Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5866-H5870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 295, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

H. Res. 295

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2004 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), my colleague and friend, who I am happy to report sits on
both the Committee on Rules and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence with me, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has granted a modified open rule
for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
This is the standard rule that we have used for many years for the
consideration of the intelligence authorization. The rule is fair. It
will allow ample time for consideration of all matters.
The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. Pro forma amendments listed in the report
will be debatable under the 5-minute rule.
As in past rules for this legislation, amendments were required to be
preprinted. This allowed for the vetting of amendments regarding
classified matters, a procedure we have found to be a very good
practice, helpful to both the committee and Members.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions, as was announced.
Mr. Speaker, as in past years, we thought it best to allow Members a
good opportunity to review the bill and debate the issues that they
feel are important, those particularly to our Nation's security at this
time when national security is on our minds. Our classified annex and
staff has been made available to any Member of Congress that was
interested previously or is interested now in reviewing the underlying
bill and reports.

{time} 1600

H.R. 2417 is, in fact, must-do legislation because of the rules of
the House. It authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2004
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. In effect, what
that is is the 15 agencies of the intelligence community.
In the nearly 2 years since the tragic terrorist attacks on September
11, the intelligence community continues to build its capabilities to
combat new threats that are threats to our Nation's safety, the well-
being of Americans at home and abroad. The bill authorizes resources to
improve the analytical depth and capacity in all areas of intelligence,
an area that has been in crying need. This will allow us to process and
disseminate the information collected in a more efficient, hopefully
wiser and more timely fashion, and make sure all interested parties
have access.
In addition, this legislation continues the sustained effort and
long-term strategy to enhance human intelligence, an area that is vital
to our current war on terrorism and is essentially the core business of
intelligence, plans, and intentions of the enemy. H.R. 2417 helps to
improve information sharing among Federal, State, and local
governments. This is an area and a desire where we have overlapping
interests with other committees in the House. This bill also provides
including increased training for State and local officials on how the
intelligence community can support their counterterrorism efforts,
again, a matter of some overlapping interest.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few highlights from the bill that
passed the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence unanimously, in
the true bipartisan fashion we like to operate our House Permanent
Select Committee on. I am sure a whole breadth of topics will be
discussed during our general debate; and I think that we have, in this
modified open rule, provided ample opportunity for all matters to come
to the floor.
I noted today in earlier debate that there was focus on one issue
that was not necessarily the subject that was under debate, and that
was the intelligence assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Obviously, this is a topic currently under review by the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I would like all
Members and all interested listeners to understand that we have been
conducting a review on the House Permanent Select Committee to
discharge properly our oversight responsibilities. We have been using
the tools of oversight that are available to us. I think they are
adequate, and I think they are being well used. I think we are using
them in a thorough and in a nonpartisan manner. And, in fact, the
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and I
have taken extra steps to detail how this review will be conducted and
have actually issued a public statement on that.

[[Page H5867]]

I think it is worth rehashing what that statement says: committee
hearings, closed and open, as appropriate, that will permit Members to
question senior administration officials about the prewar intelligence
on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction holdings and programs, and its
links to terrorism, to include questions relating to the sufficiency of
intelligence collection and analytical coverage on these targets.
Granting accesses to any Member of the House who wishes, under
appropriate security provisions and House rules, to review the
documentation provided to the Committee by the Director of Central
Intelligence in response to a May 22 letter from the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) and myself to provide information. And I am
happy to report we are getting full cooperation from the Director of
Central Intelligence on that.
Staff interviews of intelligence community personnel involved in
drafting intelligence community analyses of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction holdings and programs and Iraqi links to terrorism.
Regular committee updates and status reports on current efforts to
locate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which, after all, is a
priority, including actions of the Iraq Survey Group and other
government agencies employed in that task.
And a written report suitable to the results of the committee's
review, including an unclassified summary as promptly as is possible.
In fact, I would say, Mr. Speaker, the committee has taken a very
important additional step in its review. We have voted to allow access
to the 19 volumes that we now have on hand of information provided by
the Director of Central Intelligence outlining American intelligence
analysis on Iraq and the sources that supported it. I do not believe we
have ever done anything that specific before.
To those who believe that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is not doing its job or that we are incapable of doing our
job, they can come and literally read over our shoulder. I think that
the committee is doing its job, and I am very proud of its members and
its staff and the way it works; and I am very thankful that I have a
ranking member who is anxious to preserve the nonpartisan approach that
we take to the Nation's important security business.
Those who have questions about the competence of myself, my ranking
member, or any of the other members on the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence are welcome to express that today in a vote of no
confidence; but I would urge that they not do that. We are doing our
very best, and if you would like to come upstairs and help us try to do
it better, we would welcome your presence.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my good
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for
yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first point to the extraordinary
leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the
bipartisan spirit of the unanimous consent of the entire Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 2417. I rise in
support of the rule providing for the consideration of that measure. It
is the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. This is a
modified open rule, and I believe that it is adequate for a bill that
is relatively noncontroversial and was reported from the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence by unanimous vote, as I just said.
I would like to reiterate a part of what the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) has said and state to Members who wish to do so that they
can go to the committee's office to examine the classified schedule of
authorizations for the National Intelligence Program. This schedule
includes the CIA, as well as the Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence programs within the Department of Defense, the
National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Departments of State,
Treasury, and Imaging.
Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for
the Tactical Intelligence and related activities and the Joint Military
Intelligence program of the Department of Defense.
Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act we consider today
will provide authorizations for some of the most important national
security programs in this country. This bill is the result of the
committee's ongoing oversight of the intelligence community and
oversight responsibilities, which include hundreds of hearings,
briefings, and site visits annually.
We are well aware that the global war on terrorism has focused even
greater attention on the intelligence community and its mission. The
men and women who serve in this community have faced many challenges in
the past 21 months and, in my judgment, have responded admirably. This
bill assists them in these many challenges. It fully supports the
intelligence community's efforts in the war on terrorism by providing
funds for analysis, analytic tools, and a unified overhead imagery
architecture.
Overall, the committee found the intelligence community is making
progress in many areas, but noted that there is currently no one office
in the executive branch that is charged with coordinating all elements
of the intelligence and law enforcement communities to ensure they
cooperate and coordinate their efforts.
The committee also called on the Director of Central Intelligence to
improve diversity in the workplace and special attention on recruitment
initiatives for women and minorities. I would be terribly remiss right
here if I did not mention two former members, one still alive and one
who is deceased: former member Louis Stokes from Ohio, and our dear
departed friend Julian Dixon, from California, both of whom spearheaded
efforts to ensure greater diversity in the intelligence community.
I hasten to urge that the chairman of this committee, and the now
leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), and certainly the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman),
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who served on
the committee previously, have all been vigorous in their assertions
that the intelligence community must do more in the area of diversity.
So I will be introducing an amendment that I believe will assist the
director in attaining the goals in this critical area.
I do urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill; and before
reserving the balance of my time, I take a point of personal privilege
to thank the fine staff of the majority and the minority for the rather
extraordinary work that it takes in putting this measure together, and
the many measures that come across their desks on a given day,
including putting up with some of us as Members and our requests. I
urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
I wish to thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I also associate
myself with his remarks about Lou Stokes and Julian Dixon, as well as
the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), when she
was ranking member in the committee, to deal with the diversity issue.
It is critically important. And as the gentleman from Florida knows, I
am prepared to accept his amendment at the appropriate time and pleased
to have his leadership.
I would also point out that I believe the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes) has shown another element that has improved our bill that we
approved and were able to bring to the floor in our mark. So that is an
area that has received attention because it needed attention, and I am
entirely satisfied that we are taking good steps.
I would also point out for other Members that we had a number of
amendments requested. I do not think any were particularly
controversial as to the bill itself. We have this year, because we are
dealing with standing up the Department of Homeland Security, some
questions about where we plug in the intelligence piece from our
foreign

[[Page H5868]]

intelligence community, which is a very big piece, into the homeland
security apparatus. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) has
been a leader on that and done excellent work and is working with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), the chairman and ranking member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security.
We also, obviously, are working closely in some other areas that are
a little new for us with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, because of some questions about
how we deal with some of the Treasury aspects, and, additionally, how
we deal with some of the judicial aspects as we respond to the
challenge in this country of preventive enforcement for people who
would take advantage of our hospitality here and do mischief. And
regrettably, we do get the reports regularly that there are still some
of those folks in our midst. So we are going to be working in that
area.
Not all of that is going to come to a final conclusion today. We are
going to go from here, from our authorization bill, to a conference
process. I expect there will be progress made in some of these areas
where there is some apparent overlap between now and conference time,
and certainly everybody is going to be assured that this committee is
interested only in the portfolio of intelligence. That is what we do,
the Foreign Intelligence Program. The other committees of standing that
have jurisdictional areas that are associated we will work with closely
and on a friendly and nonterritorial basis. I wish to assure them all
of that.
We had, I understand, some amendments that came in late and we had
one amendment that was not germane; but otherwise, I understand that
the Committee on Rules made six amendments in order. Five were
Democratic amendments, one was a Republican amendment; and I believe
that the Committee on Rules responded very fairly. I see no reason to
oppose this rule and every reason to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would state that I do not intend to use all the time. I
will spend the first part of the debate on H.R. 2417 sharing my views
about our bill and several other issues of enormous interest to the
public.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the underlying
bill, H.R. 2417. It is interesting and wonderful that both managers of
this rule also ably serve on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is our bipartisan
and collaborative chairman, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) is a senior member on the Democratic side. Both have
contributed enormously to this rule and, obviously, enormously to the
product we will soon debate.

{time} 1615

Under this rule, as has been explained, amendments will be considered
under the 5-minute rule and thus debate on all amendments that were
filed with the Rules Committee, germane and did not require waivers
will be in order. I am certain we will have a spirited debate on
several of those amendments, and I think that is exactly what we should
be doing in the people's House. In that vein, I will conclude, and I
look forward to a spirited debate in a few minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to comment and
respond that all of us know that individuals who accept the
responsibility of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence go to
it with nothing but good intentions and a desire to provide the
greatest service to this Nation, so I appreciate very much the
leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and our ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). They have been
unique in the shadow of the controversy of the Iraqi war to have come
together on the question of weapons of mass destruction. I look forward
to their work. They have come to this floor to indicate the opportunity
for Members to review thousands of documents.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to pursue my position, and that is that
there should be an independent commission designed to investigate the
issues dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. But in light of
their bipartisan effort, I wrote an amendment that indicated subsequent
to the completion of their work, 6 months subsequent to that, that we
would have the opportunity to design a commission that would then be
able to address the questions again, and that is an independent
commission separate and apart from this body and as well, of course,
the executive and legislative bodies.
I believe the intent was respectful of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence. I am disappointed that the amendment was not allowed
to be admitted on the basis of waiving the points of order, but I will
continue to insist that this is the appropriate process to proceed
under.
It is not a question of whether or not we find weapons of mass
destruction or not. It is not a question of whether we are in a battle
over the truth. All we need is the truth, the finding of weapons of
mass destruction or not. Many made the decision to vote for the war
because we were told that we were about to be under imminent attack. I
think the American people are owed the ultimate determination how that
decision was made.
My other amendment had to do with providing local law enforcement
assess to intelligence as needed and to get security clearances faster
than they have been able to do so in the past. I hope we will be able
to work together to ensure that happens so all of us who have local
officials who need the information to perform their duties
appropriately can assess this important intelligence to serve our
communities. I look forward to this bill moving through the House, and
working on these important issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule governing floor debate
on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
I oppose this modified open Rule because it fails to make in order
several amendments that improve this legislation and benefit the
public.
I proposed two amendments to H.R. 2417 that were not made in order.
The first amendment called for the establishment of a ``National
Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.'' This Commission
was to be responsible for reviewing and assessing the administration's
knowledge of the status of and threats posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program before America went to war. The need for and the
benefits of this Commission are obvious. The administration declared
war, without a declaration of war by the Congress, based upon the claim
that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that the
United States was in immediate danger of being attacked by the Iraqi
regime. Over the several weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom, dozens of
American and British soldiers lost their lives and many more suffered
grave injuries. I had the honor of personally meeting many of our
valiant, injured troops on visits to Bethesda Medical Facility and
Walter Reed Army Hospital. Their courage and sacrifice was
overwhelming.
For many Americans, myself included, questions remain whether the
deaths and injuries suffered by young Americans in Operation Iraqi
Freedom were justified. To date, we have discovered no evidence of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many Americans are left wondering
if the justifications for waging war proffered by the administration
were legitimate. That is why I proposed an amendment to H.R. 2417
calling for the establishment of a National Commission on Weapons of
Mass Destruction in Iraq. We must study the intelligence available to
the administration when war with Iraq was commenced. Was Saddam Hussein
producing weapons of mass destruction? Was the Iraqi regime capable of
producing weapons of mass destruction? Did the Iraqi regime conceal
their weapons of mass destruction after Operation Iraqi Freedom began?
These questions, and many more, need answers. The Commission
established under my amendment would have provided those answers.
I support the amendment offered by my colleague from California, the
Honorable Barbara Lee. Her amendment calls for a General

[[Page H5869]]

Accounting Office report on the degree to which U.S. intelligence
services shared information about weapons of mass destruction sites
with the United Nations inspections teams searching for those weapons
in Iraq. Ms. Lee's timely and important Amendment will provide many of
the answers the American public seeks.
I also proposed an amendment to H.R. 2417 to expand the security
clearance for law enforcement agents, specified by State executives, so
that classified and vital information related to homeland security can
be shared. This amendment was also not made in order, but is vital to
preparing or local communities to wage the war on terrorism. Protecting
our homeland will be conducted by local law enforcement agencies and
small communities across the country. It is vital for valuable, often
classified information related to homeland security to be accessible to
local law enforcement agents. My amendment would have expanded the
security clearance for designated State and local officials and given
them the ability to receive vital information.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my opposition to this Rule. The Rule is too
narrowly drafted and fails to make in order several valuable amendments
offered by myself and my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing the narrowly-tailored Rule and in support of the amendment to
H.R. 2417 offered by my colleague Ms. Barbara Lee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish to respond to my colleague by inviting the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to come upstairs, as all
Members are permitted, and see the material being worked on by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and to read the mission of
the committee in that regard. I think all Members would find that
substantial work is being done, and I believe all Members of this body
would be very proud of the efforts put forward by Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence in investigating the continuing concern that
all of us in this body have, and I dare say the members of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are probably more directly
concerned in light of the fact that we are there on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who are doing valuable work
by looking into the intelligence surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom.
By necessity and design, their work is classified. I feel strongly
that their work must continue, but that this issue is beyond the scope
of a single committee and is of such importance to our democracy that
responsible public hearings by a select committee of users of
intelligence are necessary. Members of relevant committees such as the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International
Relations, who use intelligence to make policy decisions every day,
provide valuable perspective that should be part of a broader review.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am a user of
intelligence, and the information I receive shapes the decisions I make
for many men and women in uniform every day. Members of Congress and
military planners need to have confidence that intelligence is
objective and provides a sound basis for policy decisions.
No decision is more grave than sending American fighting men and
women into harm's way. We have a duty to be certain that public policy
that we base these decisions on is credible and real. With American and
British soldiers continuing to be killed at an alarming rate in Iraq,
we have to be sure that our intelligence is providing a realistic view
of the threats they have.
Having open hearings by a select committee of policymakers who are
customers of intelligence would not only allow Congress to reclaim its
vital oversight role, but help convince the American people that their
elected officials and President have the right tools to make the right
decisions to protect them.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about the purview of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. I deeply respect the work that the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence does, but with all due respect, as a
customer of that intelligence, the classified work that the committee
does needs to remain classified, but after that work is declassified
and moves to the National Security Agency, to the Pentagon, to the
military planners, to the differing alphabet soups of agencies, who
then take that classified work and begin to shape public policy with
it, once that work becomes declassified and is starting to be moved
into the public policy realm, I and others in relevant committees, like
the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International
Relations, need to understand what exactly is being done to that
intelligence to either promote it or shape it to perhaps fit a
preconceived decision by people in the administration or in other parts
of the policy-making chain.
I want to know if the intelligence work that is being done so ably by
our intelligence people and the analysis done by them has been shaped
in any way that would change my mind when I make these decisions. That
is why I think we need a select committee. I urge my colleagues to vote
no on the rule, but I support the work of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that our committee is one of the users
of intelligence. We are part of this community that uses intelligence
information; and so it seems to me her point is right, and we are,
therefore, the right committee to be assessing these questions and
issues..
Second, we have already agreed on a bipartisan basis to hold public
hearings as appropriate, and the subject and timing of our first
hearing is under active discussion right now. I am hopeful it will be
held in July. I certainly agree that the public needs to know about
some of these questions. We will discuss them in more detail in a
moment. I do commend her for raising this issue. We are trying to
address it responsibly in the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. If we should fail, then it would be timely to set up a
different committee, or a commission, or use another mechanism.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, we are in a very curious position in
Congress today. We standing here debating a critical bill to provide
funding for our intelligence services while we ask whether those
intelligence services might have suffered a massive failure in
assessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
I use the word ``might'' very deliberately because we do not know
whether there was an intelligence failure. That is why we need an
investigation, and I commend my colleague from California for pushing
for an investigation within the committee because not only the public
deserves to know, but we deserve to know equally.
I am puzzled by many of my colleagues' lack of curiosity on this
issue. The question of where Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons now may be is critical to the security of our Nation, and yet
more than 90 days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, we have still not
located one chemical weapon, biological weapon, or even their
precursors production facilities or delivery systems.
We went to war because of the imminent threat those weapons posed. We
need to find those weapons if they are there; and if they are not
there, we need to ask the question what caused this massive
intelligence failure that was presented to Congress as an imminent
threat to our national security? Our soldiers in Iraq are still engaged
in combat operations. Saddam Hussein may still be out there, Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are still on the loose, and we need to ensure
through our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that we have
solid information as we move forward.
Congress has to exercise its powers of oversight openly and honestly
and look into these in a thorough way. That is what our constituents
deserve. That is what the American people deserve. I

[[Page H5870]]

look forward to working with the committee to make sure this happens in
a timely fashion.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, although I think this should be a totally open rule, as
has been the tradition for dealing with this bill each year, I do think
that the House should understand that the bill that is being brought to
the House today is not controversial in the sense that it was agreed to
unanimously within the committee. I would add to the remarks of my
friend from Florida that this is, once again, a truly nonpartisan and
bipartisan effort. It is appropriate that the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence should operate that way, both as the
committee that provides oversight for intelligence activities and a
committee that is, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman)
points out, a consumer of intelligence product.
No doubt there will be a great deal of controversy to follow, a great
deal of political discussion to follow in coming weeks and months about
the intelligence that led up to the fighting and into the fighting in
Iraq. In fact, I think this will be very good for the committee because
it is an excellent case study of what intelligence should be, what
intelligence should not be, how it can be used, and how it can be
misused. I applaud the decision of the chairman and the ranking member
to investigate the disturbing matter thoroughly, and I have no doubt
that we will be able to investigate it thoroughly.

{time} 1630

I applaud their decision to allow Members of the House to read the
large volume of material that the Director of Central Intelligence has
provided to the Congress. And our committee intends to issue a written
report on its findings as promptly as possible.
We have only begun to examine in detail the testimony, the
statements, the published intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons
programs and terrorist associations. It is early in our investigation,
too early in the military's search within Iraq itself to come to any
definitive conclusions or explanations of our failure so far to
substantiate the prewar claims and expectations of what we would find
there. But I have no doubt that the House will be satisfied with the
thorough and critical look that the committee will take in this issue.
There is no question that there is a lot of ambiguous information to
search through. There is no doubt that there have been some exaggerated
claims at least, and lives and deaths have hung on these things. We
must take a thorough look at it. We will and I think the Members of the
House will be satisfied with that look.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just wanted to add one bit of remark with regard to some of the
comment we have just heard which I thought was very helpful. We
understand very clearly and the Intelligence Community understands very
clearly that finding the weapons of mass destruction or what happened
to them or whether there was faulty intelligence is a critical issue
and that is indeed ongoing. As the gentleman from New Jersey just said,
we are early in the game and we have literally thousands of pages for
our staff and Members to work through.
There is one thing that has not been said very clearly yet that does
need to be said. I think we all share the desire to make as much of
this known as possible to the public. We want the public to understand
how good intelligence is and how good it is not. Frankly, I want to do
everything I can to make the American people aware as well as people
overseas who might be watching what we have to say here, whether they
are our friends or our enemies, that our intelligence is indeed
formidable and when in fact we find a place where there is a gap in it,
it will be repaired and fixed and that gap will no longer be there. I
think that will be a comfort to everybody. That process is partially
what this bill is about. But we are doing this as regard to the debate
with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at a time when we desire
transparency but we understand that transparency might include some
people who are our enemies in the Iraq area where there is still a very
dangerous and difficult operational climate as we are tragically
reminded every day.
I would ask that we understand that this is not just a question of
going back and reviewing material at our leisure trying to come to some
Solomon decision about whether it was good or bad or where we can fix
it. This is matching information that we had which was the best we had
at the time as far as we know with what we are beginning to find as we
are able to talk to people who are captured in Iraq and other areas who
are terrorists or are associated with them, document exploitation,
those types of things and match that up. This process is a process that
the committee has taken on. We are not just doing the prewar analysis.
We are doing the what is going on now and where is it going on a daily
basis.
I hope Members can be assured, we will be in a continuous position to
assess, both give a score card to the community and perhaps to come
back to our colleagues here and say there are some other areas where we
need to invest in the Intelligence Community because a small investment
will yield a greater national security return before we are through.
That is an ongoing process and charge of this committee and one we take
seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________