[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8814-H8822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4628, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at
any time to consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 4628; that
all points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered
as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent request, I
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4628) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the conference report is considered as read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the conference report for the
fiscal year 2003 intelligence authorization bill. I believe that hard
work and careful deliberation have produced a comprehensive bill that
funds the critically important work of our intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, the events over the past year remind us just how
critical the intelligence community work is. As has been the
longstanding custom of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
this conference report is a bipartisan product which reflects admirably
on our committee's members and its highly professional staff. I want to
thank all involved. Because of the late hour of the evening, I am not
going to enumerate all of the staffers and members, but I think all of
them will take satisfaction in knowing that we have had a good year.
At this point, I would like to mention one other important issue.
With the conclusion of this conference, the committee will lose the
talents of several valued members: the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), who led our Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland
Security, and put out actually the first report on the counterterrorism
situation; the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who led our
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and has dealt with
some of the more challenging problems that confront the Committee on
Intelligence; the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on the minority side, who have been
heavily involved in some of the issues we will be talking about later;
and in particular, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our
esteemed ranking member.
She will graduate, I am told, to ex officio status. It will be a fine
graduation. We know she is nearby when we need her. The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) has made a significant contribution to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence work during her 10 years of
service on the committee. Most notable, however, has been her
determination to work collectively to rebuild and reenergize our
Nation's intelligence capabilities after the September 11 attacks. She
has been willing to work energetically and efficiently in a fashion
that puts national security first before politics or partisanship. I
say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), or Madam Leader,
soon to be, we thank her very much for her efforts.
This conference report authorizes funds for fiscal year 2003
intelligence-related activities, the Community Management Account, and
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.
I want to take a very short moment to highlight several provisions of
the
[[Page H8815]]
report for the consideration of the Members. First, the bill includes
several provisions designed to strengthen our Nation's fight against
international terrorism, including a cross-agency foreign terrorist
asset-tracking center to identify and disrupt terrorist financial
support networks. I am pleased to report we have had some success at
disruption, and I look forward to more.
It also establishes an ongoing notification procedure to assure
timely congressional oversight of national security-related financial
enforcement actions by the executive branch, something that we have had
a lot of discussion about.
Other initiatives of note are several provisions intended to enhance
the language-training capacity within intelligence and defense agencies
to combat our language shortfalls; again, something that has been a pet
project of our committee for a number of years. The bill will enhance
the training capacity by establishing a flagship language initiative
within the National Security Education Program.
The third area of focus is to strengthen the capacity of the national
counterterrorism executive within the Office of the Directorate of the
CIA. Several recent espionage cases, most notably the Aldrich Ames
case, the Robert Hanssen case, the Ana Montes case, require that we
place greater efforts in assessing our counterterrorism vulnerabilities
with respect to hostile intelligence services, let alone terrorist-type
activity that affect our men and women in the service, even on our own
shores, as we are reminded tonight with the matter involving Mir Aimal
Kasi.
This legislation recognizes the concern that insufficient attention
has been given to the area of counterterrorism.
Finally, I wanted to commend all involved for their diligent work on
reaching a compromise on the creation of an independent commission. It
shows the American people that we can work together to reach consensus.
Sometimes it takes a little longer than we hoped, but usually we get
there.
Mr. Speaker, I barely scratched the surface regarding the many issues
and investments contained in this bill that go toward protecting our
national interests. As we all know, much of it is classified. The only
way to be ready to address the diverse threats to our security, both at
home and abroad, is by having a vibrant first line of defense, as the
President has said, that provides indications and warning. This first
line of defense has to start with our intelligence community, and we
have to give them the support and the oversight necessary to do that
job. This conference report directly helps to strengthen our
capabilities, put them on target, and ensures the protection of our
rights and liberties, now and in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and thank the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our distinguished chairman of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for his very kind words of
farewell to me as I leave the committee after 10 years of service
there. It has been a privilege to serve on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence; and as the gentleman said, we always put
national security first, so our work there is generally conducted in a
bipartisan way, and never more so than under the leadership of our
chairman, who has been very bipartisan in his approach and given us the
opportunity to air our differences, which largely are not partisan, but
just differences of opinion that Republicans and Democrats may share.
In any case, the tenor of his leadership has been one that has been
conducive to a very bipartisan atmosphere which is very wholesome for
the work that we do, and that work is vital to our country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his kind remarks. I congratulate the
gentleman on his excellent leadership. It has been an honor to serve
with the gentleman, and I look forward to working with the gentleman
from the perspective of the Democratic leader.
Mr. Speaker, this is the last bill I will manage from appropriations
or from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and I, too,
want to join the chairman in thanking our other departing members on
the Democratic side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their distinguished leadership
on the committee.
We will all benefit from the work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) tonight when we discuss the independent commission, which is in
this bill thanks to his relentless leadership, and also bid adieu to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss), who is going on to other work.
When I joined the committee 10 years ago, the Gulf War had been
recently concluded. As I leave as a voting member, the threat of war
has returned to the Gulf region. One of the primary purposes of
intelligence is to enable U.S. military forces to wage any campaign
successfully, with a minimum of casualties. Force protection is our
primary responsibility.
Great progress has been made since the Gulf War in using intelligence
to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of weapons and in hastening
the flow of intelligence to military commanders. Those efforts are
sustained appropriately in this conference report.
Equal in importance to the role of intelligence in making certain
that wars are won is its role in preventing wars from being fought;
some might even say, and I agree, even more important. The conference
report, particularly in the emphasis it places on strengthening the
intelligence analytic function, should improve the quality of
information policymakers and diplomats need to anticipate and resolve
problems before they lead to armed confrontation.
The committee's work this year has been influenced greatly by the
events of September 11, 2001. Our Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Homeland Security, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), has been at the forefront of efforts to draw lessons from
those events and fashion corrective measures which lessen the chances
for successful future attacks.
{time} 2320
The conference report has counterterrorism at its highest funding
priority. Next year, I expect that with the benefit of the
recommendations to be made in the report of the joint September 11
inquiry the committee and its Senate counterpart are conducting,
significant changes will be proposed in the way in which the
intelligence community conducts its antiterrorism activities.
As thorough as the work of the joint inquiry has been, the dimensions
of the September 11 attacks demands an additional kind of review. I am
pleased that the conference report will establish a commission to take
a comprehensive, independent, I hope, look across the agencies of
government at the preparation for, and response to, those horrific
events.
I expect that the commission, which I mentioned is in this bill
because of the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer),
will benefit greatly from the work of the joint inquiry and the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security as it undertakes its
critical assignment.
The brave and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community
perform an invaluable service for our country, and I want them to know
how impressed we have all been by the work they do under frequently
dangerous and demanding conditions. They deserve our appreciation. The
conference report should assist them particularly in the area of
language training in ways which will improve their effectiveness in
years to come.
Given the uncertainties and complexities of the threats we face,
especially those posed by international terrorists and proliferators of
weapons of mass destruction, it is imperative that the ranks of
intelligence officers be as diverse as possible. Not enough progress
has been made in this area despite repeated expressions of interest by
members of the committee. I hope greater attention will be paid to this
matter in the future.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I went on the committee 10 years ago. My
interest there centered around stopping the
[[Page H8816]]
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, protecting our civil
liberties as we try to gain as much intelligence as possible around the
world to protect our forces, and also the prevention of war, as well as
protecting us from terrorism. I hope that as we go forward with
homeland security, which is essential to our country's security, that
we will recall that each one of us takes an oath to protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States, and as we protect and defend our
country we must honor our oath to protect the Constitution and the
civil liberties contained therein.
I am very pleased that President Bush has made stopping the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction a high priority. It is a
pervasive problem, not only in Iraq but in other places in the world
and it must have our attention. The United States must have a policy
which is consistent to stop that proliferation.
Mr. Speaker, the capability to acquire intelligence is integral to
the security of the American people. The conference report makes an
important contribution to maintaining that capability. I commend the
chairman for his leadership in putting this bill together and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman
of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee that fuses
capability and policy, a very challenging job these days.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report addresses a number of pressing
intelligence needs. This Member will focus his remarks on only two.
First, the legislation takes important steps to strengthen the
intelligence community's analytical core. In recent years certain
circumstances have demanded that we focus on terrorists, proliferators
and drug traffickers. These are far more difficult targets to track
then was the old Soviet Union. Frankly, the intelligence community took
far too long to adapt to these new threats. It did not reach out
aggressively to recruit human intelligence sources that could have
provided us invaluable information.
The community lost far too many skilled analysts whose job it is to
provide early warning. This legislation provides much needed funding to
build a dynamic, wide-ranging global analytical capability.
A second important component of the intelligence authorization
relates to terrorist finances. One of the major intelligence
initiatives in the wake of 9/11 has been an attack on the financial
assets of terrorist organizations and their supporters.
Terrorist networks such as al Qaeda obviously cannot function without
significant financing. And al Qaeda, for example, is supported by, one,
a shadowy network of fund-raisers, money lenders, and shakedown
artists; two, businesses and charities serving as front organizations;
and, three, unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen. However, with the
decision of the executive branch to fully exploit the existing
authorities to target terrorist finances and with the granting of
additional authorities under the U.S. PATRIOT Act, we are now
aggressively attacking the money flow. To date over $100 million of
suspected terrorist money has been seized or frozen by the United
States and its allies and that is just the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important and powerful tool in the war on
terrorism. In order to maintain responsible legislative oversight over
this effort, the Intelligence Authorization Act will require semi-
annual reports on the number of assets seized, as well as the number of
entities or individuals found to have engaged in financial support for
terrorism.
It will also require information on the total number of requests for
asset seizures that have been granted, denied or modified. This
important oversight will ensure the war against terrorism financing
remains on track.
In closing, this Member would congratulate the distinguished chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the
leadership they have demonstrated in bringing forth a genuinely
bipartisan product. I will say in her existing capacity we will
certainly miss the gentlewoman's long and very important experience and
contributions on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The conference report is a very serious effort. Each and every member
of the committee dedicated long hours to the drafting of the
legislation. Each member recognizes the importance of our action. This
body can justifiably be proud of our efforts of the HPSCI, I believe,
and particularly the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Finally, and of crucial importance, the staff of the committee is
truly excellent in their knowledge and commitment to our oversight and
our authorization responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges adoption of the conference
report of H.R. 4628.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of the committee and the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical
Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, but before
I get started I want to express my own personal gratitude to the
leadership of this committee, and most especially to the leadership of
our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for
the hard work she has done in leading the Democrats on this committee
and the contributions that she has made to the committee as a whole.
I believe very strongly that her leadership has worked through the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to make the world and our
country a little more of hope, a little less of fear and a little
better because she traveled here, and we are very grateful for her
leadership and we will miss her very much. Although she has gone on to
more responsibility and we expect equally great things from her there,
I do want to say that we certainly are appreciative of her hard work,
and we will miss her, and it has meant a tremendous amount to our
country and our intelligence community.
The committee worked hard to provide the resources that our military
forces and our intelligence community require to prevail in the war on
terrorism and to safeguard all of our other national security
interests. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my counterpart on
the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) and all of the other committee members deserve great
credit for this important bipartisan authorization act.
In addition, this conference report adds substantial funds to the
budget of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to enable NIMA to
award a contract for a major modernization program. I remain very
concerned that the administration failed to budget enough funds for
this effort despite the large budget increases following September 11.
{time} 2330
The capabilities that this modernization effort will provide are
essential for the kind of flexible military operations on display in
Afghanistan.
When our bill was being debated in the House earlier this year, I
indicated my concern about the Department of Defense's apparent neglect
of the communications and exploitation infrastructure needed to support
the large fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles that the Department intends
to procure over the next several years. These drones performed
magnificently in Afghanistan, but this potential will never be realized
without a larger investment in the means to get the data back from the
aircraft and get it exploited. I had hoped the administration would
signal its intention to fix these problems, but
[[Page H8817]]
this has not happened. Congress must address this matter next year if
the administration fails to do so in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
This conference report also requires that some changes and
initiatives be undertaken to correct problems with respect to the
sharing of information within and between the intelligence and law
enforcement communities. There is more work to be done in this area,
but the direction in this conference report, if implemented faithfully,
should help. We understand the importance of protecting sources and
methods, but believe that this can be done within a much more expansive
information-sharing paradigm.
Finally, I wanted to speak to the implementation of the proposed
compensation reform plan. Section 402 of the bill is similar to section
402 of the House bill. The Senate amendment had no similar provision.
Section 402 delays implementation of the Central Intelligence Agency's
proposed compensation reform plan until February 1, 2004. Prior to that
date, the director of Central Intelligence may conduct a pilot project
to assess the efficacy and fairness of a revised personnel compensation
plan and report to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 45
days after completion of the pilot project. Section 402 includes a
sense of the Congress that an employee personnel evaluation mechanism
with evaluation training for managers and employees of the CIA and the
National Security Agency should be phased in first and then followed by
introduction of a new compensation plan.
Mr. Speaker, this was a concern that was raised by the employees that
has contributed to a great deal of consternation and perhaps some
problems that we might anticipate if it were implemented, and I am
happy that the conference report reflects the concerns raised on this
issue, and that we will first, before having an en mass, grand-scale
implementation, first have the pilot program instituted so any kinks or
problems can be worked out.
With that, I think it is a good conference report. I think we have
done good work, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Homeland Security, and acknowledge the valuable
contribution that subcommittee has made to our national security.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, During this term of Congress, much of my time and
passion has been devoted to the activities of this committee and the
contents of this conference report. It is a great committee with great
bipartisan leadership, membership, and staff. It is with relief, pride
and some sadness that I stand here at midnight to urge passage of the
conference report.
My special appreciation goes to our ranking member, the esteemed
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who today achieved an
historic first, and who over all of the years that I have served with
her on this committee, has distinguished herself with fairness,
probity, intelligence, and leadership skills. We will miss her, and we
will welcome her back as an ex officio member.
I would also like to use my last statement of the 107th Congress to
state my respect and praise for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), another departing member. It is fitting that one of the last
votes of this Congress will fulfill his promise to the families of the
9-11 victims. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has worked
tirelessly and passionately to enact an independent commission to
investigate the 9-11 attacks. That commission will be part of this
conference report. In fact, the bold actions of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
saved the commission, saved the bipartisan tradition of the committee,
and reflects the vote a majority of this House took some months ago.
I would finally like to recognize that other colleagues are
departing: the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit), and especially the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), who is moving to the other body where he will serve on its
intelligence committee. I would advise the gentleman if he gets lonely
over there, he can come home for advice and counsel.
Mr. Speaker, this is our first real chance after 9-11 to set new
directions in the intelligence community, and we do that. We provide
substantially more funding, more training, and more support to
penetrate, prevent and disrupt the plans of terrorist organizations.
I would say that the Department of Homeland Security legislation that
we passed yesterday provides for an integrated strategy to protect the
homeland, but that strategy must be built on world-class intelligence.
This bill provides that critical base. I urge its passage.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a departing member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, yet one who has demonstrated leadership
right up to the last day of the Congress to ensure that we have an
independent commission and that it would be one that will make our
country safer.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) for those kind and generous words.
Abraham Lincoln, when he went from Springfield, Illinois, to
Washington, D.C. to take on a new job that he was elected to by the
people of the United States, stood on a platform in Springfield,
Illinois, and looked out at his hometown people and said to these
people and their kindness, ``I owe everything.''
To the people of Indiana that I have served for the last 12 years in
this distinguished body, I owe them everything, for the privilege and
the humble responsibility of casting votes on their behalf with common
sense and dignity, as we have and will tonight, to try to make this a
more secure Nation and a Nation that works together in a bipartisan way
to accomplish things.
When I talk about people, I want to commend the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, for his
distinguished leadership to bring this bill to the floor tonight in a
most dangerous and precarious world.
I want to especially congratulate the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), my good friend and our leader. I have two buttons in my
pocket tonight with the gentlewoman's name on them that I will give to
my 5-year-old daughter, Sarah, and my 2-year-old daughter, Grace. I
think the talent and the dreams of women and people around the world
are boundless tonight because of what example she has set. It is not
just getting elected, and not only being a woman; it is being a leader
and bringing a bill to the floor and keeping this body working into the
night to get these things accomplished, like an independent commission.
We do live in a dangerous world where planes can wreak devastation,
and a vial of smallpox that can fit in a pocket can kill millions.
Therefore, this bill tonight, as the last bill of the 107th Congress,
is indeed vital for our Nation's security.
We outline new language, training and proficiency programs in this
bill which are funded at higher levels. We improve information sharing
to decrease the problems of communication and stove-piping between the
FBI and the CIA, and we put more emphasis on human intelligence, which
is the most important work that we could do, not just relying on
satellites in the sky.
{time} 2340
Finally, a great big embrace and thanks for the idealism and
effectiveness and hope to the families of the victims of 9-11 who have
worked so hard and been such a great example to me of how grassroots
work can make this body function better. These families, led by people
like Stephen Push and Kristin Breitweiser, have really led us to
tonight's success on the creation of this independent commission. It is
not everything, it is not perfect, but it has come a long way from
opposition and dead-on-arrival predictions that it would go nowhere. We
have that in a bipartisan way in this bill tonight.
It still has a lot of challenges, Mr. Speaker, and one is the
subpoena power. The linchpin for me of an effective investigative body
and a truly
[[Page H8818]]
independent commission is the ability for this commission to have
subpoena power, to threaten the subpoena, to ultimately deliver on it
and to get depositions and to pry open doors that want to remain
closed. We have that in this bill, especially if Senator McCain and
Senator Shelby can have the one appointment that has been promised to
them out of the five Republican appointments and that helps us get to
this level of six votes that can trigger subpoenas. That is crucial in
this. I hope that that colloquy and that gentlemen's agreement and that
codified promise is in this bill and in the legislation's intent.
I also hope that we will follow the good path of the joint inquiry.
Led by that staff and this great staff here on the floor tonight, we
have uncovered a lot of questions, we have a lot of suggestions and
recommendations for fixing the problems that led to 9-11, but we have
so much more to do in front of us, which this independent commission in
a seamless way can undertake and make recommendations for.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, there is a Shakespeare play where one
character says to the other in a bragging way, ``I can call spirits
from the deep,'' and the other character says, ``Well, anybody can do
that, but will they come?'' Will they come? I hope and I pray for this
most distinguished people's House that we will call forth the very best
in us and bring forth the very best ideas and challenge these people in
this great country to vote in the next 2 years on great ideas put
forward by Republicans and Democrats and some in bipartisan ways to
keep this country strong, to move us in a positive direction and do it
in the spirit of the founders of this great Nation.
I appreciate the service to this country and wish good things for the
people of this body. Thank you very much and Godspeed.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a very valued
member of our committee and well known to the Members of this body.
Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are two other people in the Chamber
that I have more regard for than the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member. Both people are very, very hardworking people. They
have done extraordinary work for the country. The leadership of
Chairman Goss and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), has just been extraordinary, particularly given what
happened after 9-11 and particularly given the events that we have been
through in the House and as members of the joint committee studying
what happened prior to 9-11. I have really enjoyed the opportunity for
the last 4 years to serve with both of these people. I want to say a
word about my friend from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) because I know he will
be leaving and his service has been valued very much by all the members
of the committee. I know that you will be missed, Tim, and I know that
it will be a great loss to our committee. And also to you, Madam
Leader, you will also be missed and thank you for your service to the
committee.
I rise in very, very reluctant opposition to the conference report.
As those people on the committee know, I have objected very strenuously
to the idea of a commission. Almost from the very first day that this
idea has been proposed, I thought it was a bad idea. I have thought it
was a bad idea because what is going to happen is you are going to have
people with little or no experience, and many of us on the committee
have tried to gain experience over the years and tried to gain
knowledge in terms of what the community is about, the intelligence-
gathering community and how they do their work and what the failures
are, and to have some kind of a concept of a so-called blue ribbon
committee, I think, really is going to fall far short of what people's
expectations are.
I know that some people think this commission is going to provide a
lot of answers and provide a lot of opportunity to assuage the feelings
of the family members of the victims. I think we are holding out a
real, real big false hope for the family members. I have always felt
that. Many of us on the committee have tried to become experts. It is
difficult to do. But there are people who are experts. I consider
Chairman Goss and I consider Ranking Member Pelosi experts because of
the time that they have devoted. I think the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer) is an expert because of the time he has devoted. But to
try and get 10 people from the outside to come in and understand all of
this in such a short period of time I think holds out a very big false
hope. It just does not make sense.
I really think this is a mistake. I want people to understand that
this is a good bill, it is a good conference report in every other
regard except for the idea of holding out a false hope to the families
that are left behind of the victims, that somehow this blue ribbon
commission is going to be the panacea, that is going to answer all the
questions, that is going to lay the blame where it needs to be laid.
You know I have characterized this as the blame game commission and I
know you do not like to hear me say that, but that is how I feel about
it. There are people here that want to try and find blame within the
government, whether it is in the CIA or the FBI or within the
administration. I characterize this as no more than that, an
opportunity for 10 citizens to try and come together and understand
something that is so complicated and so complex that it makes little
sense to try and hold out hope to people that this will really give the
answers to the families that have been left behind. It will not. It
simply will not. I think that hopefully our joint committee can offer
some answers out of the kind of work that we have done for the last
year and will continue to do until the final report is written.
The idea that this is a blue ribbon commission where people are going
to be paid, I think, detracts from what kind of a blue ribbon
commission is it. It is right in the bill that there are going to be
people who are going to be paid for this. Why do we have to pay people
to serve on a blue ribbon commission? I wish I would have had an
opportunity to at least strike that out of the bill, but we do not have
an opportunity to strike these kinds of things out of conference
reports. I think the idea of compensation is nonsense. It degrades the
commission; it degrades the idea that it is a blue ribbon commission.
The final thing that I would say to my friends here in the House and
to colleagues is that this really is an opportunity, I think, for
people just prior really to a political election to lay on the table
some kind of a report to try and lay blame at the foot of an
administration. That is how I see it. This report will come out maybe a
few days or a month or two before the next Presidential election. I
have no idea what the report will say, but I know there are people out
there that want to find blame. I have the feeling that that is what
this commission will be out to do, to look for those who made mistakes,
to look for those, to find fault with institutions in our government
that probably in some ways did not serve the interest the way they
should have.
As one Member, and I hate to do it because I know a lot of work has
gone into this bill, into this conference report, but I intend to vote
against it. I think this is a terrible mistake. It sends a terrible
message. I do not want the families out there to think that when this
report comes in from some so-called blue ribbon commission, it is going
to answer. It is not going to answer.
{time} 2350
Some of these things are unanswerable and those of us that have
served on the joint committee know that some of these things are
unanswerable. So I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak, and
in no way do I want to be degrade any member of the committee, any
member who supports this. I just think it is a bad idea, it is a bad
time to do it, it does not make sense, and it is going to hold out a
false hope that we are never ever going to be able to meet.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), who is the ranking member on the
Subcommittee of Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the gentleman from Illinois
[[Page H8819]]
(Mr. LaHood), my good friend, feel better. I have tremendous respect
for him, and he knows that and I think he does for me. But as I reflect
on the time it takes for the efforts gone forth, and I want to commend,
as the rest of my colleagues have, our chairman and ranking member for
their efforts and the efforts of the staff, but as I have observed the
time necessary to go into this kind of depth, I think the blue ribbon
commission is very necessary to get the answers that we ought to be
able to get. So we reflect on the joint committee and the ability of
Members, all the other things that demand our time and so on. I think
it becomes pretty clear that we need this extra assistance to give the
country and to give those families the information that they need, and
they will not be satisfied with anything less.
So I tonight rise in appreciation to support this conference report
because its time has come, and the people in this country ought to know
that this committee under this leadership, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), have done
everything that they can possibly do to protect our country to be sure
that one of their principles of safety, principles of war and
principles of safety, is to have good reliable intelligence and to be
timely and to be accurate.
So I am very happy to support this conference report. I think it
supports the global efforts to counterterrorism and other threats to
international security, and the conference report, like the House bill
passed in July, reflects a commitment of this committee to invest in
the people of the intelligence community and intelligence disciplines
across the board, especially human intelligence. The conference reports
includes the provisions on language training and proficiency
maintenance found in the House bill. The conference report
unfortunately delays the effective date of the provisions found in the
House bill, setting forth a new authorization for the innovative
language training program known as the National Flagship Initiative
under the National Security Education Program, NSEP. Although
disappointing, it should be noted that both the House and Senate have
endorsed the National Flagship Initiative and the conference report
includes a provision to ensure that the delay does not affect the
ongoing NSEP pilot to fund programs to develop competency at the
superior level in languages critical to national security.
Over the last few months, the House and Senate intelligence
committees have made significant progress in the joint investigation
they have been conducting into the circumstances surrounding the
terrorist attacks of September 11. The inquiry, however, has focused on
U.S. intelligence agencies and must soon conclude its work. So I
support the establishment of the independent commission. I have been
disappointed in how long it has taken for the agreement to be reached
on whether a commission would be established and how it would be
structured, but we are there.
While the final language on the commission may not be satisfactory to
everyone, I believe it is important that a commission with a broad
mandate and independent authorities be established by statute. I will
follow with great interest its work, especially with respect to its
investigation beyond the topics addressed by the joint inquiry. I urge
the support of this report.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members of this committee
for the product and the way in which they have done it. I was
particularly impressed by the very gracious remarks of the chairman of
this committee about his opposite, the ranking minority member, and
frankly at a time when there is some political sniping going on that
seems to me wholly inaccurate, having him so generously acknowledge the
important role the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has played
on the single most important national security issue now before this
Congress is a very impressive act, and I appreciate his doing that. I
should underline that what we have here is the gentlewoman from
California in her role on this committee having played a wholly
responsible constructive role at the center of national policy. I would
ask people to contrast that with some of the silly political
assassination efforts that are going on.
Speaking of silly, I want to talk about an amendment we need. We have
had a policy for driving gay people out of the military lest gay men
and women be allowed to help defend this country, and it has been
called the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have a new name for it.
It is called Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Translate, because the Army
in its wisdom pursuant to a dictate given to it by this body in its
wisdom has just thrown out over the past year nine linguistic
specialists, six of whom were studying Arabic. Apparently the Army
feels that worrying about what people do in their private lives is more
important than enhancing our ability to translate from Arabic. As the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations said, it is a good thing for Lawrence
Arabia they were not around when he was getting involved in the Middle
East. The notion that they would take people who were studying Arabic,
one member of this group had completed 30 weeks of training, he was
getting very good marks, he trying to learn Arabic, in the process of
learning Arabic, no, we do not want him because he is gay. I understand
that anti-gay prejudice gets a certain leeway here. I have been
fighting against that, but to put it ahead of national security seems
to me excessive. We have been told that we have a problem because we do
not have enough skillful linguists. So when they kick out six Arabic
speakers, two Korean speakers, and someone who speaks Mandarin Chinese,
I am appalled. And let us be clear that while there is a policy on the
books of which I do not approve, it is not self-executing. The military
has the discretion not to apply it in some cases, and to expel from the
military American citizens who are motivated by the most profound
patriotism and are in the process of learning Arabic at a time when
that is essential to national security, to kick them out because they
are gay is preposterous, and while it is late in the session and late
in the evening, too late I hope for my colleagues to bring up that
bankruptcy bill they were playing with, I hope when we return next year
we will look at this Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Translate policy, and
the notion that the Federal Government at this time should deprive
itself of skillful people who want to work for national security in
translating from Arabic into English and from Chinese and Korean into
English, the notion that we would deny ourselves this greatly needed
asset because some people do not like people like me is as silly as I
can think. We are not here talking about trivia. We are not talking
about anything superficial. We are talking about prejudice being
elevated over national security.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record at this point an article from
the AP by Margie Mason and an article from the New Republic by
Nathaniel Frank which document this particular piece of stupidity.
[From the Associated Press]
Military Dismisses 6 Gay Arabic Linguists Amid Shortage of Translators
(By Margie Mason)
San Francisco.--Nine Army linguists, including six trained
to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military
because they are gay.
The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military
is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters
for the war on terrorism.
Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling
superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble
when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve
Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military.
Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean
and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the
Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's
primary language training center.
The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers
since the Sept. 11 attacks.
``We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct
impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem,'' said
Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more
linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National
Commission on Terrorism.
One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy
on gays is hurting its cause.
[[Page H8820]]
``It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military
proficiency issues they're throwing out good, quality
people,'' said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.
Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and
Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed
the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September
2002, but declined to comment further on the cases.
He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this
year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated.
The military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy allows gays
to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual
orientation.
Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in
Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble
said.
After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other
federal jobs where they could use their language skills in
the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.
____
[From the New Republic, Nov. 18, 2002]
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' v. the War on Terrorism
(By Nathaniel Frank)
On October 25, one week after CIA Director George Tenet
warned that the United States now faces a terrorist threat
every bit as grave as it did the summer before the September
11 attacks, the Council on Foreign Relations issued the most
sobering report to date: ``America remains dangerously
unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist
attack. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in
even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American
lives and the economy.''
The key to preventing that kind of calamity, most experts
agree, is intelligence. And one of the basic requirements of
good intelligence about the Arab world is the ability to
speak its language. Unfortunately, study after study has
indicated that the U.S. government faces a severe shortage of
Arabic speakers. Less than one month after September 11,
2001, a House Intelligence Committee report criticized the
FBI, CIA, and National Security Agency (NSA) for relying on
``intelligence generalists'' rather than linguists with
expertise in a specific foreign language, culture, and
geographical area. The report concluded that ``at the NSA and
CIA, thousands of pieces of data are never analyzed, or are
analyzed `after the fact' because there are too few analysts;
even fewer with the necessary language skills. Written
materials can sit for months, and sometimes years, before a
linguist with proper security clearances and skills can begin
a translation.'' According to a Government Accounting Office
(GAO) study released in January 2002, in 2001, the U.S. Army,
FBI, and State and Commerce Departments failed to fill all
their jobs that required expertise in Arabic, Chinese,
Korean, Farsi, or Russian. The GAO study concluded that staff
shortages at these agencies ``have adversely affected agency
operations and compromised U.S. military, law enforcement,
intelligence, counterterrorism and diplomatic efforts.'' As
recently as last month, the Associated Press reported that
the Army faces such a critical shortage of Arabic speakers
that it is considering recruiting non-Americans from Middle
Eastern countries into its Special Forces teams.
Which makes it all the more shocking that, in a two-month
period this fall, the Defense Language Institute (DLI)--an
elite training school for military linguists in Monterey,
California--discharged seven fully competent Arabic
linguists. The reason? They were discovered to be gay.
DLI is a language-training center run by the Army, but
soldiers from all major military branches study there.
Because of its battery of entrances tests and the intensity
of its courses, DLI is reputed to attract students who are
older and more skilled than most enlisted personnel. Its
Northern California location also, it seems, attracts a large
share of gay students. ``There were way too many gay people
at DLI for anybody to fear the `don't ask, don't tell'
policy,'' says one gay former student who arrived at DLI in
2001. While there, he was out to all his gay peers and to any
enlisted personnel who seemed gay-friendly. ``Nobody cared,''
he explains. ``I knew someone who was a flaming queen in a
uniform, and nobody cared. Sometimes we lived on halls that
were more than 50 percent homosexual. ...I never even got a
sideways glance.''
Still, this tolerant atmosphere does not extend to
commanders, who, when a soldier's homosexuality is clearly
discovered, are forced by federal law to pursue and expel
him. This includes highly trained linguists like Alastair
Gamble, an Emory University-educated Army specialist fired
from DLI this August after completing more than 30 weeks of
intensive Arabic. (DLI's Arabic course requires 63 weeks for
a basic knowledge, compared with only 25 weeks for Spanish,
French, Italian, or Portuguese, and only the strongest
students are selected to take it.) Gamble was a human-
intelligence collector, a position the GAO report cited as
one of the Army's ``greatest foreign language needs.'' And
Gamble was a catch for DLI in other ways, too. He had
studied German for seven years in high school and
continued in college, where he also studied Latin and
linguistics. Once in the Army, he completed interrogation
training, a nine-week intelligence course that trains a
small number of soldiers to collect information through
direct questioning techniques. He then spent six weeks
working for the Foreign Area Officer program, which trains
officers to work with U.S. allies, where his performance
won him a Certificate of Commendation from his commander.
He entered DLI in June 2001 to study Arabic and earned a
perfect 300 on his physical fitness test. Gamble reports
that his grades placed him at the top of his class and
that several teachers told him they thought he was the
strongest student in the class.
In April, Gamble was finishing his second semester of the
Arabic basic course at DLI when, during a surprise ``health
and welfare'' inspection at 3:30 a.m., he was caught in his
room with his boyfriend, also an army language specialist.
(In eight months of dating, the two men say they had never
before broken visitation policies. But Gamble's boyfriend was
nearing the end of his course and preparing to relocate to
Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas. As their separation
approached, they decided they could risk one night of
sleeping side by side.) After the two men were found in bed,
nearly a dozen people searched the room while Gamble was
escorted to his First Sergeant's office. Gamble says he was
not yet thinking about being discharged. ``I was just
absolutely embarrassed,'' he recalls. ``There's really
nothing like having someone who's your age, but a slight rank
above you, discussing whether or not lube is sufficient
evidence to prove homosexuality. It's like getting felt up;
it's horrible.'' The searched turned up a gay-themed, non-
pornographic film, photographs showing affectionate, but not
sexual, behavior between Gamble and his boyfriend, and
several gift cards expressing romantic sentiments. Two weeks
later, Gamble was officially notified that his unit was
initiating an investigation into his sexual orientation. He
was pulled from class and honorably discharged on August 2.
About eight weeks later, his boyfriend was discharged as
well.
Gamble and his boyfriend are no alone. The Servicemembers
Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a legal aid and advocacy
organization that assists men and women harmed by ``don't
ask, don't tell,'' announced in its latest quarterly report
that it had assisted six other Arabic speakers recently
discharged from DLI for being gay. Though only two chose to
speak publicly, SLDN reports that all seven soldiers were
fired while in the midst of, or having completed, the
intensive DLI Arabic training course.
The army has cast the firings as routine enforcement of
Army regulations. Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command, says the expulsions of
competent Arabic linguists are ``not relevant'' to the
nation's current war against largely Arabic-
speaking terrorists. He insists that discharges resulting
from ``don't ask, don't tell'' are consistent with those
for other violations of Army regulations. ``If someone is
enrolled somewhere and they don't pass the P.T. [physical
training] standards,'' he says, by way of comparison,
``they'll be discharged. There are policies and they are
always in effect.''
But, regardless of what you believe about gays in the
military, that's just not true. Both during the Gulf war and
after the September 11 attacks, the Pentagon authorized
``stop-loss'' orders, allowing branch secretaries to retain
soldiers who would otherwise be discharged for committing
petty crimes, minor physical shortcomings, or other reasons.
What's more, the military even has a history of suspending
personnel policies regarding gays and lesbians during
wartime, when it needs maximum retention of soldiers. In
1991, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon had
allowed homosexuals to serve in the Persian Gulf, despite a
ban on all gay service, and only moved to discharge several
gay veterans after the war ended. For his best-selling 1993
book, Conduct Unbecoming, the late San Francisco Chronicle
reporter Randy Shilts interviewed two Arab-language
specialists fired from the Army for being gay. According to
Shilts, the NSA contacted the two when the Gulf war began,
begging them to return to service to help the war effort.
(The two men declined.)
In other words, the military implicitly acknowledges that,
during wartime, the gay ban may undermine national security
rather than protect it. And since its leaders have
consistently argued that national security should be the only
criterion for determining whether gays should serve, it may
be time for a new look at an ``interim'' policy formulated
nearly ten years ago. Today's war on terrorism is less about
squadrons and battalions than about deciphering the behavior
of a shadowy enemy who attacks in secret. For national
security's sake, let's hope our leaders are finally ready to
acknowledge in public what they're admitted privately for
quite some time: It is this enemy that threatens our nation's
freedoms and survival, not the open homosexuality of
patriotic Americans standing ready to serve.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to associate myself with the concerns
expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) regarding
putting national security second to anything. It is our first priority
to protect the American people. It is in the Preamble to the
Constitution first to provide for the common defense and we really must
revisit this idea, especially at the time of such tremendous need for
linguistic skills, especially in the languages expressed by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
[[Page H8821]]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to thank so many people who made this bill
possible, my distinguished chairman for sure, all of the members of the
committee acting in bipartisan fashion, and I want to commend the
wonderful staff that we have. I want to acknowledge on the Democratic
side our counsel Mike Sheehy who heads up the Democratic staff. We do
not really think in terms of Democrat and Republican. It just somehow
breaks down that way.
{time} 0000
But we act in a very bipartisan way, members and staff. Chris Healey,
Beth Larson, Ilene Romack, Wyndee Parker, Carolyn Bartholomew, Bob
Emmett, Kirk McConnell, Marcel Lettre and, again, Mike Sheehy, who
heads up our side. I want to commend Tim Sample, who is the major
honcho staff person of the Committee, Chris Bartow, Mike Meermans and
all of the other members of the staff for all of their hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just respond briefly, because the hour is
late, very briefly, to the very serious concerns and the sincerity in
which they were expressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
The purpose of the commission is not to assign blame; it is to find out
why and how 9-11 happened. I agree with the gentleman, if the purpose
is to assign blame, we should not have the commission. That would not
be constructive. But we must try our very best to make sure that a 9-11
or anything like it does not happen again; and in order to do that, we
have to get to the bottom of it.
This commission will build on the work of the Joint Inquiry, in which
this committee and the Senate committee have been engaged, and we are
very pleased with the work of our staff director, Eleanor Hill, and the
very, very able staff of the inquiry. It will build on that.
But this commission, the purpose of it is to have fresh eyes take a
new fresh look at what happened and also to go beyond those agencies of
government that the inquiry has looked at, to look at every agency of
government that had any responsibility for protecting the American
people from terrorism.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just say as we go into this
commission, we are walking on hallowed ground. There is no place for
politics or assigning blame here, but we do have a responsibility to
reduce risk to the American people, to find answers as to why 9-11
happened, to prevent it from happening again, to provide comfort to the
families who have been a source of strength. We try to console them.
They are an inspiration and a source of strength to us, as the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) indicated.
Whatever we do, we must bring honor to the memory of those who lost
their lives on September 11. I think our work in the Joint Inquiry is
an excellent product, will be an excellent product when the report
comes out, and that this work of the independent commission will bring
honor to the memory of those who died as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we always have in the
intelligence community many options and many things to consider; and
while we do it on a bipartisan basis, we do not always agree on what
are the best ways to proceed when you are dealing with some very
complex questions of national security. Part of the richness of the
judgment of our committee, I think, is we do have many perspectives,
and we have heard some of them here tonight. I think that bodes well
for our institution.
I would also, in addition to thanking the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) for his persistence and commitment to the idea of where we go
next from the Joint Committee with our review process, like to
underscore that other Members have been very helpful in the
breakthrough. Certainly Members of the other body as well, but I want
to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) in particular, who
has been referred to already as the gentleman who led with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) the Subcommittee on Terrorism
and Homeland Security effort, which was very important and a landmark
piece for our work. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) was also
a man who was instrumental in the breakthrough on the compromise that
we came through on the independent commission. So I think that he is
owed a special thanks for that.
For the family groups, the survivors of 9-11, Stephen Push and
Kristin Breitweiser and so forth, we referred to them and spent hours
talking to them, I suppose, collectively between all of us.
We all know that we have a responsibility, and I totally agree with
my distinguished ranking member about the hallowed ground involved. I
do not suppose a day has gone by since 9-11 that I and other members of
our committee and perhaps all of us in the room have not thought, is
there something we missed? Should we have known? Did we fail in our
oversight? Did something go wrong? Was there a smoking gun? Did we
somehow fail the American people? Were we derelict in our duty? I can
honestly look Kristin Breitweiser and Stephen Push or anybody else in
the eye and say I know of no such failure. I know of collectively a lot
of things we could have done better, but I see nothing yet that leads
me to a smoking gun.
This year we have joined with the other body in doing a very intense
review of the 9-11 event. It is not over. We will be issuing a report
and that will lead to further efforts. That is appropriate. We will see
where that takes us.
The question still needs to be asked and will continue to need to be
asked, did we miss something? Did we do our oversight right? I hope the
next commission on oversight, on the 9-11 review, will in fact come
back to the congressional oversight and find out if we did our job
properly.
I think we are accountable on these committees. I am certainly
prepared for that, and I would love the opportunity to answer questions
and give the point of view of the committee, because I am very proud of
the effort that our committee has put into that. But it does not mean
we have all the wisdom or judgment in the world.
Besides that review, we have tried very hard to make sure we
understand the nature of the threat we are fighting in the war on
terrorism and anthrax and propaganda and all the other miscreants that
we deal with now on the basis of whether they are terrorists or
violators of law. We are not quite sure, but they need to be stopped in
their tracks. So we are fighting a global war, and we have got men and
women out there taking risks, taking chances, doing hard work and
sometimes, sadly, getting killed. Those people we owe a responsibility
to.
The oversight and the advocacy role of our committee is on their
behalf as well, to make sure they have the tools, the training, the
capabilities they need to do their job, to protect all of us and to
make sure in this very specialized area of intelligence they are
operating in bounds, because we have promised the American people, our
constituency, that we will make sure that we never violate our pledge
to the American people that we will not spy on the American people. We
will preserve our liberty. So we take that very seriously as well.
Then I think we come to the next question, and that is the question
of catching the perpetrators of 9-11. Certainly we have not got them
all, and certainly we have learned in the past 48 hours or so that
Osama bin Laden himself may still be alive. This is ongoing. It will
require patience, and it will require commitment. I would thank the
members of the committee, the members of the staff and all who have
helped us in that commitment, because that commitment remains before
this body.
On behalf of the American people, I urge support for this very
important bill.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Intelligence
Authorization bill, and I thank my friend and colleague from Florida
for yielding me this time.
This is a very good bill. It addresses intelligence needs that were
identified in past years by the Intelligence Committee. But only in the
past year, after the deaths of innocent Americans, and innocent
citizens of other countries,
[[Page H8822]]
are these needs getting the broad attention they deserve.
Throughout much of the 1990's, after the end of the Cold War, there
was a debate about whether America really needed to spend so much money
on defense. As for intelligence, some people even said there was no
longer any need for the CIA. I believe that debate is now over.
The bill before you today will help the intelligence agencies
increase and sharpen their effectiveness--especially against terrorist
groups.
If you want to know the plans and intentions of terrorist groups you
have to have HUMINT--``human intelligence''. This is the information
you get from human sources--also known as ``assets'' or ``agents'' or
simply ``spies''. I want to emphasize that this year's intelligence
authorization bill does a great deal to strengthen our HUMINT
capability. For one thing, there is money to hire more CIA operations
officers.
CIA's operations officers are doing a great job, but they are few and
far between. We need more, and this bill will help ensure that there
will be more. This bill also provides money to hire more intelligence
analysts and linguists. Likewise, there is money for more foreign
language training. It is not hard to understand that if your operations
officers and analysts have not learned the language of your enemy, you
will not succeed in learning his plans and intentions.
These HUMINT and foreign language-related items are just some of the
good provisions of this Intelligence Authorization bill. They are long
overdue.
The clock is ticking, and America's enemies continue with their
planning. I urge your support for our intelligence professionals, and I
urge your support for this bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 366,
nays 3, not voting 62, as follows:
[Roll No. 483]
YEAS--366
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NAYS--3
Kerns
LaHood
Paul
NOT VOTING--62
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Becerra
Blagojevich
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Callahan
Clay
Clement
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Ehrlich
Ford
Ganske
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Greenwood
Grucci
Hastings (FL)
Hooley
Houghton
Hyde
Issa
Keller
King (NY)
Lantos
Lipinski
Markey
McInnis
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murtha
Oberstar
Oxley
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Roukema
Sawyer
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Toomey
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wynn
Young (FL)
{time} 0042
Mr. KERNS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ALLEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 483, I was unavoidably
absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________