agreements as a condition of access to
information.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the dissemination of
information within government. There is no intention on the part of the
Congress to impair the appropriate and desirable flow of information.
This bill does not contain any authority for the DNI or the President
to establish a regime of undue government secrecy. The bill vests the
DNI with the authority to protect intelligence sources and methods,
just as the Director of Central Intelligence has exercised that
authority. There is no new authority to criminalize or suppress the
lawful and appropriate sharing of information within the government or
to alter or waive any existing protections of government employees who
wish to disclose information to Congress or through other lawful
channels.
Further, it should be Congress's duty to assure through oversight
that this information sharing environment is appropriate and complete.
Congress will track the implementation of the various responsibilities
assigned under this bill. The creation of the Information Sharing
Environment and the establishment of the National Intelligence Center
and the Information Sharing Council provide some of the many
opportunities for congressional oversight.
A second issue deals with the creation of national standards for
driver's licenses. This legislation creates strong minimum Federal
standards for the issuance of State driver's licenses. We delegate to
the Department of Homeland Security the task of devising these
standards, but we make clear that these standards must at least require
that licenses contain a person's full name, date of birth, gender,
driver's license number, digital photograph, address, and signature. We
also stipulate that the regulations shall include procedures to protect
the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver's
licenses. I want to make clear that we also intended to ensure that
these regulations protect the civil and due process rights of those
individuals as well.
This legislation requires that driver's license standards be
established with a negotiated rulemaking. This rulemaking shall include
State officials who issue driver's licenses, State elected officials,
DHS, and interested parties. The words ``interested parties'' are not
defined, but it is our intent that such parties should include
organizations with technological and operational expertise in document
security and organizations that represent the interests of applicants
for such licenses or identification cards.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that it is
not in order to bring the attention of the House to visitors in the
gallery or to make improper references to Senators, whether positive or
negative.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a great amount of admiration for the people who
have worked as hard as they have worked on this bill, for the chairman,
for the leadership in the House, that has, I know, spent many, many
hours in discussions with the other body.
I wish that I could stand on this floor tonight and support this
bill. I remember during an earlier debate on H.R. 10, the House version
of the response to the 9/11 Commission report, I was proud as I have
ever been to be a Member of this body and to see the members of my
party, especially the Speaker of the House, the whip and the majority
leader, come to the floor and speak articulately and very, very
forcefully in support of certain provisions of the bill that the other
side of the aisle were trying to take out. These provisions dealt
specifically with trying to increase our border security.
It is intriguing in a way, it is ironic in a way, one thing: We
established a 9/11 Commission, it did its work, it talked to us about
what we needed to do.
We all recognize what happened on that day, on 9/11 2001. When people
came into this country from other countries, many of them did so
fraudulently, by providing false documentation, by inaccurately filling
out their visas, or by coming into the country and after they were here
overstaying those visas. They were in violation of our immigration
laws. They were able to take advantage of their position because we did
not do much, and we still do very little in terms of enforcing those
laws.
They were also able to take advantage of another thing in this
system. They were able to take advantage of the fact that we were
handing out driver's licenses to people like prizes in a Cracker Jack
box. The 19 hijackers had accumulated a total of 63 driver's licenses,
many from Virginia. They used them with great ability to, of course,
get onto planes, to make life easy for them while they were here.
This is one thing we know that happened that helped create the
problem, helped create the event of 9/11. We know that. So we create a
bill in response to the 9/11 catastrophe, and it is almost
inconceivable that any bill could then come to this floor without a
reference to, without an ability, without any desire to actually do
something about the actual problem that created 9/11. But that is the
case today.
To quote the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who also recognized the
flaw, the fatal flaw of this bill, and that is the only way I can
really describe it, it is a fatal flaw, this is the quote from Chairman
Sensenbrenner: ``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can
prevent another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration
reform are vital components of our national security efforts, so why
are they not included in this legislation? The time to address these
issues is now, not next month, not next year. Hollow promises of future
considerations are just that, hollow promises. Terrorists have
exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum system and in the issuance of
driver's licenses.
``This bill fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill
because my Senate colleagues,'' and I am quoting him here, ``found them
to be too controversial. That is unfortunate, because their refusal to
consider these security provisions on their merits will keep Americans
unnecessarily at risk.''
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with his observations, and I would ask
my colleagues to look carefully at what they are doing here.
The fact is that this bill has such a gaping loophole and it has such
a huge, huge flaw that it is better not to pass this bill at all than
to pass it and create the illusion of security. I do not doubt, as I
have said, that there are many good parts of the bill. That is not
[[Page H11005]]
the issue. But there is something so vital, something so intrinsic to
our national security, the issuance of driver's licenses and trying to
maintain some degree of control over that process, because we know that
a driver's license in this country is, of course, as close to a
national I.D. card as we have.
{time} 1800
But when we refuse to address this because of our concern about the
politics, because it is too controversial to talk about, how can we
come to this floor, how can anybody come to this floor or in fact stand
in front of any television or any constituency and say, we are doing
everything possible to defend the people of this country. How can we
say this when we know that that is absolutely untrue; when the one
thing we should be doing in this bill, we are not.
So because it does not have that provision, I certainly would request
that my colleagues turn this bill down and ask that it come back in a
different form, in a more complete form.
Sensenbrenner Statement on 9/11 Bill
Washington, DC.--House Judiciary Committee Chairman F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) issued the following
statement regarding legislation responding to the 9/11
Commission recommendations:
``I am pleased that the chain-of-command issues Chairman
Duncan Hunter has raised have been resolved so that our war-
fighters will not be put at risk. Unfortunately, even with
these improvements, the current bill is woefully incomplete
and one I cannot support.
``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can prevent
another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration
reform are vital components of our homeland security efforts,
so why are they not included in this legislation? The time to
address these issues is now, not next month, not next year.
Hollow promises of future consideration are just that--hollow
promises.
``Terrorists have exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum
system and in the issuance of drivers' licenses. This bill
fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill
because my Senate colleagues found them `too controversial.'
That's unfortunate, because their refusal to consider these
security provisions on their merits will keep Americans
unnecessarily at risk.
I said two weeks ago that the Senate was hell-bent on
ensuring that illegal aliens can receive drivers' licenses,
regardless of the security concerns. This Sept. 10th
mentality in a post-Sept. 11th world is unwise and among
those I intend to rectify next year.''
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), a conferee on the bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard
work.
Mr. Speaker, for the House, walking through this conference report
has been largely a defensive action, if you will, a holding action; and
I want to compliment all of the great Members of the House who managed
to hold off what initially was a political stampede that would have
passed a piece of legislation that would have accrued to the detriment
of the people who wear the uniform of the United States and, I think,
to our intelligence apparatus.
We had to walk back things like opening up the top line, the
classified top line to the world, letting our adversaries know how much
we spend on intelligence. We had to walk back this idea that somehow we
were going to send the money for the combat support agencies around the
Department of Defense, not allow the Department of Defense to have a
normal working relationship with its own combat support agencies. In
fact, it took a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
Myers, to the conferees to say the House position is the right
position, to back off some of those who were stampeding in the wrong
direction. Ultimately, we had to address this most important issue:
chain of command.
Now, interestingly, before this bill was brought up on the other side
of the Hill, on the Senate side, the President sent a strong message
saying we must have chain-of-command language to make sure that there
is no confusion about lines of execution. The authors of the bill on
the other side did not put that language in. My counterpart, Senator
John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then
saying that he was afraid that this bill did violate and intrude on the
chain of command, offered an amendment to establish what the
administration wanted, to establish strong chain-of-command language
that would ensure that a battlefield commander would have all the
assets in his area of operation for his combatant commands. Senator
Warner's language was rejected by the leadership of this bill on the
Senate side.
As we got into the conference, the administration sent another
message. They said, you know, you forgot something. You forgot the
chain-of-command language. Once again, it was not included. When it
finally was included, it was accompanied by weasel words which
basically invalidated the entire section. On several occasions the
conferees on the other side changed the weasel words, but they still
had a provision which basically violated the entire section, or
invalidated the entire section, and left us with nothing.
So, in the end, 17 days ago when we were asked in the Republican
conference what we thought about this bill, I and many other people had
to speak up and point out that this very important chain of command was
not protected in the conference report and needed to be protected.
In the end, on Saturday night, we sent to Senator Collins' staff a
chain-of-command provision to respect and not abrogate the chain of
command, citing the statutes that are relevant, to Senator Collins
through her chief of staff. He said she would get back Monday morning.
She did get back and approved that section. And we said that when I saw
that in writing in an amendment to the conference report, I would then
support the conference. We have gotten that today, and I have signed
the conference report.
This bill, now, with these changes, including classifying the top
line, walking back this wild attempt to remove the Department of
Defense from its own budget flow to its combat support agencies and,
finally, this attempt to keep the chain of command in a position where
it was questionable; having walked back all of those attempts to change
this bill in a manner that would accrue to the detriment of the men and
women who wear the uniform of the United States and moving instead to a
situation in which they are protected, with a solid insulation in the
chain of command so a combat commander in Afghanistan or Iraq can now
count on being able to use all of his assets in that theater to protect
his troops and perform his mission; having done that, this bill, in my
estimation, is now acceptable, and I am supporting this bill. I am
going to vote for this bill.
I agree fully with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
and others who think that the driver's license issue is of great
importance. It is of great importance. We need to get that issue up and
through as soon as possible.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support for this bill from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I would like our colleagues
to know as one conferee, we all support the chain of command.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a conferee, and the ranking
member on the House Committee on Armed Services, a wonderful committee
on which I served for 6 years.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. I rise in strong support of this Intelligence Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, we are making history today. This conference report
represents the most profound government reform to date for meeting the
unique and daunting security challenges existing in this era of terror.
This bill fundamentally overhauls the structure of our Nation's
intelligence community. It represents an important step in the
improvement of our government's intelligence capabilities while, at the
same time, preserving our ability to ensure that our own military
personnel have the intelligence information they need to succeed on the
battlefield. More broadly, Mr. Speaker, this bill promises to advance
our abilities in the global fight against terrorism.
From my vantage point as the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services, this conference includes two important legislative
achievements. First, it creates and empowers a new Director of National
Intelligence to set the vision, direction, and priorities for the
entire intelligence community. Second, it maintains the sanctity of the
military's
[[Page H11006]]
chain of command, so that the Secretary of Defense will have the
necessary authorities to effectively manage intelligence assets and
resources, particularly technical assets on the battlefield.
The 9/11 Commission pointed out that our Nation's intelligence
community has suffered from a failure of imagination, failure to focus,
and failure at organization. This bill addresses these failures with a
new organization, new authorities, and management flexibility. In
addition to the new director, the bill authorizes a National Counter
Terrorism Center to improve analytic vision and operational planning
across Departments and at the highest levels of government. Another
important change is the information-sharing requirements across
traditional bureaucratic barriers, or what we call stovepipes. Such
innovation has been suggested for years, and these provisions are long
overdue.
Mr. Speaker, opportunities in this body to effect fundamental and
indeed historical changes are rare. We have such an opportunity today.
I commend the leaders of this conference, and I strongly support the
bill before us. It is significant, necessary, and unprecedented; and it
offers much promise to make our Nation more secure, and I strongly urge
its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her work.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant, but vociferous,
opposition to this legislation, fully named the National Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly, but adamantly, oppose this measure
because it fails to deal effectively with the second heading in the
legislative title. It is beyond titles and slogans and, instead,
policies where we must concentrate ourselves. Mr. Speaker, much has
been made, and I have heard previous speakers speak of the families who
suffered such great loss on 9/11, speak of what this Nation confronted
on that fateful day. Yet, perhaps in a triumph of legislative policy
and the incrementalism so often a part of the system, we are ignoring
the single best provision to prevent future acts of terror,
understanding that border security and national security are one and
the same.
Good people on both sides of the aisle, well-intentioned people
rightfully say we need to restructure our national intelligence-
gathering capabilities. I concur. But what we see now, Mr. Speaker, is
laying a new foundation, building a new wall, but forgetting both a
front door and a back door and a roof. We are leaving our doors wide
open.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to be an Arizonan. I was in
Nogales at our border crossing not too long ago visiting with our
friends from the Border Patrol. They told me of an interesting
apprehension the day before. The gentleman they said was a native of
Iraq who had claimed to come to the United States in 1978 with a green
card. It was interesting, though, to hear the Border Patrol personnel
speak of their detainee, because curiously, the Iraqi who said he had
come to the United States in 1978 with a green card was much more
fluent in Spanish than he was in English. We read in accounts of the
free press that there are those who come from the Middle East, adopt
Hispanic surnames, and seek to infiltrate. There are some adherents to
the politically correct who would ignore or diffuse or understate the
nature of this threat.
Mr. Speaker, I will not allow the national security of the United
States to be jeopardized and undermined and placed on the funeral
parlor of the politically correct. To those who say that it is
incremental, it is a step in the right direction: well and good. But
incrementalism in wartime when our national survival may be at stake is
unacceptable. Either do it right, or do not do it.
It is sad, but necessary, to reject this bill because it fails to
deal with preventing terrorist attacks by understanding that border
security and national security are one and the same.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), my colleague, the chairman of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point to engage my friend,
the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a
brief colloquy to clarify the intention of section 1016 of this bill
which concerns information-sharing and would create a new Information
Sharing Environment, or ISE.
Section 1016(b)requires that the President create an ISE and that he
``ensure that the ISE provides and facilitates the means for sharing
terrorism information among all appropriate Federal, State, local, and
tribal entities, and the private sector, through the use of policy
guidelines and technologies.'' That is a quotation from section
1016(b)(2) at page 66, lines 21 through 25.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, this section to mean that the Information
Sharing Environment referred to will serve as a new, interconnected
environment by which Federal agencies can exchange information with
each other and with State, local, and private sector officials as their
statutory mandates may require. Because the Homeland Security Act of
2002 assigned to the Department of Homeland Security significant
responsibilities for sharing terrorism-related information with State,
local, and private sector officials; for example, section 201(d) and
section 892, I want to make sure that my understanding of the purpose
of section 1016 is accurate.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm that the
understanding that the gentleman has is correct. The information-
sharing environment will serve as a means by which individual agencies,
including DHS, can meet their statutory information-sharing mandates.
It will enable and assist agencies in meeting their information-sharing
responsibilities.
In particular, I can confirm that the ISE does not supplant or in any
way diminish the information-sharing responsibilities of DHS.
{time} 1815
Indeed, DHS will be an interconnected component of the ISE, which
will facilitate the Department's execution of its statutory mission as
the primary Federal agency responsible for sharing terrorism-related
information with State, local and private sector officials and the
public.
Mr. COX. I thank the chairman. I would also like to engage my
colleague, the chairman, in a colloquy on section 1021 which would add
a new section 119 to the National Security Act of 1947, establishing
the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC.
Section 119(d)(1) lists among the primary missions of the NCTC: ``To
serve as the primary organization in the United States Government for
analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the
United States Government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism,
excepting intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic terrorists
and domestic counterterrorism.''
That occurs at page 87, lines 10 through 16.
Section 119(e)(1) of the National Security Act, as amended, would
state that the new National Counterterrorist Center, NCTC, ``may,
consistent with applicable law, at the direction of the President, and
the guidelines referred to in section 102A(b), receive intelligence
pertaining exclusively to domestic counterterrorism from any Federal,
State or local government or other source necessary to fulfill its
responsibilities and retain and disseminate such intelligence.''
That occurs at page 88, lines 17 through 24.
Section 201(d)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the
Department of Homeland Security ``To assess, receive, and analyze law
enforcement information, intelligence information, and other
information from agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
government agencies (including law enforcement agencies), and private
sector entities, and to integrate such information in order to (A)
identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the
homeland; (B) detect and identify threats against the
[[Page H11007]]
United States; and (C) understand such threats in light of the actual
and potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.''
And section 201(d)(9) of the Homeland Security Act requires the
Department of Homeland Security ``To disseminate, as appropriate,
information analyzed by the Department within the Department, to other
agencies of the Federal Government with responsibilities relating to
homeland security, and to agencies of State and local governments with
private sector entities with such responsibilities in order to assist
in the deterrence, prevention, preemption of, or response to, terrorist
attacks against the United States.''
So, first, I would like to make sure I am correct in understanding
that it is not the intention of section 119(d) and (e) to have the NCTC
exercise any aspect of the role that has been assigned to DHS in the
Homeland Security Act, including specifically DHS's primary
responsibility for the sharing of terrorism-related information with
State, local and private sector officials and the public.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I can confirm the chairman's understanding. Neither the
responsibilities of NCTC for comprehensive counterterrorism analysis,
nor its responsibility for dissemination of information within the
Federal Government, will in any way diminish the responsibilities of
DHS under the Homeland Security Act, or any other legal mandate.
Mr. COX. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. Could he also confirm my understanding of
119(e)?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I can confirm that his understanding of 119(e) is also
accurate.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
The House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which I chair, was
deeply involved in the efforts to put this bill together. The bill
unfortunately does not contain all of the provisions that I believe it
should contain--in particular, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, which was a major part of the House-passed 9/11 bill.
But the bill as it is now before us meets the most important test: It
will make America safer.
The reform of our intelligence system is an historic and vitally
necessary step forward. This bill will also ensure that U.S. officials
on the border have access to the information they need to identify
suspect and fraudulent identity documents. It will give consular
offices the technology and training they need to recognize terrorist
travel patterns and practices--as called for by the 9/11 Commission.
We also know that a major problem along our borders today is the lack
of detention space to hold illegal aliens who are awaiting deportation.
The indefensible policy of ``catch and release'' that this necessitates
is threatening our national security. The select committee worked with
my good friend Mr. Bonilla of Texas, and the Judiciary Committee to
insert into this bill a large increase in the number of detention beds
to address this problem.
The bill will also greatly enhance our efforts to improve the
interoperability of first responder communications. It directs DHS to
provide technical assistance to our highest-risk areas in order to
rapidly deploy interoperable communications systems. And it establishes
a comprehensive program to develop baseline capabilities and standards
for interoperability nationwide.
The bill before us also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the
flexibility to make multi-year funding commitments for interoperable
communications projects. This change will encourage the long-term
planning and local investment that is necessary to get such systems
into place at the State and local level. I want to thank Mr. Fossella
and Mr. Stupak for working with the Homeland Security Committee on this
important reform.
Finally, this bill will promote mutual aid at the State, local and
regional levels--another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
I am disappointed that important reforms that were passed by the
House are not included in this final bill, including standards for
identification to board airplanes and buy weapons; the creation of an
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity within DHS; and first responder
funding reform to replace pork barrel funding with threat-based
funding. That legislation will have to be our first order of business
in the 109th Congress But we owe it to the American people to pass this
bill now.
I want to thank Chairman Hoekstra, who chaired this conference under
challenging circumstances, and his staff for their cooperation and
assistance. And I want to thank Speaker Hastert and President Rush for
their personal efforts to ensure passage today of these important
intelligence and homeland security reforms.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who heads our Democratic Caucus, a wonderful and
valued colleague on this issue, and a third of our Democratic
conferees.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the question we have before us today is
not whether this conference report will pass. As Governor Kean, the
chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said recently, ``The question is
whether it will pass now or after a second attack.'' Because we know
the enemy seeks to attack again. We just do not know when and where it
will occur.
That is why we as a Congress pledge to do everything possible to make
sure the tragic events of 9/11 were never repeated. That is why the
Commission was created to investigate what went wrong. Nothing is more
important than that mission. In fact, the work on this bill and
conference report is the most important of the entire 108th Congress.
This conference report that we have before us today secures America
against terrorists by making sweeping changes to our homeland security
and intelligence operations. It addresses the key intelligence failures
that allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. This will be the first
comprehensive overhaul of our intelligence apparatus since 1947,
updating it from the Cold War to the war on terror.
The bill will establish a Director of National Intelligence in charge
of all of the government's intelligence gathering, analysis and
counterterrorism operations. It would streamline and unify our
intelligence-gathering capabilities, foster greater intelligence
sharing, and end the senseless turf battles that plague the current
system and that so failed our country on that fateful day.
It will improve the overall qualities of our intelligence, and, yes,
it contains numerous and significant immigration-, visa security-, and
border security-related provisions; over 43 sections, 100 pages, adding
thousands of additional Border Patrol agents, immigration and Customs
investigators; new technologies across the border; criminalizing the
smuggling of immigrants; and establishing tough Federal minimum
standards for birth certificates and driver's licenses just as the 9/11
Commission report recommended.
It is time to honor the memories of all of those who perished on
September 11, including the 122 of my fellow citizens from my
congressional district. It is time to secure America. It is time to put
the turf battles aside. It is time to try to stop using other issues
for the purposes of derailing the ultimate goal here, which is
intelligence reform, and it is time to make America secure by voting
yes on this conference report.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the only turf that at
least I am interested in protecting here is the turf of the United
States of America and the people that live on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2845.
This is first and foremost, and everyone in the country knows that,
this is a pro-illegal immigration bill in that the situation with
illegal immigration will be worse if we pass this bill than it is
today.
It is also not a reform bill. It is an illusion. It is a piece of
illusion legislation. It is designed to make people feel better because
they perceive something is being done.
And I would like to thank the largest organization of 9/11 families
who are opposed to this legislation, the 9/11 Families for American
Security, who visited Members of Congress to oppose this legislation.
What this bill does is change the flowchart, trying to make people
think
[[Page H11008]]
that is doing something. It adds a level of bureaucracy, a new level of
bureaucracy, and, yes, creates an intelligence czar. Boy, that is going
to make everybody feel really good that we have an intelligence czar.
We had an energy czar. That did us a lot of good. And thank goodness
America had a drug czar that was appointed years ago; otherwise we
would be plagued with drug use in America today.
No, this whole bill is designed to make people feel good rather than
to do something to hold people accountable for the decisions that they
made that led up to 9/11. The intelligence czar and the huge staff
required to support the new intelligence czar is duplicative and will
be an impediment to getting things done in the Intelligence Community.
The National Security Council, I worked at the White House for 7
years, was set up to do exactly this. And had the National Security
Council during the Clinton administration, and, yes, during the
beginning of this administration, had been doing their jobs, there
would not have been a 9/11. So we already have people to do this job of
the new intelligence czar and his huge bureaucracy.
9/11 was not due to blocks in the flowchart. 9/11 was the results of
bad policies in dealing with the Taliban, which I complained about for
years on the floor of this House, and bad policies in terms of what we
were doing against al Qaeda during the Clinton years, and, yes, even
bad policies exemplified by Jamie Gorelick, who signed a Justice
Department order during the Clinton years that restricted cooperation
between the FBI and CIA in dealing with terrorist threats. No, that was
bad policy.
We do not need to change the flowchart to make people feel good in
order to hold people accountable for those bad policies.
Finally, this bill should be defeated because it has gutted the
provisions in this bill that passed the House that were aimed at
controlling this massive invasion we have of illegal immigrants into
our country, and we are not going to have a secure America when we have
millions and millions of illegal aliens coming here, many of whom can
be terrorists; and in this bill we no longer have the provisions to
make sure that we will not be giving ID cards so these illegals can get
on airplanes and crash them into buildings.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, clearly many in this House feel strongly. I
hope most of us will vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes), a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and our chairman for
the hard work they have done along with the other conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report,
though not without some reservations. I am encouraged by the bill's
reforms to our Nation's Intelligence Community, reforms that would not
be before us today without the hard work of the 9/11 Commission and the
unwavering commitment of the 9/11 families.
Also, as a member of both the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Committee on Armed Services, I recognize that
timely and accurate intelligence is essential for both the President
and our military forces in the fields. So I am pleased that this
important issue has been addressed. However, I do have a strong word of
caution for my colleagues about some of the provisions that we are
enacting today in the name of homeland security.
These provisions establishing new investigatory, surveillance, and
information-sharing authorities carry tremendous potential for abuse. I
am concerned that these provisions may only be the beginning, and that
we could be headed down a dangerous path without ensuring the
appropriate checks and balances.
Prior to coming to Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United
States Border Patrol, from agent to chief, so I know firsthand about
our efforts to protect our borders and keep America secure. While I
strongly believe in giving our government and law enforcement the tools
they need to keep America safe, I also know it is imperative that we
have an effective system of checks and balances to protect our rights
as Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because I believe that reforms
to our Intelligence Community are much needed and long overdue.
However, as we move forward, I urge my colleagues to be vigilant in
ensuring that we do not undermine the very liberties we are trying to
protect from terrorists, because it is these liberties that make
America the great Nation that it is.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, protecting our Nation
is one of the most important duties that we have as Members of
Congress. If we fail this, nothing else really matters.
The conference report does contain some useful provisions, but it is
incomplete, making it inadequate and therefore unacceptable. The
agreement with the Senate gave away so much, and it includes some major
steps backwards from the House-passed version of the bill and from the
strides that we have made since 9/11.
{time} 1830
Specifically, the report ignores important suggestions made by the 9/
11 Commission and by many Members of this Chamber regarding immigration
and the use of illegal identification cards.
We need to have closed borders with open doors for those who follow
the law. Our offices are flooded with people asking for assistance
because they are trying to come here legally.
The version this House passed prohibited convicted terrorists from
receiving Federal benefits, and yet the agreement before us here today
fails to prevent this injustice. Remember, the taxpayers out there are
going to be paying taxes and some terrorists are going to be getting
some Federal benefits. That is just unacceptable.
It has been 3\1/4\ years since the terrorists used illegal
identification to cross our borders and to attack Americans at home,
and yet Congress still ignores meaningful immigration reform. We
authorize some detention beds in here; but guess what, we did not fund
them.
There have been so many immigration bills introduced since 9/11 that
have died and had to be reintroduced again, only to die again. We are
told that, oh, they will be taken care of next year. I sincerely hope
that that is the case because this bill is a feel-good bill,
absolutely. It is like buying a state-of-the-art alarm system,
installing it in your house, never actually activating it and then you
do not even bother locking your doors. Your home is not secure. Our
Nation will not be any more secure under this. We need to secure our
borders. That is a very important component that is simply missing from
this bill.
I cannot support the bill in its current form and because it is so
inadequate, because it does not address the very important immigration
issue.
The problem with the conference report was that it ignored so many of
the good immigration reform provisions that we had in the House bill.
This bill is only part of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. I was a
State senator. As my colleagues know, many of the terrorists came from
Florida. We said the length of their driver's license expires when
their visa expires. Guess what. This bill does not mandate it. So the
10 States that do not even have that provision, they are the States
that the terrorists are going to go to. That is just plain wrong.
We do need to have uniformity in driver's licenses. We do need to
make sure that the person applying for the driver's license, who has a
visa, that the visa expiration date is the expiration date of the
identification or the driver's license.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member from the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman) and the chairman for working on this bill
and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), even though he is an Irish kid, is like a
brother, and we work very well together. Disagree, but work together.
Do any of my colleagues have any idea what it is like to watch
friends die? The 9/11 families do. I do not know
[[Page H11009]]
how many of my colleagues saw Private Ryan. I lost a lot of good
friends in combat. Anger, rage, disappointment, knowing that many of
them did not have to.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) fixed that in this bill.
It is going to save a lot of lives. To say that this bill is a shadow,
I do not believe is correct in my opinion. If we look at COSCO, many
wanted the China Ocean Shipping Company to take over the Long Beach
shipyard. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I stopped
that, even though we knew there were spies with the China organization
taking over Long Beach shipyard, and we were able to work that in a
bipartisan issue.
The homeland security, our ports, one of the biggest threats that we
have is our ports, and that is addressed in this bill.
Where my dilemma is, is the 9/11 Recommendation No. 16 that was
denied and stripped out of the bill by the other body. To me that is
irresponsible, and I would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra), the chairman, in a colloquy, is it the gentleman's
understanding from our leadership that the immigration issues will be
addressed in the 109th Congress?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, he was in the conference today. I think we
got a very strong commitment from the leadership that they intend to
address these issues. I think that will represent the will of the
members of this conference.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And that the President will help us in these efforts?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is
absolutely correct.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; I thank the
Members on both sides of the aisle.
If my colleagues vote against this bill, they put this Nation at
risk. Without the immigration issues, this Nation is at risk.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, my
predecessor as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and someone who knows these issues extremely well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time
and commend her for her tremendous leadership, outstanding leadership
as our ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
for his leadership, as well as chair of the conference and as chair of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I know
firsthand of her great work, and we are all very proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months ago, the 9/11 Commission created by
Congress to examine the intelligence failures of 9/11 made a critical
judgment. It concluded that the United States intelligence community
was not structured properly to counter the threats, including
terrorism, that our Nation was likely to face in the years to come.
In response to that judgment, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission
unanimously issued 41 recommendations to make America safer. The most
critical of these was the creation of a powerful manager for the
intelligence community, one with the authority to establish budgets and
to move money and people between agencies as dictated by changing
needs.
The commission's conclusion and this recommendation mirrored a
similar judgment made 2 years ago by a congressional joint inquiry that
neither the President nor the Republican Congress acted upon. Thank
heavens we are acting today.
Fortunately, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and the tireless
advocacy of the 9/11 Commission and the victims' families gave us the
opportunity to produce a better result today. We are greatly in their
debt.
Another significant recommendation was the establishment of a civil
liberties board. As we protect and defend the American people from
terrorism, we must also protect and defend the Constitution and the
civil liberties contained therein. Again, I wish the conferees would
have agreed to a stronger board, as was contained in the Senate bill.
Instead, we have to rely on the dedication and stature of those
appointed to the board to overcome any weaknesses in its power.
Thankfully, the worst of the egregious provisions on immigration and
law enforcement that were in the House bill have been removed due to
the firm resolve of a majority of the members of the conference
committee.
I, too, would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a
colloquy. It was not my intention until I heard the colloquy of the
previous speaker. I would just like to know what it means that in the
next Congress my colleagues will take up the immigration provisions
that are not in this bill and will have the cooperation of the
President. What does that mean? Does that mean we will be revisiting
the same provisions that were removed from this bill in order to obtain
passage of it this evening?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank her for yielding and appreciate
the work she has done in putting together this bill.
What the indications are and what the colloquy I had with my
colleague indicate are that the provisions that were deleted from the
bill that we are considering today, the difference between the
previously House-passed version and what is in the conference report
are of utmost importance to members of our conference, to the
leadership and to the President, and that through regular order we will
pursue moving those agenda items forward in the next Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, so my colleagues removed them. I just want
to make sure I understand correctly. The egregious, considered by some
of us, extraneous provisions that were in this bill that were removed
in order to get the compromise legislation that we have here today will
be taken up in the next Congress and be moved quickly to what? Pass
into law?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, we will go
through regular order to take many of the provisions that had
previously passed the House as part of H.R. 10. They will be considered
again by the House and will move through the regular process, meaning
that this body will consider the legislation. If this body endorses the
legislation and the Senate obviously provides complementary
legislation, we will go through the conference process to see if it is
possible to make those provisions and move them into law.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's candor. I have
concerns about his statement, however, because there was a oneness, an
integrity to this bill which contained many of the recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan, and unanimously, and the support of
the United States Senate in a very bipartisan way; and I had hoped that
what we were introducing today as a compromise was a bill that had,
again, this oneness and this integrity. I am concerned that a piece of
it is taken off with a commitment that it may be passed.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I think it
is obvious to us that we went there through the process. Many of the
provisions that were a vital part of the House bill were not part of
the base bill in the Senate, or similar items were not part of the base
bill in the Senate; and so we believe that it is important and there
will be an opportunity to move through the process with the Senate in
the next session of Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra). Again, I have serious concerns.
I hope that, again, the Republican leadership will not tarnish this
achievement today with commitments to vote on ill-advised changes to
our immigration laws in the next Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that today we must move forward.
There is one recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that we are not
considering today, and that is, congressional oversight; that the
commission also recommended changes in the intelligence oversight
process in the Congress in addition to the changes in the executive
[[Page H11010]]
branch. Without effective congressional oversight, the reforms put in
place by this bill will be less successful in protecting the American
people. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois
(Speaker Hastert) in a bipartisan way to institute more effective
congressional oversight.
Today, again, we must move forward. This bill, although not perfect,
strengthens the process by which we manage the collection, processing,
and dissemination of intelligence. In doing so, it reduces the risk to
the American people. It honors the work of the 9/11 Commission, and I
hope it will bring some comfort to the families of the victims of the
9/11 attacks.
Actually, passage of this bill is a tribute to the 9/11 families.
They have constantly been an inspiration to us because they turned
their grief into action. The American people are safer, and we are
deeply in their debt. We will never forget their loss, and we thank
them for their courage. We owe them at least that much, and that is to
make the American people safer. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to the 9/11 Recommendation Act.
I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his
efforts in the area of oversight that he had. I think he did an
excellent job, and this bill was improved by his efforts. However, the
gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) issues that he dealt
with were removed from this bill, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) looked at this House issue and said, how did 9/11 occur?
How did the perpetrators attack this country, and what can we do in
this bill to make sure that does not happen again? That language was
removed, and when we talk to the people back home, these are
commonsense issues.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) injected language that said
we are going to expedite construction of the gap of the 14-mile barrier
in between San Diego and the border of the United States. That language
was removed; and if we look at that 3-mile gap, it looks like a herd of
cattle had stampeded through there every day. We cannot tell who came
into this country illegally, but that was removed.
The other one struck is any requirement for proof of lawful presence
in the United States for a driver's license.
{time} 1845
The 9/11 perpetrators came to this country, they obtained driver's
licenses through a legal fashion in 10 States that make them available,
and this bill would have said that that will never happen again. The
only way 9/11 happened and occurred is because these terrorists were
able to obtain driver's licenses to come and go freely in this country
and to board planes as they chose. Nothing in this bill will stop that
from happening.
The other issue that was struck is license expiration tied to a visa
expiration. It makes perfect sense that if you have a visa in this
country, and you get a license while you are here, that your license
should expire when your visa expires. The same thing happened with the
9/11 perpetrators. Their visas expired, but their licenses did not, and
they were thereby allowed to stay in this country.
They also struck expedited removal of illegal aliens. You can
implement frivolous lawsuits and stay in this country almost as long as
you want, even if you are here illegally. This bill originally would
have eliminated that option. It struck the restriction for a terrorist
claiming asylum.
It does not take a brain surgeon to realize if you are a known
terrorist, trained in an al Qaeda camp and here in this country, we
cannot deport you. You can remain. The language to make sure that did
not happen was, again, in this bill and was removed from this bill. It
struck limiting judicial review of orders of deportation. That is
common sense and should have been in.
Now, I will try to go through these quickly. It struck complete
national driver's license standards. You should be here in this country
legal as a citizen or have a legal right to be here to get a driver's
license. It also struck an interstate driver's license database. That
way you could not get multiple driver's licenses throughout multiple
States like the terrorists did.
There were very good commonsense laws in this that would have become
law, and they basically were struck. The one that really does not make
any sense struck ``terrorists traveling information sharing.'' You have
a terrorist that travels around, and we cannot even share that
information by law. That is wrong.
The things that were removed from this bill warrant a ``no'' vote on
this bill, and I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote.
I rise today in strong opposition to the intelligence reform
conference report. There is no question that everyone in Congress wants
to protect the country from another terrorist attack. That is why I am
so appalled that this conference report excludes several House
provisions strengthening immigration law. We cannot have real
intelligence reform without addressing flaws in our immigration system.
I strongly believe that failing to act on important immigration
reforms is a grave mistake, since these provisions are central to any
legislation designed to prevent future terrorist attacks. By passing
this conference report, Congress is looking the other way while
potential terrorists are allowed to exploit flaws in U.S. immigration
policy.
As we work to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,
how can we ignore the Commission's call for strengthened identification
standards in this country? The Commission found that it was our
immigration laws, not those laws aimed at protecting against terrorism,
that shaped the terrorists' ability to carry out their plot on 9/11. In
fact, the Commission found that travel documents were as important to
the terrorists as were their weapons.
The simple fact is that if the 9/11 terrorists had not been able to
enter the United States and operate freely--to obtain driver's
licenses, open bank accounts, rent homes and cars, and board
airplanes--they would not have been able to commit mass murder on that
fateful day.
As long as fraudulent identity documents remain readily available,
terrorists will be able to use legal loopholes to enter and remain at
large in the United States.
It is truly beyond reason that this final conference report would
remove House-passed provisions to secure driver's licenses. This is in
direct contradiction to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,
which urged Congress to set federal standards for state-issued
licenses. Have we already forgotten that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had
63 driver's licenses among them and that most of these were obtained
through fraudulent means?
One of the 9/11 hijackers was stopped for a traffic violation a mere
two days before the terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the officer was
unable to detect that the terrorist's visa had expired because his
driver's license was still valid. The House bill included a requirement
that driver's license expiration dates coincide with visa expiration
dates so that law enforcement officers could have the information they
need to keep us secure. The conference report deleted this important
House provision.
In addition, while current law allows for the denial of admission to
the U.S. on terrorism-related grounds, terrorism cannot be used as a
basis of deportability from the country. This means that some
terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the United States,
but as soon as they set foot on our shores, we cannot deport them,
hindering our ability to protect America from terrorists who have
infiltrated our country. The House bill makes aliens deportable for
terrorism-related offenses just as they would be denied admission to
the country in the first place. The conference report excludes this
critical provision, leaving a gaping hole in our national security.
The security of our Nation must be our top priority. Great
intelligence is nothing without a strong national security. The bottom
line is that this bill fails to prevent those who may be harmful to the
security of our Nation from operating freely and undetected in the
United States.
If the war on terrorism is to be ultimately successful, it is more
important than ever that we take the necessary steps to strengthen
security at our borders and provide law enforcement agencies the tools
they need to identify those individuals who enter or remain in the
United States illegally.
This bill is woefully inadequate because it fails to make immigration
reforms that are absolutely fundamental to ensuring the security of our
Nation. By passing this conference report without immigration reform,
we are sending a message to the American people that we still have not
learned from the tragedy of 9/11 that political correctness must never
take the place of national security.
[[Page H11011]]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point
that this legislation is a victory for the 9/11 families who lost loved
ones, heroes, on September 11, 2001. Those family members who were the
ones who were instrumental in creating the 9/11 Commission in the first
place and who have been tenacious and persevering in making sure that
we do the right thing deserve the credit. I want to commend them on
their great work on this.
Let me also respond to the previous speaker. By any measure, this
legislation will improve our Nation's ability to protect against
terrorism. The 9/11 Commission pointed out so well, and I quote them,
``Travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In a provision that I
have long advocated for, and that was put in this legislation by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we now have provisions that fortify
the visa application process and ensure that our consuls abroad have to
thoroughly interview those who are applying for a nonimmigrant visa and
meticulously inspect their documents.
Let me remind my colleagues that those who committed the atrocities
of 9/11 entered the U.S. legally. They got their visas. They went to
one of our consuls in Saudi Arabia and, regrettably, the personnel
there were giving out visas like cotton candy. The terrorists exploited
a weakness in the system. So they came here legally. They were not
illegal immigrants. And that point needs to be underscored.
This legislation with Chairman Hyde's language closes that loophole
so that terrorist will be stopped before they get their visas. That's a
critical provision in a bill with many, many new programs and I support
it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2845, the National Intelligence
Reform Act of 2004. This legislation represents a hard-won victory for
the family survivors of 9/11 and for all Americans. They have placed
their hopes in us to make the structural changes necessary to prevent
another intelligence failure on the scale of September 11th. It is
fitting and appropriate that we consider this legislation on December
7th because prior to 9/11, Pearl Harbor represented the largest single
day loss of human life to an attack on American soil.
This is, Mr. Speaker, the survivors' bill. If not for the hard work,
tenacity and dedication of the families of the victims of 9/11--those
3,000 heroes who lost their lives in that horrific attack--we would not
be here today.
Still, there has been much controversy surrounding this bill. Some
critics charge that this legislation is not really needed; others
contend that it was developed in a rush and should have been considered
more thoroughly in committee and subcommittee hearings before being
brought to the floor. Neither of these criticisms are valid.
In fact, this legislation is the product of a comprehensive process
that began over 2 years ago with the appointment of the 9/11
Commission. I was an early and consistent advocate for the 9/11
Commission because I believed the families deserved answers and the
Nation needed a chronicled ``lessons learned'' and a way to move
forward to make us safer.
In pursuing its wide-ranging mandate to investigate the facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
the Commission reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents and
interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries, including
nearly every senior U.S. government official from the current and
previous administrations who had responsibility for topics covered
under the Commission's mandate. The Commission's recommendations were
nonpartisan, unanimous, and published to wide acclaim this past summer.
No less than 13 House committees held more than two dozen hearings on
the Commission's report and subsequent legislation. In the Committee on
International Relations, I chaired a critical hearing on visa reform
and recommendations for enhanced U.S. diplomacy. In the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, on which I serve as chair, we held a hearing on
Emergency Medical Preparedness.
Today's historic bill addresses and responds to the Commission's
major recommendations, and will bring much needed reforms to our
intelligence funding, gathering, sharing, and analytical processes.
Anyone who questions whether or not these reforms are needed should
read the Commission's report. It is filled with information--available
to us at the time--that terrorists were actively plotting against us.
But instead of our country being on a war footing, the investigations
were treated as mere law enforcement cases, and information was not
shared between the FBI and CIA. When Predator unmanned drones captured
video feed of Osama bin Laden himself in the mountains of Afghanistan,
the Pentagon and the CIA bickered for months about who should pay for
upgrading the drones to carry Hellfire missiles. The opportunity to
take out bin Laden before September 11th was thus squandered by
bureaucratic infighting.
Mr. Speaker, on December 7th, 1941 Americans said `never again' will
we be caught so unprepared for a sneak attack. But it did happen again.
It happened on September 11th, 2001, and nearly 3,000 men, women, and
children lost their lives because of it. This legislation will finally
create a national intelligence director who will have direct authority
over our intelligence agencies and who will have the power to redirect
assets and resources as necessary. The position of national
intelligence director should have been created after Pearl Harbor, but
J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful FBI director at the time, blocked its
creation. Later, the Defense Department blocked similar intelligence
reforms over the next several decades. Indeed, the same fate nearly
befell this very bill before us today, and it was only the timely and
persuasive intervention of President Bush which salvaged this historic
package of reforms from being yet another casualty of perennial agency
turf battles.
Further, this bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center with
the authority to plan intelligence missions and counterterrorism
operations. The White House has worked with the conferees to ensure
that neither the Director nor the Counterterrorism Center will
interfere with the flow of military intelligence to the battlefield and
the military's need to preserve its chain of command.
By any measure, the conference report will improve our Nation's
ability to protect against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11
Commission's report states that for terrorists, ``travel documents are
as important as weapons.'' In a provision which I have long pushed for,
this bill will require all aliens applying for a non-immigrant visa to
completely and accurately respond to any request for information
contained in the application, in order to prevent the disastrous series
of events in which the 9/11 terrorists failed to provide the most basic
of information on their visa applications, yet were still issued visas.
It is important to remember that the hijackers were not illegal
immigrants. They had valid visas because they exploited the weaknesses
of our visa system. With this new legislation, we close those gaps.
Consular officials must interview, in person, all appplicants for non-
immigration visas unless a special waiver is granted.
This bill includes provisions targeted at preventing terrorism
overseas before it reaches our shores. I have been working in this area
ever since our embassies were first bombed in Africa in 1998 when I
authored the Embassy Security Act. Under the conference report, it
directs the State Department to seek international agreements to track
and curtail terrorist travel through the use of fraudulent documents
and to establish international standards for travel documents,
transliteration of names into the Roman alphabet, and common name-based
watch list systems. Programs to screen threatening individuals before
they reach the U.S. will put U.S. immigration experts at foreign
airports.
In order to address the root causes of anti-American incitement
overseas which breeds terrorists and sympathizers, the conference
report will provide scholarships for Muslim students, more funds for
broadcasting and democracy building programs to the Islamic world, and
targets aid for strategic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan
and Pakistan, which were described by the September 11th Commission as
absolutely vital to the success in the war on terrorism.
Today's legislation also includes several important, overdue measures
to bolster our national security here at home. New programs and pilot
projects to upgrade airport and aviation security include explosives
detection screening for carry-on baggage, training for foreign air
marshals, additional screening of airport workers, and blast-resistant
cargo and baggage containers. We will enhance our border security by
adding 2,000 full-time border patrol agents, 800 Immigration and
Customs Enforcement investigators, 150 consular officers per year for
the next 3 years, and advance the use of new technologies such as
remotely piloted aircraft to ensure the systematic surveillance of our
northern and southern borders. Moreover, this bill will grant the FBI
the authority to conduct surveillance and wiretaps on suspected
terrorists, even if they have no known ties to any foreign country or
entity. In other words, if the FBI is aware of a person trying to
produce anthrax, but he appears to be working alone, they can still
monitor his activities. For the first time, a Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board will be created to ensure that privacy and
civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in the
implementation of laws, regulations and government policies to protect
our Nation against terrorism.
[[Page H11012]]
This conference report also tightens our Nation's immigration laws to
close loopholes. For instance, officials will be able to deport any
alien who has received military training from a designated terrorist
organization, was well as rendering inadmissible aliens who have
committed acts of torture, particularly severe violations of religious
freedom, extrajudicial killing or genocide.
It is important to note that a crucial reform that the September 11th
Commission recommended, but which is notably absent from this
conference report, is to change the first responder grant formula and
make the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants awarded and
assessed based on risk and intelligence data.
The House-passed bill which I cosponsored and voted for (H.R. 10),
contained an excellent package of reforms to the illogical grant system
that allocates nearly 40 percent of all of the DHS first responder
grants strictly on a state minimum basis, rather than risk assessment,
and divides most of the rest of the funds on a rote population basis
without any risk-analysis. The H.R. 10 reforms would have benefited
high-risk, high-population density urban states like New Jersey
enormously, while at the same time scaling back grants to states like
Wyoming that have fewer terror risks. It would have truly implemented
the Commission's recommendation to ensure first responder funding was
analyzed and prioritized strictly on risk. The state minimums were
reduced substantially.
The Senate passed bill and the Menendez substitute were either much
weaker or put too much money into the state minimums, but still
represented improvements over current law.
Incredibly, the final conference report dropped both sets of
improvements and essentially retains current law. Mr. Speaker, the
failure to reform the deeply flawed current first responder grant
program is a major missed opportunity for Congress. I pledge to work
with similarly-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix this
formula in the upcoming 109th Session of Congress.
While the bill creates general national standards for driver's
licenses, birth certificates, and social security cards in order to
prevent the identity fraud that terrorists can exploit, as well as
improves the physical security of the documents, I remain disappointed
that the bill does not prohibit the issuance of driver's licenses to
illegal aliens. The idea of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens
is not only unsound, it is just not safe for the country. I will
continue to push for limitations on the validity of licenses for those
individuals temporarily in the United States.
I am pleased that provisions I opposed in the House bill, H.R. 10--to
expand expedited removal and basically eliminate appeals for asylum--
are not included in the conference report. These provisions would have
dramatically altered our asylum procedures and would have had an
extraordinarily harmful effect on true asylum seekers, human
trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic
violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. We must
continue to maintain the delicate balance between ensuring our safety
and preserving our country as a safe haven for the persecuted and
oppressed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard over the last several
years with the widows, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children
and other relatives of the victims of September 11th to help establish
a meaningful investigation and produce comprehensive reform. Today we
mark the furthest milestone in this long, difficult journey. And while
no amount of legislative reform can completely heal their hearts, they
can take some comfort in knowing that their government has responded
and Americans will be safer because of their hard work and great
efforts.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my classmate, a
member of our committee and the ranking member on our Subcommittee on
Intelligence Policy and National Security.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and
the chairman of our committee for the work that they have done
together. I think the American people are proud.
This has been a very tough journey to arrive here tonight with a
conference report to reform the intelligence community of our country.
And yet we know, and all Americans know, that the status quo is not
good enough. The status quo has been in place throughout the Cold War
and post-Cold War. Yet ever since our country was attacked, there is
not anyone that could say that all systems were running the way they
should.
And so with gratitude to the families of the victims, who, as our
leader said a few moments ago, have inspired us and inspired the
country, with the President supporting the bill, with the leadership of
both parties supporting the bill, with the support and the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, who did such superb work for
the people of our country, there is no reason why the House of
Representatives should not vote in its entirety in support of this bill
that reforms our intelligence community.
I think it falls short on oversight, and that should be taken up in
the new Congress because it is an important, critical role of the
Congress. But I am very proud to stand with my colleagues and the
Democrats who introduced an inspirational bill 8 months and 6 days ago
that mirrored the recommendations of the commission. I urge all my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to make two quick points.
One is, indeed, most of the people who were here, most of the
hijackers were here illegally, not legally, because they fraudulently
produced documents to get their visas. The visas were frauds to begin
with, making them illegal aliens in this country.
Secondly, many of them had overstayed their visas or were doing
something here that was not allowed under the visa, making them illegal
aliens in this country. So, indeed, they were illegal.
Thirdly, there are far more members of 9/11 families who oppose this
bill because the provisions we are talking about here are missing;
those provisions to secure our borders are missing. Far more oppose
this bill in its present form than support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we set up a 9/11 Commission
if we were not going to take their provisions in their entirety.
When the 9/11 Commission tells us that border security is national
security; when the commission finds that our border system has two
systemic weaknesses, a lack of a well-developed counterterrorism
measure as a part of border security and, to quote them, ``an
immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments when
they look at the case of Mohammed Atta and others and then find and
tell us that targeting their travel is at least as powerful a weapon
against terrorists as targeting their money, and then lays out a plan
for our U.S. border security to be reformed, and we pick up those
reforms, put them in the House bill that we pass over to the Senate and
now find that those very reforms are stripped out, I do not know how we
back away from that argument. Border security is national security; how
we acquiesce to those that say no, you cannot touch border security.
You know, I do not know with certainty that moving around the
organizational boxes of the intelligence community will make things
better. It may. But one thing we can be sure of is that the driver's
license provisions that have been stripped at the insistence of the
other body would have made a difference. Driver's licenses were the 9/
11 terrorists' license to kill and to kill massively. We know that.
They had 63 of these driver's licenses between them, for the 19 of
them. And these identification documents gave these hijackers
unfettered access to nearly everything they needed to plan and carry
out their attacks on Washington, D.C. and on New York City. And the
identification cards also allowed them to remain in the country with
the appearance of legitimacy long after their visas had expired and
their presence in the United States became illegal.
Sixty-eight percent of this body voted for these reforms and 87
percent of the American people support them. They should be in the
bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, which I have
followed very closely, and listening to the previous speaker from
California, I agree with most everything that has been said. However,
you cannot judge a bill by what is not in it. You judge it by what is
in it. You cannot win a ball game by designing each play for a
touchdown. You move the ball down the field. This is just one piece of
legislation, a very important piece, which is
[[Page H11013]]
going to come together next year, and we are going to complete the work
with illegal immigration.
Do not say this bill is not tough on illegal immigration. We are
putting 2,000 more agents each year on the border under this bill. This
bill does a lot for us, and all of the other things we have been
talking about. It is time to move this forward, come back in the next
Congress and pass the rest of it, which has already passed this House
by 68 percent, as the gentleman from California said.
Vote ``yes'' on this most important bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
applaud the comments of the last Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), another of our committee
members and an increasingly valuable member of our committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to start out with
strong praise for the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He has
bridged differences among many Members who had reservations about this
bill, so I thank him for his leadership.
I also want to thank our leader, the committee's ranking Democrat,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for her vision and
tenacity in pursuing intelligence reform. She was the driving force
behind the introduction of a reform bill back in April, months before
the 9/11 report was released.
Now, this is an historic measure. We are doing more than rearranging
boxes on an organizational chart. We are ensuring that the intelligence
community has one boss to ensure better communication and
accountability. I spent close to 18 years in local government, where I
managed a large county, close to 19,000 employees; and I know that
workers need to answer to one person who sets policy and manages the
budget.
This is critically important to help prevent another terrorist attack
and to protect our families and communities.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we are being told that time is running out to
pass intelligence reform legislation. The truth is, time ran out on
September 11. We are on borrowed time.
Prior to September 11, three commissions, the Bremer Commission, the
Hart-Rudman Commission, and the Gilmore Commission, all came to
Congress and said the same thing, that the terrorist threat is real;
that we need an assessment of this threat, a strategy to address it,
and a reorganized government to implement that strategy. Sadly, few
listened then; and, tragically, no one acted.
September 11 was the wake-up call from hell that told us that the
terrorist threat is real; that Cold War doctrines of containment,
reaction, and mutually assured destruction are totally invalid. And our
policy now must be to detect and prevent and, on occasion, preempt
those who wish to do us harm. That requires better intelligence.
Congress and the administration made significant changes over the
last 3 years to improve our security, but today we are taking the most
critical step by reorganizing our intelligence community, creating a
Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel authority.
Thank you to all who have made this possible. We are changing and
improving transportation. And, yes, while we could do more, we are
moving forward with immigration reform.
I believe, I am confident that we can enact stronger immigration
reforms in the next Congress, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to see that this is done. But do not defeat this bill
because you want greater changes in immigration and lose the changes
that have to happen on intelligence reform. We will get the job done.
This is the beginning, the most important step; but we are not
finished.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has 30 seconds remaining.
The order of closing is: the gentleman from Colorado, the gentlewoman
from California, and the gentleman from Michigan.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary
and an extremely conscientious Member of this House.
(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission recommended the creation
of an independent bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil
rights and civil liberties, in recognition of the fact that in this
difficult area of securing America we were going into some very
uncharted areas.
{time} 1900
We crafted a provision in the Committee on the Judiciary which has
been substantially watered down in this version of the bill. I simply
want to submit for the Record a statement that describes that process.
I intend to vote for the bill, but have some concerns about whether
this bipartisan board of compliance is independent enough or bipartisan
enough or is really going to have any authority to do anything to
safeguard civil liberties and civil rights after we pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include a more detailed description of my concerns for
the Record.
Mr. Speaker, because I take the protection of our constitutional
rights and liberties very seriously, I offered an amendment during the
Judiciary Committee markup of this bill to establish an independent,
bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil rights and liberties
and the Judiciary Committee bill included a version of the oversight
board. Since that time, there has been a false comparison between the
board I recommended and that in the Senate bill to an advisory board
created by the President by executive order. The President's board is
not and should not be the guidepost for what satisfies the mandate of
the 9/11 Commission. The President's board consists of Administration
insiders with advisory functions.
Now I know that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the 9/11
Commission have endorsed this conference report and characterize the
Privacy and Civil Liberties board as independent. I respectfully
disagree. The board created by this bill may turn out to be worse than
no board at all. It's members are handpicked by the President and serve
at his pleasure. That does not create independence. There is no rights
of the board to obtain by subpoena information needed to perform its
functions. There is no public reporting requirement. And, there is a
gaping hole that permits the government to assert a national security
or law enforcement exception to the Board's access to government
information that may very well reveal whether the rights of our
citizens are being violated.
We all agree that our nation must adjust to confront the terrorist
threat, but in doing so we cannot undermine the principles for which
Americans stand. One need not look far to imagine the types of abuses
that a strong, independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board could
expose and prevent. Should innocent Americans be held merely on
suspicion, without the opportunity to consult with counsel, without the
ability to speak with their family? Should Americans be willing to miss
graduations, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, because their names are
erroneously on a no-fly list? If Senator Kennedy, Congressman John
Lewis and Congressman Young find themselves detained as suspected
terrorists, who will be next?
In short, just as we need to make adjustments as we fight terrorism,
we also need a board with teeth, one that can make sure that fighting
terrorism is done in a manner that does not change the fundamental
nature of our society. The 9/11 Commission Report stated:
We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the
success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and
liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger
America's liberties than the success of a terrist attack at home. Our
history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our
liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to
defend.
I believe that we have missed the opportunity to say to the world and
to the terrorists
[[Page H11014]]
who would harm us that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to
detect and prevent further attacks but at the same time with equal
vigor, we will protect the time-honored values and freedoms that makes
our nation great.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the following is from the final report: ``Secure
identification should begin in the United States. Fraud in
identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many
entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding
aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure
that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are
terrorists.'' That is from the report. That is the thing we are
ignoring completely in this bill designed to respond to the 9/11
Commission report.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill so it can
come back here in a form that could make us all proud, and so we would
be able to go back to our constituents and say we have indeed done
something to secure this country. This bill does not do that.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not all agree on the best direction in
which to go. It is clear from this debate that Members on our side and
Members on the other side of the aisle have some strong feelings
against the carefully crafted compromise. But carefully crafted it was.
I can assure Members that 10 weeks and thousands of hours by Members
and staff went into the language of this conference report.
There were fights about almost every issue. We worked it out as best
we could. We worked it out on a bipartisan basis, and as I said at the
beginning of this debate, I cannot thank enough Senators Collins and
Lieberman and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their
collaboration, talent, dedication and true grit. This would not have
happened without them.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation about the House
bill and what was left out of the conference report. I would point out
to colleagues that the vote in the House was an extremely close vote.
To remind, there was an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The vote on that
amendment in the nature of a substitute was 203-213; 194 Democrats, 8
Republicans, and 1 Independent supported the Menendez substitute, which
was essentially the Senate version of the bill. That means that 96
Members of the other body, all but 2 who voted, and 203 Members of this
body, 300 Members, supported essentially the Senate version of the
bill. We could look at that as an overwhelming vote for the Senate
language. I certainly look at it that way, and the 9/11 Commission said
and the White House said in many respects that the Senate language was
much closer to what they intended.
My point in bringing this up is in reaching the compromise that we
are voting on now, we need to understand how much was given up on both
sides. Clearly the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and those who
support his position think a lot was given up on his side. Some of the
language that passed in H.R. 10, very controversial language, was given
up, to be sure. But a lot of the language in the Senate version of the
bill was also given up: such as the declassified top line; such as a
number of the powers that have been talked about for the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Board; such as full control over reprogramming of
personnel and budget. A lot of those issues were given up in the effort
to reach a carefully balanced, bipartisan, bicameral compromise.
That is what we are voting on today. I would just tell all Members
that I believe it is not only the best we could do, but it is very
good. Just to remind, we do address immigration, we do increase border
protection, we do include Federal standards for State-issued drivers'
licenses, and we do do something which has not been mentioned, which is
direct TSA to develop within 6 months new standards for ID documents
for boarding airplanes. TSA is directed in this bill to handle what we
all agree is a problem. We do not want terrorists to use fraudulent
documents or documents based on expired visas to board airplanes, and
we correct that problem in this bill.
We also address the chain of command, as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) has pointed out. We did not address the border
fence issue, but I am hopeful that without waiving environmental
protections, those of us who care about it in California will figure
out a right and fair solution.
Finally, let me point out, as many Members have, that this bill is
supported by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of
Defense, the 9/11 Commission, most of the 9/11 families, most of the
conferees, and overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis in each
House. I urge its adoption. It is the right thing to do. It honors the
9/11 families, and it makes a point about the 63rd anniversary of the
Pearl Harbor attacks. We know how to fix these problems. We will do it
tonight. I urge adoption of the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wish I was as eloquent as former
Member John Kasich when he got up to close a bill, but I want to say a
lot of people have worked on this bill. I understand some of my
colleagues are going to vote against this bill because it is very close
whether many of us would vote against the bill.
Many of my own constituents want the immigration provisions in there.
I will look them in the eye and I will say would you give up 8,000
Border Patrols on our borders to defend us if this bill goes down?
Would you give up the transportation provisions? One of the biggest
risks we have is our port security. If a terrorist takes a suitcase
bomb and puts it in a cargo container on the east or west coast, that
is a real problem. That would go down.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues that if the President has
promised us we will bring this up, if our leadership and the 9/11
families will be with us to complete the recommendations that were not
brought forth in this bill, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill,
because if they do not, they will put this country at risk.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, while I rise in support of this conference
report, I would like to go on record with a concern that the New York
City Mayor's office has brought to my attention. Mr. Speaker it is my
hope that we can work to make sure that New York City's concerns are
addressed as we implement this legislation.
New York City had attempted to address concerns regarding vital
statistics earlier this year in this bill but it appears that in
conference some matters of importance to New York City have been
dropped.
First of all, New York City maintains vital statistical data on its
own much like Washington, DC and therefore there is a need to treat New
York City and Washington, DC as States relative to minimum standards
for birth certificates. While the bill calls for there being grants to
States, for assistance in meeting federal standard allocation of
grants, this program is estimated to cost in excess of $400 million
nationwide, of which New York City needs--which would be dependent on
many factors, including the costs of modifying legacy computer systems,
converting birth and death records that may be decades old, and the
number of records--will be more than $7 million. This funding need is
not reflected in the bill which calls for these grants to be based on a
proportion of the birth and death records created by the State. These
number of records are only a small factor in the formula that needs to
be developed and should not be the sole factor in funding allotments.
The formula for such should be developed after consultation with State
vital statistic offices.
Furthermore, the section Driver's Licenses and Personal
Identification Cards--Standards for Acceptance by Federal Agencies--
Minimum Standards will likely require the Electronic Verification of
Vital Events (EVVE). However, the bill does not provide for
consultation with State vital statistics offices, or for funding the
vital statistics systems needed for EVVE.
Similarly, the section on Social Security Cards and Numbers: Security
Enhancements requires independent verification of any birth record
submitted by an individual to SSA for purposes other than enumeration
at birth. However, it does not provide for systems or funding to vital
statistics offices. And while this
[[Page H11015]]
section requires the Commissioner of Social Security to undertake
improvements to the Enumeration At Birth (EAB) program. The
Commissioner of Social Security should do this in consultation with
State vital statistics offices as should the Commissioner of Social
Security's study to determine the most efficient options for ensuring
the integrity of the process for enumeration at birth.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Conference Report for the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Implementation Act. This important legislation implements most of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to reorganizing our
intelligence agencies, it also institutes reforms in a broad range of
other national security areas, including border security, aviation
security, maritime security, emergency responders, public diplomacy,
and law enforcement.
While I am pleased that a compromise has been reached, this body
should have acted long ago. It has been four months since the 9/11
Commission issued its recommendations. If we are to minimize the
possibility of another 9/11, we must do a better job of working
together in a bi-partisan manner. This body represents all Americans--
Republicans and Democrats alike.
Nevertheless, this long-delayed conference report includes numerous
provisions to make America safer and more secure. As recommended by the
9/11 Commission, the conference report creates a strong Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), who will head the Intelligence community
and its 15 agencies. The Director will serve as the principal
intelligence adviser to the President; and direct the implementation of
the National Intelligence Program. Furthermore, the conference report
establishes a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) within the Office
of DNI to coordinate and unify all elements of counterterrorism
operations planning.
Lastly, I am happy to see the inclusion of numerous provisions that
are designed to improve the Nation's aviation, maritime and border
security and enhance terrorism prevention. The bill will also establish
an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board that will be granted
access to all government agencies to review policies and practices and
will be led by a Chair and Vice Chair confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, no bill is perfect and perhaps in the future some
modifications will be necessary. We may also need to address things
this bill does not include in the future. However, this is the best
compromise we have at the moment, and time is of the essence.
I support this legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee on House Administration, our panel has
authorizing responsibilities over much of the Legislative-branch
portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. Like the rest of the
omnibus, the Legislative portion is not perfect, but the sundry
agencies under our jurisdiction will generally have the resources they
need to continue providing their services to the Congress, and to the
American people.
Of course, as a procedural matter, I am disappointed that a
freestanding Legislative appropriation did not become law in a regular
process, before the start of the fiscal year. Such a bill, H.R. 4755,
passed the House in July and later passed the Senate in plenty of time
for conferees to report. I recognize that this was not the fault of the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] or the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran]. I hope they and all Members have the opportunity to
consider the fiscal 2006 bill in a timely, orderly and ordinary
process.
With respect to specific agencies under the jurisdiction of my
committee, I am pleased that this bill funds a staff fitness facility
for the House. This important facility will provide a way for our
employees to remain fit and healthy. None of us can properly discharge
our duties without the support of our staffs and the other House
employees. This long-awaited facility will be a tremendous addition to
the House, making it, as well as our employees, stronger.
I am disappointed that the bill does not include a House provision,
authored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Kirk], eliminating funding
for the Capitol Police mounted unit. In my judgment, the Police have
failed to articulate a sufficient rationale for spending hundreds of
thousands, millions over time, for this purpose. There is little doubt
that the U.S. Park Police can benefit from maintaining a mounted unit,
since the Park Police must patrol thousands of acres of parkland in the
District of Columbia, much of it well off-road. The Capitol Police
faces no such situation, and in fact, will have to spend tens of
thousands each year simply to remove the manure from the carefully
manicured and fairly small Capitol grounds. Absent a sufficient
justification that the Capitol Police mounted unit was worth its cost,
I supported the efforts of my Illinois colleague to save the taxpayers'
money. I look forward to the important report by the Government
Accountability Office, due in March, on this subject.
I share the concerns expressed in the conference report about the
ongoing efforts to reorganize the Police. I look forward to reviewing
the results of the GAO's contributions in this area. The conferees also
directed the Capitol Police to review all existing operations and
general expenses to determine whether any ``outsourcing'' opportunities
may exist. That term has come to mean the wholesale transfer of jobs
overseas, and as a result, its use in the report may disturb many.
Naturally, I am eager to review the Capitol Police's report to the
appropriators on this subject, and on the USCP's expensive but
mechanically unsound Command Vehicle. It seems that these subjects, and
many others related to USCP operations and expenses, would make
excellent subjects for formal hearings next year in our committee.
In connection with the Capitol Police, I am greatly concerned that
several legislative provisions within the jurisdiction of the House
Administration Committee found their way into this appropriations bill.
In November, I joined my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney],
and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee, in a joint letter to the Capitol Police Board
directing the Board not to requests further such provisions in its
future budget requests, and reminding the Board that it should bring
proposed legislation to those committees for consideration. Only in
this way can the authorizing and appropriations processes work as
designed, and for the good of the men and women of the Capitol Police
and the people they serve. The Capitol Police was certainly not the
only agency within our jurisdiction which asked for legislative
provisions in its budget request this year. The others should similarly
heed the message we conveyed to the Police Board.
With respect to the Library of Congress, while I am pleased that the
Congress will extend temporarily the authorization for the National
Film Preservation Board and Foundation, which enabled the funding of
this important work for another two years, I am dismayed that separate
reauthorization legislation, under the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee and House Administration, has not passed. I trust
these committees can quickly address this matter next year. I agree
with the conferees, who lauded the work of the Copyright Office with
respect to digitizing future and historic Copyright records. The
Copyright Office, which depends on the public to defray a portion of
its expenses, is headed in the right direction in this regard. I also
note the continuing good work of the Congressional Research Service,
without which none of the Members of either House could do his or her
work effectively.
I am hopeful that our committee can authorize a student-loan
repayment program for the Office of Compliance. This important tool has
helped numerous federal agencies, including the House, to attract and
retain the staff needed to build an effective organization.
With respect to agencies within our committee's jurisdiction and
funded in bills other than the Legislative appropriations bill, I am
glad to see that the conferees agreed to fund the Election Assistance
Commission above the amount proposed by the Senate. The $14 million
appropriated will help continue the work started by the EAC to serve as
the clearinghouse for Federal elections. Although, the EAC got a late
start, with the commissioners not taking office until December 2003,
they must continue working to improve the election process. If Congress
considers a supplemental appropriations bill next spring, the EAC
should consider requesting additional resources.
Yet again, I am not pleased that the majority bypassed the committee
and inserted into this bill a provision allowing contributions to
campaigns for federal office to be diverted to campaigns for state or
local office. While this may be a meritorious idea, I certainly believe
it should have been considered in an orderly process in the committees
of jurisdiction, and not simply added to a massive appropriations bill.
Finally, the Smithsonian Institution received an increase of 3.1 over
the fiscal 2004 budget, an increase of more than $19 million, but still
2 percent below its request. The funding level was reasonable given the
overall budget constraints this year, but, as in the past, will not
fund an aggressive approach to the Smithsonian's aging infrastructure
and inadequate maintenance. I hope that Congress will soon recognize
that its year-by-year, finger-in-the-dike approach to budgeting
actually accelerates the deterioration of the physical plant of our
nation's greatest repository of knowledge and ongoing research.
Congress last year finally authorized the National Museum of African
American History and Culture, which is in preliminary phases of
engineering studies, staffing and planning, and which does not yet have
a location or director. The $5 million request to continue the start-
[[Page H11016]]
up process was reduced to $3.9 million, which will impede the process.
The Board of Regents expects to make a site recommendation to relevant
committees, including House Administration, late next year.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations
Committee and look forward to working with the committee on matters of
common concern next year.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the
conference report on H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for
FY 2005.
I commend President Bush and the House leadership for their efforts
to move critical intelligence reform legislation through Congress. H.R.
4548 includes a comprehensive and wide-ranging package of much-needed
policy and pragmatic changes that dramatically enhance our ability to
target terrorist threats.
There are many reasons to support this legislation. One particularly
important reason relates to the language capabilities. It became
glaringly evident in the aftermath of 9/11 that we had inadequate
language skills and translators in the Intelligence Community. It
turned out that we, as a nation, were desperately short of linguists in
hard languages such as Arabic, Iranian-Farsi, Afghan-Pashtu, Korean,
and Chinese. These are languages that take years to master, but they
are absolutely essential if we expect our Intelligence Community to
gather critical information.
Mr. Speaker, we will never find the enemy unless we have personnel
who speak the languages and understand the culture in lands where
terrorists hide. Without serious reforms that increase the number of
intelligence officers who speak the enemy's language, there is no way
the 9/11 Commission recommendations can be implemented.
The conference report on H.R. 4548 focuses on methods of increasing
the talent pool, and instilling a sense of the absolute importance of
language in gathering foreign intelligence. We provide a comprehensive,
broad-ranging language and education package that seeks to increase the
number of language-capable field officers. We provide a plan to
increase the number of analysts who are fluent in critical languages.
And, we dramatically increase the number of translators to tackle the
mountain of untranslated documents.
Working very closely with the Intelligence Community, the FY05
Intelligence Authorization Act provides the authority to engage in a
wide range of educational partnerships and voluntary assistance
programs to advance language skills in the general population. We
establish an Intelligence Community outreach program that will help
identify promising linguists.
The legislation revitalizes and broadly expands existing language
education programs. We establish a Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps,
where individuals fluent in critical languages can be available in the
event of a crisis. This legislation provides opportunities for first
generation Americans with language skills to contribute to the global
war on terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, this is a much-needed series of reforms that were
unanimously embraced by the Committee. I congratulate the distinguished
Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Hoekstra], and the Ranking Democrat [Ms.
Harman], for maintaining language reform as a Committee priority.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report on H.R. 4548.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Speaker, Majority
Leader, Chairman Hunter and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their hard work
on this important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I must oppose
this bill. It contains provisions to reform our intelligence
procedures, and it includes a provision to help private security
companies--like Guardsmark, which is headquartered in my district--
access criminal history background about prospective employees who
guard the nation's critical infrastructure. However, this legislation
does not contain essential provisions included in the House-passed bill
to improve our asylum process or driver license procedures. The 9/11
Commission report found that a number of terrorists abused the asylum
system, and that once they found a way into the United States they
often remained in the country by committing immigration fraud. The
House bill also had a provision that would keep aliens who have
received military-type training from terrorist organizations from being
admitted to the United States--unfortunately, this provision was
stricken from the conference report. This conference report removed the
provision from the House bill that requires temporary driver's licenses
to expire when an individual's visa expires. Finally, the conference
report does not include important provisions that would prevent certain
states from issuing driver's licenses to individuals who cannot
demonstrate that they are lawfully present in the United States.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we will implement
intelligence reform before the close of the 108th Congress and rise in
support of this bill.
After 9/11, we approached fighting the global war on terrorism as we
had the Cold War. But it became clear that we needed to adapt our
intelligence community, law enforcement agencies and military to new
global threats. The 9/11 Commission gave us a blueprint for that
mission, and this legislation will help us implement their vision. One
of the major recommendations reflected in this bill is the creation of
a strong national intelligence director, who will coordinate the
activities of our various intelligence agencies. Cooperation among
agencies and departments will be critical, and this measure shifts the
mentality of our intelligence community from ``need to know'' to ``need
to share.''
The conference report also makes significant improvements in the
realm of homeland security, including enhanced border patrol efforts,
implementation of a comprehensive transportation security plan,
improved passenger and baggage screening programs, and initiatives to
protect commercial aircraft from unconventional threats such as
shoulder-fired missiles.
It also recognizes the need for the U.S. to increase its interaction
with and understanding of the Muslim world. As the 9/11 Commission so
eloquently put it: ``We need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. If
the U.S. does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic
world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.'' By establishing
new cultural exchange programs and enhancing diplomatic efforts, we can
work cooperatively with Muslim nations to address mutual problems and
demonstrate a free and democratic alternative to extremist ideology.
One noteworthy section of the conference report addresses the need
for interoperable communications systems among first responders. As a
member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked
closely with law enforcement officers in Rhode Island and throughout
the nation, and they have all emphasized the importance of being able
to communicate with each other in the event of an emergency. The
measure also provides new authority for law enforcement agents to
combat terrorism, while avoiding some of the controversial provisions
included in earlier drafts, particularly with regard to immigration. We
need to have a national discussion on immigration reform, and Congress
should address such issues in that context instead of slipping divisive
language into an unrelated measure.
Finally, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am
pleased that this bill strikes a careful balance between creating a
strong national intelligence director and preserving the ability of our
men and women in uniform to gain access to the intelligence needed to
be successful on the battlefield.
I thank all my colleagues for working in a bipartisan fashion to
craft a landmark measure that will make America safer, and urge support
of this legislation.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for S.
2845, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the
Bush administration have taken strong, decisive action to respond to
the attacks and to make our country safer from future attacks. This
legislation is only the latest step taken by Congress and the Bush
administration to improve our security. I applaud the efforts of my
colleagues on the conference committee and in the House leadership to
bring this compromise legislation to the floor.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, I would like to highlight two provisions of the bill
that address the dangers drug trafficking poses to homeland security.
The first strengthens and clarifies the role of the Counternarcotics
Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; the second requires
that drug enforcement activities be one of the benchmarks for relevant
employee performance appraisals at DHS. I thank Speaker Dennis Hastert
and Chairman Tom Davis of the Government Reform Committee for their
help in securing this language in the bill, which will improve the
Department's anti-drug efforts.
As President Bush noted in December 2001, just a few months after the
9/11 attacks, ``[T]he traffic in drugs finances the work of terror,
sustaining terrorists . . . terrorists use drug profits to fund their
cells to commit acts of murder.'' The huge profits created by drug
trafficking have financed and will continue to finance terrorism
throughout the world. Recognizing the central importance of stopping
terrorist financing, the 9/11 Commission reported, ``Vigorous efforts
to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S.
counterterrorism efforts. The government has recognized that
information about terrorist money helps us to understand their
networks, search them out, and disrupt their operations.''--9/11
Commission Report, 382.
The connections between drugs and terrorism are well-documented. In
testimony before the Subcommittee on February 26, 2004, the State
Department provided declassified information showing that in
Afghanistan, for example, two terrorist insurgent groups--the
[[Page H11017]]
Taliban and the Hib-I Islami/Gulbuddin (HIG)--``almost definitely'' are
financed by drug money, and ``most likely'' are provided with
logistical support by drug traffickers. Two other groups--Al-Qaeda and
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)--``probably'' receive at least
logistical support from drug traffickers, and some reports suggest that
they receive funds from drug trafficking as well.
This narco-terrorist connection has existed for a long time in many
other parts of the world, such as Colombia and Southeast Asia. In fact,
47 percent of the 36 Foreign Terrorist Organizations designated by the
Department of State in October 2003 (including three terrorist groups
that control almost all the international cocaine market) are on record
with DEA as having ties to the drug trade.
Strong Department of Homeland Security action against drug
trafficking is therefore vital to our overall efforts to stop the
financing of terrorist activities. It was for this reason that Congress
specifically provided in 2002 that the primary mission of the
Department included the responsibility to ``monitor connections between
illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever
such connections, and otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict
illegal drug trafficking''--6 U.S.C. III(b)(1)(G).
The provisions I proposed will promote two key objectives to deprive
terrorists of their means of financing their operations: first,
strengthening the effectiveness of the Department's narcotics
interdiction efforts; and second, improving coordination and
cooperation among the Department's subdivisions and between the
Department and other agencies with counterterrorism missions. As the 9/
11 Commission reported, ``We recommend significant changes in the
organization of the government. . . . Good people can overcome bad
structures. They should not have to.''--See
9/11 Commission Report, 399.
The first provision, Section 7407, replaces the current position of
``Counternarcotics Officer'' (contained in the original 2002 Act) with
an Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, headed by a Director. The
first Counternarcotics Officer faced great difficulties in carrying out
the mission Congress asked of him. Unfortunately, the current law gives
him no authority to hire staff to assist him, and fails to clearly
define how the Counternarcotics Officer is to carry out his
responsibilities.
The bill before us would rectify this problem by:
Replacing the Counternarcotics Officer with a Director of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, subject to Senate confirmation and
reporting directly to the Secretary.
Assigning specific responsibilities to the new Director, including
oversight of DHS counterdrug activities and the submission of reports
to Congress; and
Authorizing permanent staff assigned to an Office of Counternarcotics
Enforcement to assist the Director.
The second provision, Section 7408, ensures that DHS employees
involved in counternarcotics activities will be evaluated in part on
the basis of such activities. It is vital that the Department of
Homeland Security continue to encourage its law enforcement personnel
to maintain their efforts to stop illegal drug trafficking.
I do believe that progress is being made. Recently, the Coast Guard,
the legacy Customs Service, and other Federal agencies, including the
Department of Defense and DEA, joined together to make a record seizure
of an estimated total of 27 tons of cocaine found on fishing vessels
near the Galapagos Islands. These record breaking seizures are an
excellent example of what can be accomplished if the Department of
Homeland Security continues to improve intelligence sharing and inter-
agency cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, we can win the war on terror. And we can take effective
action against the narco-terrorists who plague our communities and
destabilize democracies throughout the world by passing this bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the
conference report for S. 2845, the ``Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004.'' The necessary immigration reform provisions
in the House-passed intelligence reform bill, H.R. 10, are not included
in this conference report, leaving critical recommendations of the 9/11
Commission undone.
H.R. 10 includes key provisions necessary to securing our Nation, and
I voted in favor of the bill, along with 282 members of the House.
Unfortunately, the conference report we will be considering today is
different from the House passed bill and leaves a hole in the security
which our citizens demand in a post-9/11 environment. The 9/11
Commission report exposed how the 19 terrorists who attacked America on
that terrible day obtained over 60 driver's licenses between them to
breach our homeland security. Improving document security is a key
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, but the conference report
deletes a key provision that would ban illegal aliens from obtaining a
driver's license.
Proponents of this conference report will try to argue that the
immigration proposals are a peripheral issue that should not be
addressed in S. 2845. To the contrary, the immigration proposals
included in the House passed legislation are essential to securing our
borders from terrorists. This conference report closes the front door
to terrorists, but leaves a key under the back door mat. Once
terrorists enter this country, they will continue to have opportunities
to easily obtain false documentation and travel comfortably within our
borders. These opportunities will be available because this Congress
failed to address them when we had the chance.
If we do not include the necessary immigration provisions in this
conference report, I can promise you they will not be addressed at all.
The critics who oppose including immigration reform in this legislation
have zero interest in advancing true immigration reform. How many times
do we have to be attacked by terrorists with false documents before we
enact the reforms necessary to stop them? The 9/11 attacks have taught
us to be proactive, but Congress is regressing back into a reactive
state of mind with the passage of this conference report--September 10
thinking in a post-9/11 world.
Border security is an essential component of Homeland Security.
America won't be truly secure until Congress makes the tough policy
decisions necessary to curb illegal immigration and restore the
integrity of our borders.
I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in opposition to
this legislation, including House Judiciary Chairman James
Sensenbrenner, whose leadership has brought this critical issue to the
attention of the American people and raised the level of debate. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this well intended, but incomplete,
conference report.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
2845, the 9/11 Implementation Act. In the days immediately following
the 9/11 attacks, Congress put partisan politics aside and came
together to find answers and implement change in our way of life to
protect our homeland from further terrorist attacks. The House and
Senate convened in New York's Federal Hall for a Special Session of
Congress one year after the terrorist attacks, sending a strong message
of gratitude to the world that Americans stand together as one Nation
unified with their allies in our fight against global terrorism. The
same bipartisan spirit carried on through the extraordinary two years
of work by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. On July 22 the Commission
submitted to the President, Congress and the American people a
comprehensive assessment of what went wrong leading up to September 11,
and what needs to be done to prevent future terrorist attacks on our
homeland. Following the release of the Commission's report I noted,
``Now that the members of the 9/11 Commission have done their work, we
in Congress must do ours.'' Since that day I have fully supported
reforms the Commission recommended, from budget authority for the
National Intelligence Director to an overhaul of the Congressional
oversight structure.
The U.S. Senate came together in a truly bipartisan fashion, in a 96-
2 vote, to pass legislation which implements all 41 of the
recommendations laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report. I cosponsored
the companion legislation in the House, but was disappointed when no
hearings were held on the bill. Instead, this chamber adopted
legislation that implements only 11 of the Commission's recommendations
and goes further to impose restrictions on civil liberties not even
mentioned in the Commission's report.
I am heartened that a majority of my colleagues in both chambers have
now come together in a bipartisan spirit to embrace the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission and adopted a provision creating the Independent
Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to protect our privacy and prevent
government abuse. The Commission Report provides a roadmap for
implementing progressive changes that will keep Americans safer. In the
words of President Kennedy, ``There are risks and costs to a program of
action. But they are far less than the long range risks and costs of
inaction.''
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with many
provisions contained in Senate bill 2845. I certainly support the
intelligence reorganization provisions, as modified by the additions
made by Chairman Duncan Hunter. They will strengthen the work of our
intelligence community, help ensure that actionable intelligence gets
to the right people, and help make Americans more secure.
I am also glad to see the ``material support for terrorism''
prohibition enhancement provisions included in this bill. Some previous
versions of these provisions were challenged as being too vague, and
this legislation cures that problem. This legislation clearly provides
that ``training,'' ``personnel'' and ``expert advice'' are defined
broadly without abridging the exercise of rights guaranteed under the
first amendment.
Every terrorist act is really the result of a terrorist chain made of
many links--from those
[[Page H11018]]
evil figures who pull the trigger or drive the rigged truck to those
who provide ``material support'' to terrorists. This support includes
expert advice and other logistical assistance. If we are going to be
successful in the long run in our fight against terrorism, we must
attack every link in that chain. As the author of this session's
primary bill strengthening material support laws, I'm proud of the work
I've done on this front, and glad to see much of it in this bill.
Unfortunately, despite a lot of hard work by some good people, the
final version of this bill also falls short in a few key areas. For
example, the conference report drops the serious penalties we in the
Hose proposed for some newly created terrorist crimes--even for crimes
that result in death. The House included a provision that would permit
the death penalty to be applied for any terrorist crime that causes
death. This provision was adopted by a vote of 344-72, but the Senate
conferees refused to include it in the final bill. As a result, we
would treat these crimes less harshly than we do many other crimes
outside the terrorist arena . . . a dangerous signal to send to the
world.
The conference report also removes other key provisions from the
House bill such as those:
Making it more difficult for terrorists and foreign criminals to win
delays of their removal from the United States;
Allowing for the deportation of all aliens who have engaged in or
been affiliated with terrorists activities;
Making it illegal to traffic in actual authentication features for
identity documents; and
Providing for the electronic confirmation by state motor vehicle
departments of the validity of other states' driver's licenses and
information.
It also adds provisions not in the House bill, some of which are
actually counterproductive to our antiterrorism efforts. One of the
most egregious examples is a provision that will allow a state to waive
some of the potential Federal standards for driver's licenses. The
9/11 report states that we need uniform standards for driver's licenses
if they are going to serve as secure forms of identification. This
provision goes entirely in the wrong direction. Allowing a state to
``opt-out'' of such protections creates an obvious loophole for
terrorists to obtain the very kind of identification documents that the
9/11 terrorists exploited on that terrible day.
There are many good provisions in this bill--some of which I helped
produce. But because this bill falls short in some very important and
troubling ways, and leaves some vitally important issues unaddressed, I
must vote no. I hope that by doing so, we will keep the political
pressure building to tackle some of the crucial work that has been left
undone.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill
to implement some of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
After 9/11, those who lost family members and friends wanted to know
``why.'' But the Bush administration was scared that an honest answer
to that question might highlight flaws in its own policies and
decisions, so it opposed the creation of an independent 9/11
Commission.
The families won that hard-fought fight, and the Commission made
numerous recommendations to reorganize the intelligence community and
strengthen both the implementation and congressional oversight of
homeland security.
Although the Senate put together a bipartisan bill that was true to
the spirit of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the House version
catered to anti-immigration groups' agendas and to Donald Rumsfeld's
struggle to keep all of his Department's intelligence turf intact.
I am extremely pleased that the unwavering determination of the 9/11
family members finally convinced the President and the Speaker to stop
allowing the voices of the few dissenters to stymie the will of the
majority of Members and Senators who've wanted to see this legislation
enacted into law. In particular, I recognize and honor the
extraordinary efforts to enact this bill by Ms. Carie Lemack, whose
mother, Framingham MA resident Judy Larocque, was killed aboard
American Airlines Flight 11. Ms. Lemack is a member of the
9/11 family Steering Committee, and she and others on the Steering
Committee have worked tirelessly to ensure both the creation of the 9/
11 Commission and the enactment of this bill.
The legislation before us today takes some important steps to
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission:
It establishes a Director of National Intelligence with appropriate
budgetary and personnel authority;
It establishes a National Counterterrorism Center to ensure that all
elements of counterintelligence operations planning are coordinated;
It establishes an independent privacy and civil liberties board to
ensure that concerns are addressed; and
It takes specific steps to increase border security.
However, some of the other measures contained in the bill, while
useful, in my opinion do not go far enough:
While the Hostettler amendment to facilitate the rendition of certain
foreign persons to countries that practice torture was stripped from
the bill in conference, along with other anti-immigrant provisions,
there is no restriction in the bill that prohibits the secret transfer
of detainees to other countries where they will likely be tortured in
the name of the U.S. This practice is in direct violation of the
Convention Against Torture, a treaty the U.S. has signed, and the 9/11
Commission specifically called for reforms in this area to ensure the
humane treatment of captives in the war against terror. I will continue
to work until my bill to outlaw outsourcing torture, H.R. 4674, is
passed and I will continue to oppose efforts to move legislation that
would in any way legitimize the practice of rendition to countries that
practice torture.
While the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed in this bill to
develop a national strategy for transportation security, it should be
abundantly clear that numerous loopholes in this area should be closed
immediately: Since almost no cargo placed on passenger airlines is
subject to screening for explosives, screening passenger baggage and
patting down travelers provides a false sense of security to those
flying; The Department has failed to install radiation detectors at all
ports of entry to ensure that nuclear weapons cannot be smuggled into
the country; And finally, the Department has continued to allow
shipments of extremely hazardous materials that could kill thousands of
people to travel through densely populated areas even when safe
alternate routes are available. I will continue to work to close all of
these transportation security loopholes.
Finally, I am also troubled that we have only had several hours to
review this legislation. As we learned in recent weeks when a
Republican staffer inserted an intrusive tax return snooping provision
into the omnibus appropriations bill that no one knew existed and which
later had to be removed, waiving the normal 72 hour layover rule for
conference reports increases the likelihood that provisions that have
not been thoroughly reviewed and do not reflect the will of the House
can make their way into final legislation. While we all recognize the
importance of the 9/11 legislation, it is my hope that in our efforts
to enact it before we adjourn for the year, that language has not been
included that will later prove to be ill-advised or carry with it
unintended consequences.
I commend the 9/11 families for their heroic efforts to make this
country more secure. Without them, we would not be standing here voting
on this landmark legislation today. Today's vote is enormously
important, but our efforts must not end today. I stand ready to
continue the fight to ensure that the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 cannot and will not be repeated.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2845, the House-
Senate agreement on the ``National Intelligence Reform Act.'' As a
former Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have
long believed that making basic changes to the leadership and
communications ability of our intelligence community could reap huge
benefits. This bill represents our first real attempt to eliminate some
of the weaknesses that exist within the intelligence community.
As we celebrate the passage of this landmark reform, many deserve our
enormous appreciation. Only by the determination of the
9/11 Commission Members, House and Senate Conferees, and the Family
Steering Committee do we have a bill before us today. Many Members,
including myself, believed fully in what they were trying to do. Their
resolve, combined with the President's willingness to find common
ground, are the reasons we are able to take these steps to make
America, and Americans, safer.
I strongly supported the document on which most of the reform is
based, the 41 recommendations of the independent and bipartisan 9/11
Commission. In its final report, the Commission cited the absence of
strong, centralized leadership for the intelligence community as one of
the major factors contributing to the structural barriers that
undermined the functioning of our joint intelligence. In response, this
bill will link intelligence and operational planning in a new National
Counter-terrorism Center, unite the intelligence community under a
Director of National Intelligence with significant budget authority,
and allow increased information sharing among decentralized government
networks.
Although these reforms are long overdue, I know the conferees were
determined to close every loophole and address any and all ``what-
ifs.'' We all share the priority of ensuring that these reforms will
not jeopardize our brave
[[Page H11019]]
men and women serving in the armed forces. Now, the Director will have
the authority to improve the structure and methods of our intelligence
system, while protecting the vital chain-of-command between troops in
the field and the Department of Defense.
However, while questions surrounding military intelligence have been
resolved, significant concerns regarding immigration reform and border
security remain. Although this bill adds border security agents,
increases funding for illegal immigration detention facilities, and
improves visa requirements and aviation security, we must not become
complacent in our efforts to protect our homeland from terrorist
infiltrators. For this reason, we must implement an entry and exit
system that uses biometric identifiers, improve cooperation with
foreign governments, and monitor foreign visitors by enhancing passport
and visa requirements. It is also important that we continue to
strengthen federal standards for driver's licenses, identification
cards, and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from deceiving
security with false information. With three million illegal aliens
slipping across our borders every year, and no reliable system of
prevention or tracking in place, I firmly believe reforming our
nation's immigration policies is a key priority for the 109th Congress.
The threats our country faces will surely continue to evolve. For
this reason, I hope the intelligence structure, purpose, and strength
will be subject to continuous scrutiny. We start that process today
with the reforms contained in the ``National Intelligence Reform Act.''
Since Congress first passed the ``National Security Act of 1947,'' at
least 19 commissions, committees, and panels, created by either the
executive or legislative branches, have tried and failed to create an
effective leader with the clout to set common goals for our
intelligence system. Today, the status quo was exchanged for meaningful
and effective reform.
We must now stay true to this course and honor those who were lost on
September 11, 2001, by continuing to pass legislation that increases
our security and protects our citizens from those who seek to harm our
way of life. Although we have made progress today, we must not waiver
in our commitment to make our nation safe for future generations of
Americans.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
frustration at the increasing disconnect between what the American
people believe is critical for improving our national security and what
those inside the Washington Beltway believe, particularly with regard
to illegal immigration.
On the floor for our consideration is legislation to enact portions
of recommendations from the 9-11 Commission. Unfortunately, the bill
omits significant 9-11 Commission recommendations regarding stricter
enforcement of immigration laws and securing our borders.
The 9-11 terrorists exploited our immigration system in order to
carry out the murder of over three thousand Americans. Yet, today, due
to opposition of these critical provisions by certain members of the
U.S. Senate, the legislation before us today is silent on closing these
immigration loopholes. The 9-11 Commissioners all have publicly called
for Congress to enact serious immigration reform. The fact that illegal
immigrants can enter our country and obtain driver licenses and ``game
the system'' to remain concealed from law enforcement is an affront to
all Americans and endangers our security.
Does anyone think that our enemies will cease to look for and exploit
weaknesses in our defenses? Does anyone think they will not look to
continue exploiting the loopholes in our immigration laws? Does anyone
think it makes us safer to keep the status quo?
Today, is the day we should be passing these reforms, not next year,
and not after the next terror attack.
This bill will pass today, but it will do so with significant
security gaps. I believe it is critical that we address the omissions
from this bill as soon as possible. We cannot afford to put off these
critical national security needs.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
2845, that would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
At long last bipartisanship and the will of the American people are at
the brink of success here in the House of Representatives. This reform
is now long overdue and this issue is too important to suffer the petty
partisan games the House leadership have played with this bill. I only
hope that our delay does not come at a higher cost than the few bruised
egos of those unwilling and unable to work in a bipartisan manner the
way our country's Framers always intended when the national security of
this great Nation was threatened.
It should also not be lost on any Member of this Chamber that we are
here debating this legislation today, December 7, on the anniversary of
another day of infamy, which like 9/11 forever changed the future
course of this country and generations of Americans. As we honor and
discuss those who were lost on 9/11 today, I would like to take a
moment to also remember those lost today at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and
the sacrifices made by so many families and Americans since then to
defend this Nation.
The recommendations the bipartisan Commission released in July 2004
will help prevent future terrorist attacks by offering a global
strategy to dismantle terrorists and their organizations, prevent the
continued growth of terrorism, and prepare for future terrorist
attacks. In October, the other body overwhelmingly passed the National
Intelligence Reform Act, S. 2845, by a vote of 96 to 2. The Bush
administration, the 9/11 Commission chairmen, and families of many
September 11 victims fully endorsed the Senate's intelligence
reorganization bill.
Unfortunately, there in the House, the People's Chamber, the
Republican leadership chose a different path, a path that strayed far
from the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In yet another example of
party politics over public interest, the Republican majority drafted a
609-page intelligence bill, H.R. 10, without any input or support from
the Democratic leadership, including in it controversial provisions not
recommended by the Commission on immigration and surveillance, and even
went as far as to exempt the United States from certain applications of
the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture. When Democrats put
forward the bipartisan Senate bill as an amendment during the debate,
it was defeated along party lines 203-213. Only 8 Republican Members of
this House voted for the bipartisan bill.
For over a month, no interest was shown by House leaders in
negotiating with the bipartisan supporters backed by President Bush and
the 9/11 families, and the bill languished in the conference committee.
Finally in November, blowing to public pressure, House Republican
leaders worked out a compromise with the President and the bipartisan
supporters of the Senate bill, and many of us thought that finally we
would see action on this needed reform. However, several Members of the
Republican House majority refused to accept the compromise and despite
overwhelming support in the House and no question that the bill would
pass if brought to the floor, the Speaker refused to allow a vote on
the bill rather than have it pass with more Democratic support than
Republican.
Instead, we waited nearly another entire month, while public pressure
forced the President to finally personally work to try and convince
enough Republican holdouts to support the bill, no not that it will
pass, because there have always been enough votes to pass the bill, but
to ensure that at the end of the vote there would be more Republican
yes votes, who hold the majority anyway, than Democratic yes votes
While we waited for Republicans to be able to say they passed the
intelligence reform bill themselves without needing any Democratic
support, another U.S. Consulate office, this time in Jiddah, Saudi
Arabia was attacked by terrorists, killing five people and wounding
thirteen others. I fear how many more such attacks our enemies have
been able to organize while we have delayed enacting intelligence
reform needed to combat their activities.
This effort should mark a beginning, not the end, of our efforts to
protect the American people by strengthening the systems by which we
collect, process, and disseminate intelligence. However, the price of
liberty is eternal vigilance, and as this Congress works to balance the
need for greater security while protecting liberty, I would remind my
colleagues of the words of one of our nation's greatest founders,
Benjamin Franklin, who said, ``They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety.''
I hope that the Republican leadership will not tarnish this
achievement today by agreeing to vote in the next Congress on efforts
that will weaken and undermine Americans' liberties.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not support Martial Law rules
in the House of Representatives under any but the most extreme
circumstances.
Some may have thought the House leadership would learn a lesson from
the Omnibus Appropriations scandal, where a few Members and staff
nearly got the power to read any American's tax returns because we did
not have sufficient time to read the bill. Apparently they did not.
We could have passed this legislation under regular order before the
election. We could have approved this legislation under regular order
before Thanksgiving. But the House leadership has brought us to the
point where we do not all have the opportunity to read this bill to
determine what effects it will have on our constituents.
The rules of the House provide for 72 hours to review legislation
before it reaches the floor. Like too many other rules to ensure good
government, this rule has been violated repeatedly by the House
leadership. They often resort to changing the rules when it pleases
[[Page H11020]]
them. This is a dangerous practice, especially for a bill so important.
From most accounts, some of which are conflicting, the National
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 is a beneficial and important piece of
legislation. I congratulate all those who contributed so much hard
work.
As a veteran of the legislative process, I do not expect perfect
bills. However, it is not too much to ask for all Members of the House
of Representatives to have the opportunity to know exactly what they
are voting on.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation.
Earlier this year, in October, I voted to pass H.R. 10, despite
realizing how that bill violated the bipartisan and unanimous spirit of
the 9/11 Commission.
It was a bill crafted solely by the House Republican leadership. H.R.
10 failed to give sufficient budgetary authority to the National
Director of Intelligence, and perpetuated fragmented management of our
national intelligence structure. Barriers to crucial joint intelligence
were left unaddressed, while controversial extraneous ``poison-pill''
provisions were included.
I supported that flawed legislation then because it was absolutely
imperative that the process continue to move forward. I was hopeful
that this bill would be improved in conference and the controversial
provisions removed, because I was hopeful that the will of the American
people would be able to make its influence felt even behind the closed
doors of a conference negotiation.
The American people have won today, and that victory was spearheaded
by a group of average, every-day American citizens who tragically know
all too well the threats to our national security.
The conference report we have before us today was made possible
through the steadfast determination of the families of the 9/11
victims. They stood in candlelight vigil outside the White House,
evoking the memory of their lost loved ones, demanding action and
intervention by the President. The President heard them, and the
country thanks them.
We all cried and grieved with those families that tragic day 3 years
ago, and today we will take action in honor of them.
I applaud the efforts of the conference negotiators who fought for
the safety and security of all Americans against the forces who wanted
to protect the status quo. They were willing to compromise where they
could, but held their ground where they had to.
We finally have a National Director of Intelligence with sufficient
budgetary and personnel authority to coordinate our intelligence
efforts, and a National Counter-Terrorism Center able to unify all
elements of counter-terrorism intelligence operations planning. To
protect civil liberties and address privacy concerns, we have an
independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board empowered to have access
to information from departments and agencies. Transportation and border
security are addressed, and the sharing of terrorism threat information
among Federal, State, local, and tribal entities is improved.
We have much to praise about what is included in this conference
report, but also extremely significant is what was kept out.
Before, the House-passed H.R. 10 sadly included provisions that eased
restrictions against deportation to countries that practice torture; a
violation of the Convention Against Torture, an international treaty to
which this country is a party. I opposed that provision before and I
applaud the successful efforts of conference negotiators in removing
these egregious provisions.
Before, there were sections of legislation that undermined the
fundamental due process rights of immigrants in the courts. These
sections would make it harder for refugees fleeing religious and
political persecution and for victims of sex trafficking to seek asylum
in the United States. These sections did nothing to make America safer
and were in direct contravention of the 9/11 Commissions
recommendations that urge our nations immigration system should send a
message of welcome, tolerance, and justice. Those provisions are now
removed.
Certainly, there are remaining immigration issues that deserve
continued debate and discussion, but they should not be used to delay
or derail such crucial legislation.
In waging the war against radical Islamic totalitarianism, we have
taken an important step towards making victory ours. But the work
before us must continue.
The battle against terror rightly must involve the improved
coordination of intelligence. Also, efforts to secure our ports,
railways, chemical plants, and airliners to keep us safe at home.
Homeland security rightfully begins at home, but cannot end at our
shores. Our soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors, intelligence analysts
and operatives, F.B.I. agents, and law enforcement agents can only do
such much. Fundamentally, what we must win is the battle of ideas.
In winning the struggle against radical Islamic totalitarianism, the
9/11 Commission and many others urge our nation to offer an example of
moral leadership in the world, to treat people humanely, to abide by
the rule of law.
The people of the Muslim world must never be misled about what this
country believes in, what it fights for, and what it defends. Public
diplomacy that repair our relations and image, funding international
education to counter the rise of hateful madrassas, and protecting the
rights of women must be part of our efforts.
Committing the necessary resources to help the economic development
and political democratization of the Middle East must be part of the
equation. To combat the rise of radical Islamic totalitarianism,
foreign aid and nation-building can no longer be avoided.
Today, as we commit ourselves to strengthening our intelligence
agencies and protecting our homeland, let us be ready tomorrow and the
days ahead to continue the remaining work before us.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the
conference report on S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act.
Included in this legislation are important reforms that will ensure
better coordination among national intelligence agencies, and protect
our Nation against future threats while preserving the military's
access to critical intelligence in the field. While I believe it is
essential that we adopt this measure and reduce the risk to our Nation,
I do so reluctantly because we could have done much more in that
regard. Unfortunately, conferees in the other body insisted on
stripping many critical provisions that would crack down on terrorists
who enter and remain in this country illegally.
I was pleased to join 282 of my colleagues and vote in support of the
House version of 9-11 reforms, H.R. 10, in early October. That bill
included many critical reforms aimed at addressing intelligence
coordination and oversight, and it also included critical tools to
close the immigration loopholes that terrorists can use to attack us at
home. The 9-11 commissioners specifically cited these loopholes and
recommend we close them. These immigration recommendations are also
important reforms we should have addressed in the conference report.
The House bill included provisions for expedited removal of potential
terrorists, asylum restrictions, national drivers licenses standards
and improved traveler screening at ports and borders.
Despite the absence of these critical provisions, I believe we must
move this bill forward because it does take a critical first step
toward making America safer. Through the creation of a National
Intelligence Director and the National Counter Terrorism Center, this
measure will ensure better coordination of intelligence across the
government, while protecting the timely flow of intelligence to our
troops.
Likewise, I am pleased we were able to include measures to strengthen
our ongoing efforts to eliminate illegal border crossings. This
legislation adds 10,000 new border patrol agents to intercept illegal
immigrants and potential terrorists as well as 4,000 new immigration
enforcement investigators to track illegal immigrants down within our
borders. These agents are badly needed and will immediately improve
illegal immigrant interdiction and interception operations.
Additionally, this measure authorizes 40,000 more detention beds for
suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants. Much better that we enact
these improvements now than wait.
Despite the positive steps we are taking here today, our job is not
done until we address comprehensive immigration reforms. I intend on
making immigration reform a priority next Congress. President Bush
pledged yesterday to bring up immigration reform early next year;
leadership has given me their word that they are committed to doing the
same. I remain committed to fighting for passage of these sorely needed
immigration reforms with my colleagues early in the next Congress, and
I will not rest until we have completed that job.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the bill to implement the 9/11 Commission's
unanimous recommendations, while flawed, is an important first step
towards comprehensive intelligence reform.
Passing this bill, however, does not let Congress off the hook. We
must be vigilant of how this legislation is implemented by an
administration that has a tendency to disregard civil liberties all too
quickly.
Specifically, I'm disturbed by provisions relating to pretrial
detention of terrorist suspects. While everything must be done to
minimize the flight risk of terror suspects, under this legislation,
the government will not need to prove that the suspect is a flight risk
before detainment.
The 9/11 Commission concluded that intelligence opportunities were
missed before the terrible tragedies of September 11, 2001, not because
law enforcement did not have adequate surveillance powers, but because
of a misreading of existing surveillance laws. This bill still includes
provisions that allow non-citizens to come under federal wiretaps even
if they are not connected to a foreign government.
[[Page H11021]]
I'm concerned that we not forget the balance between information
sharing within the intelligence community and privacy safeguards for
sensitive data.
We must return in the 109th Congress and be prepared, when necessary,
to intervene to ensure that law enforcement has the tools to secure our
homeland but at the same time holds American civil liberties sacred.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic bipartisan
legislation and of all the work this House has done to bring it to the
floor today. This was by no means an easy task we set out to achieve
when we received the 9/11 Commission report this past summer and set to
work holding hearings during the August recess.
The Financial Services Committee's contributions to S. 2845 continues
some of the most important work it, and the Congress, has ever done.
Work that began in the tense hours and days after the tragic attacks on
September 11, 2001, and continues today in the efforts on this House to
synthesize the 9/11 Commission report into momentous legislation.
It is a testament to the work of the Financial Services Committee
that the 9/11 Commission report cited with approval Title III of the
USA PATRIOT Act, and said that on anti-terror financing and anti-money
laundering the various elements of the government are doing a good job.
The Commission also urged Congress, law enforcement, and the
intelligence community not to become complacent and to engage in
ongoing and rigorous examinations of the financial system. I believe
this legislation rises to meet that challenge.
The Financial Services Committee has once again come together to
create bipartisan legislation aimed at disrupting the financing of
terrorism and strengthening the country's anti-money laundering laws.
The package that the Committee assembled centers on four broad
themes: (1) additional finding for the fight against terrorist
financing; (2) new tools for the government to combat terrorist
financing schemes; (3) improved international cooperation and
coordination on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing
initiatives; and (4) enhanced preparedness of the financial services
sector in case of another large-scale terrorist attack.
Among the key provisions in S. 2845 that reflect the contributions by
the Financial Services Committee are the following:
Technical amendments to the anti-terror finance title of the USA
PATRIOT Act, which was largely drafted in the Financial Services
Committee;
An authorization for additional funding for Treasury's Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, which serves as the Federal government's
financial intelligence unit and plays a critical role in the collection
and analysis of data on suspicious financial activity;
A reauthorization of the national anti-money laundering strategy,
along with grants to State and local law-enforcement agencies to
investigate the financing of terror and other financial crimes;
A provision that allows the SEC to take action in an ``emergency'' to
maintain or restore fair and orderly securities markets, ensure
``prompt, accurate and safe'' transaction settlement, and prevent
disruptions of markets or market activities. The Secretary of the
Treasury is given comparable authority over markets for government
securities;
An authorization for the Secretary of the Treasury to produce
currency and other security documents at the request of foreign
governments;
A directive to the Secretary of Treasury to prescribe regulations
requiring the reporting to FINCEN of certain cross border transmittals
of funds relevant to the Department of Treasury's anti money laundering
and anti terrorist financing efforts;
A restriction on federal examiners of financial institutions, for one
year upon leaving the federal government, from accepting compensation
for employment from a financial institution which the examiner had
responsibility for examining;
A requirement for better coordination and building of international
coalitions;
A Sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury should
continue to promote the dissemination of international anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorist financing;
A requirement that the Secretary of Treasury convene an inter-agency
council to develop policies to be pursued by the United States
regarding the development of common international anti-money laundering
and counter-terrorist financing standards;
A provision that enhances the delegation authority for the Secretary
of the Treasury to appoint a Fiscal Assistant Secretary in the absence
or inability to serve of the current Fiscal Assistant Secretary;
A Sense of Congress that insurance and credit rating firms should
consider a firm's ``compliance with standards for private sector
disaster and emergency preparedness'' when assessing the firm's
insurability and creditworthiness. This is consistent with the 9/11
Commission Report, which made the identical recommendation.
I want to especially thank the Members of the Financial Services
Committee that were instrumental in bringing the success of this
legislation. I would especially like to recognize Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus
(AL), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairwoman Sue Kelly
(NY), Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Vice Chair Judy Biggert (IL), Ranking Member Barney Frank (MA), and
Committee Member Luis Gutierrez. I also want to thank our counterparts
in the other body for there help in resolving our issues quickly.
In sum, Mr. Speaker the Financial Services Committee's contribution
to S. 2845 makes needed changes that respond directly to the 9/11
Commission's call for a continuous examination of the U.S. financial
system to identify loopholes capable of being exploited by al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations, and to close down those gaps.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Conference Report on the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
The conference report, which implements the core recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission, is essential to bolster our nation's security in
the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The report:
Establishes a Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all
national intelligence efforts;
Establishes a National Counterterrorism Center to unify all elements
of counterterrorism intelligence operations planning;
Establishes an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board within
the Executive Office of the President that would ensure that privacy
and civil liberties concerns are properly considered;
Establishes an Information Sharing Environment to facilitate the
sharing of terrorism information among all appropriate Federal, State,
local, tribal, and private sector entities, through the use of policy
guidelines and technologies;
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement
a national strategy for transportation security--including aviation,
air cargo and maritime security measures;
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to
improve border security--including the use of advanced technologies to
secure the northern border, and remotely piloted aircraft to secure the
Southwest border;
Requires federal agencies to establish minimum standards for driver's
licenses and ID necessary to board domestic commercial aircraft and
gain access to federal facilities.
This is a strong bill that will make Cleveland, OH, and our country
safer and more secure. I strongly support the bill today, and I
supported it on November 20, 2004, when the House and Senate conferees
reached an agreement on this landmark legislation. This bill should
have been ready for the President's signature then, but unfortunately
the Republican leadership played politics and delayed passage until a
majority of Republicans supported the bill--even though the conference
report had strong Democratic support and would have passed on November
20.
But, today, this important legislation will pass. We, Democrats,
fought for this conference report to reach the floor for a vote before
this 108th Congress came to a close, and we succeeded. It is time to
make our country safer. It is time to overhaul our intelligence
agencies in order to prevent another 9/11 attack. It is time to pass
this bill in honor of the 9/11 victims and their families. Vote ``yes''
on this vital legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. I must
admit that when I arrived this morning, I was dubious that this measure
would actually make it to the floor. That it did is due to the
incredibly hard work of the conferees and the staff from both the House
and the Senate, as well as the tireless advocacy efforts of the
families of 9/11, and I thank each one of them for their service to
America.
There are many laudable provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker,
including most of the principal recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm very pleased that the conferees were apparently able to agree that
the proposed Director of National Intelligence will have meaningful
budget and personnel authorities to help reshape our intelligence
community to meet existing and emerging threats. I'm also pleased that
another key 9/11 Commission recommendation, the creation of a National
Counter Terrorism Center, will also come pass.
Also of note in this bill is its requirement that our intelligence,
law enforcement, and homeland security agencies achieve a greater level
of information sharing, and that this process will include Federal,
State, local and tribal entities, as well as the private sector. If
there is
[[Page H11022]]
one lesson that both the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attacks on
America on 9/11 should have driven home is that information sharing
among the elements of our government is paramount if we are to prevent
surprise attacks. I hope these new provisions will be effective in
breaking down the barriers to information sharing that figured so
prominently in both of these national tragedies.
I'm also gratified that this bill includes a Privacy and Civil
Liberties Board to help safeguard the freedoms that make our nation the
greatest on earth. This Board will conduct oversight of executive
branch policies to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of our
citizens are protected, and I hope that it will serve as an effective
watchdog in that role.
Make no mistake about it: The next Mohammad Atta will not present
himself for biometric or other screening at an existing border crossing
point. Future al Qaeda operatives will almost certainly attempt to slip
across the border at a weak or undefended point, carrying with them the
false identity documents necessary to blend in and execute another
attack against our citizens. We must do whatever is necessary to guard
our borders, and I want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of
the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner,
for all of his hard work in this area, and to wish him well in his
future endeavors.
There are some things in this bill that trouble me, Mr. Speaker. I'm
concerned about the sweeping FISA authorities that are added in this
bill, particularly those aimed at alleged ``lone wolf'' terrorists and
the apparently sweeping definition of what ``providing material
support'' to terrorists that is permitted in this bill. I realize that
each of these clauses has sunset provisions, but as we've seen with the
Patriot Act, such sweeping authorities can be used against innocent
citizens. I will monitor the implementation of these provisions very
closely, as I hope all of my colleagues will, and if evidence of abuse
surfaces, I hope they will join me in modifying these provisions as
necessary.
Mr. Speaker, one key 9/11 Commission recommendation that did not make
its way into this bill is the need to reform congressional oversight of
the intelligence community. The bill before us also includes new
provisions for expanded ``red teaming'' within the intelligence
community, and I hope that this provision will sharpen analytical
products coming out of the intelligence community. But we need to face
facts, Mr. Speaker: Our own house is not in order when it comes to
conducting effective oversight of the intelligence community. I intend
to revisit this issue in the coming Congress, and I hope my colleagues
will join me in that effort.
Despite the concerns I've raised above, Mr. Speaker, this is a good
compromise that will help to protect our country in the years ahead.
I'm also confident that this compromise addresses the concerns that
some in this body and elsewhere have raised that this reorganization of
the intelligence community would somehow endanger our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan by constraining their access to real-time intelligence.
This bill was held up for weeks by Members who claimed it would deny
good intelligence to our soldiers in the field. Clearly, this
compromise bill does not do that, and if anything, the provisions
contained in this bill will only strengthen and rationalize the
collection and dissemination of intelligence to both policymakers and
warfighters. A bureaucratic turf fight is a better description of the
disagreement, and that is no reason to hold up this bill.
Again, I thank the conferees and the staff for their Herculean effort
to bring us a bill we can collectively support, but above all I thank
the families of 9/11. Simply put, this would not have happened without
their relentless effort, and they are patriots in the truest sense of
the word. I intend to vote for this measure, I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, nearly two months ago this House
passed a bill that failed to address many of the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations, while including objectional provisions regarding
immigration, civil liberties, and other issues. While the Senate was
able to reach agreement on a bill that reflected the views of both
parties, the Commission, and the 9/11 families, House leaders did not
work in a similarly bipartisan way to reach agreement on the best way
to implement the recommendations.
I voted for the House bill because I believe we need intelligence
reform. I hoped that with the President supporting the Senate bill and
every Republican in the Senate voting for it, the House Republicans'
misguided criticisms of the bill wouldn't carry much weight in
conference.
So I am very pleased that the conference report we are voting on
today more closely reflects the Senate bill. And I am encouraged that
during this last week of the 108th Congress, we have come together to
put country before politics--and to send legislation to the President
that will make America safer.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report for H.R. 10, legislation to reform our country's intelligence
agencies. I support this report so, as a country, we can move forward
quickly to give the President a completed bill to sign. The security of
the people of western Wisconsin is of an utmost priority, and I am
supporting this measure to make changes necessary to protect our
homeland.
On September 11, 2001, our Nation was brutally attacked, and several
thousand of our citizens were killed. Our country was shocked and
dismayed, but we were far from defeated. The resolve of our Nation is
strong, and we stood up to the challenge and struck back.
After the attacks on that fateful day in September, many questions
about our homeland security were raised. I supported and worked for a
comprehensive Homeland Security bill that created the Homeland Security
Department and cabinet level secretary. The creation of the Homeland
Security Department was an important first step for our country to
ensure the security of its citizens. But there remained many unanswered
questions about our Nation's intelligence failures before September 11,
which is why I supported the creation of the independent bipartisan 9/
11 Commission.
On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission provided a full and complete
report to Congress and the American public. I praise the Commission for
its excellent work, leadership, patriotism, and service to our country.
We owe it to the families of the victims of 9/11 and to the citizens of
our country to use this report to make certain this type of attack
never happens again; I fully support the unanimous and bipartisan
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
While I had several concerns with many of the provisions included
H.R. 10, I decided to support passage of this legislation back in
October. I supported H.R. 10 because when the safety of our country is
at hand we need to be able to cross the aisle and work with our
colleagues to protect our country. After passage, however, I was glad
to see the conference committee move to more closely align the
conference report with the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations and the
Senate passed bill. Over the past several weeks, we have had several
opportunities to pass this very important legislation, but the House
leadership has been working towards passing the bill with the support
of the majority.
I support this conference report for several reasons. First and
foremost, the families of the 9/11 victims and the 9/11 Commission
supports this conference report and have worked hard to ensure the
legislation improves the safety for our country. In addition, the
conference report contains not only major reforms of the intelligence
community, but significant measures to improve aviation and border
security and emergency preparedness and response. This bill implements
a substantial portion of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations; I am
happy that the conference report includes a strong National
Intelligence Director as well as the essential authorities necessary
for the National Intelligence Director's success. It also creates a
strong National Counterterrorism Center and an independent Privacy and
Civil Liberties Board.
The 9/11 report also addresses foreign policy and public diplomacy,
something we cannot deal with in this legislation before us today. One
of the most important chapters in the 9/11 Report was chapter 12, which
offered a global strategy to work with the Arab and Muslim worlds. If
we follow the recommendations in this chapter, and focus our energies
on improving our economic and political ties to this part of the world,
it will not only improve the image of the United States of America, but
it will help reduce future terrorist attacks on our country.
Once again, I would like to thank the members of 9/11 Commission for
their patriotism and hard work to help safeguard our country. I would
also like to recognize the tireless work that the families of the
victims of 9/11 have put into creating the Commission on the attacks,
and, secondly, that legislation was brought to the floor for
deliberation. Finally, I would like to thank the conferees for all
their hard work on this essential legislation. I encourage my
colleagues join me in supporting this long-overdue, critical
legislation. This legislation is a crucial step toward making our
country safer from terrorism.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a relief to finally pass this
important legislation to make America safer. The bill moves our
national security and intelligence coordination efforts forward and
paves the way for future counterterrorism measures.
I am concerned by some of the limits placed on the powers of the
National Intelligence Director and would like to have seen stronger
safeguards for individual civil liberties. I am pleased to see that the
most egregious immigration provisions were removed by the Conference
Committee.
While it is unfortunate that it took two months to pass this bill,
the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill two
[[Page H11023]]
months ago that had the support of the 9/11 Commission, families of the
9/11 victims, and President Bush. That legislation could have been
passed immediately. Instead, we almost didn't get a bill at all.
The challenge now will be to focus our efforts on the greatest threat
to America today: terrorism. My commitment is to work to make the new
structure a success and to not allow the quagmire in Iraq to divert us
from the essential task dealing with terrorism.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, tonight we vote on the final version of the
Intelligence Reform bill. It's appropriate that we do so today,
December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day. We hope that this legislation will help
prevent future attacks on our homeland. I will vote for final passage,
because this bill contains much needed reform of our intelligence
community. But more can be done to protect America.
This conference report is supposed to codify the recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission, and insofar as intelligence is concerned, it does.
But the 9/11 Commission's charter required it to create a full account
of the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and formulate recommendations
for guarding against future terrorist threats. This includes
immigration and asylum reform, border protection and identification
security. The Commission's recommendations and staff report contained
repeated and explicit references to immigration, border, asylum and
identification problems of which the 9/11 hijackers took advantage and
which need to be solved.
I thought that the House version of the Commission's recommendations,
H.R. 10, properly attempted to meet these goals. Yet here we are today,
debating a conference report that contains hardly any of the strong
Title III measures that were passed by the People's House. This is
incredibly disappointing. While the final version of this legislation
adds to our border security personnel, tightens up our visa application
process, and sets up some identification standards, the fact remains
that we need to do much more.
We can have all the intelligence in the world, but if we can't
protect our own borders or prevent terrorists from coming into our
country, then we're just stupid. I support this bill because it reforms
our intelligence, but also because the administration and leadership
have promised to pursue additional reforms in immigration and border
security.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I intend
to make sure that these promises are kept. I also look forward to
working as soon as possible in the 109th Congress on legislation
dealing with serious immigration reform, improving our asylum laws,
border control, and identification security. Now more than ever, our
immigration policies have national security ramifications. I will not
rest until we fix our laws to meet these challenges.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we will implement
intelligence reform before the close of the 108th Congress and rise in
support of the underlying bill.
After 9/11, we approached fighting the global war on terrorism as we
had the Cold War. But it became clear that we needed to adapt our
intelligence community, law enforcement agencies and military to new
global threats. The 9/11 Commission gave us a blueprint for that
mission, and this legislation will help us implement their vision.
Cooperation among agencies and departments will be critical, and this
measure shifts the mentality of our intelligence community from ``need
to know'' to ``need to share.'' It also makes significant improvements
to homeland security, while avoiding some of the controversial
provisions included in earlier drafts.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that
this bill strikes a careful balance between creating a strong national
intelligence director and preserving the ability of our men and women
in uniform to gain access to the intelligence needed to be successful
on the battlefield. I thank all my colleagues for working in a
bipartisan fashion to craft a landmark measure that will make America
safer.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation.
I am deeply gratified that today, Congress has put aside turf wars
and partisanship and taken this critical step forward for our national
security. Over 3 years after 9/11, intelligence reform has been sorely
overdue. Today, we got it done.
But before we congratulate ourselves, members of Congress should
recognize the debt of gratitude we owe the 9/11 families. Our
government failed all of us on 9/11, but most of all the victims and
their families. For 3 years, the families who lost loved ones on 9/11
demanded answers. They demanded accountability.
While many in Washington delayed, the families pressed Congress to
find out what went wrong, and fix the problems. Today, their
impassioned, tireless work has resulted in concrete reforms: a national
intelligence director with the authority to coordinate our intelligence
efforts and set clear priorities; a National Counter-Terrorism Center
to increase our coordinated approach to anticipating future threats; a
Civil Liberties Oversight Board to help us strike the balance between
freedom and security.
And many other critical steps to improve our security: development of
biometric identification technology for travelers; enhanced training of
federal air marshals; substantial increases in the number of border
patrol agents and immigration investigators; development of air defense
systems; upgrades in air cargo screening; expansion of watch lists to
passengers and crew of vessels docking in US ports and; a comprehensive
plan for transportation security that anticipates the full range of
possible attacks.
Many of the 9/11 families live in Massachusetts and traveled to
Washington to lobby Congress and hold vigils. Because of their
dedication, America will be more alert and better prepared to prevent
future tragedies.
Today, Congress should also credit the 9/11 Commissioners, whose
thoroughness, independence, and candor forced our nation to confront
glaring weaknesses in our defenses.
We live in a time when partisan politics degrades nearly every
important issue. It's remarkable that the 9/11 Commissioners were able
to check their politics at the door, and unanimously agree on 41
concrete recommendations to present to Congress.
The Commission's work is a landmark achievement. It's a model for
bipartisan cooperation that Congress must continue to follow.
Congress has taken the first steps toward making America smarter and
more alert. But intelligence reform cannot be the end of our
government's response to September 11. We have only begun to meet the
challenge of securing the American homeland against all enemies.
With the same urgency and unity, we must move forward to secure the
world's nuclear materials. Today's legislation takes the first steps
toward creating a national director of nonproliferation efforts. We
cannot rest until the world's most dangerous materials are permanently
secured.
We must move forward to secure our cities, ports, airports, roads,
bridges, and rail lines. Today's legislation directs government
agencies and the private sector to develop comprehensive plans to
anticipate and respond to attacks. We must ensure that local officials,
first responders, and hospitals have the resources they need to execute
on those plans.
And finally, we must continue moving forward in hunting down and
destroying the terrorists who attacked America three years ago. By
improving our intelligence, with this legislation we are one step
closer to bringing justice to those who murdered 3,000 of our fellow
citizens.
I urge my colleagues' support for this landmark legislation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the following provides a summary and the
legislative intent of the provisions included in the conference report
on S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, that are
within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on International
Relations and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
As a member of the conference on S. 2845, and Chairman of the House
Committee on International Relations, it is appropriate to provide
guidance to those who will be responsible for faithfully executing this
important statute. The inclusion in the conference report of several
provisions of interest to the International Relations Committee
reflects our work to implement the recommendations of the Final Report
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
July 2004, hereafter referred to as the 9/11 Commission.
As a practical matter, I consulted with Mr. Lantos, the Ranking
Democratic Member of the House Committee on International Relations
(who was not a member of the Conference Committee), Senator Collins,
Senator Lieberman and, through them, with Senator Lugar on these
provisions included in the legislation. We reached agreement on the
text of those provisions, and following is further elaboration of the
most significant provisions that shall be considered to have the effect
of a statement of managers.
Sec. 7102--Terrorist Sanctuaries. This section transforms
the broad recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into action.
The 9/11 Commission stated, ``The U.S. Government must
identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist
sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to
keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all
elements of national power.'' (Pg. 367) In response, this
section provides a comprehensive statement articulating the
sense of Congress that U.S. policy should have such a focus
or mandate. It establishes reporting requirements to enable
the Congress to monitor patterns relating to terrorist
sanctuaries and to assess successes or setbacks in our
efforts, in order to correct any deficiencies that may exist.
Further, this section amends the Export Administration Act
(EAA) to add terrorist
[[Page H11024]]
sanctuaries to determinations relating to states that
``repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism.'' It is in keeping with the underlying criteria in
the Export Administration Act which says that, when imposing,
expanding or extending export controls under the EAA, the
President ``shall consider the compatibility of the proposed
controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United
States, including the effort to counter international
terrorism, and shall consider the foreign policy consequences
of not imposing controls.''
This section merely updates U.S. law to reflect the post-9/
11 world. It provides legislative authority to the goals
outlined in the National Security Strategy for Combating
Terrorism to deny sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to
terrorists, and to choke off the lifeblood of terrorist
groups from their access to territory, funds, equipment,
training, technology, and unimpeded transit.
Through the definition of ``terrorist sanctuary,'' the
section seeks to encompass a broad range of activities
including training, financing (which includes fundraising),
recruitment, and the use of a nation-state territory as a
transit point for terrorists, funds, or equipment.
Governments of terrorist sanctuaries are knowledgeable
about the recurring use of their territory for terrorist
purposes and are ignoring or tolerating such activity. Their
failure and unwillingness to take action against such use of
their territory contributes to the spread of global terrorism
and, in turn, augments the threat to U.S. national security
and interests.
This provision seeks to serve as an inducement for
cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts, as well as a
deterrent to keep governments from allowing their territories
to be used as terrorist sanctuaries.
Asked about this provision, 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee
Hamilton said, during an August 24, 2004 hearing of the House
International Relations Committee, ``There must be a strategy
developed in dealing with wherever these sanctuaries are;
economic sanctions, of whatever kind, would certainly be one
of those tools to deny those sanctuaries.''
Sec. 7104--Assistance for Afghanistan. This section is
largely derived from Sections 4061--4070 (Subtitle D of Title
IV) of H.R. 10 as passed by the House of Representatives (the
House amendment), and Section 1004 of the Senate bill.
Sec. 7104(a)--Short Title. Sets out a short title for this
section; derived from the House amendment.
Sec. 7104(b)--Coordination of Assistance. Derived from
section 1004 of the Senate bill, this subsection sets out
Congressional findings, consistent with the Commission's
Final Report, relative to the United States assistance
program for Afghanistan and related topics. Expresses the
sense of Congress on actions to be taken.
Sec. 7104(c)--Coordinator for Assistance. This section's
findings note that the 9/11 Commission criticized American
assistance to Afghanistan as overly divided among specific
programs and note that the flexible funding mechanisms put in
place by the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 have not
been used to date.
The provision requires the appointment of a powerful
coordinator for assistance to Afghanistan. This coordinator
would have powers similar to those used effectively by such
persons as Deputy Secretary Armitage when he served in a
similar role with respect to the Former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe. The coordinator would be a locus of
responsibility, as contemplated by the Afghanistan Freedom
Support Act, but the intent of which was frustrated when no
government-wide coordinator was appointed.
This provision was derived from section 4062 of the House
amendment. The Senate bill contained no comparable provision.
Sec. 7104(d)--Assistance Plan: International Coordination.
The coordinator would submit the Administration's plan, or
program, for assistance to Afghanistan in the form of a
program plan. The plan should be submitted as early as
possible after the beginning of the fiscal year or after the
enactment of the relevant appropriations acts, whichever is
later, and certainly before a significant portion of the
year's appropriations are obligated. The plan should indicate
its relation to the Administration's long-term strategy for
Afghanistan.
The coordinator would work with the international community
and the Afghan government to ensure that assistance to
Afghanistan is implemented coherently and efficiently. The
coordinator would, in general, work through the Secretary of
the Treasury and the United States Executive Directors at the
international financial institutions (as defined in Sec.
1701(C)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act
(22 U.S.C. 262r(C)(2)) in order to effectuate his or her
responsibilities with respect to international financial
institutions.
This provision was derived from section 4062 of the House
amendment. The Senate bill contained no comparable provision.
See. 7104(e)--General Provisions Relating to the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act (AFSA) of 2002.
(1)(A) and (2) These provisions set out a general
declaration of policy reaffirming the commitment of Congress
to the authorities of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of
2002 and establishes some key policies underlying the bill--
the commitment of the United States to its undertaking in
April 2004 when it supported a development program of
Afghanistan, the forthcoming parliamentary elections, and the
necessity for additional nations to step forward and shoulder
additional economic and military burdens.
(1)(B) This subparagraph broadens an inappropriately
narrowed ``notwithstanding'' provision from the Afghanistan
Freedom Support Act of 2002 which had the effect of limiting
certain flexible authorities for the implementation of Title
I of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002. It is
consistent with the flexibility recommended by the 9/11
Commission. The only ``notwithstanding'' authority currently
applicable to Title I of AFSA relates to the Brooke
Amendment.
(3) The Conference agreement, in a provision similar to the
House amendment, permits reports to Congress required under
the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act to contain a classified
annex.
(4) This paragraph amends AFSA to require the President to
prepare and submit to Congress a long-term strategy for
United States policy toward Afghanistan, as well as an annual
statement of progress made in executing that plan and of
changes to it.
These provisions were derived from section 4063 of the
House amendment. The Senate bill contained no comparable
provisions.
Sec. 7104(f)--Education, Rule of Law, and Related Issues.
Derived from section 4064 of the House Amendment, this
subsection updates the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act (AFSA)
of 2002 with respect to programs to help courts, prosecutors,
and others in reflecting the information gathered by Congress
in the course of its oversight of conditions in Afghanistan,
as the situation in Afghanistan has evolved since late 2002.
Provisions emphasizing the need to assist Afghanistan with
respect to aiding democratic political parties, renovating
and otherwise supporting secondary schools and universities,
improving the physical infrastructure of the justice system,
and providing for professional education for Afghanistan's
officials have been added in the conference process. The
section of AFSA (Sec. 103(A)(5)) in which all of these
provisions are found is restated and re-enacted in its
revised form for the sake of clarity. The Senate bill
contained no comparable provision.
Sec. 7104(g)--Monitoring of Assistance for Afghanistan.
This subsection provides that the Secretary of State shall
provide an annual report to the Congress describing
assistance to Iraq, including a report on activities and
their funding sources by agency, program, and fiscal year,
obligations incurred, the participation of each government
agency, and any other information the Secretary considers
necessary to fully inform the Congress on assistance to Iraq.
This report would become a responsibility of the coordinator
provided for in section 104 of AFSA. All government agencies
involved in assistance to Afghanistan shall provide the
Secretary information the Secretary reasonably requires to
prepare and submit this report.
Sec. 7104(h)--United States Policy to Support of
Disarmament of Private Militias and Expansion of
International Peacekeeping and Security Operations in
Afghanistan. This subsection is derived from Section 4066 of
the House amendment. The Senate bill contained no comparable
provision.
This subsection, in paragraph (1), establishes that it
shall be United States policy to take immediate steps to
provide active support for the disarmament, demobilization,
and reintegration of armed soldiers, particularly child
soldiers, in Afghanistan, in close consultation with the
President of Afghanistan. ``Active support'' does not
necessarily mean the deployment of military assets, but all
appropriate means to help the Government of Afghanistan
rid the country of private militias should be considered.
The semi-annual report provided under section 206 of AFSA
is to contain a report on activities taken pursuant to
this subsection.
Paragraph (2) of the subsection addresses the need to
increase the area in which security is provided by
international security forces in Afghanistan. To that end, it
is established that it is the policy of the United States to
make every effort to support the expansion of international
peacekeeping and security operations within Afghanistan. The
purpose of that expansion is to allow international security
forces to undertake vital tasks related to promoting
security, such as disarming warlords, militias, and
irregulars, and disrupting opium production. Moreover, a
force spread over a larger area might safeguard highways in
order to allow the free flow of commerce and to allow
material assistance to the people of Afghanistan, and aid
personnel in Afghanistan, to move more freely.
Sec. 7104(i)--Efforts to Expand International Peacekeeping
and Security Operations in Afghanistan. Subsection (i),
derived from section 4067 of the House amendment, addresses
the issue of encouraging and enabling additional countries to
participate in international peacekeeping and security
operations in Afghanistan. (This is not to be confused with
subparagraph (h)(2), which addresses the issue of helping
those forces within Afghanistan to expand their reach.)
Subsection (i) provides that the President shall encourage,
and, as authorized by law, enable other countries to actively
participate in expanded international peacekeeping and
security operations in Afghanistan, especially through the
provision of military personnel for extended periods of time.
It also
[[Page H11025]]
provides for semi-annual reports to the Congress on the
President's efforts in this regard, which may be submitted
with the reports required by AFSA section 206(c). The Senate
bill contained no comparable provision.
Sec. 7104(j)--Provisions Relating to Counternarcotics
Efforts in Afghanistan. Subsection (j), derived from section
4068 of the House amendment, amends AFSA to provide
assistance for a variety of non-military measures to disrupt
the opium trade, such as technical assistance, credit, and
farm-to-market facilities for alternative crops, and training
for counternarcotics police. The Senate bill contained no
comparable provision.
A second section to be added to AFSA expresses the sense of
Congress that the President should make the substantial
reduction of illegal drug production and trafficking in
Afghanistan a priority in the Global War on Terrorism; that
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary
of State and the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies,
should expand cooperation with the Government of Afghanistan
and international organizations involved in counter-drug
activities to assist in providing a secure environment for
counter-drug personnel in Afghanistan; and that the United
States, in conjunction with the Government of Afghanistan and
coalition partners, should undertake additional efforts to
reduce illegal drug trafficking and related activities that
provide financial support for terrorist organizations. The
provision also requires a joint report to Congress from the
Secretaries of Defense and State within 120 days of the date
of enactment that describes the progress made toward
substantially reducing poppy cultivation and heroin
production capabilities in Afghanistan, and the extent to
which profits from illegal drug activity in Afghanistan are
used to financially support terrorist organizations and
groups seeking to undermine the Government of Afghanistan.
This provision makes needed changes in the Afghanistan
Freedom Support Act to update it from late 2002.
Since the fall of the Taliban, there has been a tremendous
resurgence of narcotics cultivation and trafficking in
Afghanistan. Money made dealing in narcotics has flowed to
the neo-Taliban and to al-Qaeda terrorists. Those criminals
seek to kill members of Afghanistan's army, of our Armed
Forces, and of our Coalition. Unchecked, they will destroy
Afghanistan's economy and environment, its nascent
government, and Afghan society itself. Today, half of the
economic activity in Afghanistan is based on narcotics.
If the narcotics trade is not suppressed, Afghanistan will
become a narco-state that will once again become a sanctuary
for terrorists: the United States and its allies will have
gained little if anything for the valiant efforts of those
who struggled on America's behalf in this difficult theater
of war.
Sec. 7104(k)--Additional Amendments to the Afghanistan
Freedom Support Act of 2002. This subsection, derived from
section 4069 of the House amendment, makes a technical change
in AFSA to reflect the change in the name of an Afghan
institution and extends AFSA's main reporting provision
through 2010. The Senate bill contained no comparable
provision.
Sec. 7104(1)--Repeal of Prohibition of Assistance. Section
620D of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 bans aid to
Afghanistan. This section repeals that provision of law,
which has outlived its usefulness. This law is no longer
needed, given the efforts of the American-led Coalition and
the Afghan people. This subsection is derived from section
4070 of the House amendment. The Senate bill contained no
comparable provision.
Sec. 7104(m)--Authorization of Appropriations. This
subsection amends the AFSA to authorize the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary for each of FY05 and FY06.
The Senate bill, in section 1004(c), provided for the
appropriation to the President, for each of the Fiscal Years
2005 through 2009, ``such sums as may be necessary to provide
assistance for Afghanistan, unless otherwise authorized by
Congress,'' for development assistance, children's health
programs, economic assistance, international narcotics and
law enforcement, nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining
and related programs, international military education and
training, foreign military financing program grants, and
peacekeeping operations. Assistance provided by the President
under this subsection ``shall be consistent with the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002,'' and shall be
provided with reference to the ``Securing Afghanistan's
Future'' document published by the Government of
Afghanistan.
Sec. 7109--Public Diplomacy Responsibilities of the
Department of State. This section amends the State Department
Basic Authorities Act to provide a description of the
Secretary of State's public diplomacy responsibilities. It
also directs the Secretary of State to make every effort to
coordinate public diplomacy activities of federal agencies
subject to the direction of the President. As the foreign
policy agency for the United States, the State Department
should also take the lead role in U.S. international public
diplomacy.
The provision states that the Secretary of State shall
coordinate with the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to
develop a comprehensive strategy and measurable objectives
for public diplomacy.
Although this section is designed to ensure the highest
level of attention by our foreign policy agencies to public
diplomacy needs and objectives, it does not provide new
authority to the Secretary of State over the programs of the
BBG. The role of the BBG as a firewall against political
interference in the content of the broadcasts remains
unchanged, as does the independence of the agency.
Numerous studies of U.S. public diplomacy provide
recommendations to improve the current system and strategic
direction at the State Department. This provision seeks to
support the State Department and others involved in public
diplomacy by establishing a clear set of responsibilities.
Sec. 7110--Public Diplomacy Training. This section seeks to
enhance the quality and depth of public diplomacy
capabilities within the State Department. The findings
emphasize the recruitment by the Foreign Service of
individuals with expertise and professional experience in
public diplomacy, and enhanced training in the range of
public diplomacy activities. The findings also emphasize the
role which chiefs of mission should assume in designing and
carrying out public diplomacy strategies.
This section encourages the State Department to be more
creative in its recruitment strategies in the area of public
diplomacy. To meet a serious foreign language gap, the
section requires the Secretary of State to provide special
consideration for individuals with such language abilities,
and sets a goal to increase the number of Foreign Service
officers proficient in languages spoken in predominately
Muslim countries.
In addition, a change is made in the precepts for promotion
in the Foreign Service so as to reward the willingness and
ability of officers to participate in public outreach efforts
related to their jobs as well as other aspects of public
diplomacy. Expressing and explaining U.S. policies and the
breadth of American values is an important element of the
professional skills necessary for Foreign Service officers.
It should be recognized within the promotion precepts.
Sec. 7111--Promoting Democracy and Human Rights at
International Organizations.
Sec. 7111(a)--Support and Expansion of Democracy Caucus.
Derived from section 4032 of the House amendment, this
subsection calls on the President to continue to strongly
support and seek to expand the work of the nascent Democracy
Caucus at the United Nations and the United Nations Human
Rights Commission; and to seek to establish a Democracy
Caucus at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament and at
other broad-based international organizations. The purpose of
the Caucus is to forge common positions, revise outmoded
systems of membership selection and regional voting, and
establish a rotational leadership agreement.
Sec. 7111(b)--Leadership and Membership of International
Organizations. This subsection, derived from section 4033 of
the House amendment, urges the President, acting through the
Secretary of State, to use United States influence and vote
to: (1) reform criteria for membership and leadership
positions within all United Nations bodies and other
international institutions so as to exclude countries which
violate the principles of the specific organization; (2) make
it the policy of the United Nations and other international
organizations and multilateral institutions in which the
United States is a member that a member country may not stand
in nominations for membership or significant leadership
positions if the member country is subject to sanctions
imposed by the United Nations Security Council; and (3)
ensure that no country stand in nomination for membership or
in rotation for significant leadership positions in such
organizations, or for membership on the United Nations
Security Council, if it has been determined by the Secretary
of State that a member country has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism.
Sec. 7111(c)--Increased Training for Multilateral
Diplomacy. This subsection, derived from section 4034 of the
House amendment, states that it shall be the policy of the
United States that training courses should be established for
Foreign Service officers and civil service employees for the
State Department, including appropriate chiefs of mission, on
the conduct of multilateral diplomacy. It specifies that the
Secretary of State shall ensure that multilateral diplomacy
training is provided at various stages of the careers of
members of the service, including as part of their training
upon entry into the service; and for officers, including
chiefs of mission, who are assigned to United States missions
representing the United States to international organizations
and other multilateral institutions or who are assigned in
Washington, D.C., to positions that have as their primary
responsibility formulation of policy towards such
organizations and institutions or towards participation in
broad based multilateral negotiations of international
instruments, receive specialized training in multilateral
diplomacy prior to the beginning of service for such
assignment or, if receiving such training is not practical at
the time, within the first year of the beginning of such
assignment. It also directs the Secretary of State to ensure
that employees of the Department of State who are members of
the civil service and who are assigned to international
organizations or multilateral institutions also receive
multilateral diplomacy training.
Sec. 7112--Pilot Program to Provide Grants to American-
sponsored Schools in Predominately Muslim Countries to
Provide Scholarships. This section authorizes the Secretary
[[Page H11026]]
of State to initiate a scholarship program for grade school
kids in predominately Muslim countries to attend American-
sponsored schools. The Office of Overseas Schools assists
many schools overseas, therefore this grant program would
operate through this office. The purpose of the provision is
to complement other U.S. Government efforts to broaden the
understanding of American values and support a wider use of
English. Numerous studies of U.S. public diplomacy point to
the need for creative, measurable programs. This trial
scholarship program provides a new option for American
outreach efforts.
The provision allows the Secretary of State to start a
pilot program to provide full or partial scholarships to
children of low and middle-income families to encourage them
to attend an American-style school. The pilot program is
intended to determine whether such a scholarship program can
be more broadly used in the region and whether such a program
is supported by the participating parties: the American-
sponsored schools, the families, the State Department, and
the Congress.
Sec. 7118--Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
This section amends section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) by making two principal
changes to the current law regarding the designation of
foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). First, it would
replace the requirement to formally re-designate FTOs every
two years with a procedure allowing these groups to petition
the Secretary of State at two-year intervals to have their
designation revoked. It would also require the Secretary of
State to review the designation of each FTO every five years.
Second, section 7118 would establish a new procedure for
handling the situation in which a terrorist organization
changes its name or uses new aliases. This provision allows
the government to amend the underlying administrative record
instead of re-creating a voluminous document every time this
occurs. A group will be able to appeal these additional
designations.
Under existing law, the U.S. government must devote
significant amounts of its counter-terrorist resources to the
time-consuming and burdensome FTO re-designation effort.
Section 7118 changes the re-designation process to allow the
State Department and other government agencies to focus more
of their scarce resources on responding to new terrorist
threats or tracking and analyzing newer groups that emerge on
the horizon.
Sec. 7120--Case-Zablocki Act Requirements. The 9/11
Commission report states that of all the recommendations,
strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most
difficult and important. Recently, the House Committee on
International Relations learned that, due to numerous
management failures within the Department of State, over 600
classified and unclassified international agreements dating
back to 1997, had not been transmitted to Congress, as
required by the Case-Zablocki Act.
This failure by the Department of State covers a variety of
sensitive international agreements, including intelligence
and military cooperation agreements. The full knowledge of
these agreements by the Congress is not only required by
United States law, but is also critical to the ability of
Congress to execute Constitutional oversight
responsibilities. This strikes at the heart of the
relationship between the two branches of government, severely
inhibiting our ability to carry out effective foreign policy
objectives to prevent foreign terrorist operations. Although
the Department of State is working to immediately address
these management shortcomings and produce the remaining
outstanding international agreements to Congress as soon a
possible, this has reached crisis proportion which demands
immediate Congressional attention and oversight.
In 1972, the Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. 112a and 112b) was
passed as a result of the Executive Branch's failure to
adequately inform Congress of the international executive
agreements entered into by the President and other officials
on behalf of the United States. At that time, the Symington
Subcommittee on National Commitments uncovered contemporary
examples of secret agreements entered into without adequate
reference to Congress. The provisions of the Yalta Agreement
at the end of World War II were also not publicly disclosed
for three years, or published until some time later. These
actions prompted great Congressional and public discourse and
controversy. Congress stated that each incident in which such
secret agreements become known creates tensions and
irritations between the Congress and the Executive Branch
which severely inhibit carrying out an effective foreign
policy. (House Report 92-1301.)
Currently, the Case-Zablocki Act requires that the
Secretary of State publish an annual report of all treaties
and international agreements to which the United States
became a party during each calendar year, unless the
publication would be contrary to the national interest of the
United States. It further requires the transmission to
Congress any international agreement, other than a treaty, no
later than 60 days, with classified agreements transmitted
under a secrecy agreement.
The Conferees support the tightening of the Case-Zablocki
reporting requirement in an effort to conduct more rigorous
congressional oversight over the Executive Branch.
Specifically, it clarifies the types of agreements subject to
Congressional transmittal and further requires the State
Department to compile an annual classified index containing
all executive agreements acted upon during the past year by
country. Not only does it require the transmission of any
bilateral or multilateral counterterrorism agreement, it
requires the notification of any agreement the United States
enters into with a country designated by the U.S. government
as being a state sponsor of terrorism. Last, it requires the
expedited publishing of agreements, when possible.
Therefore, this section makes it clear that Congress is
concerned about not being fully informed regarding
international agreements entered into by the Executive ranch,
particularly sensitive agreements. While the Secretary of
State has discretion over determining the which agreements
are considered significant enough to be reported to Congress,
Congress considers certain agreements of such import that it
desires to be notified during contemplation of, and as soon
as practicable after, signing the agreement, although by
strict interpretation of Case-Zablocki, notification would
not have to be made until after the agreement was entered
into force. However, many of the agreements do not enter
into force for years after they are signed. Congress wants
to be informed about the significant agreements prior to
that time. In general, these types of agreements would
consist of any agreement which would: (1) significantly
broaden our commitments with another country (regardless
of duration of agreement); (2) concern co-production of
weapons systems, transfers of defense equipment,
cooperative research, development and testing of weapons
systems; (3) grant access to foreign military facilities,
installations, or bases; (4) involve the deployment of the
U.S. military forces; or (5) involve covert intelligence
operations. Similarly, Congress expects that significant
political undertakings should not be disguised as non-
binding agreements in order to avoid Case-Zablocki's
reporting requirements.
Effective foreign policy is not created in a vacuum whereby
individually-requested briefings on narrowly-selected topics
of interest will adequately explain the depth necessary for
making important legislative decisions on how to fund the
executive branch's foreign policy programs. Foreign policy is
best conducted through a prolonged process of sharing
objectives and information which leads to informed discussion
and context, ultimately concluding in Congress' support of
the President's initiatives.
In order to strictly enforce this provision, no funding may
be made available during 2005-2007 for any international
agreement if Congress is not notified pursuant to statute.
Sec. 7202--Establishment of Human Smuggling and Trafficking
Center. The 9/11 Commission Report found that terrorist
travel and facilitation issues should be further studied and
emphasized in order to confront terrorists at their weakest
points, when they travel.
The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Attorney General currently exchange information on
human smuggling and trafficking through the interagency Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center (``The Center''). This
section would specifically establish The Center and codify
The Center's responsibilities.
The Center will increase integration and overall
effectiveness in the U.S. Government's enforcement and other
response efforts, and work with other governments to address
the separate but related issues of alien smuggling,
trafficking in persons, and smuggler support of clandestine
terrorist travel. Migrant smuggling, clandestine terrorist
travel and trafficking in persons are transnational issues
that threaten national security.
The Center will continue to provide a mechanism to bring
together all appropriate U.S. agency representatives from
policy, law enforcement, intelligence and diplomatic areas to
work together on a full-time basis to achieve increased
effectiveness and to convert intelligence into effective law
enforcement and other action.
The Center shall be supported by signatories to the
original Memorandum of Understanding (in existence on October
1, 2004), which shall provide appropriate personnel,
resources, and funding to the Center. All other appropriate
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies are encouraged
to support The Center and its mission.
Participating agencies shall utilize The Center to: (1)
facilitate broad dissemination of all-source information by
serving as an information fusion center and clearinghouse;
(2) prepare strategic assessments; (3) identify issues for
interagency coordination or attention; (4) coordinate select
initiatives and provide support; and (5) conduct related
activities. The Center shall be governed by an inter-agency
steering group in such a manner as agreed upon by the
participating agencies.
All relevant U.S. agencies shall disseminate the
information to the front-line personnel as appropriate.
Sec. 7203--Responsibilities and Functions of Consular
Officers. This section consists of four parts aimed at
increasing the resources
[[Page H11027]]
of the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs and
improving the training and operation of U.S. consular
officers in detecting fraudulent documents and preventing the
entry of terrorists.
Subsection (a) increases the number of consular officers
from 65 (FY04 and FY05) to 150 per year for FY06-FY09. Since
the 9/11 attacks, consular officers have changed their policy
and now are required to interview almost all visa applicants
between the ages of 14 and 80.
Subsection (b) places limitations on the use of foreign
nationals to screen both immigrant visa and nonimmigrant visa
applications by stating that all such applications shall be
reviewed and adjudicated by a U.S. consular officer. This
provision does not preclude the assistance of foreign
nationals in the review of visa applications. However, it
assures that a U.S. Government official is involved in the
decision on such applications.
Subsection (c) requires that the training program for
consular officers include training in detecting fraudulent
documents and working directly with Department of Homeland
Security immigration inspectors at ports of entry.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary of State to conduct a
survey to determine which consular posts have the greatest
frequency of presentation of fraudulent documents. An anti-
fraud specialist employed by the Department of State must be
assigned to each such post unless the Department of Homeland
Security has already assigned a person to the post who has
both sufficient experience training and experience in the
detection of fraudulent documents. This provision will
provide consulates with expertise in the detection of
fraudulent travel documents and other papers that are
submitted by visa applicants as part of their immigrant visa
or nonimmigrant visa applications.
Sec. 7204--International Agreements to Track and Curtail
Terrorist Travel Through the Use of Fraudulently Obtained
Documents. This section calls upon the President to lead
efforts to reach international agreements to track and stop
international travel by terrorists through the use of lost,
stolen or falsified documents. Section 7204 states that one
agreement should require the establishment of a system to
share information on lost, stolen and fraudulent passports,
the establishment of a real time verification system of
passports with issuing authorities, the sharing of this
information by governments with officials at ports of entry,
and that parties to the agreement criminalize the production
or use of fraudulent travel documents.
In addition, Section 7204 calls upon the United States to
continue to support efforts at the International Civil
Aviation Organization to strengthen the security features of
passports and other travel documents.
Sec. 7205--International Standards for Transliteration of
Names into the Roman Alphabet for International Travel
Documents and Name-based Watch List System. This section is a
sense of Congress that the President should seek to enter
into an international agreement to modernize and improve
standards for the translation of names into the Roman
alphabet in order to ensure one common spelling for such
names for international travel documents and name-based watch
list systems.
Section 7205 is a direct result of findings of the 9/11
Commission. In its Report, the Commission found that the
current lack of a single convention for transliterating
Arabic names enabled the 19 hijackers to vary the spelling of
their names to defeat name-based watch list systems and
confuse any potential efforts to locate them. While the
introduction of biometric identifiers may lessen this
problem, that process will take many years, and a name-based
watch list system will always be useful. Therefore, a
standardized way of translating names into the Roman alphabet
should be a top priority.
Sec. 7206--Immigration Security Initiative. This section
expands the Immigration Security Initiative, which is a
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-operated program that
assists and trains airline personnel at foreign airports in
identifying fraudulent travel documents. Currently, the
Immigration Security Initiative is operating in two foreign
airports. Section 7206 expands the program to include at
least 50 additional foreign airports by December 31, 2006.
This section authorizes $25,000,000 in FY 05, $40,000,000
in FY 06, and $40,000,000 in FY 07 to carry out the expansion
of this program.
The program's objective is to identify and stop passengers,
including potential terrorists, who seek to enter the United
States using fraudulent documents. Stopping terrorists at
foreign airports provides another line of defense in the U.S.
Government's border security strategy. Further, as we saw
with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, preventing terrorists
from even boarding a flight can forestall a terrorist attack.
Sec. 7209--Biometric Entry and Exit Data System. This
section states that, consistent with the 9/11 Commission
Report, Congress calls on the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security to develop a plan to accelerate the
full implementation of an automated entry and exit data
system at U.S. ports of entry as required by existing law.
The Secretary of Homeland Security must report to Congress
on the plan no later than 180 days after the enactment of
this legislation. Section 7209 requires the Secretary of
Homeland Security to integrate the biometric entry and
exit data system with other databases maintained by the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that
contain information on aliens. This section also calls for
the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a plan to
expedite the processing of registered travelers at ports
of entry.
Section 7209 also contains specific requirements and goals
with respect to the entry-exit system, as well as additional
reporting requirements on the part of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State.
Sec. 7211--Exchange of Terrorist Information and Increased
Pre-Inspection at Foreign Airports. This section expands the
pre-inspection program to at least 25 additional foreign
airports. The additional locations should be operational by
January 1, 2008. The pre-inspection program allows Department
of Homeland Security immigration and customs inspectors to
screen passengers at airports located outside the United
States instead of inspecting them when they arrive at U.S.
airports. This program is currently operating in eight
airports in Canada, four in the Caribbean nations, and at
airports in Shannon and Dublin, Ireland.
In addition, the selection criteria for pre-inspection
locations is based on reducing the number of aliens who
arrive to the United States who are inadmissible. Section
7211 changes the selection criteria for pre-inspection
locations to include the objective of preventing the entry of
potential terrorists and facilitate the travel of admissible
aliens.
Section 7211 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress on
the progress being made in establishing these locations no
later than June 30, 2006. Section 7211 also contains findings
with respect to the exchange of terrorist information and
pre-inspection at foreign airports. Subsection (c) of section
7211 requires a report regarding the exchange of terrorist
information.
The pre-inspection program allows U.S. Government officials
to conduct a thorough screening outside the United States.
Not only is this an important tool for preventing the entry
of inadmissible aliens, but the pre-inspection program can
also help prevent terrorists from boarding flights bound for
our country.
Sec. 7217--Increase in Penalties for Fraud and Related
Activity. This section amends section 1028 of Title 18 to
increase penalties for the possession and transfer of
fraudulent government identification documents that are used
to further an international terrorist attack. Specifically,
it increases the maximum term of imprisonment for the
production, use or transfer of fraudulent government
documents from 25 years to 30 years if the crime involving
fraudulent government documents was used to facilitate an act
of 14 international terrorism.
Sec. 7218--Study on Allegedly Lost or Stolen Passports.
This section requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security to jointly conduct a study on the feasibility of
establishing a system, in coordination with other countries,
so that border and visa issuance officials will have access
to real-time information on newly-issued passports to persons
who alleged that their previous passports were lost or
stolen. If developed, the system studied in Section 7218 will
assist consular officers and immigration inspectors in
preventing the movement of terrorists who obtain new
passports to hide indicators of travel to certain countries.
This study must be completed by May 31, 2005.
The 9/11 Commission found that three of the 9/11 hijackers,
including Mohammed Atta, obtained new passports prior to
seeking visas to enter the U.S., possibly to eliminate
evidence regarding their previous travel. Each claimed that
his old passport had been lost.
Sec. 7219--Establishment of Visa and Passport Security
Program in the Department of State. This section establishes
a Visa and Passport Security Program within the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security of the Department of State. The Assistant
Secretary for Diplomatic Security will designate an
individual, who has experience in the investigation and
prosecution of visa and passport fraud, to be in charge of
this Program.
Section 7219 will require the Assistant Secretary of
Diplomatic Security, in coordination with officials of the
Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Coordinator of
Counterterrorism, the National Counterterrorism Center and
the Department of Homeland Security, to develop a strategic
plan to target and disrupt individuals and organizations that
are involved in document fraud. The objective of the Visa and
Passport Security Program is to increase awareness within the
Department of State regarding document fraud crimes and their
links to terrorism.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the 9-11 Commission
reached across the partisan divide and came up with a unanimous
agreement. Ten members, five Democrats and five Republicans, held
countless hearings and issued a well-written report with well-reasoned
recommendations.
To the disappointment of partisans, the Commission refused to divert
itself with election-year political considerations, declining to cast
blame on this Administration or its predecessors. The Senate, almost
evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, followed the
Commission's example by taking up a bipartisan bill, authored by
Senators McCain, Lieberman and Collins.
[[Page H11028]]
Today, at last, the House has seen fit to follow this fine example.
The product we have before us is the product of extensive negotiations,
that included all parties Democrats and Republicans.
My Democratic colleagues on the conference deserve credit for their
determination and hard work. I want to offer praise for the work of
Ranking Member Harman and her staff. They have been steadfast.
I want to offer particular praise across the aisle to my Republican
colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill: my colleague from
Michigan, Chairman Hoekstra, Mr. Shays and the Speaker of the House and
his Chief of Staff.
Like any product of compromise, this bill falls far short of what any
of us would consider perfect. Some of my Republican colleagues wanted
extraneous immigration provisions that would penalize victims of
torture and asylum seekers. Those are not in this bill. Others did not
want a board to oversee violations of privacy and civil liberties. That
is in the bill, albeit in significantly weakened form.
I did not want any additions to the Patriot Act. One provision, on
material support for alleged terrorist organizations, is in the bill.
Like other provisions of the Patriot Act, it sunsets in two years.
For both sides, there will be time for oversight of the provisions
they did not want. I predict the next Congress will see a substantial
debate about the Patriot Act, what should be renewed in it and what
should be allowed to expire.
But today, we have a product that keeps faith with the 9-11
Commission and the 9-11 families that worked so hard to make this
legislation happen.
First and foremost, this bill represents a truly comprehensive 9-11
reform bill. Second, the approach outlined in the substitute has been
endorsed by members of the 9-11 Commission and the family members of
the 9-11 victims. Third, the substitute includes strong budgetary
authority for the newly created National Intelligence Director, and
targets terrorist traveling, as recommended by the 9-11 Commission.
The choice today is clear. We can either choose the status quo--a
broken system of competing intelligence bottlenecks or a positive and
promising reform. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Our
number one priority is to protect the American people and this bill is
a step in the right direction.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
It has been over 3 years since the September 11 attacks on America.
The American people cannot wait any longer for intelligence reform.
I voted against the original version of this bill, because although
it made strides to protect our Homeland, it failed to protect our civil
liberties.
I am pleased that the version of the bill before us today has fixed
these problems. We now have comprehensive intelligence reform that
protects our homeland and our constitutional rights.
If House Republicans wish to discuss immigration reform, I welcome
that debate. But that is not the task that was laid out for us by the
9/11 Commission.
I am also pleased to say that this bill includes language I
introduced in the Financial Services Committee to encourage private
sector anti-terrorism preparedness. The private sector controls 85
percent of the critical infrastructure in this country.
On 9/11 it became clear that the private sector is one of the first
lines of defense in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks.
There are steps businesses can take to protect office buildings against
terrorist attacks, to ensure that escape procedures are in place and to
speed up recovery and communications.
By encouraging private sector preparedness, we are taking a giant
step towards making America safer.
Mr. Speaker, today we have a choice. We can either pass this bill, or
we can choose to do nothing. If we do nothing, our country will be left
with the same intelligence system that failed us on September 11. The
same intelligence system that allowed terrorists to live in our country
unnoticed for months, plotting an attack on Americans. This is
unacceptable. We cannot allow another September 11 to occur.
We must pass this legislation today. We owe it to the families of the
9/11 victims, we owe it to America, and we owe it to ourselves.
My only regret about this legislation is that it has taken us 3 years
to pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. HOYER. At the present time I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 2845
to the committee of conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was rejected.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 336,
noes 75, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 544]
AYES--336
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
[[Page H11029]]
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
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
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--75
Aderholt
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bono
Boozman
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Gallegly
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Hostettler
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kucinich
LaHood
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McDermott
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sabo
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Abercrombie
Ballenger
Bell
Boehlert
Boswell
Burr
Cannon
Case
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Dooley (CA)
Fattah
Hastings (FL)
Houghton
Jones (OH)
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Norwood
Payne
Rahall
Smith (MI)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1938
Mrs. CAPPS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for consideration of
the Conference Report on S. 2845, the 9/11 Implementation Act. I have
been a strong supporter of this legislation, and had I been present, I
would have voted in favor of the bill.
____________________
