[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4770-H4778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4548, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 686 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 686
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
[[Page H4771]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. This bill would authorize appropriations for the
fiscal year for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the
Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system.
{time} 1030
This is must-do legislation. It is also the most robust Intelligence
Authorization Act the House has ever considered, and it is consistent
with the Defense appropriations bill the House passed yesterday by an
overwhelming vote of 403 to 17.
The classified annex to the committee report, which includes
information on the budget and personnel levels, is available to all
Members of the House of Representatives, subject to a requirement of
clause 13 of rule XXIII.
This rule permits only those Members of the House who have signed the
oath set out in clause 13 of House rule XXIII to have access to the
classified information. Simply, this means they must agree not to
release the information they see.
Intelligence has been, rightly so, recognized as a critical weapon in
the global war on terrorism. Resources for, and demands on, the U.S.
intelligence community have increased dramatically in the 2\3/4\ years
since September 11, 2001, and the attacks we all remember.
This increase is even more dramatic when one takes into consideration
the depth of the cutbacks, underinvestment, and the near fatal loss of
political support for the intelligence community in the prior
administration.
That is why I am pleased that this bill authorizes more money than
last year, even including the supplemental. This is the type of
investment that our intelligence community deserves.
This legislation continues the sustained effort and long-term
strategy to bring human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery
intelligence, and other intelligence systems and disciplines to life
successfully.
H.R. 4548 also continues a similar commitment to build and maintain
the analytic expertise and depth of coverage necessary to make wise and
timely use of the information collected.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the CIA and all the members
of our intelligence community who do make a vital contribution to our
Nation's security.
I agree with President Bush that this is a mission of service and
sacrifice in a world of great uncertainty and risk. America's
commitments and responsibilities span the world in every time zone.
Every day our intelligence community helps us to meet those
responsibilities.
This bill provides the President with the intelligence tools needed
to win the war on terrorism; and to that end, I urge my colleagues to
support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the American intelligence apparatus is
broken is well-known. In the global war on terror, the most important
weapon we have to protect the Nation and its people is intelligence.
Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and
flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this
body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the
continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this
legislation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence falls far short of what our
intelligence community has requested and what the American people
expect. Now listen up. This bill provides less than a third of the key
operational funding the intelligence agencies have told us that they
need to prevent the next terrorist attack. The scheme for funding the
counterterrorism operations is to give the agencies, listen, I want my
colleagues to hear this, they are going to give them a third of the
money they need, and then after the election they will come back and
ask for the other two-thirds. Does this sound like we are concerned
about the intelligence community? Does it sound like we are worried
that we are at war? The answer is no. The election is the deciding
point on when we come back and ask for the money.
The plan will starve the counterterrorism efforts, leaves the
intelligence community anemic. Funding the intelligence community in
bits and pieces, a portion now and a supplemental after the election,
is not only irresponsible, it is reckless. Senior intelligence
community officials have said that operating this way could jeopardize
key counterterrorism operations. That is what they tell us.
Sadly, this year the bill fell victim to partisanship and the cold
hard fiscal realities of tax cuts and spending caps. Every single
Democrat member voted against favorably reporting this bill, and this
is unprecedented. Typically, the importance of this bill trumps
personal ideologies or the prevailing partisan winds; but knowing the
ranking member and the other Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I know that they must have very serious
concerns to vote against the authorization bill.
Five dedicated distinguished Democrat members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, including the gentlewoman from California
(Ranking Member Harman), offered five important amendments to the bill.
However, the Committee on Rules tossed out four of these vital
substantive amendments. The Committee on Rules will not allow the full
House to consider and debate and amend to withhold a portion of the
funding until the Secretary of Defense provides all information
concerning the dealings of the Department of Defense and Ahmed Chalabi.
This is information to which Congress is entitled. This is information
the American people want to know. Who was this man who had such an
incredible effect and so much influence on whether or not we went to
war? What did we do besides give him $33 million?
Members will not be able to consider an amendment to restructure our
dilapidated intelligence apparatus. Shockingly, the committee
Republicans even made out of order an amendment to fully fund American
counterterrorism efforts.
Yesterday, a member of the Committee on Rules tried to suggest that
the amendments were proposed for political reasons. Far from it. Our
Nation's security is at risk, and the integrity of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Democrats, and all Democrats, should not be
questioned.
Reported out of committee on party lines, the rule does make in order
an amendment to express the sense of Congress and support of the
intelligence community and an amendment expressing the sense that the
world is a safer place now that Libya has dismantled its weapons of
mass destruction. These amendments were presumed to take precedence
over the ones that really dealt with the committee and its budget. They
do nothing to improve American counterterrorism operations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a seriously, fatally flawed bill; but, again,
the Committee on Rules has muzzled debate on some of the most important
issues concerning American intelligence operations. This is a double
blow. It is another Committee on Rules strike against deliberation,
discussion, and serious consideration; and it is a strike against the
safety of America.
I am shocked at the rule and the underlying legislation before us
this morning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that the
full House
[[Page H4772]]
can participate in a comprehensive debate on the most important issue
confronting us today and to consider the vital amendments to improve
the intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time, and I am glad that we are focusing on this very important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, having served in that very distinguished group of
bipartisan members concerned about intelligence for 8 years.
I wish to rise in strong support of this bill we are presenting to
our colleagues and to the American people, the Intelligence
Authorization Act. This is a well-thought-out bill, developed over many
months of comprehensive deliberation, which provides much-needed
guidance and support for the global, and let me emphasize that, the
global war on terrorism and efforts to combat the very real threats to
our national security.
We live in a dangerous world. Reminders of that harsh fact of 21st-
century life face us on many fronts. Threats that were unimaginable
just a few years ago have now become reality. Suicide bombers, anthrax,
dirty bombs, these are but a few of the litany of weapons our enemies
threaten us with.
To meet this new threat, our Nation requires a much more flexible and
responsive intelligence community. H.R. 4548 helps provide that
flexibility; and, importantly, it provides the increased funding to
aggressively wage war on terrorism. Make no mistake, H.R. 4548
dramatically, let me emphasize that, dramatically increases
counterterrorism funding.
As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the
8 years that I have been privileged to serve in that body, one of my
greatest concerns has been the lack of sufficient numbers of
intelligence analysts and officers fluent in the languages that our
enemies speak. This capability deficiency has literally crippled our
ability to independently gather and evaluate information. It means that
we have increasingly relied on contract linguists and allied
intelligence services to translate information and to follow up leads.
It means, for example, that there are literally miles and miles of
captured Saddam Hussein documents that are still waiting to be read,
translated, and made available for our analysis.
We have made substantial investment in technology, and rightly so;
but more investment is necessary in human capital, people who serve as
our eyes and ears at far distant points on the globe, and just adding
to the numbers in our cadre is not enough by itself. We need
individuals who are language proficient and possess an understanding of
the culture being penetrated, who know and are able to appreciate not
only who was saying what but also are conversant with the nuances and
able to discern the true meaning of what is being said.
Of course, particularly in view of my position as chairman of the
Committee on Science, I can appreciate the value of investment in
technology; but that alone is not enough. There is no substitute for
people. A satellite hundreds of miles in the heavens might be able to
detect the movement of people or machines, and that is important; but
it does not compare in value to someone inside a cell in Iraq or
Afghanistan monitoring the words or actions of the bad guys.
For this reason, I have been part of a concerted effort over the past
several years to place greater emphasis on and secure needed funds for
a significant upgrading of our language program for the intelligence
community.
Our committee has put together a broad and comprehensive package of
language provisions. We establish a civilian linguistic reserve corps.
We fund and expand existing programs that have demonstrated success. We
look for creative ways to develop and utilize the vast talent pool that
already exists in our country. We support the National Virtual
Translation Center; and perhaps most importantly, we try to establish a
culture in the intelligence community where language skills become an
integral and necessary part of the job. It is the most important
legislative effort on foreign languages since the Boren Act of 1992.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 is a worthy bill. It takes many of the
necessary steps to ensure that our Nation's intelligence capabilities
remain relevant in the 21st century. The gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss) is bringing forward an excellent package in what is his
final authorization as chairman. He has performed exceptionally well
during particularly challenging times, and he has presented us with a
bill that all Members can and should support.
I urge support of the rule and the base bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on the Committee on Rules and for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
previous question, which I understand will be offered, because it
deprives our colleagues of the opportunity to strengthen the
Intelligence Authorization Act.
Strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on
terrorism; and make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings
of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33-
year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of
our enemy. Our brave men and women of the intelligence community are on
the frontlines fighting that enemy.
{time} 1045
They risked their lives for our freedom, and they deserve our
unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule
deprives them of that support.
H.R. 4548 provides less than one-third of the key counterterrorism
funding the intelligence community has told us it needs to fight the
war on terrorism. Less than one-third. Members of our committee had
proposed an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism operations. This
rule denies us the opportunity to consider that amendment.
I think it is irresponsible of us to shortchange our counterterrorism
efforts, particularly when we know al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups
are planning attacks against us right now. By providing one-third of
the counterterrorism funding, the majority's bill essentially says to
the brave men and women of the intelligence community, you can count on
operations for 3 or 4 more months, but after that, that is rough, until
next April. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does, and that
is not acceptable.
A better rule, a much better rule would have allowed the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell),
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) of our committee to fix
this bill with an amendment that would have provided for 100 percent of
the funding that the intelligence agencies say they need. Their
amendment would have done away with the dangerous practice of budgeting
by supplemental, of saying let us kick this problem down the road. And
in this case, let us kick it down the road until well after the
November election.
A rule limiting amendments may be appropriate for other legislation,
but this legislation is different, and here is why. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, much of our work is classified and, therefore, is not
discussed in the open. However, a large portion of our work on the
intelligence policy is unclassified and is contained in the public
portion of our legislation. This information does not compromise our
intelligence sources and methods, and for that reason we asked the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to hold the markup of the public
portion of our bill in public.
On a party-line vote, the majority refused. Therefore, these
amendments have never been debated or voted on in public, even though
they are not classified and even though they would, if adopted, be part
of the public part of our bill.
[[Page H4773]]
Mr. Speaker, there is no secret law in the United States, and it is
anathema to this House to stifle open debate about important policy
issues. For that reason, it is important that the full House have the
opportunity to debate these amendments. This rule kills that debate,
shuts down any effort to fully fund counterterrorism, and tries to
sweep this issue under the rug. Well, this issue is too important, too
vital to our national security to be swept under the rug.
The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
offered five amendments, all of which were good, all of which would
have strengthened the bill and strengthened our oversight. All but one
were rejected by this rule. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because
instead of having a rule that could bring us together under one
bipartisan banner, we have a rule that ensures this bill will trigger a
bitter partisan divide.
In case the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the Republicans
have not noticed, the terrorists did not check our party labels before
launching their attacks against us on 9/11, and they will not check
them when they launch the next attack. I would have hoped that we could
debate the bill not just as Democrats and Republicans, but as
Americans. And for the sake of the country and for the sake of national
security, I am sorry that the majority let us down.
Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the
previous question.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
As a member of the committee now for 6 years, I want to say a special
word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be the last bill that he will present to
the House of Representatives, as he is retiring from the House at the
end of this year.
It is a great, great loss for the House of Representatives. I know it
is a great loss for the people of Florida, who he represents, and it
truly is a great loss for the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the intelligence community. As someone who served in
the CIA prior to coming to the House of Representatives, he has done as
good a job as anyone on the committee, and certainly been an exemplary
Chair of the committee. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for
the time and energy and devotion that he has given to the intelligence
community, to the CIA, to people, men and women, all over the world who
work so hard to collect the information and do the good professional
work. He has been dedicated to them, he has been dedicated for them.
And so I say congratulations to Porter Goss, and I think all House
Members should do that for the work that he has done for the House and
for the intelligence community.
As we debate the bill, I will obviously be speaking out on a number
of things that I think are important, but let me just say this: I think
it is unfortunate that bipartisanship has deteriorated. It no longer
exists with this committee. Maybe our committee was the last bastion of
bipartisanship, but apparently it is gone. And I think it really began
a year ago when we considered our authorization bill.
I introduced into the record and put into the record a memo that came
over from the other body that talked about a game plan on the part of
the Democrats to politicize the intelligence process, not only in this
body but also in the other body. And I am going to put that memo in the
record again this year, because I think it was the beginning of the
deterioration of bipartisanship for intelligence. That is unfortunate
and sends the wrong message.
Congratulations Porter Goss, we have a good bill, and I hope all
Members will support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I find this rule very disappointing. It effectively
shuts down debate on an amendment to fully fund the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence's key counterterrorism operations. It is
unusual for me to speak out like this, but 4 or 5 weeks ago it hit me,
the current intelligence authorization bill that we are going to
consider today is just not strong enough. It authorizes less than a
third of the funds that the intelligence agencies need for key
counterterrorism operations next year. That is just not right at a time
when our Nation is under threat of terrorist attacks.
The administration admits that this is not sufficient funding, and
says it will seek more money after November. But there is ample
evidence that al-Qaeda may try to strike before November. If there is
another terrorist attack, do we want the next 9-11 Commission to find
that we in Congress failed in our duty to fully fund counterterrorism
in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?
We sit there day in and day out in closed session, windowless rooms,
for hours on end listening to the intelligence agencies tell us how
critical the funds are that the committee authorizes. They routinely
criticize the practice of funding them in these small bits and pieces
rather than in a full year, the way we are supposed to do it. They have
told us how this prevents them from planning effectively, and they have
told us they have to rob Peter to pay Paul while they wait for the
additional funds to arrive. And they will probably not receive those
additional funds that they need until April or May of next year, if at
all.
This ridiculous practice of shortchanging intelligence at the start
of the year has also been roundly criticized on a bipartisan basis by
members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The agencies
have indicated with some precision the additional funds that they will
need in the coming year for counterterrorism. There is no excuse for
failing to make sure that the intelligence community has the resources
it needs to protect against the next terrorist attack.
The amendment that I had intended to offer would have fully funded
key counterterrorism operations in the next year for the agencies, as
they have said they need them, 100 percent of the funding. And we had a
detailed schedule of authorization to specify how the money should be
spent. So this was not a blank check, as some have said.
The question before Congress is quite simple: Do we fully fund the
global war on terrorism or do we want to take the chance that our
intelligence community can make due until sometime next year? As it
stands now, it is clear what the majority's answer is to this question.
And with this rule the majority has made clear that they do not want to
debate this issue. That is just not right, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), another member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me this time, and I thank both my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee.
We are selected by the leadership, we are asked to serve, we are asked
to uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of what goes on in that
committee, and we are asked to reassure the Members of the House that
do not have the type of access that we do that we are in fact doing our
job. So let me assure every Member, Republican and Democrat, we are
doing our job.
There is a difference today, and I do not hold the individuals on the
other side of the aisle responsible. I think the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) put it well, politics is alive and well in
Washington. It is an election year, and I think that strings are
getting pulled. And I make a pledge to the Members on that side of the
aisle: That when this bill has passed, and I hope you vote for it on
final passage, that we will work together in that committee. We will
make sure that the tools are available to our intelligence community.
We will make sure that the workings and the oversight are good enough
that we can look our fellow Members in the eye and say we are doing our
job.
[[Page H4774]]
But I think today we need to look back at why we are here. Sure, we
are here because of the intelligence threat that exists today and the
need for intelligence to grow, but we are here because of the
devastation to the intelligence community in the 1990s. We are here
because human intelligence was not important to anybody in this town.
We are, in fact, trying to rebuild. And when I heard Director Tenet
stand up in front of the independent commission and talk about 5 years,
here was a man being honest at what it took to recruit people that
could infiltrate; that we could take individuals who could fluently
speak Arabic.
We have to remember that we went from a Cold War need for
linguistics, which was Russia and Eastern Europe, to now a need for
Arabic and a lot of different tribal languages that exist, and you
cannot do it overnight and you cannot do it for no money. The reality
is that both sides suggest funding levels at about the same, and that
is above where the administration's request was. We have differences on
how we get here. That is leadership and it is politics mixed in with
it.
I am confident we can put politics aside and we can get passed not
only this rule debate but the debate on the bill. Because the important
thing is that our intelligence community knows that this Congress is
united. We are united behind them, we are united behind the effort, we
understand the value of what they do as it relates to the safety of the
troops that we have who defend this country every day.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also highlight the
leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss). This will be a tremendous loss to the Congress, the entire
Congress. The dedication of this man, the leadership, his experience
and what he has brought to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is invaluable. I am sure his years of community service
are not over with his decision to leave Congress. But with him we lose
a tremendous resource in our ability to understand and to become better
in the world as it relates to our intelligence.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I rise today to support my colleagues, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) particularly, in opposition to
the rule that shuts off debate on fully funding the intelligence
community's counterterrorism operations. I do this reluctantly, and I
do not do this very often.
I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
this should have been the opportunity for us to fully debate this
issue, because there is no real debate as to whether this bill, when we
get to the bill, provides full funding to the intelligence community
for this global war on terrorism. We all know that this bill does not
do that, and we have fallen into the trap ourselves. We are
perpetuating the trap of continuing to fund the intelligence community
in fits and starts, in bits and pieces.
The war in Iraq, as difficult as it is, is a war. The war on global
terrorism, as unpredictable as it is, is a real war. Every day we are
faced with warnings, with threats that we are going to be attacked,
soon, between now and the elections.
{time} 1100
Every administration, or at least the past several administrations,
have fallen into this trap of using supplementals as a way to slowly
but surely face the budget issues that we have to face. We are saying
here today that we want to stop that, that we want to break that habit,
that we want to up front tell the agencies what they will get and let
them then tell us what they need so we can perform our oversight.
This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle have admitted
through the hearing process, this year, last year as well, that we have
got to stop this practice. The administration says this is not enough
money this year; that later, whatever ``later'' means, we will get to
the point where we will get to more funding.
This is not the way to do it. So today we must send a clear message
that ``business as usual'' is no longer acceptable. Today we must put
politics aside and do what is right for our intelligence community and
for our national security. Today we must make sure the intelligence
community has the resources it needs.
Oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, obviously I
follow these things very closely, and I wish to point out to all my
colleagues that the other body, their version of this bill closely
mirrors ours, but is less generous, and that bill passed the other body
by a unanimous vote, minority and majority. They are following our
lead. I would suggest that we should evidence that same spirit of
bipartisanship in this body.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work,
and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her hard
work.
Mr. Speaker, I did take some notice of my good friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I appreciated his remarks
about the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). I agree. I think he
has done an excellent job. But none of us are perfect. I think there
was an exception here. I actually thought that he would plus-up this
counterterrorism budget.
But here we are, and I rise to oppose the rule on the Intelligence
Authorization Act. In particular, I am surprised that a number of
Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably those of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), mine and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), which would fully fund the counterterrorism
budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
I wish the Republicans had been willing to debate this issue head on,
rather than hide behind a procedure.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than one-third of the funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. The
intelligence agencies will have a tough time accomplishing their
mission if they do not receive full funding for the counterterrorism
operations.
At CIA, these funds do not go to the paper clips and photocopiers.
They go towards mounting counterterrorism operations on every
continent. They go towards collecting information on preventing
terrorist attacks. They go towards funding operations in Afghanistan,
to prevent resurgence of the terrorist sanctuaries in the remote
mountains. They go towards working with partner governments on
counterterrorism. They go towards capturing key al Qaeda leaders.
When there is uncertainty about funding, according to the agencies'
testimony, it causes the agencies to hold off on operations,
potentially putting lives in danger and ruining intelligence collection
operations.
The administration officials have admitted they are not fully funding
counterterrorism in this bill, but will send a request for the rest of
the funds after the election, while at the same time urgently warning
of a possible terrorist attack before the election. I say to my good
friends and colleagues here today, what should the American people
expect us to do? Is it acceptable to wait until after the election,
when we already know what we need to do?
No, it is not acceptable. The American people expects us to debate
these issues fully and openly and not hide behind procedures. If, as
the administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack on the U.S. this summer, my colleagues in the majority will wish
they had debated and settled the Peterson amendment, rather than
squashing the debate. We will all wish that we had acted and fully
funded counterterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I fully urge the rejection of this rule, so that the
important issues like the shortfall for counterterrorism in this bill
can be properly debated.
[[Page H4775]]
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that obviously we are praising the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in light of the fact that this is
going to be the last intelligence authorization bill that he will be
presiding over before his retirement from this institution.
We had a very interesting discussion in the Committee on Rules
yesterday about this issue of funding. As I listened to my friend from
Iowa speaking about the fact that if we possibly saw another terrorist
attack on the United States, we would all bemoan the fact we have not
provided adequate funding, it seems to me that the statement that was
made by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee yesterday before the
Committee on Rules is a very important one to note. He is not concerned
about the issue of funding, he is actually concerned about the
management of the level of funding that we have right now. This view
that all you need to do is throw a tremendous amount of money at a
problem and that somehow is a panacea, that it is an insurance policy,
is, I think, unfounded.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important for us to note that the
proper management over this program is the most important thing for us
to do now, because we do feel that there is an adequate level of
funding. So I strongly support this rule, I strongly support the
underlying bill, so that we can come and work in a bipartisan way for
what we all want to do, and that is ensure, ensure, that we never see
another September 11, 2001, on our soil.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating the chairman, who
has served so honorably as a Member of the House and for all of these
years as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
and wish him our absolute best.
I join my colleagues today in standing up in support of stronger
intelligence. That is what this debate is about.
This bill is simply too weak and dangerously underfunds the
intelligence efforts that are so absolutely essential to preventing the
next big terrorist attack. Every American will understand that 100
percent is 100 percent. You cannot be committed 100 percent to funding
if you only fund 33 percent, one-third, of the entire counterterrorism
budget.
Opponents of the amendment to fully fund counterterrorism
intelligence throw around a lot of numbers to try to argue that the
level of funding in this bill is adequate. But you need to know only
one thing: The President knows this is not enough funding, and said in
his transmittal letter of May 12 of this year that he will ask for the
rest of the money ``in early 2005.'' That is an admission that this is
not fully funded, and that is what we are debating.
The problem is the terrorists are not waiting until early 2005. There
are indications that they plan to conduct a major attack inside the
United States before the end of the year, according to administration
officials. The CIA cannot wait until early 2005 to plan its operations
to prevent that next attack.
Senior officials testified repeatedly to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that the practice of funding counterterrorism
by supplemental makes it impossible for them to plan, this is what they
said to all of the members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and it forces them to rob Peter to pay Paul in an effort
to make due.
Does this body really want to make the men and women of the
intelligence community make do when so much is at stake? They are the
tip of the spear. We have to give them the resources they need. It is
our job now, not in early 2005.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic, some people up
here on the floor say we are not spending enough. They have never
served in the military. They vote to cut defense.
The last speaker, the gentlewoman from California, in 1993, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1996, the Frank
amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1998, the Iraq
Liberalization Act, regime change, she voted yes; in 2002,
authorization for military force, she voted no; in 2003, Iraq
supplemental appropriations, she voted no; in 2003, intelligence
authorization, to increase funding, she voted no.
This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. I have got some very good friends on
this committee. Some of them I hunt and fish with. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), during the Ronald Reagan funeral, I had tears
in my eyes. She reached over and grabbed my hand to console me.
That is the kind of friendship that we have on this committee, and I
think one of the saddest things I see is the partisanship coming out in
election-year politicking. We will still be friends after this. You
say, oh, this is not partisan. That is the spin. But it is, Mr.
Speaker. It is sad, and I hate to see it.
All the way through, you have people that have fought the Republican
Party on prescription drugs, Leave No Child Behind, energy, tax relief,
the environment. You think the Republicans are the meanest people in
the whole world, no matter what we do. But never before on this bill
has it been so partisan, and I think it is sad, a sad day on this House
floor, and election year politics.
I think when you look at yesterday's vote on defense appropriations,
which is the authorization for this bill, most of my colleagues voted
for that. That was less funding than this. The Senate has less funding
in the bill. But what our great chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss) did, is restrict some of the flow of the funding. We have
taken and analyzed and cut a lot of waste, fraud and abuse out of every
bill, defense, education, all these bills, and we have put the money to
good use.
I think it is even sadder right now that we have got folks that
choose to go along with their Democrat leadership. When you all elected
your liberal Democrat leadership, we rejoiced, because we know there is
a bill to cut the tax break for the rich in the next Bill, and we knew
exactly what was going to happen to show the differences between
Republicans and Democrats from your liberal leadership. But what is sad
is how that leadership is driving some of the good people within your
party to be partisan, and I think that is even sadder.
The defense authorization, I sat clear through that thing, and the
gentleman that is filing ethics violations, that is leaving this body
this year, filing ethics violations, demanded he see the Taguba report.
Well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) just so happened to
have it on the desk. And, guess what, that individual has not even read
the report.
There are 11 investigations going on. The Ronald Reagan event stopped
hearings. There has never been a hearing that any member of this
committee has asked for that we have not gotten, whether it is on
Chalabi, whether it is on the prisons, or whether it is on other issues
within that party.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is one of the most bipartisan
chairmen, and I think the gentlewoman from California would agree
Mr. Speaker, I also sit on the Defense Authorization Committee, and
one of the liberal members said, ``Well, we want the Secretary of
Defense to step down.'' He said, ``You know, I pray for you every day,
Mr. Secretary. You are a good, respected man, but maybe you ought to
step down.'' And I told the Secretary, next time someone prays for me,
I hope they are not trying to put a knife in my back in the
partisanship that is going on.
I think it is sad here today, we hunt and fish together, we are
friends. But this is wrong. Vote for this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
[[Page H4776]]
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time
to rise in opposition to this rule.
First let me just say that like all of us in this House that
represent communities around this great Nation of ours, I am proud of
the job that our men and women are doing in the war against terrorism,
whether they are in the military, whether they are in the intelligence
community or civilians.
{time} 1115
I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a
veteran. But to me, today, the issue is about oversight and about
funding the effort.
I think debate is healthy. I think we should exchange ideas and, yes,
maybe even political philosophies from time to time. We go to the
intelligence community and we ask them, what is it that you need? How
much money will it take to get the job done? They tell us, they give us
a budget, they give us a proposal; and then we come back and say, we
can only give you 33 percent of that money. Do they give us 33 percent
effort? No. They give us 100 percent, so we should fund them at 100
percent.
So why are we doing that? I am sure that our men and women that are
putting their lives on the line are asking that very same question:
Why? To them, it is not about politics, it is not about budgets, it is
not about deficits, or even supplementals. To them, it is about support
for their effort. To them, it is about funding that effort at 100
percent, and not giving them 33 percent and an IOU or a check-is-in-
the-mail promise. It is about support for our men and women in an
effort that is very important to our country.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we must do better; and, most of all,
to the men and women of this body, we must do our job.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support the bill
and the fine work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
chairman of our committee; and I am certain that sometime today we are
going to hear more about Abu Ghraib prison. I want to put things in
context about the politics of what this town has become.
Mr. Speaker, I stand amazed and disappointed in the self-righteous,
politically motivated diatribes coming from the other side about Abu
Ghraib for the last several months. The guilty parties in the Abu
Ghraib prison incidents are currently before the military justice
system. They will be tried and justice will be carried out.
This House, the other body, the President, the Vice President, the
Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Adviser
have all gone on record to express outrage over the abuses at the
prison, as they should have.
But what I find especially appalling is the deafening silence from
the other side following the savage beheadings of American civilians
Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
These cowardly terrorist organizations seek to intimidate our people
through barbaric acts of demonic cruelty on American citizens.
While members on the other side have mentioned Abu Ghraib by name, 45
times since January during recorded debate on the House Floor, only
four times did a Democratic member utter the name Nick or Nicholas
Berg. No Democrat, not one single Democrat, has even mentioned Paul
Johnson, the Lockheed Martin employee kidnapped in Saudi Arabia,
cruelly beheaded, and videotaped for the world to see.
We are a self-policing society. We will punish those who commit
abuses at Abu Ghraib. However, I would expect the Democrats in this
body to express equal outrage over the savage killings of Nick Berg and
Paul Johnson.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to break their silence and end their
indifference to the atrocious acts of cruelty perpetrated on innocent
Americans.
Too many are playing politics with Abu Ghraib, trying to score
political points, while we have 200,000 troops fighting the war on
terror and standing strong for America in the Middle East and Central
Asia.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at what the previous speaker
has just said. What does he mean that no Democrat has expressed any
outrage? Has the gentleman polled every Democrat in the country? Does
he know that no Democrat has expressed outrage over the beheading of
American citizens?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not spoken on
this floor. Not spoken on this floor. Not a word entered into the
Record. I have checked with the Parliamentarian and the Clerk, not one
mention of those names.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I just think that
is an outrageous statement to make, and I do not believe that anybody
in America is going to be impressed by that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule on the
fiscal year 2005 Intelligence Authorization Act. In response to some of
the comments made by our colleagues on the other side, let me just make
this statement: this issue is not about politics; it is about national
security.
Now, it is important in our work here in the House that we put
America first. Equally important is a focus on ensuring that the men
and women protecting us in the intelligence agencies and in the
military have all the support and resources that they need.
I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out
of order, notably the Peterson amendment which would fully fund the
counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the
current bill authorizes less than a third of the additional funds the
intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. This one-
third comes from the contingency emergency reserve fund that the
President asked for on May 12, which is designed to bridge the gap
between the budget request and a supplemental funding request that will
not happen until after the election.
In his May 12 letter to the Speaker, President Bush said, ``I have
pledged to our troops that we will have all the resources they need to
accomplish this vital mission.'' Yet, the intelligence agencies have
told us in hearing after hearing that the current process of funding
counterterrorism operations by supplemental has hampered their ability
to plan and operate. And despite the President's lofty words, we know
that the intelligence troops do not have all of the resources they need
to accomplish the counterterrorism mission.
As a former county executive, I can relate to the agency's need to
plan right to achieve success, and so I am concerned that these
budgeting practices have to stop, for the good of the country and
national security.
I was disappointed that the Republican majority on the Committee on
Rules did not allow this amendment to come to the floor for debate.
This issue needs to be debated. The public needs to know, we need to
know, we need to debate this issue of national security.
If, as administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist
attack this summer, we will all wonder if we could have done more to
protect America. The answer to that question today is yes. For one
thing, we could be debating the Peterson amendment today and finding a
way to get the intelligence agencies the counterterrorism funding that
they need.
I urge the rejection of this rule. It is so important that all of our
intelligence agencies have the resources they need to deal with the
issue of national security.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for allowing me this time to speak.
I do want to begin by giving my great congratulations to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for tremendous service on this
committee and for a tremendous bill which does exactly what this
country's intelligence services need. It is actually a bill which
should have been bipartisan but, for the first time, was not bipartisan
in the committee.
[[Page H4777]]
I think I would like to begin with correcting some of the
misstatements that have been made on the floor. First of all, this bill
fully funds the base amount for every salary paycheck in the
intelligence community. Not one intelligence community employee is
going to go without a paycheck at the end of 3 months. It is just plain
wrong to assert that, and I wanted to correct that.
I also wanted to say that, with regard to the funding of the
contingent emergency reserve, this bill sets forth, I believe, the
proper oversight for this committee. We have budgeted for one-quarter
of the year, authorized for one-quarter of the year in order to give
flexibility to the war on terrorism. This is an opportunity for us to
exercise our oversight and exercise our oversight by giving smaller
slices of the pie so we can control the money, where it is spent and
how it is spent in our oversight authority, rather than giving a slush
fund out there that can be spent without proper control.
We will fully fund the war on terrorism. I am struck by the dichotomy
of each of the previous speakers on the Democratic side who voted
yesterday in support of the Defense Appropriation bill which funds the
war on terrorism to the same numbers that we have in this bill, and
each one of my Democratic colleagues voted ``yes,'' with the exception
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who was absent.
So to stand here and say that you do not believe we are funding the
war on terrorism when you supported the appropriation in the same
amount strikes me as one of politics.
The last thing we want to do is have the intelligence community as a
political wedge in the war on politics. They do not deserve it. This
country does not deserve it. I am concerned that by what we are doing,
by issuing these proclamations about not funding the war on terrorism,
is giving aid and support to those people who are trying to attack this
country.
More fiscal responsibility is certainly in this bill; more oversight
by the Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence is exactly what this bill will do.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis
and Counterintelligence, I wanted to speak briefly about the points
that are dealing with the analysis part of this bill because it is so
critical and so important. This rule and this bill support the goals
that our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expressed
for years, and that is the importance of a well-trained, professional,
and experienced staff.
Like many other components of the intelligence community, analysis is
not a capability that can be developed overnight. It takes years of
investment in people, technology, and training to create analysts
capable of connecting the dots. Today, with this bill, through this
rule, we will have more dots to connect than ever before. We can
collect all we want, but if there is nobody to synthesize, analyze, and
look at this information and deliver the proper and correct message to
our Nation's policymakers, then there is little benefit to this country
by standing here and politicizing this bill and the intelligence
community over what we are doing.
That is why I am pleased to stand here and support the rule, support
this bill, and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on
what I believe to be a very fair and fundamentally correct bill to fund
our intelligence community and to support this country's war on
terrorism.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
The American public, the citizens of America, are looking to us, to
the Congress, to provide oversight over the intelligence community. My
colleague, the gentleman from California, said that our committee has
never been denied a hearing that we wanted. That may be true if one
defines ``hearing'' very broadly. Yes, members of the intelligence
community from the various agencies have come to meet with us; but we
never learned, for example, that Mr. Rumsfeld actually approved ghost
detainees, detainees who would be kept out of the system. We never
really got level answers about the search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. It is a long, long list of things that we have
been denied because we just did not ask exactly the right question.
The debate this morning is not about how many billions of dollars
precisely will be added to the counterterrorism budget; it is whether
they are going to present the budget to us in such a way that it is
impossible for the committee to exercise oversight. That is what is at
issue. By funding these programs through supplemental appropriations
rather than through the normal appropriations process with
authorization oversight, they dodge responsibility. They dodge the
oversight. That is what is at stake here today. That is what this rule
is denying, the American public the oversight that they expect, that
they need for our national security, denying that that will be carried
out by the committee.
So we are talking about a much more fundamental, longer-term issue;
and for that reason, this rule is very flawed and should be opposed.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson); and, I might add, she is the only female
military officer in this body.
{time} 1130
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
North Carolina for the time.
I rise to support this rule today. I have listened to this debate
with some concern because I think there are things being said that just
are not being straight with people. I want to talk about two of them in
particular.
The first has to do with the funding levels that are authorized in
this bill. The truth is here in the Congress, we have an arcane way of
doing things some times. We have an authorizing bill that really sets
the programs and the outlines of the programs that we intend to fund.
But the money, the real money is put in the defense appropriations bill
that we passed overwhelmingly yesterday from this House with what we
call an open rule, which means anyone can come down this floor and move
to change money around or increase counterterrorism funding. If one was
serious about this, that is where the real money was, in the defense
appropriations bill.
So what we hear this morning is more about posturing and politics
than it is about policy. And that is really sad on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that heretofore has been absent that kind of
discussion.
And the second thing I wanted to raise is this issue of vigorous
oversight. I have been an advocate for vigorous oversight in a wide
variety of things. And I have been one of the principal advocates in
the Committee on Armed Services for greater oversight of the Pentagon,
including of Abu Ghraib, and cosponsored an amendment to do so with my
colleague the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
In this Congress, there are some committees that are vigorous about
it and some that are not. I served on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence a couple of Congresses ago, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is one that is. Its members work very hard,
ask tough questions. Many of them are when the cameras are off, and
that is the way it has to be. But I am also particularly pleased at
their openness to non-members of the committee participating in that
process.
I have, from time to time, requested special briefings and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made that possible for
me. No other committee in the House tends to be so open to that on the
part the of non-members.
The structure of this bill encourages the continued vigorous
oversight by the Congress of expenditure in the intelligence world.
This is the kind of bill that we should be proud of as a Congress, as
an example of vigorous oversight of one branch of government over
another. We have to rebuild our intelligence services, particularly
human intelligence and analysis. But this is too important to make a
partisan issue.
After this is all over today, I hope that my colleagues will
reconsider their decision to inject partisanship
[[Page H4778]]
and election year politics into the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. It has always been above that and, for the good of the
Nation, should remain above that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will close. I
urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will
allow the House to vote on a critical amendment that was defeated on a
straight party line vote last night at the Committee on Rules.
The amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would
fully fund the counterterrorism needs of the intelligence community by
increasing by 100 percent the funds authorized in the contingency
emergency reserve. What many Members may not realize is that the
President's budget request covered just a fraction of the intelligence
community's counterterrorism requirements, less than a third. They say
the rest of the funds will be requested only after the November
election.
Well, the Nation's intelligence agencies have indicated that they
need additional funds and the Peterson amendment will make sure that
they receive them now, not after November elections.
Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is not now and has never been a
partisan issue. After 9/11, Republicans and Democrats stood side by
side on the steps of the Capitol united in our effort to root out
terrorists and to keep America safe. It is hard for me to understand
why Republicans would now actively work to keep the House from
adequately funding the counterterrorism efforts.
The intelligence bill has long been considered in this House under an
open rule. Any Member who wished to bring an amendment to the floor
could do so, but last year things began to change. Republicans started
to pass rules that restricted amendments, that allowed them to pick and
choose which amendments could be debated in the floor of the House.
This year they have taken it too far.
The Peterson amendment is far too important not to be considered and
is far too important to be subject to petty partisan games. It deserves
a separate vote here on the floor today.
So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the
previous question. Let me make it very clear that a no vote will not
stop the House from taking up the intelligence bill and will not
prevent any of the amendments made in order from being offered.
However, a yes vote will mean that the House will not have the
opportunity to fully fund the Nation's counterterrorism needs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues in closing
that there is more money in this bill than ever before. There is more
money for counterterrorism than ever before. And whatever is needed
will be provided, as always been the manner of this House and the other
body to do.
I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Goss) because he has always worked in a very bipartisan manner on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which all of us appreciate
greatly, and with his background in intelligence, of course, that has
been extremely important to have him there. We are going to miss him
greatly, both as a chairman and as a long-serving, well respected
Member of Congress from Florida.
So we wish him only the best as he goes on whatever new challenges he
may take on.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this structured rule,
and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs.
Myrick, for yielding me this time.
H. Res. 686 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration
of H.R. 4548, the FY2005 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005. It is
a fair and balanced rule that deserves the support of the House. It
makes in order a total of ten (10) separate amendments to the
underlying bill, three from members of the minority and the remainder
from members of the majority. These ten amendments were more than half
of the 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying measure, H.R.
4548, which authorizes funding for critical intelligence programs for
FY2005.
I want to commend Chairman Goss for bringing this legislation to the
floor. As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for the past eight years, the gentleman from Sanibel,
Florida has served this country with honor, integrity, and distinction.
His tenure has been marked by a tireless effort to improve and reform
our nation's intelligence capabilities. He has never wavered in his
steadfast desire to invest in this critical government function, and
while there is still work to be done, his leadership has helped the
intelligence community deal with a turbulent global environment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 provides the tools necessary for a strong and
effective U.S. intelligence mission as we wage a war against terrorism.
Intelligence efforts serve as the first line of defense against
terrorism and oppression. Without a strong commitment to this effort,
our freedoms and this democracy are vulnerable to the fear and terror
of others.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that the blessings of liberty
afforded to the citizens of this great nation are preserved under any
possible means. By passing H.R. 4548, we are upholding this intention.
As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 686.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 686--Rule on H.R. 4548 Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2005
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Peterson of Minnesota or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
SEC. 105. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO
FULLY FUND THE NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAM.
The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101
for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the elements listed in such section for the
Contingency Emergency Reserve, as specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102, are
increased 100 percent.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________