Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4770-H4778
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4548, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 686 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 686
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
[[Page H4771]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. This bill would authorize appropriations for the
fiscal year for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the
Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system.
{time} 1030
This is must-do legislation. It is also the most robust Intelligence
Authorization Act the House has ever considered, and it is consistent
with the Defense appropriations bill the House passed yesterday by an
overwhelming vote of 403 to 17.
The classified annex to the committee report, which includes
information on the budget and personnel levels, is available to all
Members of the House of Representatives, subject to a requirement of
clause 13 of rule XXIII.
This rule permits only those Members of the House who have signed the
oath set out in clause 13 of House rule XXIII to have access to the
classified information. Simply, this means they must agree not to
release the information they see.
Intelligence has been, rightly so, recognized as a critical weapon in
the global war on terrorism. Resources for, and demands on, the U.S.
intelligence community have increased dramatically in the 2\3/4\ years
since September 11, 2001, and the attacks we all remember.
This increase is even more dramatic when one takes into consideration
the depth of the cutbacks, underinvestment, and the near fatal loss of
political support for the intelligence community in the prior
administration.
That is why I am pleased that this bill authorizes more money than
last year, even including the supplemental. This is the type of
investment that our intelligence community deserves.
This legislation continues the sustained effort and long-term
strategy to bring human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery
intelligence, and other intelligence systems and disciplines to life
successfully.
H.R. 4548 also continues a similar commitment to build and maintain
the analytic expertise and depth of coverage necessary to make wise and
timely use of the information collected.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the CIA and all the members
of our intelligence community who do make a vital contribution to our
Nation's security.
I agree with President Bush that this is a mission of service and
sacrifice in a world of great uncertainty and risk. America's
commitments and responsibilities span the world in every time zone.
Every day our intelligence community helps us to meet those
responsibilities.
This bill provides the President with the intelligence tools needed
to win the war on terrorism; and to that end, I urge my colleagues to
support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the American intelligence apparatus is
broken is well-known. In the global war on terror, the most important
weapon we have to protect the Nation and its people is intelligence.
Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and
flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this
body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the
continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this
legislation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence falls far short of what our
intelligence community has requested and what the American people
expect. Now listen up. This bill provides less than a third of the key
operational funding the intelligence agencies have told us that they
need to prevent the next terrorist attack. The scheme for funding the
counterterrorism operations is to give the agencies, listen, I want my
colleagues to hear this, they are going to give them a third of the
money they need, and then after the election they will come back and
ask for the other two-thirds. Does this sound like we are concerned
about the intelligence community? Does it sound like we are worried
that we are at war? The answer is no. The election is the deciding
point on when we come back and ask for the money.
The plan will starve the counterterrorism efforts, leaves the
intelligence community anemic. Funding the intelligence community in
bits and pieces, a portion now and a supplemental after the election,
is not only irresponsible, it is reckless. Senior intelligence
community officials have said that operating this way could jeopardize
key counterterrorism operations. That is what they tell us.
Sadly, this year the bill fell victim to partisanship and the cold
hard fiscal realities of tax cuts and spending caps. Every single
Democrat member voted against favorably reporting this bill, and this
is unprecedented. Typically, the importance of this bill trumps
personal ideologies or the prevailing partisan winds; but knowing the
ranking member and the other Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I know that they must have very serious
concerns to vote against the authorization bill.
Five dedicated distinguished Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, including the gentlewoman from California
(Ranking Member Harman), offered five important amendments to the bill.
However, the Committee on Rules tossed out four of these vital
substantive amendments. The Committee on Rules will not allow the full
House to consider and debate and amend to withhold a portion of the
funding until the Secretary of Defense provides all information
concerning the dealings of the Department of Defense and Ahmed Chalabi.
This is information to which Congress is entitled. This is information
the American people want to know. Who was this man who had such an
incredible effect and so much influence on whether or not we went to
war? What did we do besides give him $33 million?
Members will not be able to consider an amendment to restructure our
dilapidated intelligence apparatus. Shockingly, the committee
Republicans even made out of order an amendment to fully fund American
counterterrorism efforts.
Yesterday, a member of the Committee on Rules tried to suggest that
the amendments were proposed for political reasons. Far from it. Our
Nation's security is at risk, and the integrity of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Democrats, and all Democrats, should not be
questioned.
Reported out of committee on party lines, the rule does make in order
an amendment to express the sense of Congress and support of the
intelligence community and an amendment expressing the sense that the
world is a safer place now that Libya has dismantled its weapons of
mass destruction. These amendments were presumed to take precedence
over the ones that really dealt with the committee and its budget. They
do nothing to improve American counterterrorism operations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a seriously, fatally flawed bill; but, again,
the Committee on Rules has muzzled debate on some of the most important
issues concerning American intelligence operations. This is a double
blow. It is another Committee on Rules strike against deliberation,
discussion, and serious consideration; and it is a strike against the
safety of America.
I am shocked at the rule and the underlying legislation before us
this morning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that the
full House
[[Page H4772]]
can participate in a comprehensive debate on the most important issue
confronting us today and to consider the vital amendments to improve
the intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time, and I am glad that we are focusing on this very important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, having served in that very distinguished group of
bipartisan members concerned about intelligence for 8 years.
I wish to rise in strong support of this bill we are presenting to
our colleagues and to the American people, the Intelligence
Authorization Act. This is a well-thought-out bill, developed over many
months of comprehensive deliberation, which provides much-needed
guidance and support for the global, and let me emphasize that, the
global war on terrorism and efforts to combat the very real threats to
our national security.
We live in a dangerous world. Reminders of that harsh fact of 21st-
century life face us on many fronts. Threats that were unimaginable
just a few years ago have now become reality. Suicide bombers, anthrax,
dirty bombs, these are but a few of the litany of weapons our enemies
threaten us with.
To meet this new threat, our Nation requires a much more flexible and
responsive intelligence community. H.R. 4548 helps provide that
flexibility; and, importantly, it provides the increased funding to
aggressively wage war on terrorism. Make no mistake, H.R. 4548
dramatically, let me emphasize that, dramatically increases
counterterrorism funding.
As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the
8 years that I have been privileged to serve in that body, one of my
greatest concerns has been the lack of sufficient numbers of
intelligence analysts and officers fluent in the languages that our
enemies speak. This capability deficiency has literally crippled our
ability to independently gather and evaluate information. It means that
we have increasingly relied on contract linguists and allied
intelligence services to translate information and to follow up leads.
It means, for example, that there are literally miles and miles of
captured Saddam Hussein documents that are still waiting to be read,
translated, and made available for our analysis.
We have made substantial investment in technology, and rightly so;
but more investment is necessary in human capital, people who serve as
our eyes and ears at far distant points on the globe, and just adding
to the numbers in our cadre is not enough by itself. We need
individuals who are language proficient and possess an understanding of
the culture being penetrated, who know and are able to appreciate not
only who was saying what but also are conversant with the nuances and
able to discern the true meaning of what is being said.
Of course, particularly in view of my position as chairman of the
Committee on Science, I can appreciate the value of investment in
technology; but that alone is not enough. There is no substitute for
people. A satellite hundreds of miles in the heavens might be able to
detect the movement of people or machines, and that is important; but
it does not compare in value to someone inside a cell in Iraq or
Afghanistan monitoring the words or actions of the bad guys.
For this reason, I have been part of a concerted effort over the past
several years to place greater emphasis on and secure needed funds for
a significant upgrading of our language program for the intelligence
community.
Our committee has put together a broad and comprehensive package of
language provisions. We establish a civilian linguistic reserve corps.
We fund and expand existing programs that have demonstrated success. We
look for creative ways to develop and utilize the vast talent pool that
already exists in our country. We support the National Virtual
Translation Center; and perhaps most importantly, we try to establish a
culture in the intelligence community where language skills become an
integral and necessary part of the job. It is the most important
legislative effort on foreign languages since the Boren Act of 1992.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 is a worthy bill. It takes many of the
necessary steps to ensure that our Nation's intelligence capabilities
remain relevant in the 21st century. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) is bringing forward an excellent package in what is his
final authorization as chairman. He has performed exceptionally well
during particularly challenging times, and he has presented us with a
bill that all Members can and should support.
I urge support of the rule and the base bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on the Committee on Rules and for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
previous question, which I understand will be offered, because it
deprives our colleagues of the opportunity to strengthen the
Intelligence Authorization Act.
Strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on
terrorism; and make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings
of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33-
year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of
our enemy. Our brave men and women of the intelligence community are on
the frontlines fighting that enemy.
{time} 1045
They risked their lives for our freedom, and they deserve our
unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule
deprives them of that support.
H.R. 4548 provides less than one-third of the key counterterrorism
funding the intelligence community has told us it needs to fight the
war on terrorism. Less than one-third. Members of our committee had
proposed an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism operations. This
rule denies us the opportunity to consider that amendment.
I think it is irresponsible of us to shortchange our counterterrorism
efforts, particularly when we know al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups
are planning attacks against us right now. By providing one-third of
the counterterrorism funding, the majority's bill essentially says to
the brave men and women of the intelligence community, you can count on
operations for 3 or 4 more months, but after that, that is rough, until
next April. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does, and that
is not acceptable.
A better rule, a much better rule would have allowed the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell),
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) of our committee to fix
this bill with an amendment that would have provided for 100 percent of
the funding that the intelligence agencies say they need. Their
amendment would have done away with the dangerous practice of budgeting
by supplemental, of saying let us kick this problem down the road. And
in this case, let us kick it down the road until well after the
November election.
A rule limiting amendments may be appropriate for other legislation,
but this legislation is different, and here is why. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, much of our work is classified and, therefore, is not
discussed in the open. However, a large portion of our work on the
intelligence policy is unclassified and is contained in the public
portion of our legislation. This information does not compromise our
intelligence sources and methods, and for that reason we asked the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to hold the markup of the public
portion of our bill in public.
On a party-line vote, the majority refused. Therefore, these
amendments have never been debated or voted on in public, even though
they are not classified and even though they would, if adopted, be part
of the public part of our bill.
[[Page H4773]]
Mr. Speaker, there is no secret law in the United States, and it is
anathema to this House to stifle open debate about important policy
issues. For that reason, it is important that the full House have the
opportunity to debate these amendments. This rule kills that debate,
shuts down any effort to fully fund counterterrorism, and tries to
sweep this issue under the rug. Well, this issue is too important, too
vital to our national security to be swept under the rug.
The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
offered five amendments, all of which were good, all of which would
have strengthened the bill and strengthened our oversight. All but one
were rejected by this rule. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because
instead of having a rule that could bring us together under one
bipartisan banner, we have a rule that ensures this bill will trigger a
bitter partisan divide.
In case the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the Republicans
have not noticed, the terrorists did not check our party labels before
launching their attacks against us on 9/11, and they will not check
them when they launch the next attack. I would have hoped that we could
debate the bill not just as Democrats and Republicans, but as
Americans. And for the sake of the country and for the sake of national
security, I am sorry that the majority let us down.
Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the
previous question.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
As a member of the committee now for 6 years, I want to say a special
word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be the last bill that he will present to
the House of Representatives, as he is retiring from the House at the
end of this year.
It is a great, great loss for the House of Representatives. I know it
is a great loss for the people of Florida, who he represents, and it
truly is a great loss for the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the intelligence community. As someone who served in
the CIA prior to coming to the House of Representatives, he has done as
good a job as anyone on the committee, and certainly been an exemplary
Chair of the committee. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for
the time and energy and devotion that he has given to the intelligence
community, to the CIA, to people, men and women, all over the world who
work so hard to collect the information and do the good professional
work. He has been dedicated to them, he has been dedicated for them.
And so I say congratulations to Porter Goss, and I think all House
Members should do that for the work that he has done for the House and
for the intelligence community.
As we debate the bill, I will obviously be speaking out on a number
of things that I think are important, but let me just say this: I think
it is unfortunate that bipartisanship has deteriorated. It no longer
exists with this committee. Maybe our committee was the last bastion of
bipartisanship, but apparently it is gone. And I think it really began
a year ago when we considered our authorization bill.
I introduced into the record and put into the record a memo that came
over from the other body that talked about a game plan on the part of
the Democrats to politicize the intelligence process, not only in this
body but also in the other body. And I am going to put that memo in the
record again this year, because I think it was the beginning of the
deterioration of bipartisanship for intelligence. That is unfortunate
and sends the wrong message.
Congratulations Porter Goss, we have a good bill, and I hope all
Members will support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I find this rule very disappointing. It effectively
shuts down debate on an amendment to fully fund the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence's key counterterrorism operations. It is
unusual for me to speak out like this, but 4 or 5 weeks ago it hit me,
the current intelligence authorization bill that we are going to
consider today is just not strong enough. It authorizes less than a
third of the funds that the intelligence agencies need for key
counterterrorism operations next year. That is just not right at a time
when our Nation is under threat of terrorist attacks.
The administration admits that this is not sufficient funding, and
says it will seek more money after November. But there is ample
evidence that al-Qaeda may try to strike before November. If there is
another terrorist attack, do we want the next 9-11 Commission to find
that we in Congress failed in our duty to fully fund counterterrorism
in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?
We sit there day in and day out in closed session, windowless rooms,
for hours on end listening to the intelligence agencies tell us how
critical the funds are that the committee authorizes. They routinely
criticize the practice of funding them in these small bits and pieces
rather than in a full year, the way we are supposed to do it. They have
told us how this prevents them from planning effectively, and they have
told us they have to rob Peter to pay Paul while they wait for the
additional funds to arrive. And they will probably not receive those
additional funds that they need until April or May of next year, if at
all.
This ridiculous practice of shortchanging intelligence at the start
of the year has also been roundly criticized on a bipartisan basis by
members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The agencies
have indicated with some precision the additional funds that they will
need in the coming year for counterterrorism. There is no excuse for
failing to make sure that the intelligence community has the resources
it needs to protect against the next terrorist attack.
The amendment that I had intended to offer would have fully funded
key counterterrorism operations in the next year for the agencies, as
they have said they need them, 100 percent of the funding. And we had a
detailed schedule of authorization to specify how the money should be
spent. So this was not a blank check, as some have said.
The question before Congress is quite simple: Do we fully fund the
global war on terrorism or do we want to take the chance that our
intelligence community can make due until sometime next year? As it
stands now, it is clear what the majority's answer is to this question.
And with this rule the majority has made clear that they do not want to
debate this issue. That is just not right, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), another member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me this time, and I thank both my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee.
We are selected by the leadership, we are asked to serve, we are asked
to uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of what goes on in that
committee, and we are asked to reassure the Members of the House that
do not have the type of access that we do that we are in fact doing our
job. So let me assure every Member, Republican and Democrat, we are
doing our job.
There is a difference today, and I do not hold the individuals on the
other side of the aisle responsible. I think the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) put it well, politics is alive and well in
Washington. It is an election year, and I think that strings are
getting pulled. And I make a pledge to the Members on that side of the
aisle: That when this bill has passed, and I hope you vote for it on
final passage, that we will work together in that committee. We will
make sure that the tools are available to our intelligence community.
We will make sure that the workings and the oversight are good enough
that we can look our fellow Members in the eye and say we are doing our
job.
[[Page H4774]]
But I think today we need to look back at why we are here. Sure, we
are here because of the intelligence threat that exists today and the
need for intelligence to grow, but we are here because of the
devastation to the intelligence community in the 1990s. We are here
because human intelligence was not important to anybody in this town.
We are, in fact, trying to rebuild. And when I heard Director Tenet
stand up in front of the independent commission and talk about 5 years,
here was a man being honest at what it took to recruit people that
could infiltrate; that we could take individuals who could fluently
speak Arabic.
We have to remember that we went from a Cold War need for
linguistics, which was Russia and Eastern Europe, to now a need for
Arabic and a lot of different tribal languages that exist, and you
cannot do it overnight and you cannot do it for no money. The reality
is that both sides suggest funding levels at about the same, and that
is above where the administration's request was. We have differences on
how we get here. That is leadership and it is politics mixed in with
it.
I am confident we can put politics aside and we can get passed not
only this rule debate but the debate on the bill. Because the important
thing is that our intelligence community knows that this Congress is
united. We are united behind them, we are united behind the effort, we
understand the value of what they do as it relates to the safety of the
troops that we have who defend this country every day.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also highlight the
leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss). This will be a tremendous loss to the Congress, the entire
Congress. The dedication of this man, the leadership, his experience
and what he has brought to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is invaluable. I am sure his years of community service
are not over with his decision to leave Congress. But with him we lose
a tremendous resource in our ability to understand and to become better
in the world as it relates to our intelligence.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I rise today to support my colleagues, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) particularly, in opposition to
the rule that shuts off debate on fully funding the intelligence
community's counterterrorism operations. I do this reluctantly, and I
do not do this very often.
I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
this should have been the opportunity for us to fully debate this
issue, because there is no real debate as to whether this bill, when we
get to the bill, provides full funding to the intelligence community
for this global war on terrorism. We all know that this bill does not
do that, and we have fallen into the trap ourselves. We are
perpetuating the trap of continuing to fund the intelligence community
in fits and starts, in bits and pieces.
The war in Iraq, as difficult as it is, is a war. The war on global
terrorism, as unpredictable as it is, is a real war. Every day we are
faced with warnings, with threats that we are going to be attacked,
soon, between now and the elections.
{time} 1100
Every administration, or at least the past several administrations,
have fallen into this trap of using supplementals as a way to slowly
but surely face the budget issues that we have to face. We are saying
here today that we want to stop that, that we want to break that habit,
that we want to up front tell the agencies what they will get and let
them then tell us what they need so we can perform our oversight.
This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle have admitted
through the hearing process, this year, last year as well, that we have
got to stop this practice. The administration says this is not enough
money this year; that later, whatever ``later'' means, we will get to
the point where we will get to more funding.
This is not the way to do it. So today we must send a clear message
that ``business as usual'' is no longer acceptable. Today we must put
politics aside and do what is right for our intelligence community and
for our national security. Today we must make sure the intelligence
community has the resources it needs.
Oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, obviously I
follow these things very closely, and I wish to point out to all my
colleagues that the other body, their version of this bill closely
mirrors ours, but is less generous, and that bill passed the other body
by a unanimous vote, minority and majority. They are following our
lead. I would suggest that we should evidence that same spirit of
bipartisanship in this body.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work,
and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her hard
work.
Mr. Speaker, I did take some notice of my good friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I appreciated his remarks
about the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). I agree. I think he
has done an excellent job. But none of us are perfect. I think there
was an exception here. I actually thought that he would plus-up this
counterterrorism budget.
But here we are, and I rise to oppose the rule on the Intelligence
Authorization Act. In particular, I am surprised that a number of
Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably those of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), mine and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), which would fully fund the counterterrorism
budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
I wish the Republicans had been willing to debate this issue head on,
rather than hide behind a procedure.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than one-third of the funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. The
intelligence agencies will have a tough time accomplishing their
mission if they do not receive full funding for the counterterrorism
operations.
At CIA, these funds do not go to the paper clips and photocopiers.
They go towards mounting counterterrorism operations on every
continent. They go towards collecting information on preventing
terrorist attacks. They go towards funding operations in Afghanistan,
to prevent resurgence of the terrorist sanctuaries in the remote
mountains. They go towards working with partner governments on
counterterrorism. They go towards capturing key al Qaeda leaders.
When there is uncertainty about funding, according to the agencies'
testimony, it causes the agencies to hold off on operations,
potentially putting lives in danger and ruining intelligence collection
operations.
The administration officials have admitted they are not fully funding
counterterrorism in this bill, but will send a request for the rest of
the funds after the election, while at the same time urgently warning
of a possible terrorist attack before the election. I say to my good
friends and colleagues here today, what should the American people
expect us to do? Is it acceptable to wait until after the election,
when we already know what we need to do?
No, it is not acceptable. The American people expects us to debate
these issues fully and openly and not hide behind procedures. If, as
the administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack on the U.S. this summer, my colleagues in the majority will wish
they had debated and settled the Peterson amendment, rather than
squashing the debate. We will all wish that we had acted and fully
funded counterterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I fully urge the rejection of this rule, so that the
important issues like the shortfall for counterterrorism in this bill
can be properly debated.
[[Page H4775]]
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that obviously we are praising the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in light of the fact that this is
going to be the last intelligence authorization bill that he will be
presiding over before his retirement from this institution.
We had a very interesting discussion in the Committee on Rules
yesterday about this issue of funding. As I listened to my friend from
Iowa speaking about the fact that if we possibly saw another terrorist
attack on the United States, we would all bemoan the fact we have not
provided adequate funding, it seems to me that the statement that was
made by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee yesterday before the
Committee on Rules is a very important one to note. He is not concerned
about the issue of funding, he is actually concerned about the
management of the level of funding that we have right now. This view
that all you need to do is throw a tremendous amount of money at a
problem and that somehow is a panacea, that it is an insurance policy,
is, I think, unfounded.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important for us to note that the
proper management over this program is the most important thing for us
to do now, because we do feel that there is an adequate level of
funding. So I strongly support this rule, I strongly support the
underlying bill, so that we can come and work in a bipartisan way for
what we all want to do, and that is ensure, ensure, that we never see
another September 11, 2001, on our soil.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating the chairman, who
has served so honorably as a Member of the House and for all of these
years as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
and wish him our absolute best.
I join my colleagues today in standing up in support of stronger
intelligence. That is what this debate is about.
This bill is simply too weak and dangerously underfunds the
intelligence efforts that are so absolutely essential to preventing the
next big terrorist attack. Every American will understand that 100
percent is 100 percent. You cannot be committed 100 percent to funding
if you only fund 33 percent, one-third, of the entire counterterrorism
budget.
Opponents of the amendment to fully fund counterterrorism
intelligence throw around a lot of numbers to try to argue that the
level of funding in this bill is adequate. But you need to know only
one thing: The President knows this is not enough funding, and said in
his transmittal letter of May 12 of this year that he will ask for the
rest of the money ``in early 2005.'' That is an admission that this is
not fully funded, and that is what we are debating.
The problem is the terrorists are not waiting until early 2005. There
are indications that they plan to conduct a major attack inside the
United States before the end of the year, according to administration
officials. The CIA cannot wait until early 2005 to plan its operations
to prevent that next attack.
Senior officials testified repeatedly to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that the practice of funding counterterrorism
by supplemental makes it impossible for them to plan, this is what they
said to all of the members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and it forces them to rob Peter to pay Paul in an effort
to make due.
Does this body really want to make the men and women of the
intelligence community make do when so much is at stake? They are the
tip of the spear. We have to give them the resources they need. It is
our job now, not in early 2005.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic, some people up
here on the floor say we are not spending enough. They have never
served in the military. They vote to cut defense.
The last speaker, the gentlewoman from California, in 1993, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1996, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1998, the Iraq
Liberalization Act, regime change, she voted yes; in 2002,
authorization for military force, she voted no; in 2003, Iraq
supplemental appropriations, she voted no; in 2003, intelligence
authorization, to increase funding, she voted no.
This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. I have got some very good friends on
this committee. Some of them I hunt and fish with. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), during the Ronald Reagan funeral, I had tears
in my eyes. She reached over and grabbed my hand to console me.
That is the kind of friendship that we have on this committee, and I
think one of the saddest things I see is the partisanship coming out in
election-year politicking. We will still be friends after this. You
say, oh, this is not partisan. That is the spin. But it is, Mr.
Speaker. It is sad, and I hate to see it.
All the way through, you have people that have fought the Republican
Party on prescription drugs, Leave No Child Behind, energy, tax relief,
the environment. You think the Republicans are the meanest people in
the whole world, no matter what we do. But never before on this bill
has it been so partisan, and I think it is sad, a sad day on this House
floor, and election year politics.
I think when you look at yesterday's vote on defense appropriations,
which is the authorization for this bill, most of my colleagues voted
for that. That was less funding than this. The Senate has less funding
in the bill. But what our great chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) did, is restrict some of the flow of the funding. We have
taken and analyzed and cut a lot of waste, fraud and abuse out of every
bill, defense, education, all these bills, and we have put the money to
good use.
I think it is even sadder right now that we have got folks that
choose to go along with their Democrat leadership. When you all elected
your liberal Democrat leadership, we rejoiced, because we know there is
a bill to cut the tax break for the rich in the next Bill, and we knew
exactly what was going to happen to show the differences between
Republicans and Democrats from your liberal leadership. But what is sad
is how that leadership is driving some of the good people within your
party to be partisan, and I think that is even sadder.
The defense authorization, I sat clear through that thing, and the
gentleman that is filing ethics violations, that is leaving this body
this year, filing ethics violations, demanded he see the Taguba report.
Well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) just so happened to
have it on the desk. And, guess what, that individual has not even read
the report.
There are 11 investigations going on. The Ronald Reagan event stopped
hearings. There has never been a hearing that any member of this
committee has asked for that we have not gotten, whether it is on
Chalabi, whether it is on the prisons, or whether it is on other issues
within that party.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is one of the most bipartisan
chairmen, and I think the gentlewoman from California would agree
Mr. Speaker, I also sit on the Defense Authorization Committee, and
one of the liberal members said, ``Well, we want the Secretary of
Defense to step down.'' He said, ``You know, I pray for you every day,
Mr. Secretary. You are a good, respected man, but maybe you ought to
step down.'' And I told the Secretary, next time someone prays for me,
I hope they are not trying to put a knife in my back in the
partisanship that is going on.
I think it is sad here today, we hunt and fish together, we are
friends. But this is wrong. Vote for this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
[[Page H4776]]
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time
to rise in opposition to this rule.
First let me just say that like all of us in this House that
represent communities around this great Nation of ours, I am proud of
the job that our men and women are doing in the war against terrorism,
whether they are in the military, whether they are in the intelligence
community or civilians.
{time} 1115
I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a
veteran. But to me, today, the issue is about oversight and about
funding the effort.
I think debate is healthy. I think we should exchange ideas and, yes,
maybe even political philosophies from time to time. We go to the
intelligence community and we ask them, what is it that you need? How
much money will it take to get the job done? They tell us, they give us
a budget, they give us a proposal; and then we come back and say, we
can only give you 33 percent of that money. Do they give us 33 percent
effort? No. They give us 100 percent, so we should fund them at 100
percent.
So why are we doing that? I am sure that our men and women that are
putting their lives on the line are asking that very same question:
Why? To them, it is not about politics, it is not about budgets, it is
not about deficits, or even supplementals. To them, it is about support
for their effort. To them, it is about funding that effort at 100
percent, and not giving them 33 percent and an IOU or a check-is-in-
the-mail promise. It is about support for our men and women in an
effort that is very important to our country.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we must do better; and, most of all,
to the men and women of this body, we must do our job.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support the bill
and the fine work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
chairman of our committee; and I am certain that sometime today we are
going to hear more about Abu Ghraib prison. I want to put things in
context about the politics of what this town has become.
Mr. Speaker, I stand amazed and disappointed in the self-righteous,
politically motivated diatribes coming from the other side about Abu
Ghraib for the last several months. The guilty parties in the Abu
Ghraib prison incidents are currently before the military justice
system. They will be tried and justice will be carried out.
This House, the other body, the President, the Vice President, the
Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Adviser
have all gone on record to express outrage over the abuses at the
prison, as they should have.
But what I find especially appalling is the deafening silence from
the other side following the savage beheadings of American civilians
Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
These cowardly terrorist organizations seek to intimidate our people
through barbaric acts of demonic cruelty on American citizens.
While members on the other side have mentioned Abu Ghraib by name, 45
times since January during recorded debate on the House Floor, only
four times did a Democratic member utter the name Nick or Nicholas
Berg. No Democrat, not one single Democrat, has even mentioned Paul
Johnson, the Lockheed Martin employee kidnapped in Saudi Arabia,
cruelly beheaded, and videotaped for the world to see.
We are a self-policing society. We will punish those who commit
abuses at Abu Ghraib. However, I would expect the Democrats in this
body to express equal outrage over the savage killings of Nick Berg and
Paul Johnson.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to break their silence and end their
indifference to the atrocious acts of cruelty perpetrated on innocent
Americans.
Too many are playing politics with Abu Ghraib, trying to score
political points, while we have 200,000 troops fighting the war on
terror and standing strong for America in the Middle East and Central
Asia.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at what the previous speaker
has just said. What does he mean that no Democrat has expressed any
outrage? Has the gentleman polled every Democrat in the country? Does
he know that no Democrat has expressed outrage over the beheading of
American citizens?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not spoken on
this floor. Not spoken on this floor. Not a word entered into the
Record. I have checked with the Parliamentarian and the Clerk, not one
mention of those names.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I just think that
is an outrageous statement to make, and I do not believe that anybody
in America is going to be impressed by that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule on the
fiscal year 2005 Intelligence Authorization Act. In response to some of
the comments made by our colleagues on the other side, let me just make
this statement: this issue is not about politics; it is about national
security.
Now, it is important in our work here in the House that we put
America first. Equally important is a focus on ensuring that the men
and women protecting us in the intelligence agencies and in the
military have all the support and resources that they need.
I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out
of order, notably the Peterson amendment which would fully fund the
counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than a third of the additional funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. This one-
third comes from the contingency emergency reserve fund that the
President asked for on May 12, which is designed to bridge the gap
between the budget request and a supplemental funding request that will
not happen until after the election.
In his May 12 letter to the Speaker, President Bush said, ``I have
pledged to our troops that we will have all the resources they need to
accomplish this vital mission.'' Yet, the intelligence agencies have
told us in hearing after hearing that the current process of funding
counterterrorism operations by supplemental has hampered their ability
to plan and operate. And despite the President's lofty words, we know
that the intelligence troops do not have all of the resources they need
to accomplish the counterterrorism mission.
As a former county executive, I can relate to the agency's need to
plan right to achieve success, and so I am concerned that these
budgeting practices have to stop, for the good of the country and
national security.
I was disappointed that the Republican majority on the Committee on
Rules did not allow this amendment to come to the floor for debate.
This issue needs to be debated. The public needs to know, we need to
know, we need to debate this issue of national security.
If, as administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack this summer, we will all wonder if we could have done more to
protect America. The answer to that question today is yes. For one
thing, we could be debating the Peterson amendment today and finding a
way to get the intelligence agencies the counterterrorism funding that
they need.
I urge the rejection of this rule. It is so important that all of our
intelligence agencies have the resources they need to deal with the
issue of national security.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for allowing me this time to speak.
I do want to begin by giving my great congratulations to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for tremendous service on this
committee and for a tremendous bill which does exactly what this
country's intelligence services need. It is actually a bill which
should have been bipartisan but, for the first time, was not bipartisan
in the committee.
[[Page H4777]]
I think I would like to begin with correcting some of the
misstatements that have been made on the floor. First of all, this bill
fully funds the base amount for every salary paycheck in the
intelligence community. Not one intelligence community employee is
going to go without a paycheck at the end of 3 months. It is just plain
wrong to assert that, and I wanted to correct that.
I also wanted to say that, with regard to the funding of the
contingent emergency reserve, this bill sets forth, I believe, the
proper oversight for this committee. We have budgeted for one-quarter
of the year, authorized for one-quarter of the year in order to give
flexibility to the war on terrorism. This is an opportunity for us to
exercise our oversight and exercise our oversight by giving smaller
slices of the pie so we can control the money, where it is spent and
how it is spent in our oversight authority, rather than giving a slush
fund out there that can be spent without proper control.
We will fully fund the war on terrorism. I am struck by the dichotomy
of each of the previous speakers on the Democratic side who voted
yesterday in support of the Defense Appropriation bill which funds the
war on terrorism to the same numbers that we have in this bill, and
each one of my Democratic colleagues voted ``yes,'' with the exception
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who was absent.
So to stand here and say that you do not believe we are funding the
war on terrorism when you supported the appropriation in the same
amount strikes me as one of politics.
The last thing we want to do is have the intelligence community as a
political wedge in the war on politics. They do not deserve it. This
country does not deserve it. I am concerned that by what we are doing,
by issuing these proclamations about not funding the war on terrorism,
is giving aid and support to those people who are trying to attack this
country.
More fiscal responsibility is certainly in this bill; more oversight
by the Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is exactly what this bill will do.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis
and Counterintelligence, I wanted to speak briefly about the points
that are dealing with the analysis part of this bill because it is so
critical and so important. This rule and this bill support the goals
that our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expressed
for years, and that is the importance of a well-trained, professional,
and experienced staff.
Like many other components of the intelligence community, analysis is
not a capability that can be developed overnight. It takes years of
investment in people, technology, and training to create analysts
capable of connecting the dots. Today, with this bill, through this
rule, we will have more dots to connect than ever before. We can
collect all we want, but if there is nobody to synthesize, analyze, and
look at this information and deliver the proper and correct message to
our Nation's policymakers, then there is little benefit to this country
by standing here and politicizing this bill and the intelligence
community over what we are doing.
That is why I am pleased to stand here and support the rule, support
this bill, and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on
what I believe to be a very fair and fundamentally correct bill to fund
our intelligence community and to support this country's war on
terrorism.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
The American public, the citizens of America, are looking to us, to
the Congress, to provide oversight over the intelligence community. My
colleague, the gentleman from California, said that our committee has
never been denied a hearing that we wanted. That may be true if one
defines ``hearing'' very broadly. Yes, members of the intelligence
community from the various agencies have come to meet with us; but we
never learned, for example, that Mr. Rumsfeld actually approved ghost
detainees, detainees who would be kept out of the system. We never
really got level answers about the search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. It is a long, long list of things that we have
been denied because we just did not ask exactly the right question.
The debate this morning is not about how many billions of dollars
precisely will be added to the counterterrorism budget; it is whether
they are going to present the budget to us in such a way that it is
impossible for the committee to exercise oversight. That is what is at
issue. By funding these programs through supplemental appropriations
rather than through the normal appropriations process with
authorization oversight, they dodge responsibility. They dodge the
oversight. That is what is at stake here today. That is what this rule
is denying, the American public the oversight that they expect, that
they need for our national security, denying that that will be carried
out by the committee.
So we are talking about a much more fundamental, longer-term issue;
and for that reason, this rule is very flawed and should be opposed.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson); and, I might add, she is the only female
military officer in this body.
{time} 1130
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
North Carolina for the time.
I rise to support this rule today. I have listened to this debate
with some concern because I think there are things being said that just
are not being straight with people. I want to talk about two of them in
particular.
The first has to do with the funding levels that are authorized in
this bill. The truth is here in the Congress, we have an arcane way of
doing things some times. We have an authorizing bill that really sets
the programs and the outlines of the programs that we intend to fund.
But the money, the real money is put in the defense appropriations bill
that we passed overwhelmingly yesterday from this House with what we
call an open rule, which means anyone can come down this floor and move
to change money around or increase counterterrorism funding. If one was
serious about this, that is where the real money was, in the defense
appropriations bill.
So what we hear this morning is more about posturing and politics
than it is about policy. And that is really sad on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that heretofore has been absent that kind of
discussion.
And the second thing I wanted to raise is this issue of vigorous
oversight. I have been an advocate for vigorous oversight in a wide
variety of things. And I have been one of the principal advocates in
the Committee on Armed Services for greater oversight of the Pentagon,
including of Abu Ghraib, and cosponsored an amendment to do so with my
colleague the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
In this Congress, there are some committees that are vigorous about
it and some that are not. I served on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence a couple of Congresses ago, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is one that is. Its members work very hard,
ask tough questions. Many of them are when the cameras are off, and
that is the way it has to be. But I am also particularly pleased at
their openness to non-members of the committee participating in that
process.
I have, from time to time, requested special briefings and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made that possible for
me. No other committee in the House tends to be so open to that on the
part the of non-members.
The structure of this bill encourages the continued vigorous
oversight by the Congress of expenditure in the intelligence world.
This is the kind of bill that we should be proud of as a Congress, as
an example of vigorous oversight of one branch of government over
another. We have to rebuild our intelligence services, particularly
human intelligence and analysis. But this is too important to make a
partisan issue.
After this is all over today, I hope that my colleagues will
reconsider their decision to inject partisanship
[[Page H4778]]
and election year politics into the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. It has always been above that and, for the good of the
Nation, should remain above that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will close. I
urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will
allow the House to vote on a critical amendment that was defeated on a
straight party line vote last night at the Committee on Rules.
The amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would
fully fund the counterterrorism needs of the intelligence community by
increasing by 100 percent the funds authorized in the contingency
emergency reserve. What many Members may not realize is that the
President's budget request covered just a fraction of the intelligence
community's counterterrorism requirements, less than a third. They say
the rest of the funds will be requested only after the November
election.
Well, the Nation's intelligence agencies have indicated that they
need additional funds and the Peterson amendment will make sure that
they receive them now, not after November elections.
Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is not now and has never been a
partisan issue. After 9/11, Republicans and Democrats stood side by
side on the steps of the Capitol united in our effort to root out
terrorists and to keep America safe. It is hard for me to understand
why Republicans would now actively work to keep the House from
adequately funding the counterterrorism efforts.
The intelligence bill has long been considered in this House under an
open rule. Any Member who wished to bring an amendment to the floor
could do so, but last year things began to change. Republicans started
to pass rules that restricted amendments, that allowed them to pick and
choose which amendments could be debated in the floor of the House.
This year they have taken it too far.
The Peterson amendment is far too important not to be considered and
is far too important to be subject to petty partisan games. It deserves
a separate vote here on the floor today.
So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the
previous question. Let me make it very clear that a no vote will not
stop the House from taking up the intelligence bill and will not
prevent any of the amendments made in order from being offered.
However, a yes vote will mean that the House will not have the
opportunity to fully fund the Nation's counterterrorism needs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues in closing
that there is more money in this bill than ever before. There is more
money for counterterrorism than ever before. And whatever is needed
will be provided, as always been the manner of this House and the other
body to do.
I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) because he has always worked in a very bipartisan manner on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which all of us appreciate
greatly, and with his background in intelligence, of course, that has
been extremely important to have him there. We are going to miss him
greatly, both as a chairman and as a long-serving, well respected
Member of Congress from Florida.
So we wish him only the best as he goes on whatever new challenges he
may take on.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this structured rule,
and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs.
Myrick, for yielding me this time.
H. Res. 686 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration
of H.R. 4548, the FY2005 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005. It is
a fair and balanced rule that deserves the support of the House. It
makes in order a total of ten (10) separate amendments to the
underlying bill, three from members of the minority and the remainder
from members of the majority. These ten amendments were more than half
of the 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying measure, H.R.
4548, which authorizes funding for critical intelligence programs for
FY2005.
I want to commend Chairman Goss for bringing this legislation to the
floor. As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for the past eight years, the gentleman from Sanibel,
Florida has served this country with honor, integrity, and distinction.
His tenure has been marked by a tireless effort to improve and reform
our nation's intelligence capabilities. He has never wavered in his
steadfast desire to invest in this critical government function, and
while there is still work to be done, his leadership has helped the
intelligence community deal with a turbulent global environment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 provides the tools necessary for a strong and
effective U.S. intelligence mission as we wage a war against terrorism.
Intelligence efforts serve as the first line of defense against
terrorism and oppression. Without a strong commitment to this effort,
our freedoms and this democracy are vulnerable to the fear and terror
of others.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that the blessings of liberty
afforded to the citizens of this great nation are preserved under any
possible means. By passing H.R. 4548, we are upholding this intention.
As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 686.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 686--Rule on H.R. 4548 Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2005
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Peterson of Minnesota or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
SEC. 105. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO
FULLY FUND THE NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAM.
The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101
for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the elements listed in such section for the
Contingency Emergency Reserve, as specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102, are
increased 100 percent.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
Congressional Record: June 23, 2004 (House)
Page H4824-H4855
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 686 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4548.
{time} 1641
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4548, and I ask my colleagues
on both sides of this great House to support this bill. Casting their
vote is a vote of confidence, respect, and deep admiration for the
honorable and heroic patriots who toil quietly, and usually without
notice, throughout the intelligence community in order to keep
[[Page H4825]]
us safe, prosperous, and free in this wonderful country. It is
imperative that these men and women understand in these troubled times
that this House holds them in the highest regard and appreciates that
the work accomplished by them is critical to the defense of our liberty
and security. Amid great sacrifice and often intense conditions, the
men and women of the intelligence community continue to perform their
missions with great energy and admirable devotion to duty. We commend
these officers. The security of our Americans at home and abroad truly
relies on their success.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues like the Defense appropriation bill
that passed yesterday on a vote of 403 to 17, then this bill should
equally please my colleagues today. Yesterday's Defense appropriation
bill was coordinated closely with the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and our funding levels are very, very close. The
Intelligence bill currently before the House, however, authorizes
funding slightly above the level the appropriators set for intelligence
funding. In fact, this Intelligence bill funds the intelligence
community at its highest levels in history. It exceeds the total fiscal
year 2004 appropriated level for the intelligence community, including
all supplementals, approximately by hundreds of millions. As my
colleagues know, we cannot be totally precise on the numbers we speak.
For all intelligence programs in this bill, the committee authorizes a
total of approximately 16 percent over the President's February
request.
This bill increases investment in human intelligence and the
capabilities that they represent for us, the core mission of our
intelligence community. It improves intelligence analysis, coverage in
depth, so that we have more focused, sharper information for our
decisionmakers. It strengthens intelligence community language
capabilities across the board, through both improved legislative
authorities and initial investment, so we have the people who know the
languages we need to know to do our job.
It improves the structure and management of the disparate elements of
the intelligence community's information technology systems by creating
an intelligence community Chief Information Officer, hopefully to get
better coordination so that we can overcome some of the problems we
learned as we reviewed the events of 9/11. It bolsters U.S.
counterintelligence resource capabilities; and, specifically, it adds
22 percent above the President's request for human intelligence and
human-related programs. That is the core business of intelligence.
Substantial increases in funding for improved analytical capabilities,
as I have said, are included.
Significant additional amounts for information technology
infrastructure, what we call enterprise architecture, is included, and
information-sharing capabilities, which are critical. Tens of millions
are included for improved foreign language capabilities.
This money has been carefully applied; it is carefully managed. This
bill is very close to the bill passed unanimously out of our sister
committee in the other body, with one major exception, of course, that
they did not have the benefit of the contingent emergency relief fund
during their consideration.
{time} 1645
So, it is fair to say that our bill is more generous to the global
war on terror than the other body's version, and that bill enjoys
bipartisan support, unanimous bipartisan support I am informed.
Some in the minority have suggested that voting down this bill
somehow better supports our intelligence community and makes our
country safer. In my view, that is a convolution to the point of
absurdity. They say if an attack happens before the election, it will
somehow be our fault for not funding the global war on terror.
I would point out that the 2004 fiscal year goes on until October,
and any shortage of resources would be of interest to those who did not
support the $87 billion supplemental bill for fiscal year 2004.
All I would say is that the majority in the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence voted to support the men and women of the
intelligence community in this bill today. We did not vote against the
community and we did not shortchange the community in the global war on
terrorism.
Now, there is an irony here. For years, I have been trying to get
more support for intelligence. Usually the record will show that
usually the cutting amendments have come from certain Members of the
minority, as is their right. Now, it seems my sin is to bring forth a
bill that spends not enough on intelligence rather than too much.
Frankly, I think I should declare victory and say thank you all for
listening.
But I will be disappointed, on a serious note, if at the end of this
day, Members on all sides cannot agree that this bill authorizes proper
sums carefully managed and properly coordinated with the appropriators
and the other affected committees.
This is a very good bill with many important aspects that I have
outlined. Indeed, it is with some hope I note the classified version of
the minority views in their very first paragraph admit as much. Members
who took the time to come up to the committee spaces to review the
classified annex, which is available to all Members as usual, have seen
the important work this committee has done.
Our work is not done in the public with klieg lights all the time.
But it is a little misleading to suggest, as some have, that the
committee product is less worthy because we do take seriously the
responsibility, our commitment it is, to safeguard properly classified
material by using closed sessions. That, incidentally, has been the
practice for all the recent Congresses that I have been on the
committee.
We must also be mindful that our enemies watch and hear what we say.
Our audience is the American people primarily. Those are the people to
whom we are accountable and responsible and proud of the work we do,
and are pleased to share it with them. But, unfortunately, our enemies
are listening too, and we are a Nation at war. Sometimes the enemy is
able to gauge their conduct on how this body acts. They are able to use
psychological warfare to drive wedges. They also could gain an enormous
advantage if we do not take the appropriate opportunities to keep from
public discourse our committee discussion on the sensitive intelligence
matters that we are charged with overseeing. And when we have that
debate in committee, I like the committee to have the full range of
conversation, so we start out with the idea in closed session and then
we winnow out what we can talk about in public, which is why we are
here today talking about what we can talk about in public.
For the past 7-plus years, I have been working to refit the
intelligence community for its future, with the members of the
committee, for whom I am extremely grateful, to posture it for the days
ahead. We have always worked hard on the committee to create a
constituency for intelligence inside and outside of this institution.
We have insisted that the committee be both supportive advocates and
constructive overseers. None of like gotcha politics when it comes to
national security.
I have tried to engage the past two administrations on the needs to
retool the Intelligence Community for smarter, better days ahead, and I
have had the full support of the committee in our efforts so far. This
bill continues that effort. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 4548--Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2005
The Administration supports House passage of HR 4548, which
authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for the
conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government. The committee-
reported bill authorizes funding that strengthens core
intelligence capabilities and supports intelligence
activities that would sustain the Global War on Terror.
Now more than ever before, our Nation's security relies on
accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence--and the
challenges facing the intelligence community are difficult
and complex. This makes it vitally important for the
administration and Congress to work together to provide the
intelligence community with the tools and resources it needs
to enhance our national security posture, win the Global War
on Terror, and reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
[[Page H4826]]
We are making advances in our ability to collect, process,
and analyze intelligence information. Although not part of
this bill, crucial innovations such as the PATRIOT Act and
the Terrorist Threat Integration Center are helping us to
protect our homeland by sharing information better than ever
before. The President has also expressed his interest in
working with Congress, when the time is right, to examine
structural reforms that may be needed to improve our
intelligence capability in the future. The upcoming reports
of the Senate intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission,
along with the work of the Commission on Intelligence
Capabilities Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, will
provide important information that will help Congress and the
Administration in this effort.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
to support the vital work of the intelligence community,
especially its counterterrorism activities, to assure
continued strong, flexible intelligence capabilities, and to
refine certain provisions in this bill, including relating to
procurement, to ensure that these provisions maintain the
flexibility the President needs to most effectively manage
the ongoing war against terrorists of global reach.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, strong intelligence is our first line of
defense in the war on terrorism. And make no mistake, we are at war.
The gruesome beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and
yesterday's murder of 33-year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark
reminders of the nature of our enemy.
Our brave men and women in the intelligence community are on the
front lines fighting that enemy. They risk their lives for our freedom
and they deserve our unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr.
Chairman, this legislation deprives them of full support. This bill
provides less than one-third of the key funding that the intelligence
community has told us they need to fight the war on terrorism. Less
than one-third.
I want to use my time to engage the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) in a brief dialogue on this important issue. I would like to ask
my colleague directly, on my time, Mr. Chairman, does this bill provide
all of the counterterrorism funding that the intelligence agencies have
told our committee they need for the coming year? Yes or no.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, officially yes, because we do have the
statement of support from the administration on this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that response, but the
classified schedule of authorizations in the majority's bill
specifically states that the additional funds are only for the first
quarter of the year. Well, that is woefully inadequate.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) all proposed
an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism. Let me demonstrate exactly
what this full funding amendment does. The majority's bill funds only
first quarter ops tempo for counterterrorism. The full funding
amendment, which we hope to offer, funds a full year for
counterterrorism.
The majority's bill gives the CIA 11 percent less than fiscal year
2004 funding, whereas the full funding amendment we had hoped to offer
gives the CIA 5 percent more than 2004 funding. The majority's bill
funds only 5 percent of the NRO's CT budget, 19 percent of NSA's CT
budget, 26 percent of NGA's CT budget, and 35 percent of the CIA's CT
budget. The full funding amendment funds 100 percent of these budgets.
Finally, the majority's bill provides no supplemental funding for
critical CT HUMINT support functions whereas the full funding amendment
provides full funding for all the HUMINT support functions.
In short, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4548 is too weak. What is the President
going to tell the American people when they learn that we are going to
have a gap in counterterrorism funding next year? There could be a gap
of 3 to 4 months before we pass a new supplemental. And during that
gap, our Nation will be at unnecessary risk at a time when, for
example, we will be having events like the presidential inauguration
and the Super Bowl.
The majority has twisted itself into a pretzel trying to justify this
weak bill, all the while bemoaning the harmful impact of budgeting-by-
supplemental on our intelligence community's ability and our
committee's ability to do robust oversight.
Jim Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations, gave a speech
this week in which he said that, ``there is no end in sight'' to the
terrorist threat we face. Terrorism is no longer a one-time emergency.
It is no longer something we should scramble around to fund. It is our
way of life. It is our central national security challenge. And if the
White House or the majority does not understand that, then we are in
serious danger.
In our committee we offered several amendments to strengthen
intelligence and strengthen oversight. They were common sense measures.
Yet, all of them were rejected on party line votes.
Mr. Chairman, we know terrorists are actively planning to attack us
again. We know there is nuclear material out there that is unaccounted
for for sale to the highest bidder. We know the next attack will be
followed by the usual Washington hand-wringing about why we did not do
more.
The rule under which we debate today has squandered an opportunity to
do much more. We have lost an opportunity to strengthen intelligence,
to strengthen congressional oversight, to retire the soon-to-be-vacant
DCI position and replace it with a 21st century organization capable of
integrating 15 intelligence agencies into one intelligence community
and to keep full faith with the brave men and women who are on the
front lines at this hour risking their lives for our freedom.
This bill is weaker, far weaker than the American people deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a world controlled by terrorists
or threats of terrorists is not acceptable. A world controlled by
dictators or dictatorial regimes or corrupt regimes is not acceptable.
The United States of America is vulnerable on many fronts to these
types of threats, but the more effective our intelligence operations,
the better we are at what we do in the field of intelligence, whether
it is technical intelligence or human intelligence. The more effective
our intelligence is, the more secure America is and will be.
I believe we did very well in the area of overhead technology, as
well as other types of technology, many of which we cannot even talk
about here in this open session today, but we have not done nearly as
well on human intelligence. And today's world requires a very effective
human intelligence capability.
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I have discussed this
many, many times, because, as we appropriate for the intelligence
activities, we work very closely with my colleague as he authorizes
intelligence activities.
This bill, while I am sure you will hear much debate today that it is
not a perfect piece of legislation, is a very good step toward making
our intelligence capability far more effective. And I would say again,
effective intelligence is good security. The more effective the
intelligence is, the more secure our Nation and our people.
I commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for the good
work that he has done in preparing this legislation. I know that there
will be serious debate. There will be amendments that will be offered.
But I have to give credit to the chairman for having produced a good
product.
I hope that the House will vote on this bill in big numbers. While we
worked together in developing our appropriations bill that we passed
yesterday, we actually came up with our own conclusions, but our
conclusions were very similar in to those in this authorization.
So I support the bill and I commend the chairman.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the House Committee on
Armed
[[Page H4827]]
Services, the committee on which I was honored to serve for 6 years.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. It provides for
the programs and activities in our national intelligence agencies. As
the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq have taught us,
timely and accurate intelligence is so vitally important in both
protecting our country domestically as well as enabling us to act
militarily.
I view this bill from the perspective of having served on the
Committee on Armed Services for over 25 years, and also as a former
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Year in and
year out, both of the bills from the Committee on Armed Services as
well as Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence historically passed
the House with broad bipartisan support.
That is why I am troubled by the path the intelligence authorization
bill has taken this year. I cannot remember the last time an
intelligence bill passed out of committee on a party line vote or when
amendments offered in committee were all voted down on a party line. I
am also disappointed that the Committee on Rules only made in order one
Democratic amendment.
{time} 1700
What is all the more disappointing is that apparently the reason for
the posture of this bill is that the majority has been unwilling to
provide as much funding for counterterrorism activities as intelligence
agencies have told the committee they need. I would remind my
colleagues that we are now in a war against terrorism. I would think
that we should make sure that all the funding goes into the
counterterrorist area.
So although this bill may provide an overall increase in funding,
which is a positive note for these intelligence activities, the details
really are important. It is unfortunate we cannot increase the budget
in the places that need to have it the most; and though I will favor
this bill, I must express my disappointment, my deep disappointment at
the shortage in this area.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a chairman of a subcommittee of
the committee.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of
H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis,
and Counterintelligence, I can say unequivocally that H.R. 4548 is one
of the best, most far-reaching, most constructively critical, and
urgently needed authorization bills that I have been involved in.
The bill makes urgently needed fixes to the CIA's human intelligence
collection capability that even the DCI suggested was 5 years away from
being adequate. I do not believe we can or should wait 5 years, and it
also authorizes a very sizeable amount beyond the DCI's base request to
ensure we keep up the maximum possible operational tempo against the
counterterrorism and counterproliferation targets, both inside and
outside the theater of war.
In the area of analysis, significant new funds will be provided to
address a critical concern: the simple lack of analytical depth. The DI
analytical cadre is badly in need of bench strength and real expertise.
We have been burning up our analysts in wartime conditions and shipping
the majority of them to cover pressing counterterrorism requirements
since the mid-1990s without being able to adequately backfill
positions.
Those analysts need to have the right skills, firsthand exposure to
countries or issues they cover, cultural appreciation and, if at all
possible, the necessary foreign language skills in order to be
effective, and H.R. 4548 addresses all of these issues, particularly
with regard to language, which has consistently been a high-priority
item for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a pressing
need for the whole intelligence community.
The bill addresses counterintelligence shortfalls, ensures that the
necessary infrastructure for field operations, training, and a host of
other important activities are adequately funded, and brings
astonishingly new technical tools into play.
The bill continues the committee's long-standing efforts to get the
CIA's dangerously flawed compensation reform plan back on track; and it
demonstrates that we strongly support a more aggressive, risk-taking,
innovative intelligence collection posture. Such a posture would
finally give us a fighting chance to penetrate terrorist groups. It
would also allow us to tackle other hard-target countries, countries
that have plans and intentions to do us harm.
Overall, H.R. 4548 demonstrates that we are going to back up our
spies and our analysts when it counts the most.
To my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this war
we are in is not just about Iraq or about Afghanistan or about where
Osama bin Laden may be hiding. It is truly a global war on terrorism
with significant global challenges; and these include money laundering,
illicit traffic, the preaching of hate, kidnapping, extortion, and even
at the national level, as we saw, the Madrid train bombing and the
elections that followed.
It is a war that is going to take time to win. It is a war that is
going to take fortitude to win, and it is a war that is going to take a
substantial and continued investment in our intelligence community.
I ask my distinguished colleagues to support H.R. 4548 for the sake
of our Nation's security. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have
decided that it is not important to provide for the intelligence
community in the middle of the global war on terrorism, and I say it
could not be more important.
This bill moves us closer to acquiring the capabilities and
directions that are needed not only to win the war on terror but to win
the peace in Iraq and to make sure we do not forget about the rest of
the world. We must never forget that the actions of others affects U.S.
national security interests. We must never retreat in the face of evil.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4548 because it is urgently needed. The Nation
simply cannot afford to shortchange its men and women out on the
frontlines.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, those of us on this side of the aisle feel
it is important to fund stronger intelligence in the global war on
terror, and it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a dedicated member of our committee.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time, and I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman, and the ranking member for the hard
work that they always put into these kinds of efforts and legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is much that we expect from our military, from
our intelligence personnel, and from our civilian employees in what we
call this war on terrorism. We all take a great deal of pride in their
work, their professionalism, their dedication, and, yes, sometimes the
sacrifice that they make by making the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of
our great Nation.
So my question this afternoon is, When we expect so much from them,
why can we not expect the same from ourselves? Why can we not put
together a piece of legislation that supports them with the same
dedication, the same professionalism, the same level, 100 percent, of
the funds that are required for them to succeed?
In this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to see that some
focus in this bill is on improving the functioning of the new
intelligence analysis element of the Department of Homeland Security. I
was also pleased that the bill, in general terms, recognizes the
importance of sharing information between the Federal, local, and State
levels and also the Federal levels such as the FBI.
I was, however, Mr. Chairman, disappointed that the bill did not
include language supportive of focusing on the necessary resources of
the El Paso Intelligence Center, such as enhancing the key
contributions that it makes towards homeland security through
intelligence analysis and information sharing. Just as the committee
has increasingly supported the FBI's joint terrorism task forces as a
potentially useful model for information sharing, EPIC is also a
successful model for focusing intelligence and law enforcement
resources on protecting the U.S. Southwestern border.
I am most disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not include
a
[[Page H4828]]
provision like the Peterson amendment, which would have funded the
intelligence requirements at the full 100 percent level in this war on
terrorism. This is not about whether we supported the $87 billion
supplemental, not about politics. It is not about anything other than
giving the full amount of resources that are necessary to dedicated
personnel in the field.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a valued member of the
committee and distinguished Member.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, our enemies are watching us. The terrorists
know it is an election year, and they want us to become divided. They
believe that a terrorist act against our country will influence our
elections. They have a belief that democracy can be divided; yet they
underestimate the passion of our citizens and their patriotism.
Despite the decision of minority Members to play politics with this
bill, I believe we all are united against our enemies. These are
serious times, and it is important that we send a message to our
enemies that we cannot be divided. Support this intelligence bill. Send
the message.
It sends the message that we are on the offensive to eliminate the
threats to our homeland. Our intelligence community needs to know the
United States Congress supports them 100 percent.
This bill increases the funding for the global war on terrorism. It
increases by 22 percent our human intelligence. It supports our effort
on counternarcotics to eliminate the 17,000 Americans that die every
year from drug-related causes and the $160 billion annually in health
care, social, and criminal costs. We have provided extra funding for
the DCI to tackle this problem in this country.
On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bid farewell to my
colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I
have enjoyed serving under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss), and I think we are all fortunate that he was in the
Chair immediately following September 11. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) was the right man for our country when we needed an
intelligence community with expertise, intelligence, moral clarity, and
compassion. We will miss him.
I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter), who will also leave, and wish him good luck on his future
endeavors. I have been proud to serve with both of them.
Immediately after September 11, the esteemed chairman of the
Committee on International Relations came to this floor and quoted the
words of Sir Winston Churchill which he wrote 6 decades ago:
``Civilization will not last,'' Churchill wrote, ``freedom will not
survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of
mankind unite together to defend them.''
We were united on September 11. Let us unite today. Let us support
the Intelligence authorization bill. Let us do it because it is the
right thing to do.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his hard work. I
agree with some things that have been said about the gentleman's good
work. I actually thought, and I do not say this in anything but a
gentleman's way, I thought he would accept our idea to fully fund
counterterrorism. He surprised me, but I still do not take away from
his good work, and I want him to understand that.
But the debate over the Intelligence authorization bill this year has
been a hard fight. There are some serious disagreements about what the
best bill to protect the American people ought to look like.
I believe this bill has not gone far enough to strengthen
intelligence and strengthen oversight.
We, in this House and on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, have not shied away from standing strong and debating
these issues head-on. I believe what the American people deserve is our
best effort to support what we believe is right.
A lot of good work has gone into the bill. As the ranking Democrat on
the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and
Counterintelligence, I am glad to see funding and support for analysis.
As we have reviewed the intelligence on Iraq's WMD, it has become
clear to us that analysis did not have the ability to examine the
reliability of sources. It now appears, for example, that all four
sources that Secretary Powell relied upon to describe Iraq's mobile
bioweapons facilities were not solid. I hope that this bill's support
will improve the quality of analysis so that a future Secretary of
State has better intelligence at his or her disposal.
I am also pleased to see investment in long-term HUMINT needs, the
hiring and training of new case officers. The demands of the
counterterrorism campaign have been great and the intelligence agencies
have worked hard to meet those demands, but the war in Iraq has
stretched our resources. According to The Washington Post, one of the
largest intelligence efforts since the Vietnam War is under way there.
I am concerned that the demands Iraq has placed on our intelligence
resources have left large parts of the world alarmingly undercovered.
While this bill makes long-term investments, the bill falls short on
addressing some of the most urgent needs. This bill only provides one-
third of the additional funds the intelligence agencies say that they
need to fight terrorism.
The President will not send the rest of the funding request to
Congress until after the election, at the same time that he is urgently
warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. To me, this
state of affairs is unacceptable.
I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, What should the
American people expect us to do? They expect us to do what is right to
provide them safety through funding counterterrorism. I hope the
President will send this supplemental funding request to Congress
before then so we can get on with the business of protecting the
American people.
I had hoped that this bill would have been stronger, stronger in its
support to the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it as we go
through the conference.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman in
the well who just finished that I would have been pleased to have the
opportunity to try and work out his amendment if we had seen it ahead
of time before committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
{time} 1715
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for the next fiscal year. Yes, we are at war. We are
at war and a different kind of war than we have seen before. We are at
war with an enemy who has no identity, who has no uniform and has no
country. And I agree with the statement that was made earlier. I see no
end in sight for this war. But, Mr. Chairman, I also see no end to the
funding in sight for the intelligence community who does such a good
job of providing us with valuable information.
The President said it right at the podium there just past February
when he said we are a Nation of many responsibilities, but the primary
responsibility of this country and this government is the safety of the
American people. We are discussing the authorization for funding,
funding that was passed yesterday in the defense appropriation bill. We
disagree on the funding levels, yes. We also disagree on whether or not
we should create a new bureaucracy, a new level of bureaucracy to head
up what I call a super spy organization for the intelligence community.
[[Page H4829]]
But as we move forward with the changes that are being made today
over at the CIA with the retirement of Director George Tenet, we need
to also keep in sight those who are doing the job and make sure that
they have the funds and the funds that would be available under this
authorization to perform their duties.
We will debate the differences, the differences we have based on the
different political parties, the different philosophy, and then we will
vote on those differences later on in this process, but I urge those on
both sides of the aisle that when it comes to the final passage of this
authorization, we should all vote yes. We should vote to support those
who are in harm's way gathering information so that we will have the
correct information, as best as possible, to fight the war on terrorism
and protect the American people.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss) that our amendments were shared in advance and
our views on budgeting by supplemental have been known for years and
are shared by the majority.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a courageous member of our committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, here in general debate, I
feel it is necessary to repeat what I said earlier for the sake of
colleagues who may be listening in their offices before they come down
here to vote.
This authorization bill has a lot of good things in it, and I want to
commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and my colleagues
for the work that they have put together in this bill. And to the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), I want to say that this Member
will miss you when you are gone next year, and we appreciate your
leadership.
But this bill just is not strong enough. It does not fully authorize
funds for the intelligence community's key counterterrorism operations.
It authorizes less than a third of the funds that the intelligence
agency needs for key counterterrorism operations next year, and that is
just not the right thing to do when the Nation is under threat from
terrorism.
The administration has said that they are going to send down another
supplemental request next year, but there is ample evidence that al
Qaeda is plotting to strike us again this year, next year and into the
future.
This bill leaves 3 to 4 months open funding before a supplemental
bill can get through this Congress. If there is another terrorist
attack, do we want the next 9/11 commission to find that the Congress
failed in our duty to fully authorize funding for counterterrorism? I
think not.
In the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we sit up there
for hours listening to the different agencies tell us how critical it
is for these funds to be authorized. They roundly criticize the
practice of funding them on recurring supplementals. Supplementals
prevent them from planning effectively. They prevent us from doing
adequate oversight. They have to rob Peter to pay Paul while we wait
for these additional funds to arrive, and they will probably not
receive those funds until sometime next year, in April or May, and as I
said, it is going to leave 3 or 4 months open.
Supplementals have also been roundly criticized on our committee by a
bipartisan membership in the committee. The agencies have indicated
with some precision that additional funds that they will need in the
coming year, what they are, and we have addressed that.
So the question before the Congress is quite simple. Do we want to
fully authorize funds for the intelligence community's counterterrorism
requirements, or do we not? As it stands now, the majority answer to
that question is no, and I think we need a stronger bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire the status of the time on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a dedicated member of our committee, who is
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical
Intelligence.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), and I want to say to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Goss) that I have enjoyed his service on this
committee. And even though we have had strong differences here at the
very end, we have enjoyed his dedication to these issues and we will
miss him.
To the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), of course, I count
on your leadership and your dedication to the field as well.
Mr. Chairman, I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Technical and Tactical Intelligence, and I served with the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) on the other side of the aisle. And we
have had another good year as well, and despite my differences over the
counterterrorism funding, I want to talk about positive aspects of this
bill that I do support.
In addition to the investments in human intelligence and language
skills, the bill strengthens our Nation's tactical and technical
collection and analytical capabilities.
I am proud to say that H.R. 4548 advances the analytical efforts at
the Missile and Space Intelligence Center, known as MSIC, which is in
Huntsville, Alabama, my Congressional district.
MSIC works to assess the capabilities of surface-to-air missiles that
continue to be proliferated across the globe by illicit arms
traffickers and terrorist groups threatening both military and civilian
aircraft. And those men and women there at MSIC work very hard to make
sure that we are right on the edge of analyzing that material, and we
provide them the skills and the tools and the funding to do that with.
At this time, also I want to thank my colleague from the Alabama
delegation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) who is also on
this select committee. He looks after Alabama's involvement through the
Missile and Space Intelligence Center through those good people there
that work on those issues, and we in north Alabama thank our lower
Alabama native for his dedication and support there as well.
But we will continue with this effort to make sure that we give the
field the tools that they need to do the work that they should be able
to do. A better understanding of the threat capability is needed, and
this is a bill that provides for that as well.
So all in all, I think this is a good bill, and in spite of my strong
feelings that we should have fully funded counterterrorism, there are
strengths in this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
her leadership in the committee, and to the chairman of the full
committee, who has given much for this country, both in service and in
representing his congressional district, as well as this committee, I
salute him, and we all salute him for it.
To the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who will be leaving
the House of Representatives, I salute him as well for his wonderful
service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Chairman, last week was really quite an extraordinary week for
those of us who serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. Breaking with past precedent, all committee Democrats
voted against the intelligence authorization bill in the committee
markup. And there was one primary reason for that, and that is that
counterterrorism is underfunded significantly, by two-thirds, in this
authorization bill.
I have said more than once you cannot have a 100 percent commitment
to counterterrorism and the global war on terrorism if you are only
going to fund it by 33 percent.
We have failed, I believe, to do everything we can to strengthen the
oversight. Truth is the oxygen of democracy, and it is the
responsibility of members of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence to pursue the truth through strong oversight.
We offered amendments to fully fund the intelligence community's
counterintelligence operations, and we offered amendments in the
committee to
[[Page H4830]]
strengthen oversight. They were rejected by the majority. I offered the
amendment at getting the straight story on the Defense Department's
relationship with a man by the name of Ahmad Chalabi.
I want to know why the Department invested so much political and
financial capital in a man with such a checkered past. The CIA
terminated its relationship with him because it found him to be
unreliable. The State Department could not account for how he was
spending U.S. Government funds. And despite the obvious warning signs,
the Defense Department could not wait to give him more money. Now we
are finding out that Mr. Chalabi's organization may have fed the
intelligence community misleading or fabricated information on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. He may have been instrumental in
persuading the administration that the Iraqi people would welcome U.S.
soldiers with open arms, rather than improvised explosive devices.
That is why we have come to the floor. That is why we have come to
the floor with our objections. Bipartisanship means that people come
together. It does not mean that one side stands and says, you have to
meet us 100 percent in order to make it bipartisan. We should be able
to agree on the money for counterterrorism and for stronger oversight.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me add to what I said in the rule about
the chairman. No one in this House, for the last 10 years, has done
more for the intelligence community, for the people who work in the
intelligence community than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). No
one has.
As a former CIA agent, he came to the House with the kind of
experience that I think most of us would relish, and he took it to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has done an
extraordinary job. Now, does anybody believe that somebody like Porter
Goss is going to sell short the intelligence community; is going to
sell short the men and women who work in dark places in the world? It
is not even believable.
He has been working at it for 10 years as a member of the committee,
8 years as the chairman, and he served as an officer of the CIA. This
is nonsense for you to be coming to the floor trying to persuade
people, the American people or Members of the House, that the chairman
of the committee is going to sell short the CIA. Baloney. Do not
believe it. If you are watching this on C-SPAN, do not believe it.
This guy has been committed to this stuff his whole life. You think
he is going to take the committee down this primrose path? Of course,
he is not. So do not come here with your charts and do not come here
with your staged speeches and try and diminish the work this fellow has
been doing on behalf of people all over this world to collect
intelligence and do a good job.
No better person here in this House to talk about intelligence and
funding it and making sure that we have the money to do it than Porter
Goss. And we thank him for his service. Thank God he was the Chair of
the committee when 9/11 happened.
And for people who come to the floor and have voted against
opportunities to fund defense and to fund counterintelligence, really,
to me, you have no standing here when you come down here and say we are
selling it short. You know it is baloney. You know it is not factual.
And you know that the American people are not going to buy it. This guy
is not going to sell the intelligence community short.
Bipartisanship ended this year, but it started last year with a
document in the other body, where a whole game plan was laid out where
the Democrats were going to try to diminish this administration and use
the intelligence community to do it. That is not right. It is not fair
to people who work hard in this business, who spend their careers
trying to find people who want to do harm to America. But that is the
way it is. That is what happens around here.
And you have fallen into this trap where your leadership has decided
they are going to use the intelligence community to try to diminish the
work of people who work hard, for no good reason except for political
gain. You know what? People in the House are not going to buy it.
I say support the bill. It is a good bill. It is a bill that was
drafted in a way that will help the intelligence community do the hard
work that needs to be done.
{time} 1730
It will provide the funding that needs to be provided, and it is a
tribute to the chairman of the committee. This is his last bill. And
for those of my colleagues to stand on the floor and diminish that, I
think is wrong.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a reasonably recent and very dedicated member of our
committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there are a few good features in this bill.
For example, the bill supports the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research funding request and provides additional
funding for enhanced training of State Department intelligence
activities. Following my request last year when my amendments with
regard to foreign language instruction were rejected and the leadership
assured me that we would take care of it this year, I worked closely
with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on a number of
important provisions. I am pleased to acknowledge the work that he did.
Nearly $29 million of the $33 million in language programs that we find
in this bill were what I had specifically recommended or even written.
They will do a number of things to improve our proficiency in critical
languages.
But I am very disappointed in a number of failures. There was a
commonsense amendment I offered to provide foreign language instruction
for students of science and engineering at American universities. It
was a simple idea. We need it. It was voted down on party lines. But
the fundamental problem, and this is what we keep coming back to today,
all the world knows that there have been some major intelligence
failures. We read it in the world's press. In fact, too often we read
about these things in the world's press a day or two after critical
people have come before our committee and failed to tell us what we
need to know in order to exert oversight.
The reason we are talking about the underfunding here is because the
approach that the administration is taking, the approach that the
leadership here is endorsing is funding by supplemental appropriations.
It removes the oversight process. A large fraction of the funding for
counterterrorism is now removed from the oversight process, and it
compromises the work of this committee, it compromises the work of this
Congress, and it results in a fundamentally flawed authorization bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence but was also on
probably the most recent delegation back from Iraq, and I appreciate
the extra effort that he and his colleagues made.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4548, the Intelligence
Authorization Act. I am disappointed by some of the rhetoric that we
have heard from the other side of the aisle today. The last speaker on
the other side of the aisle referenced the unwillingness of the
committee to accept an amendment. The problem is, there are other
committees in this House that have jurisdiction. I have similar bills
in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence accepted a significant portion of what the
gentleman from New Jersey presented. We accepted it. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce passed on jurisdiction, meaning that even
though we have responsibility to review it, we respect the leadership
of the chairman of the committee, we respected the work of the members
of this committee, and we respected and realized how important it was
to get that done. So we passed on it and we said, let the intelligence
bill carry this forward.
[[Page H4831]]
But when it comes to the little amendment, there is no thank you, no
thank you to the Committee on Education and the Workforce for passing
the majority of what this individual wanted and letting it go without
jurisdiction.
What I have learned out of this process is that perhaps the next time
the gentleman from New Jersey proposes an amendment, we maybe accept
the amendment with a realization that says the committee of
jurisdiction also ought to have the process and also ought to have the
opportunity to review.
This chairman has led the committee graciously and effectively for a
long period of time. Members on the other side of the aisle are talking
about funding. When they had the opportunity to fund the intelligence
community earlier this year, the majority of the minority said, No, we
are not going to give the intelligence community the money that they
need. Thankfully, the will of the House went in the other direction.
What has happened in this process is a breakdown in bipartisanship.
It has characterized this committee for as long as it has been on the
Hill. I hope that as we move forward, as we move through conference we
can come back to a bipartisan approach that the men and women in the
field look to each and every day. They want to know that the people
here in Washington and the people around the country support the
effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the last speaker for his sincere
efforts at bipartisanship.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ruppersberger), our rookie on the committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, first I think I do have to respond
to some of the comments made from the colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. I do respect each and every member of this committee, and
this committee should be bipartisan, and our goal is U.S.A. first. I
think some of the comments that were made have to be addressed.
First, there is a lot of respect for our chairman, the gentleman from
Florida. This is not about a personal attack on the gentleman from
Florida. I respect the gentleman from Florida. I respect what he has
done as it relates to the intelligence community throughout his career.
He has done a great job. However, I was elected to come to the Halls
and the floor of Congress to debate issues. It seems to me that the
majority thinks that if we disagree on an issue that we are being
unpatriotic. That is just not so. We disagree on one major issue and
that is the major issue of the funding of counterterrorism. That is
what the issue is here today.
My comments are basically about NSA. I happen to represent Maryland's
Second Congressional District. NSA is located in my district. I want to
acknowledge General Hayden and all the members of NSA both in Iraq and
Afghanistan and throughout the world that do a superb job.
Unfortunately, the American people should know more about what they do,
but we cannot really talk about that.
The bill also makes some reductions in several NSA programs that I
believe are too deep. All of the affected programs are essential to
NSA's overall technology modernization program, which is key to the
future success of the agency. I hope that these reductions will be
addressed in conference with the Senate.
Congress last year transferred the authority to review and approve
NSA's acquisitions programs to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition in the Defense Department. NSA and the Under Secretary are
faithfully implementing this direction, and NSA is, in my judgment,
making good progress in restoring confidence in its acquisition
management capabilities.
I want to express again my appreciation to the gentleman from
Florida. He is an honorable man. He has done a great job. We have a
disagreement on an issue. Again, I ask the majority to understand,
because we disagree does not mean we are be
