[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26582-26584]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2001 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, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) will 
suspend temporarily while we consult with the minority.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2001 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, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``Sec. 501. 
     Contracting authority for the National Reconnaissance 
     Office.''
       Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``502'' and 
     insert ``501''.
       Page 3, in the table of contents, strike out ``503'' and 
     insert ``502''.
       Page 48, strike out lines 4 through 16.
       Page 48, line 17, strike out ``502'' and insert ``501''.
       Page 49, line 7, strike out ``503'' and insert ``502''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) so he might explain more fully 
how the legislation covered by his unanimous consent request differs 
from the bill sent to the Senate on November 13, 2000.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. I 
am very happy to explain to her why on December 11 the House is again 
considering the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  As Members will recall, the President vetoed an earlier version of 
the legislation on November 4. In doing so, the President indicated 
that his objections were limited to a single section of the bill, the 
so-called ``leaks provision,'' and he asked Congress to return the same 
bill to him with the ``leaks provision'' deleted.
  It had been my hope to do exactly that. In fact, the day the veto 
message was received by the House, Mr. Dixon, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), and I introduced H.R. 5630, a bill identical to 
the previous conference report, save for the leaks provision, which was 
removed in its entirety.
  The same day the House passed H.R. 5630 and sent it to the Senate for 
what I had hoped would be speedy consideration, passage, and 
transmittal to the President for his signature.
  I am deeply disappointed that this is not exactly what transpired. 
The other body did last week pass H.R. 5630, but in doing so removed an 
additional provision. That provision, which was agreed to in our House-
Senate conference and approved by the full House and Senate, was 
designed to improve the performance of the National Reconnaissance 
Office's launch program, and to save millions of taxpayers' dollars in 
the process.
  I hope we will have a chance to hear from our colleague, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the author of the NRO 
language in just a moment. But I want to register my disappointment 
with the process.
  In reviewing the record of debate in the other body, there is no 
rationale given for striking the provision about the National 
Reconnaissance Office, and it appears to me to be an unjustified and 
inexplicable action. Under normal circumstances, therefore, I would

[[Page 26583]]

absolutely refuse to agree to this amendment.
  However as a practical matter, there is no real possibility of 
convening a second conference committee to resolve this problem before 
time runs out on the 106th Congress. Therefore, noting that the 
remaining parts of this legislation are still vital to the U.S. 
intelligence community and will contribute to improving our national 
security, I am reluctantly asking the House to pass H.R. 5630, which 
will, finally, send this bill to the President for his signature.
  Still, I recognize much time and hard work went into developing the 
National Reconnaissance Office launch provision, and I do not want to 
see that work go to waste. I am pledging to the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) and other Members that I am planning to make NRO launch 
issues, including all aspects of Air Force support for this activity, a 
top priority for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 
107th Congress.
  Ms. PELOSI. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about the National Reconnaissance Office 
contracting issue, but I want to make it clear that nonetheless, the 
House should pass the bill, as modified by the Senate.
  The original conference report included a House provision that would 
require the National Reconnaissance Office to contract for satellite 
launch vehicles separately from the Air Force. The committee's action 
was based on a substantial review of several expensive launch failures 
involving the loss of very valuable intelligence satellites, as well as 
Inspector General reports describing significant problems in the NRO's 
relationship with the Air Force.
  I believe that the remedy that was fashioned by my subcommittee 
chairman and my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
was reasonable and would be effective.
  The conferees debated this matter, and there were votes taken. The 
House position prevailed. It is more than a little galling that the 
Senate committee would undo that agreement by exploiting the procedural 
and time constraints that were imposed by the President's veto of the 
original conference report over a completely unrelated matter.
  I fully appreciate and share the sense of wrong that is conveyed here 
today. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary to accept the bill now in 
the form in which it has been returned to us by the Senate because of 
the overriding importance of enacting an intelligence authorization 
measure.
  The overall benefits to the Nation's security outweigh, in my 
opinion, the loss of this particular provision. Instead, the committee 
should plan to take this issue up again next year as the chairman, (the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), indicated, and I would pledge to 
work with and support the efforts of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) to correct the serious underlying problems in managing the 
launch of our critical intelligence satellites.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, as 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has indicated, the President 
vetoed an earlier version of this bill because it contained a provision 
that would have further criminalized the intentional disclosure of 
classified information.
  In my view, the notion that this so-called ``leaks provision'' was 
carefully crafted and targeted with laser-like precision on a small 
hole in the criminal code is simply wrong. I believe the provision had 
the potential to do great harm to civil liberties. I did not sign the 
intelligence authorization conference report because it contained the 
leaks provision.
  I believe the President was right to veto the measure over this 
matter. In fact, I commend him for doing that.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and our late distinguished 
colleague and friend, Julian Dixon, are to be commended for introducing 
a new bill which does not contain the leaks provision. I am pleased 
that the actions taken by the Senate on that bill, which is now before 
the House, did not attempt to add new language on the leaks issue. As 
the distinguished chairman said, it is entirely out of the bill.
  Unauthorized disclosures of classified information can damage 
national security, and that type of conduct should have consequences. 
Administrative and criminal sanctions are available currently. The 
vetoed leaks provision, however, would have placed the full force of 
Federal criminal law behind a classification system which is based not 
in statute but in executive order, and therefore, it is changeable at 
the sole discretion of the President. That would have been a serious 
mistake, so I am very pleased on that aspect of the bill.
  I also want to associate myself with the comments of our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), 
concerning the provision in the bill of the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle), and look forward to working with him in the next 
Congress.
  It is just a strange way that the Congress operates that a provision 
that could pass the conference committee could be yanked from the bill 
in the manner it was. I am, however, prepared to accept the decision of 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on how best to deal with the 
changes on the National Reconnaissance Office contracting matter made 
by the Senate, although this issue was fully debated and I believe 
resolved by the conferees in October.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore Mr. Dixon's remarks on 
November 13 when this bill was considered by the House, that the 
statement of managers on the vetoed conference report should be 
regarded as the expression of the intent of Congress on how the 
intelligence programs and activities authorized for fiscal year 2001 
are to be conducted.
  In referencing Mr. Dixon's remarks, of course, we cannot ignore the 
fact that our dear colleague is now lying in state. We take every 
opportunity we can to recognize his tremendous service to this 
Congress, to this country, and indeed, to this committee. One very high 
profile challenge we had in this committee was dealing with the labs, 
and Mr. Dixon was always the voice of reason and balance and fairness 
in those deliberations, and in fact, in every deliberation he was ever 
a part of.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the 
Committee, in a brief colloquy.
  I would like to thank first of all the chairman for the wonderful job 
with this year's intelligence authorization legislation. I congratulate 
him for it. Obviously, we congratulate Mr. Dixon for it, but his loss 
is immeasurable to this Congress, as so many people have said. It is 
sad he cannot be here today.
  I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. As the chairman knows, I strongly 
support the overall bill, but have withheld my final support because of 
what I view as an egregious action by the chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee and perhaps others.
  As Members are well aware, we worked hard to address the needed 
reforms to our satellite launch program, as over the last almost 2 
years six rocket launch failures have destroyed or made ineffective 
important military communications and intelligence satellites, risking 
the national security of the United States and costing taxpayers over 
$3 billion.
  Our provision, approved by the House and Senate conferees and passed 
by both Houses of Congress, would have ensured more accountability for 
the launch program of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air 
Force, promoting better acquisition practices.
  A series of meetings, hearings, and briefings on the severity of 
these problems, with the help of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Sanford), has made it obvious that our failures and problems were 
rooted in the morass of contracts used in the launch program and

[[Page 26584]]

exacerbated by a tangle of bureaucratic turf concerns.
  The Senate's refusal to acknowledge that these reforms are needed is 
shortsighted and risk more problems in the satellite launch program. 
Unfortunately, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not see fit to 
include this provision. It stripped the measure out without debate or 
justification.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is it his understanding that the 
National Reconnaissance Office provision would greatly help streamline 
the satellite launch process, and that the Senate's refusal to 
acknowledge that these reforms are needed is short-sighted and risks 
more problems in our satellite launch program?

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, as I stated in 
conference, as I stated earlier, and as I would state again, I believe 
the provisions would have improved greatly the management and 
performance of the NRO's launch program. I, too, am extremely 
disappointed in the Senate's action, which I also concur is 
shortsighted.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss). I am glad we agree on this. As the gentleman from Florida is 
aware, while I am disappointed in the Senate's action on this, I have 
agreed to let this bill pass today and move the process forward.
  Mr. Speaker, can we agree that the committee will, early next year, 
begin to look into this matter more closely with the National 
Reconnaissance Office so that we can place good reforms into our launch 
program and pursue what is best for our national security, let alone 
our taxpayers' best interests?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware has my commitment 
that, early in the 107th Congress, the committee will study and draft 
such reforms based upon the good work of the gentleman from Delaware, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and others on the committee, 
which have been reflected in the bill. In fact, we have already done 
this. We have passed it, as the gentleman has said, both in the House 
and the Senate. I think we had good product, I think we had good 
process, and I am sorry we find ourselves in this predicament.
  However, I think the best resolution, as has been outlined, is to go 
forward with the vital bill. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
has my commitment that we will go back, and perhaps we can improve even 
more on the improvements the gentleman has already recommended to us.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I also 
would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who spoke in favor of this, too. 
It is a shame we cannot get it done this year, but we do have to move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________