[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 169 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11673-H11677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members it is 
not appropriate during the debate to characterize actions or inactions 
in the other body.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would just point out that Members on our side strongly support the 
women and men in the field who work in our intelligence community. I 
assume the prior speaker is aware of that.
  We also, to my knowledge, have not produced any memos around here 
that could be characterized as divisive. We are all pulling in the same 
direction, and that is, hopefully, to enhance our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), a senior member of our committee and a senior member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking 
member, and she is my friend, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), our colleague on the other side who just spoke, has left 
the room. For I did want to remind him what the ranking member just has 
said and that is every member of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence vigorously and actively supports the intelligence 
community in its entirety and fully recognizes the extraordinary and 
dangerous work that they do on behalf of this great Nation.
  I rise in support of this measure. As ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have had the 
privilege to meet many talented and dedicated intelligence 
professionals. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifices they have made to 
ensure that United States interests both in

[[Page H11674]]

our homeland and abroad are protected. We must make a continued 
investment in human resources, our greatest intelligence assets. This 
bill does that by increasing funds available for language proficiency 
maintenance and awards initiatives and providing specialized training 
for collectors and analysts.
  I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision similar to one 
I offered on the House floor. It requires the intelligence community to 
establish a pilot project to recruit people of diverse ethnic and 
cultural backgrounds and those proficient in critical foreign 
languages. Annual statistics, and the committee's November 5 public 
diversity hearing demonstrate that the intelligence community continues 
to lag behind the Federal workforce and the private sector in the 
number of women and minorities in its ranks, especially in core mission 
areas. Clearly, more must be done to increase diversity across the 
intelligence community. I believe that this pilot project is another 
important step in this regard.
  Finally, it is important to note that this bill authorizes only part 
of the operating funds for the intelligence community. A huge portion 
of intelligence funds were provided in the $87 billion Iraqi 
counterterrorism supplemental and in the supplementals that proceeded 
it. I am extremely concerned about our government's increasing 
overreliance on supplemental appropriations.
  Budgeting by supplementals greatly undermines the committees's 
ability to effectively oversee how funds appropriated by Congress are 
spent. I fear this trend may lead to less accountability in the budget 
building and accounting process, a perhaps unintended, but nonetheless 
unacceptable, consequence.
  On balance, this bill does much to enhance our Nation's international 
security efforts. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support it. 
I am prepared at this time to support this measure.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of the 
committee.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
additional time.
  I did want to mention in response to what the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) said about the language issue, I have been charged 
with the responsibility, with the help of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), for taking on this subject and seeking broadly 
the sources of information to give us the best product. My hope is that 
we will have a separate bill on the subject of language training and 
recruitment before the House some 4 to 6 months after the next session 
of Congress is convened.
  I also wanted to speak further on the HUMIT issue. Our distinguished 
colleague from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has emphasized the importance of 
this issue very well, but I want to bring up a couple of other points.
  I mentioned, of course, that we are focussed heavily on the terrorist 
conflicts that create so many problems for us in places like 
Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we do have global responsibilities. So 
the intelligence community needs to continue to provide timely, 
actionable intelligence on a host of potential threats from nuclear 
proliferation threats on the Korean peninsula, from narcotraffickers in 
the jungles of Colombia, from collapsing regimes in West Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize for our colleagues, and all Americans, 
that we live in a new world and face new and more terrible threats. In 
many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat was the 
Soviet Union. Frankly, the intelligence community has been slow in 
adapting to this new environment.
  In the judgment of this Member, our intelligence service did not 
reach out aggressively to recruit the human intelligence sources that 
would have provided us with valuable information.
  In our previous authorization bill, we corrected one of the reasons 
for that failure in asset recruitment. Also, because of budgetary 
restraints, the intelligence community in the mid-1990s lost far too 
many of its skilled analysts whose job was to provide early warning. 
This legislation provides much-needed funding to further rebuild a 
dynamic, wide-ranging global analytical capability. But we should be 
under no illusion. It takes years to develop skilled analysts who are 
able to connect the dots and provide our policy makers with timely 
information.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, we have made a start here. This is good legislation. I 
urge its support and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there is an additional 
speaker on the other side, and then the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Goss) obviously has the right to close. I would reserve our 
time until all speakers but the chairman have spoken.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this time that he 
has offered me today.
  I rise in deep concern over a provision in this legislation. Like 
most of my colleagues, I supported H.R. 2417 when it came before the 
House in June; but after tertiary review, I find that there is a 
provision in the bill that potentially has long-reaching effects on 
civil liberties. H.R. 2417 includes a provision that would expand the 
FBI's power to demand financial records, without a judge's approval, to 
a large range of businesses, vastly wider than their current authority.
  Right now the FBI has the authority to serve subpoenas to traditional 
financial institutions when investigating terrorism and 
counterintelligence without having to seek a judge's approval. The law 
understands the phrase ``financial institutions'' as we do: banks, loan 
companies, savings associations and credit unions. Currently, these are 
the types of institutions subject to administrative subpoenas.
  The provision in this bill, however, uses a definition of financial 
institutions to decide what organizations are subject to administrative 
subpoenas. Under this bill, not only are the traditional financial 
institutions like banks and credit unions affected but so are 
pawnbrokers, casinos, vehicle salesmen, real estate agents, telegraph 
companies, travel agencies, the U.S. Postal Service, just to name but a 
few.
  Winning the war against terrorism is indeed vital, Mr. Speaker, and 
we must make sure that our law enforcement officials have the tools 
necessary to engage this war and win these battles. The FBI's need for 
authority to subpoena these groups in order to track and find and shut 
down terrorist operations is not in question, and I do not question 
that. However, under these provisions, the FBI no longer needs a court 
order to serve such a subpoena on a new and lengthy laundry list of 
financial institutions. With this legislation, we eliminate the 
judicial oversight that was built into our system for a reason, to make 
sure that our precious liberties are protected.
  In our fight for our Nation to make the world a safe place, we must 
not turn our backs on our own freedoms. Expanding the use of 
administrative subpoenas and threatening our system of checks and 
balance is a step in the wrong direction.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am the concluding speaker on our side, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say first that the views of the prior speaker are views I 
share. I am sad to hear that he will oppose the bill, but I certainly 
agree that we need to be sure we are narrowing the reach of these 
national security letters and limiting them only to financial 
transactions. It is important that we find terrorists.
  It is important that we track terrorist financing; but it is, by my 
lights, risky to fail to include additional language in the bill or the 
report that would make clear what our intent is. I hope this new 
authority will not be

[[Page H11675]]

abused. I will certainly be watching it carefully, and I do appreciate 
the fact that the prior speaker expanded on what abuses could 
potentially occur.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the women and men who work 
in our intelligence community around the world. I have been to austere 
places all over the world, and I have met women and men who work in the 
most dangerous conditions who put our security first, ahead of theirs, 
and who leave their families at home and take enormous risks for our 
country. I salute them. I know how dangerous their jobs are. I 
appreciate what they do every single day.
  And particularly, let me say today to our intelligence community in 
Iraq and in Turkey and places that are under siege, I really appreciate 
what they are doing. I thank them very much.
  I also want to say thank you to the members of this committee. All of 
them work hard. There is bipartisanship in this committee, and I thank 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the partnership we have had 
over some years now.
  Let me thank the hardworking staff on a bipartisan basis. Every one 
of them works enormously hard, and I would just like to recognize the 
eight minority staffers, most of whom are sitting around me right now: 
Suzanne Spaulding, the minority chief of staff; Bob Emmett; John Keefe; 
Beth Larson; Marcel Lettre; Kirk McConnell; Wyndee Parker; and Ilene 
Romack. Thank you every day for what you do.
  Let me just make three concluding points. First, facing tough issues. 
It is absolutely critical at a time when security risks are expanding 
around the world that we face tough issues; that Congress face tough 
issues and ask tough questions; and that the intelligence community, 
which tries hard but has not always delivered perfect products, face 
tough issues, go through this lessons learned exercise and learn from 
wrong judgments that were made or inadequate collection that occurred 
so that the next products that are prepared by good people can be the 
best possible products. Please let us face tough issues.
  Second of all, I want to make the point that our oversight in this 
committee on a bipartisan basis requires constructive criticism of the 
intelligence community. We have done this over the years. Last year, we 
issued a tough report. The Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland 
Security, of which I was ranking member and Mr. Chambliss, who is now 
in the other body, was chairman, issued a tough report on some of the 
problems in intelligence leading up to 9/11. That report was 
constructive criticism. Some of the recommendations we made have been 
heeded; some have not. Constructive criticism, asking tough questions 
are things we properly should do.
  Finally, let me suggest again to the intelligence community that it 
is important to engage in dialogue with this committee. Shrill press 
releases are not dialogue. Quiet conversations, talking about how we 
see things, what we think can be improved, why it needs to be improved, 
will get the job done.
  This bill provides many new resources, many, many new resources, and 
is carefully crafted to suggest best directions for the intelligence 
community. We have confidence in the people who work there. We are 
proud of them. We thank them. We are trying to help them do better.
  I urge support of this authorization conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I just want to take a few minutes to congratulate my ranking member 
for the superb job that she has done on her side of the aisle in this 
conference report and throughout the year. To say she is hardworking 
and dedicated does not quite get it. I have words here that say her 
determination is fierce and she is definitely a force to be reckoned 
with. That does not quite say it either. She is a very valuable asset, 
and we are very grateful for her energies and suggestions and 
leadership and the way she goes about her business.
  This is her very first conference report as ranking member I think, 
if I have got my history right; and she obviously was of significant 
importance in bringing the report through for the authorization bill 
that the House did, but she was also significantly helpful in the 
negotiations with the other body which I am not allowed to mention.
  I would also like to thank each and every member of HPSCI for their 
undying dedication to the security of our Nation and the protection of 
the people of the United States. That is what we do. Each member works 
very hard learning the business of intelligence, and it is not an easy 
subject. What they come to understand in that process is that this 
Nation is far better off with our intelligence professionals than we 
would be without them. I know sometimes the debate rages about whether 
intelligence is an appropriate thing for gentlemen to be discussing in 
a civilized society. Well, I can tell my colleagues we could not exist 
without it.
  The rank-and-file employees of the intelligence community every day, 
as the gentlewoman has said, protect the very liberties we cherish. 
They do it day in and day out; and as they go about gathering the 
secrets and information necessary for our policy-makers to make the 
very tough decisions they have to make, they incur a lot of risk. The 
members of the HPSCI understand this pretty clearly. That is because we 
have been out and about and talking to them. We do travel a lot. We go 
to the places that not everybody wants to go to. We get into the issues 
not everybody wants to fool around with. Frankly, that is why it is 
easy to leave partisanship outside the door of the committee chamber.
  Finally, I want to thank committee staff, all HPSCI staff, all sides, 
both together, including, obviously, Democratic members and Republican 
members and those who do not want to declare either side who we call 
our support staff. Without staff support, it is obviously their 
expertise, their dedication, our committee would not do much of 
anything.
  They do work late hours. I know that occasionally when I work late 
hours I find them there. I find them occasionally when I come in early 
I find them there. They do wonderful things for us, and they get very 
little recognition. I know a lot of the work is tedious and mundane and 
a lot of it is exciting, and I appreciate their contributions in all of 
those areas.
  The other thing I know for sure is the work space up there leaves a 
lot to be desired, and I promise we are going to work on a lavatory 
soon. We do feel the days have come when there is indoor plumbing, and 
we should acknowledge that on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Everybody deserves congratulatory words today, and I want to thank 
everybody, and I mean that very sincerely.
  There is one person on the committee I am going to single out today, 
though, who serves as the committee's budget director who is entitled, 
I think, for specific recognition this year. Mike Meermans has served 
the government for now, I am told, 30 years, in fact something in 
excess of that. Among other jobs in the United States he served in the 
United States Air Force, and he has been engaged by the government as 
an Arab linguist. Mike has been with HPSCI since 1995. This is his 8th 
year on the committee.
  It has been a very trying year for Mike, whose college-age son early 
in the year was diagnosed with cancer. Throughout his son's course of 
treatment, Mike was by his side, I know, every step of the way, being a 
great father, and all the while managing the committee's authorization 
process, crunching numbers, writing the report language, negotiating 
with the executive branch and with the other body, and frankly, getting 
into mysteries in the intelligence community that I find too complex to 
understand. He did all of this with energy, with fortitude and aplomb. 
He is the manifestation of the wonderful and professional staff which 
HPSCI is blessed with and is well served by.
  I just wanted to say to Mike that he is appreciated not just for his 
legislative talents but more so because he is a good guy. He is a nice 
guy, a great father. His only purpose in serving HPSCI is actually to 
make America stronger, and this year when he had family duties, he 
understood those as well and met them.
  To his wife, Lois, and their family, especially their son Brian, I 
thank them for allowing him to work so hard for us, and I am sorry we 
had to take

[[Page H11676]]

him away so much of the time. We are better and the Nation is stronger 
because of him, and their pride in him is very well deserved. We share 
that pride.
  Mike, for you, thank you for all your hard work in years past, this 
year especially. You made an extremely difficult year for you 
personally a successful year for the committee. You made it seem 
routine. We are all extremely happy to hear your son is on the mend and 
recently received more good news from the doctors. Our prayers for 
continuous good news are with you. You deserve our gratitude, and we 
express it here now.
  I also want to say that about a year ago we were just packaging up 
the joint inquiry product. We had an extensive effort with our 
colleagues in the other body to understand 9/11, what went wrong. We 
came up with a good report. It was a long one. I think it steered us in 
some directions that corrections have already been taken. It also 
created a follow-on commission, the national commission, which is at 
work now under the leadership of Governor Kean and former member Lee 
Hamilton, for whom we have great admiration. I think that I should 
point out to the people in the United States of America that we are 
part of the review they are doing. We have invited them to conduct 
oversight of how we do oversight. So the American people can be 
reassured that there is oversight of the intelligence community, and 
some of the things we cannot talk about are indeed watched by others.
  My time has come to an end. We have had a good year. We look for a 
better year ahead dealing with capabilities to make sure our country is 
safer.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 
and to note the Financial Services Committee's interest in three 
sections of the report. All of the sections seek to improve this 
country's ability to fight the financing of terrorists, and I 
wholeheartedly support them.
  Section 105 of the report establishes an Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis within the Department of the Treasury, headed by an Assistant 
Secretary appointed by the President after consultation with the 
Director of Central Intelligence. Formation of the office is necessary 
because the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and its 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are essential tools in the fight 
against the funding of terrorism, but today lack access to some 
``secure'' information essential to that effort. Establishment of the 
office creates a secure channel for that information to flow, as 
necessary, to FinCEN and OFAC, and for them to send back appropriate 
information.
  Section 374 modernizes the definition of financial institutions that 
may be served administrative subpoenas, as rigidly controlled by the 
existing Right to Financial Privacy Act. When that Act was written, 
banks were really the only ``financial Institutions'' a terrorist might 
have used to stash or transfer money. As our efforts to stamp out 
terror financing have become more successful, a lot of that activity 
has moved over into other, less-traditional sorts of financial-services 
businesses--even, for example, to dealers in precious commodities such 
as gold or diamonds. The USA PATRIOT Act appropriately expanded the 
definition of ``financial institution'' to include these other 
financial-services businesses. This section establishes parity in the 
definition of ``financial institution'' between the PATRIOT Act and the 
RFPA, allowing the judicious use of administrative subpoenas in terror 
cases to reflect this larger universe of businesses that might be 
exploited. Here I must note my discomfort that the conference report 
ignores the Financial Services Committee's request that Section 374 
include the right to injunctive relief as provided for in Section 1118 
of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
  Section. 376 allows for the ``in camera'' review of sensitive 
information that leads to imposition of `'special measures'' isolating 
rogue countries or banks, as defined under Sec. 311 of the PATRIOT Act. 
Under the previous version of Sec 311, there is no ability to protect 
this sensitive information should it be necessary for the imposition of 
the ``special measures,'' and that omission argues against use of the 
powers as effectively as we would like. For example, if the Central 
Intelligence Agency should have information that a bank were doing 
business with a terrorist, it quite possibly would be counterproductive 
to expose the CIA's sources and methods to indict individuals or shut 
down the bank, but the Treasury's ``special measures'' under Sec. 311 
could effectively isolate the bank if the sensitive information could 
be used ``in camera.'' This section merely provides protection of that 
sensitive information that might be used to support the imposition of 
those measures.
  Mr. Speaker, these three sections are all important tools in the 
fight against terrorism, and I strongly support their inclusion. I 
regret that Section 1118 was not reference in the report's Section 374, 
and the Financial Services Committee reserves the right to address that 
issue later. Meanwhile, I support the conference report and ask for its 
immediate passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to a 
provision in this conference report that intrudes on our civil 
liberties and will do little, if anything, to protect us from 
terrorism.
  I think it is important that law enforcement have the powers it needs 
to investigate acts of money laundering that are connected to terrorism 
and espionage, but we must ensure those powers are reasonable and 
appropriately crafted. Current law already gives the FBI the ability to 
obtain financial records from various financial institutions, which are 
defined as banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and credit unions, with 
little or no judicial oversight. In fact, the government can delay 
notification to a court that it has sought such records if it merely 
certifies in writing that it required emergency access to the 
documents.
  Now, the FBI is seeking investigative authorities beyond what are 
necessary for terrorism and intelligence investigations. Section 374 of 
the conference report would give the FBI even more unfettered authority 
by subjecting a broader group of ``financial institutions'' to the 
FBI's special investigative authorities. The FBI would be able to seek 
financial records not only from traditional financial institutions but 
also from pawnbrokers, travel agencies, car dealers, boat sellers, 
telegraph companies, and persons engaged in real estate transactions, 
among others.
  The record of the Bush administration demonstrates that this 
provision is a significant intrusion on our civil liberties that will 
not be used to protect us from terrorism. In the days after September 
11, the administration demanded from Congress expanded powers to root 
out terrorist activity. Congress granted much of those powers in the 
form of the USA PATRIOT Act, but the administration has yet to justify 
how it has used those powers to find the planners of the 2001 attacks 
or to thwart other, planned attacks. Instead, the administration 
returns to Congress with requests for more authorities, such as this 
one, in a grab for power.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
conference report.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I stand today strongly opposed to the 
Conference Report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
FY 2004.
  Although the House of Representatives recently voted in a bi-partisan 
and overwhelming fashion to repeal Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, a 
provision that threatens Americans' rights by allowing for ``sneak and 
peak searches'', it appears the administration is poised to move ahead 
with further actions that endanger civil liberties by slipping an 
expanded PATRIOT Act power in the Intelligence Conference Report.
  The hidden measure would significantly expand the FBI's power to 
acquire financial records without judicial oversight from car dealers, 
pawnbrokers, travel agencies, and many other businesses. Traditional 
financial institutions like banks and credit unions are already subject 
to such demands, but this dramatic expansion of government authority 
will mean that records created by average citizens who purchase cars, 
plan vacations, or buy gifts will be subject to government seizure and 
analysis without the important requirements of probable cause or 
judicial review.
  This provision initially appeared in a leaked draft of so-called 
``PATRIOT II'', a proposal the American public and Members on both 
sides of the aisle in the House and Senate publicly rejected. It is now 
clear the administration's strategy is to pass PATRIOT II in separate 
pieces with little public debate and surreptitiously attached to other 
legislation. This is far from an appropriate or democratic way to 
handle issues that affect the fundamental liberties and freedoms of 
Americans.
  I urge the administration and the Attorney General to openly and 
honestly return to Congress to discuss options that curtail, not 
expand, the PATRIOT Act to make it consistent with the United States 
Constitution. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Intelligence Conference Report and this unnecessary and dangerous 
expansion of the government's assault on civil liberties.
  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. 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. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H11677]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________