[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8658-H8662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, 9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 827
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. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence
community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border
security, and international cooperation and coordination, 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 three hours and 40 minutes, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Government Reform; 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on International Relations; 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure;
and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules
Committee Print dated October 4, 2004. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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.
Sec. 2. Upon passage of H.R. 10 and receipt of a message
from the Senate transmitting S. 2845: (a) the House shall be
considered to have: taken from the Speaker's table S. 2845;
stricken all after the enacting clause of such bill and
inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 10, as passed
by the House; passed the Senate bill as so amended; and
insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the
Senate thereon; and (b) the Speaker may appoint conferees on
S. 2845 and the House amendment thereto at any time.
Sec. 3. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order
pending the appointment
[[Page H8659]]
of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time
designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within
two additional legislative days after passage of H.R. 10.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, this is a fair and structured rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.
H. Res. 827 makes in order 23 amendments, including an amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
The rule before the House today will provide for a thorough debate on
this Nation's vision for the reform and improvement of our intelligence
operations. Specifically, this rule provides for 3 hours and 40 minutes
of general debate allocated between the chairman and ranking minority
members of eight separate committees.
H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print dated October 4,
2004 be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and
shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order
against the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of the Committee on Rules print.
H. Res. 827 makes in order only those further amendments which are
printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
The rule provides that amendments made in order 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.
H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against the amendments printed
in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
In addition, this rule provides that upon passage of H.R. 10, the
Senate transmittal of S. 2845, the House shall be considered to have
taken from the Speaker's table S. 2845, stricken all after the enacting
clause of such bill and inserted the provisions of H.R. 10 as passed by
the House.
Finally, the rule provides that House shall be considered to have
passed the Senate bill as so amended, and insisted on its amendment and
requested a conference with the Senate. The Speaker may appoint
conferees on S. 2845 and the House amendment at any time. This
provision provides for the expeditious movement of the bill upon
passage to the next stage of the legislative process, which is a House-
Senate conference.
The rule also provides that the motion to instruct conferees shall be
in order only at a time designated by the Speaker and the legislative
schedule within 2 additional legislative days after the passage of H.R.
10. This provision is intended to protect and ensure the minority's
right to offer a motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years have passed since that beautiful September day
was shattered by terrorists who despise the thought of a Nation that
allows its people the freedom to live and worship as they choose. I
agree with President Bush that ``the terrorists are offended not merely
by our policies, they are offended by our existence as free nations.''
Since that day, our Nation has fought this war on multiple fronts:
diplomatic, financial, investigative, homeland security, humanitarian,
and militarily. We have also committed to improving our intelligence
operations. After the House and Senate passed the Intelligence
Authorization bill last Congress, the President signed the bill into
law, establishing the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the
United States. Its goal was to prepare a complete account of the events
surrounding the September 11 attacks. Recently, the Commission
submitted recommendations to Congress citing the need for reforms of
our intelligence and homeland security systems.
I am pleased that this bipartisan group was able to come through to a
thorough conclusion on what went wrong prior to September 11 and what
must be done to ensure that those heinous acts never occur again.
Proactive steps have already been taken during the month of August
when Congress traditionally recesses to conduct work in our respective
districts across the country, Members were called back to participate
in no less than 20 committee hearings on the Commission's report. I
joined my colleagues in a hearing of the House Select Committee on
Homeland Security where we were able to listen to the testimony of
Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton.
President Bush has outlined a strategy for sweeping reform of our
security and intelligence operations in his continuing efforts to keep
our Nation safe from those who wish to do harm to our citizens. Today,
the House continues its efforts to move forward to make the substantive
changes that will inevitably help better protect the citizens of this
country. The House is committed to doing everything in its power to
enact a plan that reflects the full scope of the Commission's
intelligence and homeland security recommendations.
This wide-ranging bill reforms and integrates our intelligence
capacity by establishing a National Intelligence Director to serve as
the head of the intelligence community, a National Intelligence
Council, and an Intelligence Community Information Technology Officer
to assist in implementation of an integrated information technology
network.
The bill focuses on effective information-sharing, because we know
that prior to September 11, the sharing of intelligence in the Federal
Government was inadequate. This bill ensures the sharing of and access
to information within our intelligence community with a particular
emphasis placed on detection, prevention, and the disruption of
potential terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10 focuses on terrorist prevention by authorizing
Federal officials to target ``lone wolf'' terrorists, targeting money
laundering and terrorist financing, and enhancing airline security
through improved passenger pre-screening, and training all Federal law
enforcement officers with in-flight counterterrorism procedures.
This bill effectively restructures the government by strengthening
the Federal Bureau of Investigation through recruitment and retention,
streamlining our Nation's current security clearance procedures by
eliminating duplicative processes and, finally, improving efficiency by
expediting the processes that direct resources to first responders
where they are most needed.
In addition, in response to the Commission's detailed report on
problems such as border security, information-sharing, and immigration
enforcement, this comprehensive bill tackles these challenging issues
and enhances the reforms that have been put in place since September
11.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule for a bill that is
critical to improving our current security and intelligence operations.
I urge support for the rule and for the underlying measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the last Congress, after great
pressure from the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks
against the United States, this institution took a positive step in
fighting the war on terror by creating the 9/11 Commission. The
Commission was charged with the responsibility to investigate the
reasons why that horrible day happened and to recommend ways to ensure
that it could never happen again.
The Commission, ably chaired by Governor Kean of New Jersey and our
former colleague, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, conducted a truly
nonpartisan,
[[Page H8660]]
exhaustive, and introspective investigation of the events leading up to
September 11, 2001.
{time} 1315
Their report is chilling. It provides ample evidence of missed
opportunities, failures of communication, and the inability of our
intelligence agencies to fully examine and understand the threats
against the United States.
As a result of these failures, the al Qaeda network and Osama bin
Laden have been able to launch attacks against the United States in
Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Yemen in the years leading up to
2001 and, of course, against us on our own shores on September 11,
2001.
The commission on a totally bipartisan basis made 41 recommendations
to the Congress. While not every Member of the House or the Senate
agreed completely with every part of the commission's recommendations,
many in this institution felt that the work of the commission deserved
to be considered in a thoughtful and deliberate way.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leadership of the House has failed to
give these recommendations the serious consideration they deserve. I
must commend the chairman and ranking member who conducted hearings
during the August district work period and into September. Many of
these committees made substantive recommendations. But the text of the
original H.R. 10 and the version of the bill before us today were not
produced in a bipartisan manner; and that does a great disservice to
this body, to the families of the 9/11 victims and to the meaningful
work done by the 9/11 commission.
Unlike the bipartisan work on this issue by the other body, the
process in the House was directed and controlled by the Republican
leadership. Unfortunately, many of the thoughtful suggestions made by
Democratic Members and adopted by their committees were jettisoned from
the bill before us today.
While some of us may ultimately support H.R. 10 in an effort to move
the process forward and in an effort to make the country and the world
a much safer place, there is a deep concern that, on an issue of such
great importance to every American, whether they be a Democrat,
Republican or an Independent, that the House has missed a great
opportunity.
The 108th Congress has been one of many missed opportunities, and it
is a shame that we have to include this important legislation on that
list.
The rule does make in order a substitute amendment to be made in
order by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The Menendez
substitute merges the text of two Senate bills that have been endorsed
by the 9/11 Commission, S. 2845, known as Collins-Lieberman, as
reported from committee; and S. 2774, known as McCain-Lieberman, as
introduced. The substitute more accurately reflects the work of the
commission and should be considered by the House. It is unfortunate
that we will consider H.R. 10 and the Menendez substitute under such a
hurried schedule, but that is a hand that has been dealt to the House
by the Republican leadership.
I am sure that many members of the Democratic Caucus will support the
Menendez substitute. I hope that members of the Republican conference
will do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, time and again we have seen the Republican leadership
purposefully exclude Democrats from the deliberative process. At the
hearing of the Committee on Rules on H.R. 10, I said that the
Republican Party does not hold the lock on national security issues.
National security is about all of us.
I hope that ultimately a bill will be sent to the President that will
provide for the security of our Nation and its people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for time under the rule
is because I do not think there will be enough time during
consideration under general debate and there are a number of points
that I wanted to make.
I have been a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for 6 years, and I am very proud and privileged to serve
on that committee and have served on the committee when 9/11 occurred
and obviously since that time. I want to just state for the record the
things that we have done as a Congress and also what the administration
has done long before a 9/11 Commission was ever created and long before
a 9/11 Commission put out a report.
We created a homeland security agency that put together 22 agencies
at a cost of $40 billion. These agencies are now working together,
communicating and cooperating together. We created a TSA agency for
every major airport in this country to screen passengers and screen
bags at a cost of about $5.2 billion. We gave the airline industry $4.6
billion to secure cockpits and to make sure that the airline industry
was able to survive after 9/11. We passed here on this floor in this
Congress the PATRIOT Act which allows law enforcement people to
communicate with each other, allows law enforcement people to arrest
people in Buffalo, New York and Portland, Oregon trained by al Qaeda
with no other purpose in mind but to hurt Americans.
The PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement people to surveil people and
surveil people's cell phones and look into people's bank accounts, all
provisions that did not exist before 9/11. We created that opportunity.
We gave to New York between $20 billion and $40 billion to compensate
the families and to compensate New York for the work that was done to
clean up the Twin Towers area.
We authorized and now there are being recruited 1,000 new CIA agents,
and we authorized and there are now being recruited 1,000 new FBI
agents. We created TTIC, which is a terrorism task force within the CIA
that works very closely and now is analyzing information, and there is
a great deal of coordination and cooperation going on.
We created the JTTFs in every major city where all law enforcement
and prosecutors are sitting together every day talking to one another
and doing good work. The FBI has been reorganized under Director
Mueller, and he deserves a great deal of credit for reorganizing the
FBI with one goal in mind: to go after the terrorists and to really
make an effort in every office in the FBI to communicate directly with
local law enforcement people.
We invaded Afghanistan. We dismantled al Qaeda at a cost of about $18
billion, an enormous cost, but we have dismantled al Qaeda. We have
invaded Iraq. We have brought down Saddam Hussein's regime. But the
bottom line in all of this is we have not been attacked for 3 years,
and we have not been attacked because we have done a lot of good in
this Congress. And the lion's share of the credit goes to this
administration, to President Bush and his team, and this Congress for
the work we have done to secure America, to go after the terrorists, to
dismantle al Qaeda. And it has cost us enormous amounts of money, but
we have not been attacked for 3 years.
All of this was done prior to the 9/11 Commission and prior to any
kind of report being put out.
Now to the bill. This bill was cobbled together by a small group of
people with little or no real help from those of us on the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence or any other committee. It creates a
so-called intelligence czar, and it creates what people have been
criticizing around here for a long time, another bureaucracy. It not
only creates another national intelligence czar, but it also creates
eight or nine additional people. It creates a whole new bureaucracy.
The criticism has been that there was too much bureaucracy. There
were too many stovepipes. There were too many people who were not
communicating or cooperating with one another.
My point is this: We do not need another bureaucracy. We do not need
another person. There are plenty of people that are communicating and
cooperating, and the proof of that is all of the things that we have
put in place and that the Bush administration has done. They deserve
the credit, and we deserve the credit. And we should be
[[Page H8661]]
talking around here about the things that the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and other committees have done and that we as
a Congress have done to secure America, to go after al Qaeda, to take
the war on terror to the terrorists. We have done a lot of good work
around here.
Now this idea that the report comes out and it is sacrosanct and it
is the end all and be all, I think, is not accurate. And to put another
layer of bureaucracy without consulting the communities, without
consulting the CIA, without consulting those people that are involved
in this on a day-to-day basis I think is wrong.
I will vote against the bill, and I hope Members will look carefully
at it.
I appreciate very much the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for
giving me the chance to have an opportunity to sound off on these
things.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this rule does accommodate the request of
the minority leadership to make in order the Menendez amendment. It
allows 60 minutes in order for debate on that amendment. However, the
text of H.R. 10, which we will consider under the rule, undercuts
bipartisan efforts to strengthen the intelligence portions of the bill
which were adopted in the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
My amendment offered in committee to establish an independent privacy
and civil liberties board passed our committee by a vote of 16 to 3. A
second amendment offered by a member of the majority, the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), to give the National Intelligence director
stronger authority to transfer and reprogram money passed in our
committee by a vote of 12 to 7.
A third offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to
prevent the executive branch from reorganizing the intelligence
community without Congress's input passed by voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is as if these amendments were written in
disappearing ink. Not one of them made it into the bill that was
considered and reported by the Committee on Rules. Not one.
Our new Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), is trying to restore our
committee's long-standing bipartisan tradition which had come apart in
recent months. He supported two of these amendments, but his leadership
prevented them from becoming part of the base bill. Why?
Fortunately, our amendments are included in S. 2845, the Collins-
Lieberman-McCain bill which is the substance of the Menendez amendment
in the nature of a substitute. This is one of the reasons I strongly
support the Menendez amendment which we will discuss later this
afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should have accommodated bipartisan efforts by
the committee of primary jurisdiction in this House. The actions by the
Speaker and the Committee on Rules to strip bipartisan provisions of
H.R. 10 are a sorry way to start this historic debate. I will vote
``no'' on the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
I rise in support of the rule and the bill that the rule brings to
the floor later today.
Mr. Speaker, on a day like today a lot of Members will get up here
and make political arguments and try to score political points. I trust
that the public will see through all of that.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has said, and I think so,
well, since 9/11 we have taken a number of very important steps in this
body on a bipartisan basis. There are a lot of things that we have
done. Perhaps that is one reason why the 9/11 report itself says very
clearly we are safer today than we were 3 years ago. But it continues
on to say, but we are not safe.
It is that last part that brings us here today. I know that we are
all grateful that the 9/11 Commission did not give in to the finger-
pointing that we have heard so much of in the months leading up to its
creation. But what the commission does make very clear, I think what
the public understands instinctively is that for too many years a storm
was growing in the terrorist world while too many of our leaders just
turned and looked away.
The question that we will answer over the next 2 days is, Will we
look away once again? Will our successors 10 years from now, 15 years
from now or more, will they look back and say that this Congress failed
to act when we could have, when we should have, even when the signs of
danger were unmistakable? Just as unmistakable in my view is what we
need to do, and that is what the underlying bill is about.
This legislation that we will take up today contains steps that will
make us stronger, better, smarter, reforming our intelligence;
destroying the lines of material support that make a terrorist
operation possible; giving our officials from the Pentagon to our first
responders the tools that they need to disrupt terrorists plans.
There will be some good debate today, and there will be some foolish
debate today. Some apparently are more interested in who gets the
credit instead of what gets done, but the bottom line is simple. This
time under our watch we must not look away. We cannot look away.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge
them to support this rule so that we can get to the debate on the
underlying bill.
I urge passage of this underlying bill as quickly as we can. It will
offer important tools. It will help this Nation be safe once again.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the remarks of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who I have the highest respect
for, but I think it would be a great mistake to lead the American
people to believe that we have done all we should be doing to secure
the homeland.
If you look at our record, though you may claim America is safer, it
is far from as safe as it might be in light of the threats we face.
One year after 9/11, bin Laden on his Web site said his goal is to
kill 4 million Americans. The greatest threat we face today is a
nuclear bomb brought into one of our major cities by terrorists.
{time} 1330
In the 2 years before 9/11, we did more to secure loose nukes than we
did in the 2 years after 9/11. Three years after 9/11, we still do not
have a unified, accessible terrorist watch list.
We just read in the paper the other day that 120,000 hours of
untranslated wiretap intercepts are at the FBI. We know that 20,000
illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico were caught and
released last year into our country because we did not fund the
detention space to hold them.
We know that our administration says we need anthrax vaccines to
vaccinate 25 million Americans in the event of an anthrax attack, and
today, in our stockpile, we have enough vaccine to vaccinate 500
people.
I submit to my colleagues that the increased spending on homeland
security has not been near what it should be. The other night, during
the presidential debate, when John Kerry enumerated some of these
shortcomings, President Bush had an interesting response. He said,
well, that is going to cost a lot of money, and we have a big tax gap.
It shows us where the priorities have been in the administration.
Last fiscal year, our appropriations for homeland security were $20
billion more than they were in the year before 9/11, $20 billion. The
tax cuts last fiscal year benefiting the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans was four times that. I say we have made the wrong choices. We
have had the wrong priorities, and we should be focusing on the real
threat to the security of the American people, al Qaeda.
We increased homeland security appropriations this year in the bill
we just approved a few minutes ago by $1 billion. It sounds like a lot
of money. We spend $1 billion every week in Iraq. It is time to take
the real threat of al Qaeda and bin Laden seriously to protect this
country to be sure we are safe from terrorist attacks.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have another request for time; although
the
[[Page H8662]]
speaker is not here on the floor at this moment. I think he will be
here shortly. I would ask, does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
have any other speakers?
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean is quoted today calling the bill
the other body passed 96-2 a dream. If the other body's bill is a
dream, I guess H.R. 10 is his nightmare.
There are many of us with grave concerns with the underlying bill,
H.R. 10. Analysis of the bill shows it only implements 10 of the 41
recommendations, while tacking on an additional 50. In due time we will
have a chance to debate this.
More importantly, the Rules Committee has also made in order a
substitute amendment. While the name has changed, it is the same exact
substance of the Shays/Maloney substitute. This will allow us the
opportunity to have a fair debate. An opportunity to pass a clean bill
with bipartisan support.
I will note that the Rules Committee did miss an opportunity to make
this truly a bipartisan effort and I remind everyone that the American
people do not want a partisan debate on their security. Both parties
need to work together and pass this substitute.
This is what the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Family Steering
Committee has been fighting for.
Over the last weeks they have been unwavering in their support for a
fair debate and have fought for an up or down vote on clean
legislation.
Today they have scored another improbable victory.
They were told by the House leadership--the same people that fought
the creation and extension of the 9/11 commission--that the House would
never have this opportunity. The families and commission refused to
listen and once again fought for change.
They told us they want us to work in a bipartisan way.
I thank them for always keeping this House on task and I hope, with
today's substitute, we can do just that.
By allowing a substitute, this House will have the opportunity to
vote up or down legislation that takes provisions from both the
Collins/Lieberman and the McCain/Lieberman bills.
This is the same legislation, H.R. 5223, Congressman Shays and I have
introduced in the House and both have the support of our bipartisan 9/
11 Commission Caucus.
This substitute takes Title One of the Collins/Lieberman Bill which
creates a National Intelligence Director and a National Center for
Counter Terrorism. For Titles two through nine, it uses the language of
the McCain/Lieberman bill.
This combination would allow the House to debate a bill similar to
the bill that passed the other body 96-2, a bill that enacts the
provisions of the 9/11 Commission without any add-ons. This is a bill
we could have on the President's desk before we leave town.
I ask Members to support this rule, but I urge them to support the
substitute.
This is the option the 9/11 Families and the 9/11 Commission have
fought for. It would be a shame if this House does not take this
opportunity to work together and pass this substitute.
The American people want this Congress to work in a bipartisan way to
enact the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Today we will have that
opportunity by supporting the substitute.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, then I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________