[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.''

                          ____________________