[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18914-18938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 252

       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. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2002 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. Points of 
     order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 3(c) of rule XIII 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 by title rather than by section. Each title shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply 
     with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     or rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. 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.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), my friend and colleague on Committee on Rules, pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of 
this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only on 
this matter, as is customary.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly traditional rule for this type of 
legislation.

[[Page 18915]]

As far as I know, it is not controversial in any way. Given the 
September 11 terrorist attacks, some may have wondered why we might not 
have responded with a closed rule on intelligence on a hurry-up basis, 
which would have precluded the opportunity for a lot of extensive 
deliberation under the extraordinary circumstances of the moment, as we 
all recall them, tragically.
  But on the contrary, we felt that in these tumultuous times, we 
thought it best to allow Members the opportunity to fully review the 
bill and debate the issues that they feel are important to our Nation's 
security. Each of us, I know, feels that responsibility very strongly.
  Therefore, as in past years, the rule is a modified open rule 
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill, which shall be considered by title 
as read.
  In addition, based on consultation with the Parliamentarian, the rule 
waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to 
comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule. It also waives 
points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
with clause 3(C) of rule XIII (requiring the inclusion of a statement 
of general performance goals and objectives.)
  The rule further provides for the consideration of only pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate and those amendments printed in 
the Congressional Record prior to their consideration, which may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, 
and shall be considered as read.
  This has allowed for vetting of amendments regarding classified 
matters in years past, and proved to be a good practice, actually. 
Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair rule and the 
underlying legislation, as well. This is late in the year to bring this 
bill to the House floor, but obviously the timing has been dictated by 
forces well beyond the control of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence: We have a new administration, a comprehensive defense and 
intelligence review ongoing, the delayed arrival of the budget request, 
and of course, the tragic consequences of September 11, to name just a 
few.
  If there is a silver lining here, it is that in marking up this bill, 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has addressed many of 
the immediate and critical intelligence needs in the wake of the 
September 11 attacks on the United States.
  In the upcoming general debate, no doubt we will discuss many of the 
specific provisions in H.R. 2883 in some detail. That is the 
intelligence authorization bill. But I would like to highlight a few of 
the ways that this legislation seeks to tackle both critical 
counterterrorism challenges, as well as long-term problems facing the 
intelligence community in the United States in the 21st century.
  To combat terrorism, the intelligence authorization increases 
investments for the FBI's counterterrorism efforts, increases funding 
for language training, promotes a more focused analytical effort 
against the terrorist target, and it calls for a more aggressive 
approach to learning the plans and intentions of terrorists through 
human intelligence.
  The war on terrorism will be won through the acquisition of specific, 
accurate, and timely intelligence. The Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has stepped up to provide the President, the State 
Department, the Department of Defense, and President Bush's national 
security team with the intelligence tools they will need to win this 
war. That is one of the strong reasons I urge support for this 
legislation.
  However, we have also addressed the long-term needs of the 
intelligence community, making specific changes today to avoid serious 
problems in the years to come. H.R. 2883 provides the resources to 
continue rebuilding our human intelligence capabilities; promotes 
investment in new technologies for intelligence collection, processing, 
and analysis; and it provides the committee's view on where future bold 
changes need to be made in the basic structure of the U.S. intelligence 
establishment.
  I believe it is a very good bill. I think it is a fine rule. I 
encourage support for both the bill and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct, pleasure and honor to serve with the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on both the Committee on Rules 
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002, House Resolution 252. This is a modified open rule 
requiring that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. 
However, Mr. Speaker, the preprinting requirement has been the accepted 
practice for a number of years because of the sensitive nature of much 
of the bill and the need to protect its classified documents.
  The bill is not controversial and was reported from the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence by a unanimous vote. I underscore that 
in these times, since the events of September 11. The Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence is fully mindful of the extraordinary pain 
suffered by the victims and all of us in America as it pertains to 
those events. Thus, this year, this bill becomes as important as at any 
time in America's history.
  Members who wish to do so can go to the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence offices to examine the classified schedule of 
authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of the national intelligence program, 
which includes the CIA as well as the foreign intelligence and 
counterintelligence programs within, among others, the Department of 
Defense; the National Security Agency; the Departments of State, 
Treasury, and Energy; and the FBI.
  Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for 
the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities and Joint Military 
Intelligence Program of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the House considered and passed the 
authorization for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. The 
intelligence bill we consider today is another critical component in 
our national defense. Today, as I indicated earlier, more than ever we 
need to be vigilant about the myriad threats to our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, while there may be debate on a few worthy amendments, 
this is a noncontroversial bill providing authorizations for important 
national security programs. I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of serendipity that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I both do serve on the Committee on Rules 
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And that is not by 
design, but it is a great pleasure to work with my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, I want to rise in support of the rule. I agree with the 
two previous speakers, that this is a good rule and generally a very 
good bill. I want to compliment, in particular, the chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), for the hard work that he has been doing to

[[Page 18916]]

really improve the intelligence-gathering capability of our country.
  The bill that we are going to consider today is a bill that has been 
fashioned by his hand and after long hours of work. I think it is an 
extraordinary bill that really reflects meeting the needs of the 
intelligence community for America.
  One other purpose for rising, not only to support the rule, is to 
alert the House to my intention to offer an amendment to strike a 
section of the bill, section 306, a provision that creates a 
``Commission on Preparedness and Performance of the Federal Government 
for the September 11 Acts of Terrorism.''
  America has responded to terrorism attacks of September 11 with 
determination, compassion, and a resounding unity of purpose: the 
defeat of international terrorism. To achieve this goal, Congress and 
the administration are working to strengthen our defense intelligence 
capability.
  Our diplomats are building an international coalition to fight al 
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and we are seeking ways to 
bolster first responders, such as our dedicated police officers, fire 
officials, firefighters, and paramedics, who will have to deal with the 
aftermath of any future attacks. These are all positive, necessary, and 
forward-looking actions.
  It is my fear, though, that investing time and effort and money on a 
commission designed to assign blame will be a giant step backwards. 
There have been at least three high-profile commissions as recently as 
a year ago on terrorism and homeland defense.
  The problems that existed prior to September 11 have been well 
documented, and the solutions outlined in great detail. I do not 
believe that any other high-profile commission would add anything new 
to our understanding of the problems or the solutions. We know what the 
problems are, and we also know the solutions.
  To compound the problem, the commission structure is flawed. It has 
an agenda based on calling high profile people from the intelligence 
community with great understanding before a group of people who have 
little understanding of the intelligence community. I believe this sets 
up potential conflicts that could do further damage to our ability to 
gather intelligence about terrorists and disrupt their activities.
  This is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because we have a lot of 
information and we do not need a new commission. I hope that the 
Members of the House, after they hear the debate on my amendment, will 
support it and strike this provision.
  We already possess the expertise and the authority to look at the 
lessons learned from September 11. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker 
Hastert) and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), have taken the right action when they designated the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), to 
coordinate congressional review of terrorist threats.
  The subcommittee has the expertise, the staff, and the ability to 
review both classified and unclassified material, and the authority 
through Congress to do the job. If we want to look back, if we want to 
really analyze and examine, that is the subcommittee, that is the 
jurisdiction that has the responsibility for doing this, not some kind 
of an ad hoc commission with little or no expertise.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I will offer. 
This is a good rule. I support the rule. This is a good bill. It is a 
bill that, again, has been fashioned by one of the most distinguished 
Members of the House, the chairman of our Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence; and I applaud him for that. I hope consideration will be 
given to my amendment. I thank the chairman for his consideration of my 
remarks.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the 
rule. We have worked together to put together a bill which had 
consensus under the leadership of our chairman, our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  I think we should just move on to that debate about the bill and 
about the commission and other considerations; but the rule is a rule 
that is appropriate for this intelligence bill. It is in keeping with 
past rules on the intelligence bills which were designed to protect 
classified information, but to give every Member an opportunity to see 
the classified part of the bill, although that is not part of the rule, 
but to have their amendments printed in the Record in advance to 
protect classified information.
  I do not want to take any more time. It is Friday. We want to move on 
to a full discussion of the bill and to general debate. I urge our 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, America's soft underbelly was shown on 
September 11. Now is the time to get down to business. I believe the 
CIA and the FBI have been not only negligent; but, by God, I do not 
think we have much of an intelligence program.
  That is no slight or offense to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), or our 
intelligence apparatus here in the House. I believe the editorial that 
says that Mr. Tenet should step down is absolutely correct.
  My amendment today deals with an issue that has been controversial, 
to say the least. Mr. Speaker, we have one border patrol agent for 
every two miles of border, and that does not include the Canadian 
border. My God, a guerrilla force could cross our border with a nuclear 
device and kill millions of Americans; and we have taken it lightly.
  I think Congress had better take a close look at the national 
security checkpoint of the United States, which is our border, and take 
a look. A lot of people, I believe, are on the payroll who are not 
doing their jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
252 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2883.

                              {time}  0928


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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 Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me thank the members of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, each and every one of them, 
both sides of

[[Page 18917]]

the aisle, for their very hard work, especially over the past 3 weeks, 
which have been extremely trying for all of us and certainly for our 
committee. The hard work in the last 3 weeks have allowed us to get to 
this point where we have, I think, an excellent piece of authorization 
legislation to bring to the House.
  Mr. Chairman, we will hear from many of our Members over the next 
hour. I would especially like to thank our ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for extraordinary efforts in 
ensuring that our thorough review of the President's budget put the 
good of the Nation first in a manner that has been truly bipartisan 
and, perhaps more appropriately, we should say nonbipartisan.
  There are many other people to thank, of course, including our 
amazing staff, and we will get to that by and by.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is part of our normal annual 
authorization by which by law must be passed in order for the 
intelligence community to spend appropriated dollars. But the setting 
in which we find ourselves today as we debate the bill is hardly 
normal.
  Over the debate, we surely will hear several references to the 
infamous events of September 11 and the efforts to handle these and 
other types of threats to Americans at home and abroad. There is no way 
to overemphasize the importance of the demoniacal acts we witnessed. 
They do bear tragic witness to how the world has changed and how 
critical it is to have knowledge about our surroundings, about those 
who have made it their life's quest to destroy American freedoms, 
rights and values. That knowledge comes from intelligence, pure and 
simple and we have to have it.
  No one can seriously doubt that we need the best possible 
intelligence to prosper and be safe at home and abroad in today's 
world. There are some who believe that the September 11 terrorist acts 
were successful because of, quote, ``intelligence failures.'' I will 
certainly agree there are intelligence community shortcomings, that 
must be reviewed and fixed. That is what we do.
  What went wrong relative to September 11 goes well beyond the 
intelligence community however. Moreover, those who have complaints 
often do not understand what threats we actually face today, what 
capabilities we really do have and do not have, and, more importantly, 
what vital distinctions exist between intelligence and law enforcement 
and how we cope with those distinctions.
  The intelligence community operates overseas and cannot arrest 
anyone. Law enforcement is domestic and does not do spying; and somehow 
we have to have a good marriage of the two. If we look back over the 
past 6 years worth of our authorizations, we will see that the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have consistently 
highlighted shortfalls and concerns calling on the administration to 
take action so that risks to our security could be reduced, not removed 
but reduced.
  Certainly our committee was stunned and deeply saddened by the events 
of September 11 as we all were. We were aware homeland America was 
vulnerable to terrorist attack of some type from some quarter, and we 
were and are aware of limitations of our intelligence system to provide 
specifics or better early warning or 100 percent guarantees.
  This bill again addresses ways to overcome some of those limitations. 
The solutions that get us the intelligence community that we need to 
protect our future must be new and it must be innovative. This bill 
starts us on that course while sending I think a good message to the 
administration about how to do it. We are working closely with the 
administration to translate these ideas into real capabilities which 
will protect Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and rise in support of H.R. 2883.
  At the outset I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), our distinguished chairman, for the manner in which 
he conducted the committee's business. His willingness to be sensitive 
to the views of committee Democrats and to ensure they are reflected in 
the work of the committee is much appreciated. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill was prepared in the aftermath of the horrific 
events of September 11, but it is not a comprehensive response to them. 
Some additional resources in areas where these events demonstrated an 
obvious need are provided, but it will take more time and more facts 
before we can, or should, go further. At this point one thing is clear. 
We did not know about the plans of the terrorists who attacked our 
country with sufficient specificity to prevent those attacks. What is 
not clear is why.
  In the weeks ahead much time will be devoted in the intelligence 
community and elsewhere in trying to determine why we did not know, 
but, more especially, to prevent anything like this from happening 
again.
  Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the men and women who 
serve in our national security agencies, whether they be diplomats, 
military personnel, intelligence officers, law enforcement officials or 
those who protect our borders and our skies. They perform with great 
courage and dedication under conditions which are routinely challenging 
and frequently dangerous, and they have had much successes combatting 
terrorism. They just cannot talk about their successes.
  As the events of September 11 demonstrate, however, more needs to be 
done. Determining the best steps to take to lessen the chances that 
last month's events could be repeated will require critical and 
innovative thinking. I am hopeful that the independent commission 
established by Section 306 of the bill will play a constructive role in 
that regard.
  For intelligence needs generally the bill provides several billion 
dollars more than appropriated last year and several hundred million 
dollars more than requested by the President for fiscal year 2002. It 
continues several initiatives begun earlier, among them an effort to 
ensure that the technologically complex and expensive information 
collection systems that have been developed are paired with effective 
systems to process, exploit and disseminate intelligence to those who 
need it to make decisions or to take actions.
  There is currently an imbalance between collection and processing, 
exploitation and dissemination that, if not addressed, will greatly 
lessen the value of some extremely capable collection systems.
  To be effective, our human intelligence officers need to have a 
better grounding in the languages and cultures of the regions where 
difficult targets, like terrorists, are most comfortable. A much 
greater emphasis needs to be placed on recruiting and maintaining a 
workforce with diverse skills, backgrounds and ethnicity. This is an 
area in which the intelligence community as not been as aggressive as I 
would like. I hope for measurable improvement in the future with the 
encouragement and resources provided by the bill.
  There have been suggestions in recent years that an insufficient 
emphasis has been placed on human intelligence. That has certainly not 
been true with respect to the work of this committee. Funds have been 
consistently provided above those requested for this intelligence 
discipline, and the committee has sought to ensure that the added funds 
were used exclusively to enhance the performance of clandestine 
collectors in the field.
  Human intelligence was once again the focus of our work this year, 
and that would have been true even if the events of September 11 had 
not occurred.
  There have been concerns that case officers have been discouraged 
from taking the risks necessary to recruit assets with access to 
important information, particularly in areas like narcotics 
trafficking, weapons proliferation and terrorism.
  Attention has centered on guidelines promulgated in the CIA in 1995 
which

[[Page 18918]]

require headquarters-level approval before an individual with a record 
of human rights abuses or violations of U.S. criminal law may be 
recruited. These guidelines were intended to protect officers in the 
field from charges that they had committed the United States to a 
relationship with unsavory individuals without adequate consideration. 
Despite repeated assurances from senior CIA officials that these 
guidelines had not had a negative impact on the quality or quantity of 
assets, it has become clear that the perception that the opposite was 
true has taken root.
  Section 403 of the bill deals with that perception by directing the 
guidelines be rescinded. It is very important, however, that there be 
some rules in this area, not because anyone is so naive as to believe 
that we can get more information about the plans of drug traffickers or 
terrorists without associating with individuals involved in those 
activities, but because decisions about committing the United States to 
those kinds of associations are too important to be made exclusively by 
relatively junior officers in the field.
  They should be made, instead, by senior managers better able by 
virtue of their experience and their access to reporting from a wide 
variety of sources, to weigh the potential value of the information to 
be provided by a possible recruit against the potential harm to the 
United States should the fact of our association with that person 
become known.
  That kind of risk versus gain analysis is essential if human 
intelligence activities are to be seen as consistent, rather than at 
odds with, U.S. policy and values.
  Section 402, besides rescinding the current guidelines, directs that 
new guidelines be established. It is my expectation these new 
guidelines will streamline the approval process without weakening the 
protections that process is meant to provide. I especially want to 
commend our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for 
his leadership in this area and his willingness to reach consensus with 
us on it. I think the language of this bill is an improvement on the 
past and I thank him for his leadership and his cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, intelligence is a risky, dangerous and expensive 
undertaking. It is also crucial to our security as a Nation. I urge the 
adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of 
one of our subcommittees of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as vice-chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence Policy and National Security, this Member rises in the 
strongest possible support for H.R. 2883.
  This Member congratulates and commends the chairman of the committee, 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his 
extraordinary leadership in preparing a bipartisan bill that was 
approved unanimously by the committee. Under his guidance, this body is 
preparing to move rapidly to address a number of long-standing 
deficiencies in our intelligence collection and analysis.
  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has not suddenly 
awakened to the very real inadequacies of the intelligence agencies and 
programs of our government and the financial resources and legislative 
tools they need. As Chairman Goss has said on numerous occasions: ``The 
message is not new; the audience is new.''
  The American people understand now, through tragedy, that our 
intelligence and counterterrorism programs are extremely important. 
With that in mind, this Member congratulates the chairman and my 
colleagues on the committee for the clear and decisive message sent by 
this legislation. I also congratulate the ranking member of the 
committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
for her assistance in crafting this bipartisan legislative product.
  The committee comes before this body today in an amazing degree of 
unanimity regarding our concept of the terrorist threat, among other 
threats to our national security, and for the necessary intelligence 
community response. This level of bipartisanship is a tribute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Mr. Chairman, the cowardly and horrific terrorist attack of September 
11 highlighted for our citizens and the world the fact that we live in 
a new world, a world where many of our commonly held assumptions about 
security and safety are being re-examined. Even before the attacks on 
the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the Bush administration had 
embarked upon a comprehensive review of U.S. intelligence policy, led 
by the retired Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and the deputy 
director of Central Intelligence for Community Management, Joan 
Dempsey.
  Obviously, this intelligence review has assumed an even greater 
importance and urgency, for ultimately the outcome in this war in which 
we find ourselves will be determined by the quality of our 
intelligence. The review is not yet complete, and the executive branch 
has not firmly established the criteria and emphases that will guide us 
in the 21st century. However, this bill provides much of the important 
guidance to ensure that its policies can quickly be implemented.
  This committee's task has been made particularly difficult because in 
the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, there naturally 
is, in some quarters, a desire to find a simple solution, a quick fix. 
Certainly the legislation before this body today provides much needed 
additional funds to improve our intelligence capabilities and to wage 
the war against terrorism.
  At a more fundamental level, H.R. 2883 seeks to respond to serious 
policy and structural problems. In some cases, these are problems that 
have been years in the making and will take a long time to turn around. 
For example, there is, within the intelligence community, a critical 
shortage of language specialists that are particularly relevant in a 
war against terrorism. The legislation before this body today seeks to 
further address the language shortage and to facilitate the recruitment 
of native speakers drawn from the various relevant ethnic American 
communities.
  Similarly, this bill continues the committee's longstanding and 
urgent needs for increased support for human intelligence collection. 
Human intelligence, or HUMINT, is the placement of highly trained, 
language capable officers into positions where they can acquire 
information vital to our national interest. Our HUMINT capability was 
decimated by former Director Stansfield Turner, and in the years 
following the end of the Cold War.
  Also, our human intelligence collection effort was understandably 
directed during the Cold War period at collection on the Soviet Union 
and its client states, not on Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, 
South Asia, and especially not on the problems of terrorism and 
narcotics trafficking. This is a resource problem, while long 
emphasized by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it is a 
problem now all too apparent. This legislation continues the 
committee's effort to address this deficiency but with more emphasis.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2883 also reverses the 1995 limitations on asset 
recruitment. These restrictions, called ``the Deutsch guidelines,'' 
were promulgated as a means to limit our association with unsavory 
characters with human rights or other criminal problems. While the 
concern underlying these guidelines was certainly understandable, the 
reality is that the Deutsch guidelines have had a chilling effect on 
the recruitment of people who can actually and effectively penetrate 
the inner circle of the terrorist cells and networks and the narcotics 
rings.
  The recruitment of assets with unique knowledge or access to these 
terrorists and drug cartels is the key to successful HUMINT in this 
area. The regrettable real world reality is that,

[[Page 18919]]

certainly in the crucial battle against terrorism and drug rings, we 
must allow our foreign officers to recruit assets that are some rather 
unsavory characters. To break the back of the al Qaeda terrorist 
network, we will, in all likelihood, have to recruit individuals who 
are already influential members of al Qaeda, who themselves have 
committed acts of terror.
  To win the war on terrorism we have to end the cycle of risk 
aversion. Recruiting the equivalent of A-1 grade boy scouts or straight 
arrows will not give us the penetration and the intelligence we need.
  In many cases, there will be difficult decisions to make, but the 
United States has professionals and intelligence and law enforcement 
fields who can and must make those decisions. This legislation makes it 
clear that the foreign intelligence personnel can recruit those 
individuals who possess the information the United States needs to 
defend its people and its interests. There will be checks and balances 
put in place, but even though some of these assets will go bad, we need 
to be careful about our criticism. If the risks are realistically 
weighed against the chances of operational success, this body must not 
rashly second-guess those decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 
again, I commend the Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
for their leadership and all of my colleagues who have contributed so 
much to this legislation.
  Our staff, of course, is outstanding. Certainly it continues to be 
among the very best in the Congress, and we owe a great deal of our 
success in bringing this legislation to our staff. They are crucial. 
They are competent. My colleagues should have every confidence in them 
as we do.

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of our 
committee and a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and 
Tactical Intelligence.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  No one yet knows why we did not receive warning of this tragedy, and 
indeed whether such warning could have been acquired in this instance 
short of some stroke of luck. We must answer those questions in order 
to do better. But that will take time of course.
  I commend the chairman and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), our ranking member, as well as all my colleagues on the 
committee for thinking hard about what steps should appropriately be 
taken in this bill in the short time available between September 11 and 
today, and as the executive branch prepares for its upcoming global 
campaign. I believe the committee took sensible steps to mandate 
changes where needs and solutions seemed clear, and to inform the 
executive branch of issues and problems that as of now we think must be 
addressed in the coming months and years.
  Intelligence is clearly important to every step in the 
counterterrorism campaign: trying to detect plans and preparations, 
attempting to interdict the terrorists and their equipment and funds, 
helping the recovery from an attack, tracking down the perpetrators and 
striking back at them. I serve as the ranking member of the 
subcommittee overseeing the intelligence community's technical 
collection systems, such as satellites and aircraft and other means to 
take pictures and listen to communications. These systems contribute to 
all phases of counterterrorism.
  Besides human intelligence, signals intelligence offers the greatest 
potential to discern the plans and intentions of terrorists. It is well 
known that NSA, the largest and most important element of our SIGINT 
system, is handicapped by technical and management problems. The 
committee, for several years, has been trying to work with the 
executive branch to overcome these problems. It remains to be seen 
whether NSA's present difficulties played any role in our ability to 
get wind of this attack. The bill before the House sustains our 
emphasis on instilling rigor in NSA's program management processes and 
improves significant increases in resources.
  Imagery can provide good information on terrorists' infrastructure 
and training activities, but not on plans. Imagery also provides 
critical support to operations against terrorists because it can help 
to track them, to target them, to assess the effects of military 
strikes. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency, like NSA, has for 
years suffered from lack of expertise and program planning and 
management, and inadequate support from the DCI and Secretary of 
Defense. In particular, NIMA clearly has insufficient funds to meet 
even the minimum performance goals set for it by the intelligence 
community and the Defense Department. The committee, once again, is 
recommending steps to help remedy these changes.
  I point out also that NIMA and its predecessors have always helped in 
recovery from disasters, whether natural or man-made. The relationships 
with FEMA and the State and local governments are strong and efficient. 
Contributions to homeland security in the future will be very 
substantial, in partnership with the Geological Survey.
  Before September 11, the administration was exploring new approaches 
to satellite intelligence collections. The committee agrees that these 
ideas need to be looked at carefully, especially in light of new 
changes.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will confine the balance of 
my remarks to border security.
  As I think all of us understand by now, there is virtually no 
inspection of cargo entering the country by ship, rail, and truck. It 
is in practice very difficult to expand inspections substantially using 
current methods. We must instead use new information technologies and 
sensing technologies and forge new ways of inspecting and securing 
cargoes in cooperation with industry and trading partners.
  The bill begins to address this issue. It adds money to begin 
acquiring a capability to identify and track merchant ships. It also 
provides funds and direction to various executive branch agencies and 
Departments, including the Department of State, to expand cargo 
tracking capabilities. Finally, the bill would authorize funds to test 
new technology to detect dangerous and illegal material and any kind of 
container rapidly and automatically.
  The bill does not provide explanations or a cure for the crisis we 
are in, but it does provide the basis for conducting the coming 
campaign, sustaining our position with respect to all our other 
intelligence requirements, and preparing for future improvements. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), who is the chairman of our Working Group on 
Terrorism and Homeland Security.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his work that 
he has done on this bill, and to our ranking member, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi). It has been a great bipartisan effort. I 
rise in support of H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002.
  As chairman of the committee's new Working Group on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security, and as a former firefighter, I have had a particular 
interest in ensuring the swift passage of this critically important 
bill before us today. There is much in this bill that enhances our 
Nation's counterterrorism capabilities, and I will address some of 
these provisions in just a moment.
  In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 
2001, the President came here and told us that America is at war. He 
mentioned the new battlefield we have now to navigate as a Nation. It 
is a battlefield that is not clearly defined and that will often be 
devoid of clear targets. It is a battlefield that stretches across the 
globe and involves a complex support

[[Page 18920]]

network, false documents, illicit financial transactions, and fanatical 
individuals who are willing to commit suicide to further their twisted 
causes, whatever they may be.
  On this new battlefield, conventional weapons and conventional 
thinking will not be sufficient, nor will a fortress mentality ensure 
adequate protection for our citizens both here and abroad. We can 
better secure our embassies and our military bases, and we have been 
and should continue to do this. But as we saw on September 11, the 
terrorists will always search for and find that weak spot, that chink 
in our armor that makes us vulnerable; and in a free society, there 
will necessarily be weak spots. Therefore, we need to recognize what 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has recognized for some 
time, and that is that intelligence rules this battlefield like never 
before.
  Intelligence is the only way in which we will get at this problem. It 
is the only way in which we can discover the plans and intentions of 
the enemy, thwart his efforts to attack us, and locate him so that we 
can punish him swiftly and decisively when he manages to get through 
our defenses.
  H.R. 2883 addresses a number of key shortfalls in the capability of 
our intelligence and law enforcement communities to combat terrorism. 
The bill substantially increases investments for FBI counterterrorism 
capabilities. It increases funding for language training across the 
intelligence community. A lack of linguists with fluency in languages 
spoken by most terrorists has plagued the intelligence and law 
enforcement communities and must be addressed more decisively than ever 
before.
  H.R. 2883 also promotes a more focused analytical effort against the 
terrorist target. More and better threat analysis needs to be applied 
to all forms of threat reporting to give us the maximum chance for 
piecing together the puzzle that might help us to avert attacks such as 
occurred on September 11. This bill makes analysis a top priority.
  The capabilities of CIA's counterterrorism center, our first line of 
defense overseas, also have been significantly augmented by provisions 
contained in this bill. Our subcommittee, headed by myself and my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), has been 
working very hard, very diligently, not only on the September 11 
incident but on other issues involving international terrorism and 
homeland security, and this bill gives us more flexibility. I urge 
support for 2883.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), just praised by 
her colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss). She is the 
ranking member, as was mentioned, on the Working Group on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time and for her graciousness, and also thank the chairman of the 
full committee and the chairman of the Working Group on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security for their bipartisanship and professionalism at all 
times on this committee.
  Mr. Chairman, intelligence is a field in which I have worked for many 
years and in several different capacities. I was privileged to serve on 
this committee during my prior tenure in Congress and welcomed my 
reappointment. I represent a district where the Nation's sophisticated 
intelligence satellites are built, and served on the congressionally 
mandated National Commission on Terrorism, which made important 
recommendations in June of last year.
  I have long been critical of the ad hoc ways in which our 
intelligence community has operated; how a community built with Cold 
War priorities was ill prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st 
century. On September 11, everything and everyone changed. But let me 
be clear: the men and women in our intelligence agencies are as 
devastated as the rest of America by the horrific attacks against our 
homeland. These are good and talented people who work in an 
organizational structure and under a Cold War-era culture that needs to 
change. Today, we take the fundamental steps necessary to change both 
the structure and the culture.
  As my committee colleagues have said, the bill directly addresses 
shortfalls in the intelligence community's counterterrorism efforts, 
intelligence collection and analysis, and threat reporting. It revamps 
and reinvigorates our intelligence agencies. The bill provides new 
tools and resources for preventing terrorism and supporting our Armed 
Forces in future conflicts. This bill authorizes aggressive recruitment 
of human assets, makes significant investments in foreign language 
capabilities, and unravels the knots that have impeded the sharing and 
integration of intelligence information and analysis across all levels 
of government.
  We have removed many of the stovepipes that have characterized the 
organizational structures of our intelligence community and worked to 
substitute a more seamless integration of responsibilities and 
missions.
  Mr. Chairman, once this bill passes, we still have more to do. The 
Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security, of which, as you 
heard, I am ranking member, has an aggressive agenda of public 
hearings, classified briefings/hearings, visits, and possibly 
legislative action. I believe we must pass the legislation that six 
committee Members introduced yesterday to give Cabinet-level status and 
budgetary authority to Pennsylvania Governor Ridge, who assumes his new 
job as Director of the Office of Homeland Security on Monday.
  Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11 will be an ever-present 
reminder of the threats we now face. Reform starts today. I urge 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is chairman of 
our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also rise in strong support of the intelligence 
authorization bill.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical 
Intelligence, I have had the opportunity to closely review the 
President's intelligence budget request and participate in the creation 
of this bill. I should note that our review occurred both before and 
after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  There is no question that in the wake of these heinous attacks on 
America and the world there were some significant changes made to this 
legislation and some additional funds that are recommended. However, I 
would offer that, on the whole, this bill changed very little from the 
direction it was headed prior to September 11. Even before the attacks, 
the committee had taken some very tough positions with respect to the 
form and function of the United States intelligence community. Indeed, 
the committee has, over the past 6 years, tried to persuade the 
administration to more properly fund the Nation's first line of 
defense, that is, its intelligence community.
  However, the fact is since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet 
Union, too little funding priority has been given to our national 
intelligence functions. Many intelligence needs have been left wanting 
for lack of funding, and the Congress has been forced to intercede in 
an effort to begin to rebuild our human and technical intelligence 
collection and analysis capabilities.

                              {time}  1000

  Our focus was on changing the Cold War footing to one that is more 
flexible and adaptable to the new world order threats.
  Prior to the attacks, our funding efforts were limited to working 
``at the edges'' of many the problems, because we had to live within a 
set of artificial constraints. After the attacks, however, the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), had to ``take off the gloves.''
  With their superb leadership, we crafted a bill which took on tough 
and

[[Page 18921]]

seemingly intractable problems with additional funding authorizations 
necessary to begin to make a real difference.
  Mr. Chairman, the post September 11 bill before us makes a real 
difference. It recommends significant funding to gain, train, and 
maintain a quality workforce. There is increased funding for language 
instruction and follow-on maintenance training. It recommends: 
Additional funding for counterterrorism analysis and focused regional 
studies; significant additions for processing, exploiting, and 
disseminating the vast amount of data that we collect around the world; 
investments in a more dynamic and flexible technical collection 
architecture for the future; and a down payment on replacing one of our 
most critical, but aging, ballistic missile intelligence collection 
systems.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill; and I recommend support of it by 
everybody in this Chamber.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit) who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on Policy and National Security, a new subcommittee of our committee.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
authorization act. In the wake of the tragic attacks on the World Trade 
Center and the Pentagon, nothing is more timely than addressing the 
needs of the intelligence community.
  Nothing is clearer to me than the need to increase our resources in 
the area of human intelligence and highly skilled analysts and people 
with specialties in foreign languages. The bill encourages the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to invest in the 
intelligence capital by pushing recruitment efforts and funding 
advanced training programs. It will help increase our ranks of human 
intelligence collectors, the critical key in gaining precise 
information on terrorist organizations. It is critical that we not only 
increase the number of intelligence gathering analysts, but we must 
also provide them with the tools to do the job.
  This bipartisan bill will provide our intelligence community with the 
assets that they need to wage an aggressive campaign against terrorism. 
I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in 
this area. I would like to thank the chairman for his openness to take 
suggestions from our side of the aisle and to make this a strong 
bipartisan effort. I would commend both of them for their efforts.
  I rise in strong support of this bipartisan authorization act. In the 
wake of the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 
nothing is more timely than addressing the significant issues facing 
the intelligence community. We must provide direction, resources and 
guidelines to carry out the crucial mission of providing intelligence 
to policy makers and our armed forces.
  As the ranking member of the Intelligence Policy and National 
Security Subcommittee nothing is clearer to me than the need to 
increase our resources in the area of human intelligence and highly 
skilled analysts. We are experiencing an information revolution. Events 
transpire today on a global scale faster than we ever imagined making 
our need to collect, interpret and exploit gathered intelligence 
paramount.
  This bill encourages the intelligence community to invest in 
intellectual capital by pushing recruitment efforts and funding 
advanced training programs. It will help increase our ranks of human 
intelligence collectors--the critical keys to gaining precise 
information on terrorist organizations. Alarming as it may seem, we 
currently are in a situation where there is more information available 
than our analysts can review. Given the most recent attacks on the 
United States, that is an unconscionable position to find ourselves in. 
It is critical that we not only increase the number of intelligence 
gatherers and analysts but we must also provide them the tools to do 
their job.
  In May, the subcommittee reviewed intelligence sharing with our NATO 
allies. I would add this review was very useful after Operation Allied 
Force--the 1999 Kosovo air campaign. During that campaign, the 
intelligence community shared critical information such as bomb damage 
assessment and force protection intelligence with our NATO allies. We 
investigated the sharing process and procedures to ensure both the 
protection of classified material and a timely, seamless sharing of 
intelligence with our allies. In the current campaign against global 
terrorism, these procedures will continue to be vital to NATO military 
operations and our own national security.
  In June, in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security, we heard testimony on terrorism. As a member of the 
Terrorism and Homeland Security subcommittee, we are currently holding 
a series of open meetings on this important topic.
  Make no mistake, though we have been aggressively pursuing the 
terrorist threat--and in fact, our intelligence community has disrupted 
many planned acts of terrorism--it is clear the threat is growing at an 
alarming rate in terms of its infrastructure and in its sophistication. 
This bill supports key efforts by our national security agencies to 
counter these realities.
  I commend Chairman Goss and Ranking Member Pelosi for their 
leadership and for producing a bipartisan bill that will strengthen our 
national security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I came on this committee thinking I was 
going to show them something. They have taught me. It is a bipartisan 
committee. It works very, very well; and I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi). I should have known better, one can always 
learn something from a good woman.
  On this particular committee, there is so much information out there 
that a Member can always learn a lot. I also want to thank the staff. 
Many of the staff were former members from our intelligence community. 
Twenty-four hours a day they will sit and brief Members on any area in 
the classified area, and I recommend that Members do that more.
  I would also like to talk about the defense budget. It is about $200 
billion in the deficit primarily because of the 124 deployments that 
our services were asked to go on during the last administration. If one 
transposes that over to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
they had to deploy 124 times along with the military. That funding 
deficit caused them the inability to modernize the systems and 
equipment that all of us say that they need to do their job.
  When I hear some Members, especially from the other body, criticize 
our intelligence agencies, remember that they did not have the assets. 
They were denied modernization. Personally, I think they are doing a 
good job.
  I would like to speak to the chairman of the committee. I understand 
that block 5, long-lead funding for Global Hawk, was eliminated in 
this, but the chairman has full commitment to support the Global Hawk 
and Predator programs. Is that correct?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Those assets, to know where the enemy is, is very, very important. In 
January 1972, we were told that there were no SAM sites over the 
hourglass just south of Hanoi. We did not have the reconnaissance 
assets that we needed. We went in to strike that target by the 
hourglass. We lost six airplanes because we did not have that 
knowledge. The Predator and Global Hawk gives us that knowledge.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, before even September 11, I 
want to applaud the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for 
working in a bipartisan way even before that tragic event. I also thank 
the very talented staff that we have in this committee for working in a 
bipartisan manner as well.
  Francis Bacon once said, ``He who will not apply new remedies, must 
expect new evils.'' I have encouraged, as

[[Page 18922]]

this committee has encouraged, new ways to reorganize and restructure 
our culture and our targeting in the intelligence community. In the 
culture, we need to push reforms and new ideas even more, to move from 
a culture that targets sometimes too often nation states, militaries, 
to a culture that will promote targeting sinister and seamless cell 
groups of terrorists. We need to move a culture from guards and guns 
and gates to a culture of targeting tents and terrorism and technology. 
That is the kind of reform that we need in this bill.
  We are moving in that direction. We have an independent commission in 
this bill. We have emphasis on foreign language skills. We have more 
emphasis on HUMINT, human spies telling us where people's motivations 
and targets are; and we have more money for counterterrorism.
  I have worked hard on the foreign language skill area, and on page 19 
of the report we state, ``Written materials can sit for months, and 
sometimes years, before a linguist with proper security clearances and 
skills can begin a translation.''
  We are providing aggressive recruiting for new employees, 
particularly those with ethnic and language backgrounds needed by the 
intelligence community. We are providing additional language 
incentives, especially in the toughest, most critical languages. We are 
providing increases in funding in counterterrorism for the FBI 
counterterrorism program, the DCI's counterterrorism program, and 
HUMINT collection.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do more. While I applaud the bipartisan 
nature of this committee, while I warmly applaud some of the reforms in 
this bill, I will be reserved as I watch the process go through the 
conference later with the Senate to encourage, to push reform, not to 
lay blame, not to blame individuals where we have so many brilliant and 
talented people in the CIA and other communities, but to push the 
reforms needed to change the culture, the target, and the organization 
that is so critical for us to defend our homeland.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to offer my strong 
support for the fiscal year 2002 intelligence authorization bill. I 
believe it is a good, bipartisan product that addresses both the urgent 
short-term needs, as well as the long-term rebuilding requirements in 
human and signals intelligence.
  As a relatively new member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I would like to address just a portion of the bill which 
I think is very, very critical. It comes out of the tragic incident of 
April 20, 2001 when the Peruvian military, relying on information 
provided by the U.S. Government, mistakenly shot down a civilian 
airplane as part of a drug interdiction operation. Two innocent 
Americans, constituents of mine, lost their lives due to this error.
  In an effort to ensure that this type of incident does not occur 
again, I have worked closely with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Goss) and the committee to secure greater accountability from the 
executive branch with respect to the oversight of these 
counternarcotics activities. Section 504 amends current law relating to 
the immunity of employees and agents of the United States and foreign 
countries engaged in the interdiction of drug trafficking aircraft. 
Under this section, the President will annually certify to Congress 
both the existence of a drug threat in the country at issue and the 
existence in that country of the appropriate procedures to protect 
against innocent loss of life.
  If our drug interdiction efforts in Latin America are intended to 
protect the American people from the threat of narcotics, we need to be 
sure that the methods we use do not create more innocent victims like 
the Bowers family.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) on an excellent 
bipartisan bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), another valued member of our committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for developing a bill that 
is designed to meet the intelligence challenges that our Nation is 
facing at a critical point in our history. Their leadership on critical 
intelligence issues has been extremely important to all of us on the 
committee, in particular to those of us that are on the committee for 
the first time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) have recently been the focus of the press. 
However, it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that everyone here 
knows that both the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) have been working behind the 
scenes for years on critical intelligence issues. I thank them for 
their continued commitment to our Nation and the intelligence system 
that we rely on so heavily.
  In a number of hearings that we have had in the committee, I 
expressed two very important observations. First, the intelligence 
community needs to pay attention to the diversity that is so critical 
and representative of our Nation. Both the chairman and the ranking 
member have been very supportive on that issue.
  Secondly, as some of the other Members have mentioned, the emphasis 
on language diversification is vitally important as we face the 
challenges in today's intelligence gathering and analysis world.
  We need analysts and case officers with language skills and expertise 
in many foreign areas. At the NSA and the CIA, thousands of pieces of 
data are never analyzed or analyzed after the fact because there are 
too few analysts and even fewer with the necessary language skills. 
This is a deficiency that must be corrected immediately.
  Our bill provides bonuses to intelligence employees of the CIA and 
the Pentagon who are fluent in languages of the toughest and most 
important targets that we face as a Nation. It is clear that we must do 
more, and this bill takes the necessary steps to provide the tools 
necessary for the intelligence community. I urge all Members to support 
a strong bipartisan bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained, and understandably so, 
in dealing with the specifics of this bill in terms of dollars and 
numbers. I would urge all of my colleagues to follow the suggestion of 
the chairman and the ranking member to visit the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence to get the classified briefing and to examine 
the figures for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress this to my colleagues. This is a very 
good bill because it provides more resources for people, for our human 
intelligence, for our eyes and ears around the world. More resources to 
add to their numbers and their training, with particular emphasis in 
language capabilities.
  Our dedicated and well-trained linguists who are case officers and 
covert operatives and intelligence operatives are critically important 
to operations. They are the essential people part of the equation.

                              {time}  1015

  They are the essential people part of the equation. All the 
sophisticated technical means in the world, the satellites in the 
heavens and the specialty electronic devices all over every place are 
important, but there is no substitute for people. And, quite frankly, 
with linguistic skills, there simply are not enough of them. This bill 
recognizes that and supports additional funding directed to the Defense 
Language Institute. This funding is targeted for linguistic training, 
not just for the training, but also for the recruitment and retention 
of proficient instructors. It promotes computer-based training to keep 
those skills honed, and aims at keeping those classes fully populated 
with the best and the brightest.

[[Page 18923]]

  Let me stress, there is no substitute for the people part of this 
equation. The dedicated men and women in the intelligence community who 
are serving this Nation at distant points in the globe are to be 
applauded and supported and we do just that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who serves as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and 
Counterintelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to whoever is 
listening that it is my observation in my few months on this committee 
that we have outstanding leadership with our chairman and ranking 
member, and I really appreciate it, and I hope all America does. In my 
former life as a teacher at the command general staff college at the 
Department of Tactics, I want to assure you that I am aware and I want 
you to be aware that intelligence is something you have to have. You 
have to have reliable information before you act.
  And I want to tell you this, that I have made also the observation 
that we have dedicated and professional men and women who work in this 
community. Nevertheless, the horrendous attacks acts of September 11 
require us to think hard about how U.S. intelligence is gathered, 
analyzed and disseminated so that we are sure intelligence is providing 
the very best first line of defense for our country.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, 
Analysis and Counterintelligence, I believe we need better global 
coverage, allowing us to collect more human intelligence in more places 
worldwide. As we all are now too well aware, we face terrorist networks 
with global reach. We are forced into a serious situation regarding our 
security. We must ourselves place overt and covert collectors in every 
corner of the world to fight back and utilize well the assistance of 
our international allies. In addition, for our HUMINT collectors to be 
effective, their language skills and foreign area expertise overall 
must be improved and maintained. Career paths for specialists must be 
fostered. This bill provides the resources and encourages the efforts 
in the intelligence community to increase the number of front-line 
field officers and improve their skills.
  Furthermore, we have to get smarter at using effectively, across the 
agencies of the Federal Government, all available information that 
bears on terrorism. Different agencies of the government have different 
roles to play, and no one agency can do the job alone. Currently, our 
capacity to collect information outstrips our ability to exploit what 
we have. Furthermore, we have not always given proper weight to the 
most predictive sources of information. The analytic effort in the 
fight against terrorism must be an all-inclusive effort, with 
sufficient numbers of analysts deployed where they are needed to make a 
difference. The Congress may soon vote to authorize new methods and 
procedures for sharing information. This is all well and good, but the 
agencies now expected to share information must have state-of-the-art 
information technology tools and the personnel they need to process, 
analyze and disseminate critical intelligence to make new 
authorizations effective.
  I urge your support of this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a former 
member of our committee.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, in the front of this report, the 
unclassified version which is really worth reading for my colleagues, 
it says that intelligence is our first line of defense, but too often 
it is an afterthought. This document and this bill explains why we must 
have a renewed focus on intelligence. I commend the chairman and the 
ranking member and the committee for their excellent work on this bill 
in providing some direction for the future.
  The one thing I do want to highlight, and we have discussed this 
among ourselves, is the need to move forward with the problem of 
homeland intelligence. It is the most obvious, gaping hole in our 
protection against terrorism, the ability to prioritize, direct, 
collect, analyze and inform about activities within the United States 
and to share information among agencies, much of it completely 
unclassified, in order to make sure we can defend the homeland of the 
United States.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and my other colleagues 
in the House to make sure that the intelligence capability of the 
United States remains strong.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let my say to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) whom I see a lot in the Committee on Rules and 
to the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
thank them for a very excellent legislative initiative. The American 
people understand the word intelligence, and I think as we have 
reflected on the enormous tragedy of September 11, they will be more 
informed about the importance of our intelligence community.
  This legislation advocates the enhancement of the intelligence 
community. Let me thank both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the new commission to 
find out the facts of the September 11, tragedy. Many might say that we 
give out too much information, but I believe this commission will help 
us understand better the necessity for enhanced funding, resources, 
technology for our intelligence community.
  I had thought of offering an amendment as the ranking member on the 
Immigration Subcommittee to deal with seeking to promote collaborative 
efforts between the INS and the intelligence community. Two days ago, 
we in the Committee on the Judiciary passed an antiterrorism bill 
unanimously with a balance between the rule of law and tools for law 
enforcement. I believe it is important that we realize that though 
immigration does not equate to terrorism, it is important the INS be 
able to be advised on intelligence that would help them further thwart 
those trying to enter the country with the purpose of terrorist 
activities.
  I hope we will have a chance to discuss that issue so that we can 
work together for homeland security, we can balance our committee's 
work and provide the necessary collaboration to secure our Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), a man who has 
had great experience in the intelligence business.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chair and the ranking member 
and the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 
their bipartisan work on this legislation.
  Specifically, I want to state my strong support for provisions in 
section 105 that codifies the U.S. Coast Guard as a National Foreign 
Intelligence Program agency under the National Security Act.
  Fifteen years ago, the Coast Guard was primarily a consumer of 
intelligence. Now and into the future, it can be a collector, a 
processor and a producer as well as a consumer of intelligence. The 
Coast Guard is involved in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, illegal 
alien smuggling, maritime drug interdiction, sea enforcement of 
immigration laws, port security and waterways security.
  The integration of the Coast Guard into the intelligence community 
makes them more responsive to the threats we face, and in particular, 
to the threats of terrorism. It also enhances the training and 
activities of the Coast Guard intelligence program and professionalizes 
their activities.
  On this basis, I am very pleased to see that this bill codifies the 
Coast Guard as an element of the intelligence community.

[[Page 18924]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act of FY 2002. I commend the chairman, ranking member 
and members of the House Intelligence Committee for their bipartisan 
work on this important piece of legislation.
  Specifically, I would like to state my strong support for the 
provisions in section 105 of this bill that codifies the U.S. Coast 
Guard as a National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) Agency under 
the National Security Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing New London, CT, 
which is the home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. I also serve as vice 
chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Transportation 
Committee. These associations have introduced me to some of the unique 
activities of the Coast Guard.
  Fifteen years ago the Coast Guard was an intelligence consumer. When 
I offered a course on the Intelligence Community at the Academy, I was 
told that it was not necessary. These circumstances are no longer the 
case today.
  Now and into the future, the Coast Guard can be a collector, a 
processor, and a producer as well as a consumer of intelligence. On 
this basis, including the Coast Guard Intelligence Program (CGIP) into 
the NFIP is an important and timely initiative.
  To a certain degree, the integration of elements of the Coast Guard 
into the Intelligence Community is a formality. The men and women of 
the Coast Guard have been taking part in homeland protection through 
the multitude of tasks; tasks that it performs better than any other 
agency of our Government.
  The Coast Guard is involved in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, 
illegal alien smuggling, maritime drug interdiction, and sea-
enforcement of immigration laws, port security and waterways security 
to name a few.
  Threats to our country are met and thwarted along and off our shores 
every day through the diligence and professionalism of the Coast Guard. 
The routine activities of the Coast Guard also place it in a position 
to collect information, disseminate information and participate in the 
production of intelligence. This can be a valuable contribution to the 
Intelligence Community.
  The integration of the Coast Guard into the Intelligence Community 
makes them more responsive to some of the threats we face--particularly 
the threat of terrorist attacks. It also enhances the training and 
activities of the Coast Guard Intelligence Program, and 
professionalizes their activities.
  On this basis I am glad to see that section 105 of this bill codifies 
the Coast Guard as an element of the Intelligence Community.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, it is not popular to say, but I believe 
America's intelligence network is very poor. Americans are now being 
killed by the thousands, and money alone is not going to solve it.
  I think Congress must address our Mideast policy. I think we can and 
should support Israel, but we must be more objective in dealing with 
Arab nations. I believe the Palestinian issue must be resolved and the 
Palestinian people deserve a homeland, and that is not popular to say.
  But, ladies and gentlemen, Americans are now being killed by the 
thousands, and we have exported through our policies the terrorism in 
the Mideast to the United States of America. I think it is time to tell 
it like it is, stop addressing the symptoms and look at the root 
causations. We can maintain our friendships and strong alliance with 
Israel, but by God we have to show objectivity in the Mideast or there 
will be more bin Ladens and more terrorist attacks on the United States 
of America.
  Finally, our borders are wide open. Congress better look at that 
issue, because we have exposed a very vulnerable, soft underbelly.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), also knowledgeable on 
matters of national security.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak as a Naval Reserve 
intelligence officer who knows the value of linguistic abilities in 
intelligence. The United States Government has two large institutions 
dedicated to international languages used by many countries, the 
Foreign Service Institute and the Defense Language Institute. But the 
real reserve of linguistic abilities among tribal and less-used 
languages across countries is the Peace Corps.
  I think the United States needs to develop in the national security 
community an ability to speak these other languages, especially 
obviously in Central Asia and countries where terrorist threats might 
emerge. This is going to require a huge effort, focusing on some of the 
abilities and the institutional knowledge in the Army's foreign area 
officer expertise. I think it is necessary for the Navy and Air Force 
and intelligence agencies to develop this FAO capability in other 
services, especially so that there is a full career path for such 
officers and that the United States looks to the long term.
  I also want to commend the committee on the recruitment guidelines 
and hope that when we look to the Director of Central Intelligence, 
that he reports back on those guidelines early and gives the Chief of 
Station the ability to set the guidelines in unique circumstances.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage Chairman Goss in a brief colloquy on 
the matter of border security. The State Department has the legal 
responsibility to issue visas at our U.S. embassies and consulates. 
Over the years, we have vastly improved the process by which visas are 
issued. Name check systems are now computerized, allowing the consular 
officer at a post to have a reliable method of vetting a person's entry 
into the United States.
  This system of name checking is only as good, however, as the 
information that is entered into the system. I would like to ask the 
chairman that in the course of the intelligence bill conference, that 
he work to ensure that the best cooperation is received from relevant 
agencies to be sure that current information is provided on a timely 
basis to the State Department for purposes of securing a better name 
check system. I would note that all 18 of the suicide hijackers were 
granted visas. Something is wrong and we need to fix it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
certainly agree that the gentleman raises an excellent point with 
regard to the full need for cooperation among agencies for purposes of 
strengthening our border security programs. I will work in conference 
to come up with appropriate language to direct that such information 
sharing occurs among the intelligence agencies and the State Department 
so that we have the best and most secure visa issuing system possible. 
I will further pledge that we will try and improve the handoff between 
the other law enforcement agencies that are involved as well.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to address another point in the bill that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) referenced, and, that is section 504, 
relating to official immunity for employees and agents of the United 
States and foreign countries engaged in the interdiction of aircraft 
used in illicit drug trafficking. This springs from the unfortunate, 
and that is a very mild word to use, shooting down of the aircraft in 
Peru. Under this section, the President must make an annual 
certification to Congress concerning both the existence of a drug 
threat in the country at issue and the existence in that country of 
appropriate procedures to protect against innocent loss of life. An 
annual report to Congress by the President concerning United States 
government assistance to such interdiction programs is also required by 
this section.
  I call that to the attention of our colleagues, because many Members 
had concerns about that incident. And doing so gives another reason to 
acknowledge the cooperation of our chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida, for including this language. I recognize the gentleman from 
Michigan's leadership in this because his constituent

[[Page 18925]]

was directly affected by it. I thank him for his leadership.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, I did want to make a couple of remarks in closing here. 
This bill contains an independent review of the events leading up to 
September 11. I believe that as we proceed to talk about anything 
regarding September 11, we are walking on sacred ground. We have to 
proceed with great dignity to honor, and out of respect for, the losses 
suffered by so many.
  Our entire country wants us to do everything possible to stop 
terrorism in our country, terrorism against our interests worldwide, 
and, indeed, terrorism against any target, and to stamp out terrorism 
wherever it exists.
  I do believe that it is important in light of the horrific acts of 
September 11 that there be an independent assessment of the performance 
of the agencies and departments of the federal government responsible 
for dealing with terrorism. That assessment must be broad in scope and 
conducted by individuals as free as possible of the interests of the 
organizations they will review.
  Section 306 as approved by the committee would produce those results. 
I will offer an amendment to address some of the concerns expressed by 
some of our colleagues about the breadth of jurisdiction of the 
commission under the amendment time. But I think it is a mistake to 
just proceed without an independent review of the events that happened. 
For that reason I thank the chairman for his support in making the 
commission a part of the bill, and I appreciate the Republican majority 
support on that.
  Sensitive to the concerns raised by some on both sides of the aisle 
about the scope of that commission I intend to offer an amendment as a 
compromise.
  I wanted to acknowledge and join my distinguished chairman in 
acknowledging the great work of the staff on both sides of the aisle, 
headed up by Tim Sample as the majority chief of staff and Mike Sheehy, 
our staff chief on the Democratic side. We are all very well served by 
all the staff on both sides of the aisle. We do not think of it in a 
partisan way.
  I also want to again thank our distinguished chairman for the manner 
in which he conducted the markup, indeed, the business of our 
committee, and for his receptivity to the concerns presented by the 
minority side. I want to particularly commend my minority members for 
the valuable contributions they have made to the debate and, again, of 
course, the work of every member of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard over the course of the last hour or so 
many Members talk about our intelligence needs, and especially the need 
to address the shortfalls related to counterterrorism. We have also 
heard about the need to invest in the broader areas of intelligence. It 
is this investment in time, thought, funding, and actually action that 
I would like to address as we close on our side of the general debate.
  The President, his Cabinet and Members of this body have rightly told 
the American people that the war on terrorism is going to be a long-
term effort, and that even if we were to get Mr. bin Laden tomorrow 
that would not put an end to terrorist activities, sadly.
  Likewise, Mr. Chairman, if we only make fixes to the intelligence 
community to address counterterrorism capabilities, we will not fully 
protect our national security and other quarters from the multitude of 
others threats that could befall us.
  In a recent classified publication called the Quadrennial 
Intelligence Community Review, there are some specific unclassified 
trends that speak to the challenges of our future. Briefly, adversaries 
increasingly will target the U.S. homeland; military threats will be 
quantitatively and qualitatively different, involving very short-notice 
contingencies and a very high premium on flexibility response; warning 
of global crisis will be more difficult by 2015 because of the scope 
and complexity of requirements and the speed of events; revolutionary 
information technology capabilities will be available to friend and to 
foe; and adversaries will use new, highly-effective means to select and 
neutralize sensitive clandestine operations or technically 
sophisticated collection devices. These are just a few of the kinds of 
challenges out there.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these points go to the fact that this country 
will need a vibrant, flexible, and strong intelligence community.
  More importantly, however, is that these points, in my view, 
challenge the wherewithal of our current national security structure. 
Therefore, in this bill we send a message to the administration that 
now is not the time to circle the wagons and attempt to address the 
issues with a status quo approach. We must take a look at whether the 
structure of the intelligence community can meet the challenges that we 
know are out there; and I believe the answer is that it cannot in its 
present form, and whether our overall national security apparatus needs 
to be updated and revised, and I believe it should, and I do not think 
anybody disagrees with that.
  The reason that this is so important at this time is thrown into 
stark relief obviously by the horrible tragic events of September 11, 
which I agree with my ranking member, is sacred soil. The same attacks 
demonstrate that the issue of the safety and security of the rights and 
freedoms of the civilized world as a whole are at stake.
  If you do not believe me, I would like you to take a moment just to 
take a look at this map, which shows in the red countries, those are 
the countries that suffered loss during the September 11 attacks. There 
is a lot of red on that map around the globe; and that is what I 
suggest, that national security is a global issue and we indeed are 
looked at as the leaders.
  In closing, let me again thank all the members of the committee, and 
I mean each and every one, especially our subcommittee chairmen and the 
ranking members. I know it has been a lot of hard work, and we have 
reorganized HPSCI this year to take on the extra load.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) particularly for 
her cooperation and very sincere consideration of the provisions of 
this bill. The management of her side of these matters has been 
extraordinary.
  I also want to pay special attention to our committee staff, Mr. 
Chairman. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff is a 
group of very professional, very experienced, dedicated people who have 
gone through a great deal since September 11. They have worked 
literally tirelessly through weekends, nights to respond to several 
additional tasks that the Speaker and, of course, circumstances have 
placed on the committee, as well as to prepare this bill for Members' 
consideration, and other bills that are coming shortly on the subject 
of intelligence, as we all know.
  This was always a bipartisan effort, and I am thankful we have such 
an extraordinary professional staff. I would name each and every one of 
them for citation for their extraordinary work, and I will put their 
names in the Record. I am most grateful that they work so well together 
and so professionally.
  I also need to point out the Speaker of the House and the minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), have done an 
amazing job of staying tuned to what our extraordinary circumstances 
and being there for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and 
intelligence matters when we needed them; and I must also include the 
appropriators, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), of course, a 
former member of the committee; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), of course, a former member of the committee; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for the work they have done to understand 
our problems.
  Finally, I want to pause for a moment to recognize those from the 
intelligence communities who lost their lives on September 11 in the 
service of

[[Page 18926]]

the Nation at the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, 15 people from the community 
lost their lives, seven from the Defense Intelligence Agency, seven 
from the Office of Naval Intelligence. They will be sorely missed by 
the community, and, of course, extremely missed by their families and 
loved ones.
  It is in their honor we will push to ensure that the proper 
investments and changes are made to ensure that their comrades and 
Americans around the world can enjoy the rights, the freedoms, the 
securities at home and abroad. These are the symbols of the American 
culture, these are what we stand for, this is what we seek to protect 
and provide for.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 
expired.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we have been joined by two distinguished 
Members who were in markup.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me time, and just concur in the comments that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has just made.
  These are difficult times for our entire Nation and for the people 
who work in our intelligence agencies. They are at a disadvantage. When 
they have a victory, when they are able to stop terrorist activities 
here or abroad, they cannot issue a press release when they do their 
work successfully.
  Obviously, we need to do a better job on the intelligence front for 
our Nation, and the legislation before us moves us in that direction 
and I strongly support it. We all need to do a better job, including 
what we do here on the Hill in providing the resources to our 
intelligence community.
  Mr. Chairman, I just really wanted to rise to thank the men and women 
who give public service to this country in the intelligence field. They 
do public service for this Nation, they do it in a very fine way, and 
they need additional support. We all need to come together so that we 
can make this Nation a stronger Nation.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the legislation 
they have brought forward.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this valuable time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise commending the committee in their realization 
that you cannot have better intelligence unless we have better 
linguistic training. I happen to represent what we call the language 
capital of the world, Monterey, California, which is the home for the 
Defense Language Institute, the largest language school in the world. 
Four thousand young men and women of every ethnic background are 
studying in Monterey to become linguists for our military and Federal 
Government.
  We also have the AT&T Language Line; and many of you, if you do have 
any language problems, can dial up and get immediate translation on 
that line. We have the Monterey Institute of International Studies, 
which is the home for the Nonproliferation Center, which we understand 
is where all the dangerous material in the world is located.
  This emphasis on languages is the only way we are going to better 
understand the world we live in and better understand the 
communications that go on in the world. Thank you for putting it in the 
report.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has no 
time remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the minute and a half I have remaining, I want to 
join our distinguished chairman in remembering those people in the 
defense intelligence community who lost their lives at the Pentagon, 
indeed all of the people who lost their lives at the Pentagon. Those of 
us who have had the opportunity to spend any time over there to extend 
the condolences of this entire Congress and of our own constituents 
know that the sorrow that we all experienced has moved to resolve.
  I also wanted to mention John O'Neill, a former FBI special agent in 
charge of the National Security Division, who lost his life in the 
World Trade Center attack. His service is well known to many of us in 
the intelligence community; and we extend condolences to his family, 
and, indeed, to the families of all who lost their lives, whether it is 
in planes or in the buildings that were attacked.
  There have been unimaginable acts of terrorism designed to instill 
fear in the American people, but the terrorists will not succeed in 
that. Their behavior is outside the circle of civilized human behavior, 
and I agree with President Bush that we will bring them to justice or 
bring justice to them; but justice must be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the remainder of my time be a 
moment of silence in honor of those that lost their lives.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule by title, and each 
title shall be considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed 
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2883

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified schedule of authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Intelligence community management account.
Sec. 105. Codification of the Coast Guard as an element of the 
              intelligence community.

 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by 
              law.
Sec. 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Congress on intelligence community contracting.
Sec. 304. Requirements for lodging allowances in intelligence community 
              assignment program benefits.
Sec. 305. Technical amendment.
Sec. 306. Commission on September 11 government preparedness and 
              performance.

                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Sec. 401. Modifications to Central Intelligence Agency's central 
              services program.
Sec. 402. Extension of CIA Voluntary Separation Pay Act.
Sec. 403. Guidelines for recruitment of certain foreign assets.

         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 501. Authority to purchase items of nominal value for recruitment 
              purposes.
Sec. 502. Funding for infrastructure and quality-of-life improvements 
              at Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling stations.
Sec. 503. Continuation of Joint Interagency Task Force at current 
              locations in Florida and California.
Sec. 504. Modification of authorities relating to interdiction of 
              aircraft engaged in illicit drug trafficking.
Sec. 505. Undergraduate training program for employees of the National 
              Imagery and Mapping Agency.
Sec. 506. Technical amendments.


[[Page 18927]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2002 for the conduct of the intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the following elements of 
     the United States Government:
       (1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
       (2) The Department of Defense.
       (3) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
       (4) The National Security Agency.
       (5) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, 
     and the Department of the Air Force.
       (6) The Department of State.
       (7) The Department of the Treasury.
       (8) The Department of Energy.
       (9) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (10) The National Reconnaissance Office.
       (11) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
       (12) The Coast Guard.

     SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and 
     the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2002, 
     for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the elements listed in such section, are those 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     prepared to accompany the bill H.R. 2883 of the One Hundred 
     Seventh Congress.
       (b) Availability of Classified Schedule of 
     Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made 
     available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives and to the President. The 
     President shall provide for suitable distribution of the 
     Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within 
     the executive branch.

     SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director 
     of Central Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian 
     personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year 
     2002 under section 102 when the Director of Central 
     Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the 
     performance of important intelligence functions, except that 
     the number of personnel employed in excess of the number 
     authorized under such section may not, for any element of the 
     intelligence community, exceed two percent of the number of 
     civilian personnel authorized under such section for such 
     element.
       (b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of 
     Central Intelligence shall promptly notify the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate whenever the Director exercises the authority 
     granted by this section.

     SEC. 104. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management 
     Account of the Director of Central Intelligence for fiscal 
     year 2002 the sum of $152,776,000. Within such amount, funds 
     identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     referred to in section 102(a) for the Advanced Research and 
     Development Committee shall remain available until September 
     30, 2003.
       (b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the 
     Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of 
     Central Intelligence are authorized 313 full-time personnel 
     as of September 30, 2002. Personnel serving in such elements 
     may be permanent employees of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account or personnel detailed from other elements 
     of the United States Government.
       (c) Classified Authorizations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence 
     Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are 
     also authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence 
     Community Management Account for fiscal year 2002 such 
     additional amounts as are specified in the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a). 
     Such additional amounts shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2003.
       (2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the 
     personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the 
     Intelligence Community Management Account as of September 30, 
     2002, there are hereby authorized such additional personnel 
     for such elements as of that date as are specified in the 
     classified Schedule of Authorizations.
       (d) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in section 113 of 
     the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404h), during 
     fiscal year 2002, any officer or employee of the United 
     States or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the 
     staff of the Intelligence Community Management Account from 
     another element of the United States Government shall be 
     detailed on a reimbursable basis, except that any such 
     officer, employee, or member may be detailed on a 
     nonreimbursable basis for a period not to exceed one year for 
     the performance of temporary functions as required by the 
     Director of Central Intelligence.
       (e) National Drug Intelligence Center.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in subsection (a), $27,000,000 shall be 
     available for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Within 
     such amount, funds provided for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation purposes shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2003, and funds provided for procurement 
     purposes shall remain available until September 30, 2004.
       (2) Transfer of funds.--The Director of Central 
     Intelligence shall transfer to the Attorney General funds 
     available for the National Drug Intelligence Center under 
     paragraph (1). The Attorney General shall utilize funds so 
     transferred for the activities of the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center.
       (3) Limitation.--Amounts available for the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center may not be used in contravention of the 
     provisions of section 103(d)(1) of the National Security Act 
     of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3(d)(1)).
       (4) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Attorney General shall retain full authority over the 
     operations of the National Drug Intelligence Center.

     SEC. 105. CODIFICATION OF THE COAST GUARD AS AN ELEMENT OF 
                   THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

       Section 3(4)(H) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 401a(4)(H) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``the Department of 
     Energy''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and the Coast Guard'' before the 
     semicolon.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal 
     year 2002 the sum of $212,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS 
                   AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

       Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, 
     retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be 
     increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may 
     be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits 
     authorized by law.

     SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not 
     be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any 
     intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by 
     the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
                   CONTRACTING.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Director of 
     Central Intelligence should continue to direct that elements 
     of the intelligence community, whenever compatible with the 
     national security interests of the United States and 
     consistent with operational and security concerns related to 
     the conduct of intelligence activities, and where fiscally 
     sound, should competitively award contracts in a manner that 
     maximizes the procurement of products properly designated as 
     having been made in the United States.

     SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS FOR LODGING ALLOWANCES IN INTELLIGENCE 
                   COMMUNITY ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM BENEFITS.

       Section 113(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 404(h)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``An employee''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The head of an agency of an employee detailed under 
     subsection (a) may pay a lodging allowance for the employee 
     subject to the following conditions:
       ``(A) The allowance shall be the lesser of the cost of the 
     lodging or a maximum amount payable for the lodging as 
     established jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence 
     and--
       ``(i) with respect to detailed employees of the Department 
     of Defense, the Secretary of Defense; and
       ``(ii) with respect to detailed employees of other agencies 
     and departments, the head of such agency or department.
       ``(B) The detailed employee maintains a primary residence 
     for the employee's immediate family in the local commuting 
     area of the parent agency duty station from which the 
     employee regularly commuted to such duty station before the 
     detail.
       ``(C) The lodging is within a reasonable proximity of the 
     host agency duty station.
       ``(D) The distance between the detailed employee's parent 
     agency duty station and the host agency duty station is 
     greater than 20 miles.
       ``(E) The distance between the detailed employee's primary 
     residence and the host agency duty station is 10 miles 
     greater than the distance between such primary residence and 
     the employees parent duty station.

[[Page 18928]]

       ``(F) The rate of pay applicable to the detailed employee 
     does not exceed the rate of basic pay for grade GS-15 of the 
     General Schedule.''.

     SEC. 305. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 106(b)(2)(C) of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 403-6(b)(2)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``Nonproliferation and National Security'' and inserting 
     ``Intelligence and the Director of the Office of 
     Counterintelligence''.

     SEC. 306. COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 11 GOVERNMENT PREPAREDNESS 
                   AND PERFORMANCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Commission on Preparedness and Performance of 
     the Federal Government for the September 11 Acts of 
     Terrorism'' (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Duty.--
       (1) Assessment of agency performance.--The Commission 
     shall, with respect to the acts of terrorism committed 
     against the United States on September 11, 2001, assess the 
     performance of those agencies and departments of the United 
     States charged with the responsibility to prevent, prepare 
     for, or respond to acts of terrorism up to and including that 
     date. For purposes of the preceding sentence, those agencies 
     and departments include--
       (A) the Department of Defense (including the intelligence 
     elements of the Department),
       (B) the Department of Justice (including the intelligence 
     elements of the Department),
       (C) the Department of State (including the intelligence 
     elements of the Department),
       (D) the Department of the Transportation (including the 
     intelligence elements of the Department),
       (E) the Department of the Treasury (including the 
     intelligence elements of the Department),
       (F) the Central Intelligence Agency, and
       (G) the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       (2) Report.--The Commission shall submit the report 
     described in subsection (g).
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 10 members appointed as follows:
       (A) The President shall appoint 4 members.
       (B) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     appoint 2 members.
       (C) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 2 
     members.
       (D) The minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     shall appoint 1 member.
       (E) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 1 
     member.
       (2) Terms.--
       (A) In general.--Each member shall be appointed for the 
     life of the Commission.
       (B) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the expiration of the term for which the 
     member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only 
     for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken 
     office. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (3) Basic pay.--
       (A) Rates of pay.--Members shall serve without pay.
       (B) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Quorum.--6 members of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (5) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be elected by the members.
       (d) Director and Staff of Commission.--
       (1) Director.--The Commission shall have a Director who 
     shall be appointed by the Chairperson.
       (2) Staff.--The Chairperson may appoint and fix the pay of 
     additional personnel as the Director considers appropriate.
       (3) Applicability of certain civil service laws.--The 
     Director and staff of the Commission shall be appointed 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and shall 
     be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an 
     individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the 
     annual rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Chairperson, the Director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, but at rates for individuals not to 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of 
     basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (5) Staff of federal agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Chairperson, the head of any Federal department or agency may 
     detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Commission to assist it in 
     carrying out its duties under this section.
       (e) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) Hearings and sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings, sit and 
     act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence 
     as the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it.
       (2) Powers of members and agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     section.
       (3) Obtaining official data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information, including classified information, necessary to 
     enable it to carry out this Act. Upon request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of that department or 
     agency shall furnish that information to the Commission.
       (4) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (5) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
       (6) Subpoena power.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas 
     requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
     production of any evidence relating to any matter under 
     investigation by the Commission. The attendance of witnesses 
     and the production of evidence may be required from any place 
     within the United States at any designated place of hearing 
     within the United States.
       (B) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the Commission 
     may apply to a United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (C) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
     shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued 
     by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (D) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is made under subparagraph (B) may be served in 
     the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (E) Immunity.--Except as provided in this paragraph, a 
     person may not be excused from testifying or from producing 
     evidence pursuant to a subpoena on the ground that the 
     testimony or evidence required by the subpoena may tend to 
     incriminate or subject that person to criminal prosecution. A 
     person, after having claimed the privilege against self-
     incrimination, may not be criminally prosecuted by reason of 
     any transaction, matter, or thing which that person is 
     compelled to testify about or produce evidence relating to, 
     except that the person may be prosecuted for perjury 
     committed during the testimony or made in the evidence.
       (7) Contract authority.--The Commission may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     supplies and services, without regard to section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (f) Report.--The Commission shall transmit a report to the 
     President and the Congress not later than 6 months after the 
     date by which the Director has been appointed by the 
     Chairperson. The report shall contain a detailed statement of 
     the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with 
     its recommendations for legislation and administrative 
     actions the Commission considers appropriate.
       (g) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on 30 days 
     after submitting the report required under subsection (g).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Goss:
       Strike the heading of section 306 (page 12, lines 1 and 2) 
     and insert the following:

     SEC. 306. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY READINESS.

       Page 12, beginning on line 4, strike ``Commission on 
     Preparedness and Performance of the Federal Government for 
     the September 11 Acts of Terrorism'' and insert ``Commission 
     on National Security Readiness''.
       Page 12, strike lines 9 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Review.--With respect to the acts of terrorism 
     committed against the United States on September 11, 2001, 
     the Commission shall review the national security readiness 
     of the United States to identify structural impediments to 
     the effective collection, analysis, and sharing of 
     information on national security threats, particularly 
     terrorism. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the scope 
     of the review shall include--
       Page 13, line 8, strike ``subsection (g)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (f)''.
       Page 13, line 11, strike ``10'' and insert ``8''.
       Page 13, line 13, strike ``4'' and insert ``2''.
       Page 13, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph 
     and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:

[[Page 18929]]

       (2) Qualifications.--(A) A member of the Commission shall 
     have substantial Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or 
     military experience with appropriate security clearance.
       (B) A member of the Commission may not be a full-time 
     officer or employee of the United States.
       Page 16, beginning on line 5, strike ``hold hearings,''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 8, strike ``The Commission'' and 
     all that follows through the end of line 9.
       Strike paragraph (6) of section 306(e) (page 17, beginning 
     on line 7 through page 19, line 3) and redesignate the 
     succeeding paragraph accordingly).
       Page 19, line 10, strike ``6 months'' and insert ``one 
     year''.
       Page 19, beginning on line 17, by striking ``subsection 
     (g)'' and insert ``subsection (f)''.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to section 306 
regarding the establishment of an independent commission to review the 
national security readiness of the United States, to identify 
structural impediments to the effective collection analysis and sharing 
of information on national security threats, particularly terrorism.

                              {time}  1045

  By way of explanation, in its markup, the committee debated the 
purposes, mandate, and composition of this national commission that we 
talked about that would review our Nation's readiness to address the 
national security threat posed by terrorism in the wake of events that 
we all witnessed on September 11 in New York and Pennsylvania and the 
Pentagon. There was some disagreement among members as to whether there 
was an immediate need for such a commission and how broad its scope 
should actually be. Some members argued that there should be no 
commission at all as it might fall into the trap of focusing only on 
who was to blame for events of September 11, which is hardly the time 
to do that. Other members were concerned about the independence of 
commission members. Some of our members felt that the role of such a 
commission overlapped substantially with the responsibilities of our 
own Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, and there were 
other thoughts as well.
  I know that we all recognize that it is important to understand what 
happened on September 11 and how our government can defend our Nation 
better in the future. That is a given. At the same time, it was my hope 
to find some common ground between the varying views who are opposed to 
the establishment of a commission, assessing the performance of U.S. 
Government agencies responsible for safeguarding our country, and those 
who are seeking immediate answers as to what we can do to strengthen 
our defenses against terrorism. I was looking for that common ground.
  So we have come up with this amendment. Incidentally, this amendment 
also has some minor fixes for some of the inadvertent problems we found 
down in the Justice Department in the hand-off with law enforcement. 
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) in particular, who has already 
spoken on the rule in this matter, was planning to offer an amendment 
to strike section 306 in its entirety, which was to remove the 
commission out of the bill. He and several other members expressed 
their strongly held views on this proposal during our mark, and I want 
to express my appreciation for his willingness and their willingness to 
work with me in developing a proposal with the ranking member that will 
allow us to review our national security readiness with respect to 
terrorism with a focus on the future; in other words, avoiding the 
blame game and getting to the future. I am pleased to say that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has joined as an original 
cosponsor of this amendment that I have, as have the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), 
and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), I understand, who were 
those originally opposed to the provision.
  My amendment establishes a 1-year mandate for a joint Presidential-
Congressional commission on national security readiness composed of 
eight independent members, two appointed by the President, two by the 
Speaker, two by the Senate majority leader and one by the Senate 
minority leader and one by the House minority leader. The commission 
members would be selected based on their expertise in Federal law 
enforcement, intelligence, and military affairs; in other words, they 
have to be experienced, not political appointees. I believe that the 
commission as now structured will not interfere with congressional 
committee jurisdiction, nor undermine executive branch prerogatives, 
and will allow us to better get to the question of what went wrong in a 
positive way so that we can do appropriate things to correct what went 
wrong.
  It is my hope that this proposal will attract the support of both 
sides, and because this issue is too important and too urgent to be 
treated as a partisan matter, and we do not do that on our committee 
anyway, I would urge a favorable vote on it.
  I would also say that we have made every effort to work together, I 
am very thankful for the efforts of the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi). We thought we had worked out this particular amendment so 
it would pass muster on both sides. It did pass muster on our side; 
apparently, it did not pass muster all the way on her side, and she is 
going to offer a substitute in a moment which better reflects the 
thinking on her side. This is the good spirit in which we do these 
things in the committee. We think this is a very legitimate debate; it 
is one that is going to happen anyway, and we think this is an 
appropriate time and way to open up some of this discussion.
  Having said that, I think it is clear, in looking for the right way 
to do the right thing here on this, and we will be very happy to 
entertain Members' comments, and I suspect we will have a vote on it.


  Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi as a Substitute for Amendment No. 1 
                          Offered by Mr. Goss

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Goss:
       Page 13, line 8, strike ``subsection (g)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (f)''.
       Page 13, line 11, strike ``10'' and insert ``8''.
       Page 13, line 13, strike ``4'' and insert ``2''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 5, strike ``hold hearings,''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 8, strike ``The Commission'' and 
     all that follows through the end of line 9.
       Strike paragraph (6) of section 306(e) (page 17, beginning 
     on line 7 through page 19, line 3) and redesignate the 
     succeeding paragraph accordingly.
       Page 19, line 10, strike ``6 months'' and insert ``one 
     year''.
       Page 19, beginning on line 17, by striking ``subsection 
     (g)'' and insert ``subsection (f)''.

  Ms. PELOSI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the wake, literally in the wake, of the 
horrific tragedies of September 11, there are many Members in the body, 
indeed in the country, who want an independent review of events leading 
up to September 11 and an evaluation of the performance of the agencies 
with responsibility for counterterrorism in our country. I have a 
substitute amendment at the desk which strikes language in the bill in 
response to some of the concerns raised by our Republican colleagues.
  The committee position coming to the House today establishes an 
independent commission to review the appropriate agencies and their 
performance. There were concerns raised by some on the minority side 
and others even on the majority, saying that the scope of the 
commission was too broad, its ability to subpoena, to hold hearings, to 
grant immunity. Concerns

[[Page 18930]]

were even expressed by the Justice Department.
  In the interest of addressing some of the concerns raised by the 
majority, I am presenting this amendment, which would eliminate some of 
those powers from the commission, and also reducing the number of 
people on the commission from 10 to 8, again, addressing the concerns 
raised. Many of those same provisions are in the Goss amendment.
  My concern with the Goss amendment and why I continue to persist with 
mine is that his amendment changes the scope of the commission. Our 
commission is an assessment of the performance of Federal agencies and 
departments responsible for the prevention, preparation for, or 
responses to acts of terrorism. That is what we are proposing. The Goss 
amendment proposes instead a review of the structural impediments to 
the collection, analysis and sharing of information on terrorism. That 
amendment limits the scope of the commission's activities. This would 
be, in my judgment, unwise.
  What the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is proposing is a totally 
reasonable proposal, but I do not think it is a substitute for an 
independent review.
  The Goss amendment specifies that persons appointed as members must 
have substantial Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or military 
experience, and a security clearance. One of the attributes of section 
306, as approved by the committee, with bipartisan support as part of 
this bill, is that it stresses the desirability for the commission to 
have members with great independence of judgment. That is what we are 
offering in our proposal: great independence of judgment, thought, and 
experience. By requiring prior Federal experience in these areas the 
Goss amendment virtually guarantees that the commission appointees will 
be the same insiders that are usually tapped for these kinds of posts. 
That, to me, seems contrary to the desire for a fresh look at the 
performance of these departments and agencies which were evident in the 
committee.
  So what the Members of this body have to decide is whether we want an 
independent review of the events preceding September 11 and the 
performance of the agencies. It is not about fingerpointing, it is not 
about assigning blame, it is just about trying to prevent such 
tragedies from happening in the future, and unless we know how we got 
to where we are now, it seems that it would be more difficult to 
prevent these kinds of acts of terrorism.
  I have no problem with the Goss amendment for what it seeks to do. 
But it is a substitute instead of an addition to what this committee, 
the Select Committee on Intelligence voted as part of the chairman's 
mark, and then it was challenged in committee, it survived that 
challenge, and now comes to the floor. I want to defend the committee's 
position, but be sensitive to the concerns raised about subpoena power, 
holding of hearings, and granting of immunity. The amendment strikes 
those from the bill.
  My objection is that our approach is preferable in that it is 
independent and does not turn to the same people who have been involved 
in all of these activities, reviewing these activities again; thus, 
depriving them of the independence that we want them to see.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support an independent review, 
and I hope that they will support my amendment.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in support 
of the chairman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do support the Goss amendment. I was one of those as 
a member of the Committee on Intelligence that spoke out very 
vehemently against this idea. I think it is a bad idea. But I have been 
around here long enough to know that under our process, no one of us 
gets their own way; and obviously, I am not going to get my way on this 
issue, and that is the reason I support the chairman's amendment. I 
think it is reasonable, I think it makes sense. I think the notion that 
we want to turn over the responsibility of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence to some outside group to take a look at what went wrong on 
September 11 is a very bad idea, but apparently, we are going to do 
that. I think the way to do it is through the amendment that is being 
offered by the chairman, which is reasonable, it is common sense.
  No one in this House knows more about intelligence-gathering, no one 
in this House knows more about the intelligence network; no one knows 
more in this House than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), about 
the whole network that is used to gather intelligence. He is the man 
when it comes to intelligence. He is a former CIA agent. So my point in 
saying that is, we ought to adopt his amendment.
  The fault that I find with the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) and I know this will irritate people on 
the other side, but the fault I find is that it is the blame game 
amendment. The Pelosi amendment wants to point a finger. The Pelosi 
amendment wants to lay blame with someone. The gentlewoman does not 
like the Goss amendment, but in reality, it is a good amendment. It 
appoints a commission, it gets professional people, it is going to look 
at what happened.
  As I said during the markup of this bill, we do not need to lay 
blame. It is our responsibility as the committee to find out what 
happened. That is why the Speaker of the House and the Democratic 
leader appointed a subcommittee on terrorism with the distinguished 
member from California and the distinguished member from Georgia 
chairing that, so they could look into these matters too, and some of 
us are members of that. That is a good subcommittee. It has standing. 
It is a subcommittee now of the full Select Committee on Intelligence. 
We are going to do good work. We have already had two public meetings. 
We have brought a lot of experts in.
  The other point I will make is this: we have had three commissions, 
distinguished Americans serving on those commissions. The gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman) was a member of one of those commissions. 
They have made a lot of recommendations. But in the end, it is up to 
the Committee on Intelligence, with the intelligence community, to 
figure out these things. I think it is a slap in the face at the 
intelligence community for those people who want to get their pound of 
flesh against whomever, the CIA director, the FBI director, people in 
the defense intelligence community, to drag them before the public and 
require them to'fess up with whatever happened.
  I think many of us realize that this is a good bill that we are going 
to pass here on the floor. It gives the kind of resources and the kind 
of language and ability to really help the intelligence community. 
Appointing a commission is not going to do that.
  But I give up on the idea, I throw up the white flag and say pass the 
Goss amendment, defeat the Pelosi amendment; and we can move on and lay 
blame where we want. But this is a good bill. It will be a good bill 
even with the Goss amendment. I urge the House to pass it. I urge the 
House to defeat the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is easy for politicians to lay blame. We are partly 
responsible. We are trying to fix that in this intelligence 
authorization bill that we are passing today. We do not need another 
commission to do it. I know it sounds like I am talking out of both 
sides of my mouth, but as I said, under our process, not one of us gets 
our own way. Support the Goss amendment. He is the man when it comes to 
intelligence. Nobody in this House knows more about it, and I think he 
has put in place the amendment to do what we need to do to assuage the 
concerns that people have and to give people their opportunity to get 
their pound of flesh. And if we have to do it, let us do it with his 
amendment.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment; but I also 
want to express my great affection for and agreement with much of what 
the last

[[Page 18931]]

speaker said. The only thing I do not agree with is his conclusion.
  Let me state how I get to my conclusion. First, I had misgivings 
about the language in the underlying bill, and I believed that the 
structural piece of the commission was overbroad. That misgiving has 
been addressed by both the Goss amendment and the Pelosi amendment. We 
need to be clear, neither amendment will permit subpoena power and 
hearings, and some of the things that were in the underlying bill. That 
is gone. Whichever version of this we approve, we are not approving 
that, so I am very comfortable about that change.
  Secondly, I would like to say that in offering her amendment, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who was the author of the 
language in the underlying bill, went a long way to address the 
concerns many of us have expressed. I think we have to respect that. 
She has made a great accommodation to the rest of us, and that has a 
lot to do with my support of her amendment.
  The language in the two amendments is quite close. The mandates are 
somewhat different, but the language is close. The difference is that, 
at least as many perceive it, the Pelosi version would permit a more 
independent look at what I believe are the structural changes we need 
to make in our intelligence-gathering.
  I just spoke a minute ago in favor of the authorization bill and said 
that it is not about the people, and it is not the blame game; it is 
about the way we have structured our intelligence agencies. They are an 
ad hoc group of agencies that have grown up since World War II that now 
need to be reorganized and integrated. That is what we need to do. That 
is what our bill does.
  My bottom line is, we may not need another commission. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) may be right about that. But if we are 
having another commission, let us be sure that it is independent and it 
has appropriate powers. I give the edge on that to the Pelosi 
amendment. I urge us to come together in the bipartisan, unified way we 
have on this committee always and support one concept.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my 9th or 10th year in this Congress, and this 
is the first time I have sat and listened to this entire debate on this 
authorization. Obviously, our world has changed; and each of our jobs 
as Members of Congress has also changed since September 11.
  There is no more important bill that this Congress will adopt than 
this authorization today. I think that is a realization that each of 
the 435 Members of this body need to acknowledge; and I think at some 
level we have acknowledged, because I think what we all realize now is 
that this is, in fact, as has been said, our front line of defense as a 
society.
  As great as the work that has been done, and we have talked about the 
successes, unfortunately, at this point in the debate, in a sense we 
have not addressed what really is a colossal failure, to speak in any 
other way about September 11 is just sticking our heads in the sand, a 
colossal failure of unparalleled proportions.
  We have talked about the difficulty of the job and the successes, but 
I think what we need to strive for and, in fact, achieve is literally 
zero tolerance for failure. No one said it will be easy, but that, in 
fact, is what we need. It is something that effectively the American 
people are demanding, but we need.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues have tried to imagine what 
6,000 dying means. I do not dwell on it, but I have tried to think 
about it. And it is beyond my ability to even imagine what 6,000 deaths 
in an instant means.
  We do not know the financial calculations of the World Trade Center 
attacks, what they are at this point. We literally do not know; in the 
trillions, tens of trillions, hundreds of trillions of dollars; 
fundamental changes in our economy. We do not know yet. But what we do 
know is that had these terrorists had biological, chemical, or nuclear 
weapons and the ability to deliver them, they would have used them; and 
in fact, what we do not know is their ability at this point to use 
them.
  We do know that there are states that have sponsored terrorism. We 
know this is a fact, and we knew that as of more than 10 years ago, 
that states that have sponsored terrorism have biological and chemical 
weapons. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that those states 
who are, in fact, state sponsors of terrorism have not provided methods 
of mass destruction to terrorist organizations.
  In fact, the 6,000 deaths in an instant, unfortunately, we know could 
become 6 million deaths in an instant. As impossible as 6,000 deaths 
are for us to imagine, I do not think any of us could imagine 6 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, people have talked about the fact that it was 
impossible to predict the World Trade Center attacks. The intelligence 
community could not think outside the box, never thought about it. I am 
not a big fan of Tom Clancy, but maybe I should become one, because as 
many of us have learned since September 11, Tom Clancy predicted it. 
One of his novels has exactly this attack, an airplane commandeered by 
hijackers hitting a building.
  As some of us have learned since the attack of September 11, the 
people involved, the students involved, the high school students 
involved in the Columbine massacre, spoke about this type of attack.
  For no other reason than those two that I just gave as examples, we 
need to be thinking outside the box. To limit the ability on this type 
of committee to people inside the box is, unfortunately, part of the 
reason why we have gotten to where we have gotten.
  What I have just said is outside the box, also. Everyone on the 
committee who has spoken today has said we need to do everything we 
can. No one has said zero tolerance. That is why I support the 
substitute. We need the substitute. We need that type of commitment in 
our society.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment and 
somewhat reluctantly in support of the chairman's amendment.
  I was one of those folk within the committee and markup who voted 
against this provision. I did so for a couple of reasons. We get 
elected to Congress not just to make the easy decisions. The easy 
decisions anybody can make. We are elected to Congress to make the very 
toughest decisions that are put forth to any Americans, and this 
situation that we are dealing with now, the instance of September 11, 
is going to involve some very tough decisions being made by Members of 
Congress.
  We do not need to shirk that responsibility. By creating a 
commission, I think we are shirking that responsibility and putting it 
on somebody else. I think that is wrong. We have had a number of 
commissions who have done great work on the issue of terrorism over the 
last 6 or 8 years.
  All of those commissions have made a number of recommendations to 
Congress. Frankly, Congress has looked at them with a very jaundiced 
eye until September 11. We can create another commission if we want to. 
I suspect they will come forward with some recommendations, and once 
again, we will do what we think is right, irrespective of what that 
commission concludes.
  Secondly and probably most importantly, the incident on September 11 
was a very tragic and terrible incident, one of the worst, obviously, 
that we have ever seen domestically in this country. But as I read the 
paper this morning, and those who work within the intelligence 
community know, the likelihood of another attack is very great. In 
fact, the words this morning of somebody in a leadership position said 
it is probably a 100 percent possibility it will occur.
  So if we are going to create a commission to study the incidents of 
September 11, how many more commissions are we going to create down the 
road to investigate subsequent incidents? I think it is wrong. I think 
we as

[[Page 18932]]

Members of Congress, and particularly within the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, have the duty to be objective in our 
oversight responsibility, we have the duty to look at the deficiencies 
that took place in this situation that may or may not have allowed the 
September 11 incidents to occur, and we need to come forward and make 
the right, responsible decisions and not give that duty to somebody 
outside of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment, even 
though I have great respect for the gentlewoman, and reluctantly I 
support the chairman who is the man, in this case. I agree with my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois. I ask that his amendment be 
supported.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment. I am 
confused as to why our committee cannot continue our work and still 
have an independent group come in and take a look at what happened. It 
seems to me to be somewhat irresponsible for us not to want to have an 
assessment by an independent group of exactly what happened.
  This is a good bill. It does a lot of good things. But if we take out 
this commission and the independence that it has, it is not as good a 
bill as it was before.
  I think it is important for the American people also to know that 
there is an independent observation or an evaluation of what occurred. 
I think we really need to know exactly.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I normally would not do this, but it is my 
understanding that the difference in the language here is really very 
small. Indeed, the Goss amendment would bring in an independent group. 
The difference is that there would be some requirement that the people 
on the commission have some experience. It strikes me that in this 
arena, it is pretty obvious that we need people with some experience.
  I further would suggest to my colleague, I understand last night, 
like at 9:30 or 10:00 the two sides were essentially in agreement in 
the middle of the night. For some reason, we have to come out here 
optically and have a partisan vote. It should have been taken care of.
  The conference is ahead of us. The gentlewoman has the responsibility 
to work out that kind of compromise. I do not understand why we find 
ourselves in this position.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time.
  I am not aware of the events of last night. I am simply saying to the 
gentleman that I do not think this House ought to be frightened, 
fearful of an independent evaluation of what occurred.
  If there was any major accident happening in any of our cities or any 
parts of the country, we would ask people to come in and make 
assessments about what happened. We would have insurance companies 
coming in and making assessments. We would have local law enforcement 
people coming in and making assessments.
  We need to know what happened, and we think that independent people 
can give us some kind of different view. It does not mean that they do 
not have the knowledgeable people on the commission. As a matter of 
fact, I think there is room for a placement of knowledgeable people, 
people with a background in this area, on the commission.
  I do not know what was said last night. I do not know anything about 
that. But I do know, we ought not to be fearful to have an independent 
look at this. We think it is good for the American people to have a 
clear understanding about what happened. We think it is good for the 
agencies to have a clear and different kind of look and view of what 
happened in this instance.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
just a moment further, I am sorry to do this, but I think the gentleman 
knows that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I deal with 
some pretty sensitive areas in our defense responsibilities. We are 
able to come together and work in a nonbipartisan way without having a 
public display that suggests there is some partisan difference.
  There is not a partisan difference here. They are both independent 
commissions. It just seems to me that the ranking member should have 
been able to work this out between now and conference without a display 
that suggests there is some division in the House, and there is not a 
division in the House.
  Mr. CONDIT. I will let the ranking member speak to this when she gets 
up to speak about this. But I thought when this left the committee, it 
left it in a bipartisan way. It left with the Pelosi language in it, 
which was an independent commission. That is the way it left. We got to 
the floor today and it is different. If Members take the Pelosi 
language out, in my opinion, we make the bill weaker.
  The bill does a lot of good things, but we as a Congress, we as a 
nation, the intelligence community, should not be fearful to allow 
someone to come in and do an assessment of exactly what occurred here. 
It does not mean we have to agree with it, but we ought to have an 
independent view of what happened here. The American people need to 
know that, and I think that that would add confidence to us all, to 
have people on the outside come in and take a look.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to have an exchange with the 
gentlewoman. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis).
  It seems from the remarks of the gentleman there should be some 
clarification about how events proceeded. We had suggested on the 
minority side as a result of concerns expressed to us by Members of 
Congress that there be an independent review. We brought that to the 
majority side. They accepted that. It was part of the chairman's mark. 
There was challenge to the chairman's mark in the full committee in 
which our position prevailed. Again, our bill comes to the floor with 
an independent review in it.
  Our chairman had wanted to have Congress work its will and have a 
debate on this. We do not see anything wrong with having a debate. I do 
not think there is anything unhealthy or unwholesome about that. The 
spirit of the debate is to make a distinction between whether we want 
an independent review of these events and the performance of the 
agencies or whether we do not? I would like to hear from the chairman 
on it. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, but this was the wish that 
the Congress do debate it and work its will and respect the results.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, and I will be willing to 
yield, is the gentlewoman suggesting that the language of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) does not provide for an independent review of 
people with some expertise?
  Ms. PELOSI. That is one of the things. There are a couple of points.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes or no?
  Ms. PELOSI. What I am saying is the scope of the review is different. 
What we are talking about is an independent review by those outside the 
community, in some cases. The difference between our two bills is the 
Goss amendment does not have an independent review of the events 
leading up to or the performance of the agencies. What his amendment 
does is to say let us go forward, which is a good thing, to analyze the 
collection, dissemination and sharing of intelligence and that is a 
very important point. It is not a bad thing.
  It is just that it is not an independent review. We could do both.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that

[[Page 18933]]

as late as 9:30 or 10:00 in the well of the House in a discussion, the 
differences here were that close because both presumed there was 
independence in review. One had required more expertise than the other 
approach apparently. But the important point I would make is that 
optically, the gentlewoman is presenting a picture. So there is some 
big difference here in terms of review.
  Ms. PELOSI. There is.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentlewoman and I have had differences 
on this subject before. I no longer serve on the committee, as we all 
know. I do spend a lot of time there because of my work. Having said 
that, I remember our debates on the floor regarding whether our budget 
should be public or not. The gentlewoman wanted to do that.
  Ms. PELOSI. That is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would submit to the gentlewoman that there 
probably are messengers from the Taliban who would love to see the 
adjustments that the committee is making at this point. I do not notice 
a Member on the floor in connection with that at this point in time.
  I must say optically we are presenting a difference with no 
difference. It is a bit disconcerting to me that the leadership of the 
committee has not been able to handle this in a way at this very 
delicate time that does not provide such an appearance of difference.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. PELOSI. First, I want to recognize the standing of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) on these issues. He is a former member of 
the committee and as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations, probably knows more, or as much as anyone 
else. I defer to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on this issue. 
We all respect his expertise.
  The point is in response to the concerns raised by others about the 
scope of the commission, we made a proposal last night that said we 
will take out the subpoena power, we will take out the hearing process, 
we will take out the granting of immunity. But the independence of the 
commission is something we can not yield on; A, and, B, the scope; how 
we can collect and disseminate information better in the future is too 
narrow. We should do that too. But we should not ignore the opportunity 
to have those people who are not all, according to the Goss amendment, 
of the community, but rather have some independent thinking on it. So 
we did try to make accommodations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, it certainly is 
disconcerting to this Member that it would appear as though at least 
somewhere down the line we would like to be able to find a mechanism, 
independent commission or otherwise, to point the finger at somebody 
and say someone else was to blame besides us. Indeed, it really is 
fundamental in the important work of this committee that the leadership 
on both sides be willing to come together and solve these kinds of 
problems before they provide an appearance of difference when there 
truly is no difference.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to 
our esteemed chairman who has provided such great leadership for our 
committee, and I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment for an 
independent review of the events leading up to September 11, which 
provides broad scope across a host of difference agencies as to how we 
try to prevent the next attack. Not to lay blame, not to blame 
agencies, not to roll heads, but to put eight independent, thoughtful 
Americans together from both parties and look at better ways to prepare 
for and protect the homeland of the United States of America. I think 
we could do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise also to discuss this on the House floor. I think 
the chairman said very eloquently and very wisely, this is the place to 
do it. This is the place to have these debates in a thoughtful and 
articulate and hopefully diplomatic manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Pelosi amendment for two reasons 
that I want to reiterate: independent review, and two, the scope of 
what we want to accomplish. First the independence. In our committee 
report, which is available to the general public and is not classified, 
we say on page 16, and I quote, ``The committee believes it critical 
that a comprehensive examination be conducted independently of the 
Federal Government.''
  The committee, in a bipartisan way, says on page 17, and I quote, 
``The Committee continues to believe that there is a need for a 
fundamental review of the Intelligence Community's authorities, 
structure, funding levels, procedures, areas of mission emphasis, 
security procedures, depth and breadth of analytic expertise, and 
interagency relationships.''
  On page 26, in a bipartisan way, the committee again states in our 
report, ``Section 306 of the bill establishes an independent commission 
to review the performance of those Federal public safety, law 
enforcement and national security departments and agencies responsible 
for preventing and/or responding to acts of terrorism in the period 
prior to and including September 11, 2001.''
  We go on to talk about why we think it is so important for these 
eight members to be thoughtful, independent, wise, have good 
reputations for working in these areas. So we voted as a committee, in 
a bipartisan way, to establish this independent review. Now, it is on 
the floor and there is some debate as to what we should do.
  Secondly, the debate now is over the scope. The gentleman from 
Florida's (Mr. Goss) language reads, and I will quote the following 
with respect to the acts of terrorism, and he goes on to say what we 
need to look at. ``The Commission shall review the national security 
readiness of the United States to identify structural impediments to 
the effective collection, analysis, and sharing of information on 
national security threats, particularly terrorism.''
  That is well and good. Our independent review, however, says, let us 
look at a host of government agencies, not to lay blame, not to fire 
people, not to roll heads, but to look at the roll of the Customs, the 
INS, the border control, the CIA, the DIA, the State Department, the 
Department of Justice, the FBI and put eight thoughtful people, 
Democrats and Republicans, in a room and give us an independent 
analysis.
  Some people have mentioned a commission or commissions that have done 
this, and we have a host of them. None of them have been done since 
September 11, when we had 6,000 people die in New York City. That was 
an attack not on New York, not on America, on the world, with hundreds 
of people from lots of countries being killed.
  So let us look thoughtfully at an independent review. Let us look at 
a vast scope and let us not look to blame people but to protect the 
homeland of the United States from future attacks.
  I support the Pelosi language.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I have been on this committee now for a number of years, and in my 
work on the committee I have gotten to know a number of people in the 
intelligence community, and they are very, very fine people. I have a 
great deal of respect for the men and women who work to provide the 
best real-time information for our policy-makers and war fighters.
  The events of September 11, however, have caused Americans and people 
all over the world to ask the questions, to ask the committee members, 
to ask the Members of the Congress as they go back to their districts, 
how did this happen, how did we allow our guard to go down such that 
this could happen.
  We do not have the answers yet, but one of the vehicles to give the 
American people the understanding that we are seriously looking to find 
the real answers is to have a commission that is independent and that 
can give the

[[Page 18934]]

clear perception that we are trying to get the truth. The way to do 
that is not, in my opinion, to have a closed club, a closed community 
reviewing itself and its performance. As we would say in Georgia, not 
to have the fox guarding the hen house.
  Instead, we need to have an open, independent group of well-thinking 
people who can, as Ms. Pelosi's amendment suggests, go about this work 
in a way that will give credibility and meaning and give reassurances 
to the people of our country and the world that we are sincerely going 
after the truth so that we can make sure that nothing like this will 
ever happen again.
  I would urge my colleagues to please let us have an independent 
commission that can do the work, the scope that needs to be done so 
that our people will have assurances that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to our ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and wish 
to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and thank them 
for their support of this amendment.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there will be a number of inquiries 
into the circumstances surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. 
Committees of the Congress will rightfully conduct some of these 
inquiries. Elements of the executive branch will conduct others. In the 
judgment of a majority of the committee, and after the vote was taken, 
our bill was reported out unanimously, it was important to assure that 
at least one of these inquiries be as independent as possible of the 
interests of the departments and agencies whose performance is being 
assessed.
  This is not to be an inquiry focused exclusively on the intelligence 
community. It is to examine across the board the performance of the 
national security establishment in preventing, preparing and/or 
responding to acts of terrorism.
  There is a tremendous concern in the country, great questions about 
what went terribly wrong on September 11, and the nation was not as 
prepared as it should have been. Everybody could have been doing his or 
her job perfectly well, but the lack of coordination or collaboration 
may be the weakness that we need to find. I think we need to respond to 
the concerns of the American people in a responsible way, and the 
independent review as outlined in the bill is the appropriate response.
  Who appoints this? The President and the leadership of the Senate and 
the House are to appoint the members of the commission. I have 
confidence in the President and his intention to appoint two members of 
the highest quality and independence of thought who will fairly but 
thoroughly discharge their responsibilities on this.
  We must focus on the future. That is understandable, desirable, 
necessary, but I would submit that it is difficult to make wise 
decisions about future actions unless we understand what worked and 
what did not in the past. It seems to me that it is even more important 
in light of the horrific events which occurred on September 11.

                              {time}  1130

  The unimaginable has now become the predictable. We must look to 
ourselves to see what exposure we have, what vulnerability we have in 
the systems, in the agencies that deal with terrorism. I think an 
independent review is what will give the American people the confidence 
that they seek, that we are in the best possible position to prevent 
future attacks.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, as I say, we cooperated as fully as 
possible but would not give up on the issue of independence.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I will be very brief.
  As I said earlier, I am a newcomer to the committee, but the chairman 
is doing a great job, and he has good help from our ranking member, and 
all of us.
  We had this discussion not too long ago, and I understood that the 
chairman was supportive of this at that moment, and I think that he is. 
There is some difference here.
  I remember one of our Members, and I do not think he would mind, I 
certainly respect him as a close personal friend and ally, a colleague 
from the chairman's side of the aisle, that said we do not need this, 
we can do it. And he was right. We could do it. We could, with extra 
pieces there. Between the chairman and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) there, I have no doubt we could do it. But that is not the 
question. Something terrible has happened in our country. This is 
America, and the people of the country want to know.
  So I do not feel threatened that we would do this. I do not have a 
problem with doing it the chairman's way. I think that would be fine. 
And then as I listen to the discussion and debate in committee and in 
here today, to do the amendment of our ranking member, I am not 
troubled with that. I have the confidence in our country and our 
people, in this institution, that we can do that. America wants answers 
and we can do this.
  This opens up an independent review appointed by the President and 
the leaders of these two Houses. It is not a threat. We can do it. This 
is the United States of America, a democracy, the leading democracy in 
our history. Let us do it. Let us just get it done. I support the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, I raced to the floor as I heard the discussion of the 
Pelosi amendment; and although I was not able to speak before the final 
vote, I just wanted to rise briefly in strong support of the Pelosi 
amendment.
  As a New Yorker, as we go from one funeral to wakes, to vigils, to 
the site to see the pain, to see the suffering of the families, of the 
children, and as we work hard to do what we have to do to rebuild our 
great city, I think we would be remiss if while we are moving forward, 
and I have confidence that the best minds in this country are focused 
like a laser beam on what we have to do to move forward to ensure that 
this kind of horror, the incomprehensible, does not happen again. I 
think we would be remiss if we did not ensure that there was an 
independent review.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from California emphasized the 
independence of the review and the scope of the review. Again, my 
colleagues, while we are moving forward and doing what we have to do to 
prevent the horror of this kind of incident ever occurring again, I 
think it is absolutely essential that we look at what happened. We can 
only learn from the past. In order to move forward, we have to evaluate 
the past and we have to be sure that all the information is in place. 
If the same people are doing the review, in my judgment we are missing 
the strength and the power of an independent analyst really looking at 
the agencies and seeing what perhaps we can do differently.
  So I just wanted to make that point again. If we are going to move 
forward and truly understand the future, my colleagues, it seems to me 
we have to truly understand what happened in the past. And I just 
wanted to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), for offering that amendment.
  I appreciate that there was a compromise worked out between the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); but I wanted to emphasize 
again that I strongly supported the amendment, and I thank her for 
bringing it to my colleagues' attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5, the Buy 
American amendment.

[[Page 18935]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of title III (page 19, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT AND SENSE OF 
                   CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE 
                   EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES.

       (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds authorized 
     to be appropriated in this Act may be provided to a person or 
     entity unless the person or entity agrees to comply with the 
     Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c) in the expenditure of 
     the funds.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment, 
     products, or services that may be authorized to be purchased 
     using funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act, it is 
     the sense of Congress that recipients of such funds should, 
     in expending the funds, purchase only American-made 
     equipment, products, and services.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I do plan to withdraw this amendment, 
and I would like to thank the chairman for a good bill. I do agree with 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) is certainly our intelligence expert here.
  Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my Buy American amendment because the 
gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
have put in stealth language, which is Traficant procurement language 
in a different form. And being that it is a stealth bill, I do 
appreciate their including my stealth amendment into the bill.
  I thank the chairman for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the Buy American 
amendment pending at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 19, line 15, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, and shall include a comprehensive assessment 
     of security at the borders of the United States with respect 
     to terrorist and narcotic interdiction efforts.''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a couple of things, and 
I do not want to belabor the House; but I thought I would take time on 
my amendment.
  I listened to the words of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), 
who is certainly one of our outstanding leaders; and he made a lot of 
sense. I agreed with the gentleman.
  I was prepared to vote with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), 
but I wanted to make a statement today. In the back of the room is the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) came to the floor and he made a point about true 
bipartisanship. I can remember when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), now the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, was 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense and he worked with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). They came to the floor and 
they had their problems worked out. The world was not confused with 
what America was going to do militarily. And we cannot be confused with 
what we are going to do with our intelligence program.
  Let me just take one minute now and give some of my views. Pollard, 
Hansen, USS Cole, Pan Am 103, the first attack on the World Trade 
Center, that we were warned about. My colleagues, we had anonymous 
reports and warnings that Pan Am 103 would be blown up.
  Now, look, it is not about laying blame. No one in this Congress, 
with all of our duties, has enough time to see and oversee all of these 
problems. That is why we have fine leaders, like the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The commission is wise, but I will say this: we have to be better, 
and we have to look not only at September 11 but we must now start 
looking at root causations. I have offered, over a period of years, 
legislation on an issue dealing with our borders that politically has 
been shot down. It has been shot down because it has been looked at as 
an ethnic measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned about poor people from Mexico 
running across the border trying to better their lives. But, my 
colleagues, the soft underbelly of America is wide open. And if we do 
not take a look at our borders, God forbid, there will be more 
Americans that will die. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutsch) made an excellent point. We have got to do better. We must 
have a zero tolerance on terrorism.
  The Traficant amendment, Mr. Chairman, calls for a study on that 
border. Give us a complete analysis of what is happening. And if we are 
prepared to put the military at our airports, by God, let us protect 
our borders.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for an affirmative vote on my 
amendment, which calls for a comprehensive assessment by this new 
commission relative to the security of our borders with respect to 
terrorism and narcotics. And let me say this: narcotics and narcotic 
traffickers are terrorists.
  One other thing. We now have seen planes, we have seen ships, and, my 
God, there are subways and metros all over America. Literally an army 
of guerrillas could penetrate our shore with, in fact, a nuclear 
device; and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said, perhaps 6 
million Americans could die.
  Colleagues, when will we address the soft underbelly of our national 
security which is our border?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to a gentleman who I have tremendous respect 
for, and I compliment him on his bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding.
  I want to simply say that I know of the gentleman's work on behalf of 
the support for the men and women in our intelligence community. I 
think he has it exactly right on this question of the borders. The 
gentleman has already heard one colloquy today with our colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), on the subject. I certainly 
accept this amendment as timely and reasonable; and on behalf of the 
committee, I would be prepared to accept it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to comment that the amendment focuses the attention of 
the commission to be established by section 306 on U.S. border 
security. Although I believe that important issue would receive 
appropriate attention under the charge to the commission either as 
approved by the committee or as amended by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), the increased emphasis provided by the Traficant language 
may be helpful.
  We are prepared to accept the Traficant amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Wolf:
       At the end of title III (page 19, after line 18) insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 307. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL 
                   COMMISSION ON TERRORISM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act,

[[Page 18936]]

     the Director of Central Intelligence, in cooperation with the 
     heads of the departments and agencies of the United States 
     involved, shall implement the recommended changes to 
     counterterrorism policy in preventing and punishing 
     international terrorism directed toward the United States 
     contained in the report submitted to the President and the 
     Congress by the National Commission on Terrorism established 
     in section 591 of Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-210).
       (b) Report.--(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, if the Director of Central 
     Intelligence determines that one or more of the recommended 
     changes referred to in subsection (a) will not be 
     implemented, the Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report containing a detailed 
     explanation of that determination.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss), for allowing and accepting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of the legislation which created the 
National Commission on Terrorism, or what some are calling the Bremer 
Commission, I want to offer this amendment. In light of the tragedy of 
September 11, I believe it is imperative the U.S. Government be 
responsive and proactive in combating terrorism. As we mourn the loss 
of life of the terrorist attacks, 27 people from my congressional 
district, we must be resolved to do whatever it takes to win the war 
against terrorism.
  The National Commission on Terrorism was established by Public Law 
105-277. No Member, I believe, voted against it in 1998.

                              {time}  1145

  Congress gave the commission 6 months because they wanted this thing 
done quickly to review the laws, the regulations, the directives, the 
policies, and the practices for preventing and punishing international 
terrorism directed against the United States, assess their 
effectiveness, and recommend changes to improve U.S. counterterrorism 
performance.
  The commission issued its recommendations in June of 2000. Given that 
the commission was comprised of the Nation's leading terrorism experts, 
including L. Paul Bremer, President Reagan's counterterrorism czar; 
former CIA Director, James Woolsey; and retired Army General, Wayne 
Downing, just appointed with a high position with this administration, 
one would think that their recommendations and advice would have been 
taken seriously by those in government.
  Unfortunately, it appears that some in government either ignored or 
actively worked to discredit the work of the commission. A recent 
article in The New Republic alleges that some worked to discredit the 
findings of the commission report by spinning, by inferring that it did 
certain things that it did not do. This is troubling, particularly in 
the wake of the events of September 11, and is why I am offering the 
amendment today, and for those who do not serve on the committee, to 
have some mechanism to find out whether any of these recommendations 
are being followed. Because the director of the CIA is the lead 
government official, the director has wide-ranging responsibilities in 
directing the Nation's policy on combating terrorism.
  The amendment says not later than 90 days after the enactment of this 
legislation, the director of Central Intelligence, in cooperation with 
the heads of the departments and agencies involved, shall implement the 
recommended changes to counterterrorism policies in preventing and 
punishing international terrorism directed towards the United States 
contained in the report submitted to the President and the Congress by 
the National Commission on Terrorism.
  In addition, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment, if 
the director of Central Intelligence determines that one or more of the 
recommended changes will not be implemented, the director shall submit 
to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a report containing a 
detailed explanation of that determination.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go through all of the 
recommendations; but there were a couple of recommendations, some of 
which are being carried out in this bill. For those who are interested, 
Members can view the commission's report at www.fas.org.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this amendment be adopted; and I ask 
the gentleman, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, that we keep this in, that this not be dropped in 
conference. I morally would not be able to support the conference 
report if this language were dropped.
  Having been at a town meeting last week where two families lost loved 
ones, knowing the work that was put into the commission, the Congress 
has to know what has been adopted and what has not, and there very well 
may be good reasons why they have not been. I am not on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, and I would trust the committee to 
know. I ask the gentleman to keep this in so I can comfortably and 
morally vote for the conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, of course we will do that in conference; and 
we will do more. We have a special subcommittee that is working on some 
of the matters, as is the whole committee. I thank the gentleman for 
his efforts to enhance our national security.
  I especially appreciate the amendment that urges the full information 
of the counterterrorism recommendations offered recently by the Bremer 
Commission. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) was on that 
commission. I share the gentleman's concern that the intelligence 
community has failed to adopt the recommendations of the Bremer 
Commission. We understand that there is work to be done, and we have 
noted it in this bill.
  As reflected in the committee's adoption of section 403 rescinding 
the CIA's 1995 guidelines on foreign asset recruitment, the committee 
as a whole has acted on the Bremer Commission's most urgent 
recommendation. There is full committee support on that. Given the 
tragic events of September 11, this amendment is timely and reasonable; 
and I will accept it on behalf of the committee and thank the gentleman 
for his innovation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank the staff 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Wolf amendment. As I understand 
the purpose of the amendment, it is to ensure that the DCI formally 
responds to the recommendations of the Bremer Commission on Terrorism 
by indicating which of those recommendations make sense to implement 
and which do not.
  As such, a response would be a useful contribution to the work of our 
Subcommittee on Terrorism; and we are, therefore, pleased as the full 
committee on the minority side to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

     SEC. 401. MODIFICATIONS TO CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY'S 
                   CENTRAL SERVICES PROGRAM.

       Section 21 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 
     (50 U.S.C. 403u) is amended as follows:
       (1) Subsection (g)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``December'' and inserting ``January''; and
       (B) by striking ``conduct'' and inserting ``complete''.
       (2) Subsection (h) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
       (B) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(3)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and

[[Page 18937]]

       (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)''.

     SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF CIA VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PAY ACT.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 2(f) of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Voluntary Separation Pay Act (Public Law 
     103-36, 50 U.S.C. 403-4 note) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2002'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
       (b) Remittance of Funds.--Section 2(i) of that Act is 
     amended by striking ``or 2002'' and inserting ``2002, or 
     2003''.

     SEC. 403. GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT OF CERTAIN FOREIGN 
                   ASSETS.

       Recognizing dissatisfaction with the provisions of the 
     guidelines of the Central Intelligence Agency (promulgated in 
     1995) for handling cases involving foreign assets or sources 
     with human rights concerns, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence shall--
       (1) rescind the provisions of the guidelines for handling 
     such cases; and
       (2) provide for provisions for handling such cases that 
     more appropriately weigh and incentivize risks to achieve 
     successful operations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IV?


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Simmons

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Simmons:
       At the end of title IV, page 21, after line 12, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 404. FULL REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY 
                   INSURANCE OF COUNTERTERRORISM EMPLOYEES.

       Section 406(a)(2) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-567; 114 Stat. 2849; 5 
     U.S.C. prec. 5941 note) is amended by striking ``one-half'' 
     and inserting ``100 percent''.

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I have what I believe is a friendly 
amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002. The purpose of 
the amendment is to require that the Central Intelligence Agency assume 
100 percent of the cost of personal liability insurance for certain CIA 
employees involved in counterterrorism activities.
  For 10 years, I served with the CIA. During that period, 5 of which 
were spent overseas, I was engaged in intelligence collection, 
counterintelligence and counterespionage activities, and on occasion 
counterterrorism activities. The work was difficult and the work was 
dangerous; but at no time did I ever doubt that my government would not 
protect me from personal liability if I encountered a lawsuit as a 
consequence of my professional duties.
  Today I understand that CIA officers engaged in counterterrorism 
activities are virtually required to buy liability insurance, but the 
CIA only pays 50 percent of the cost. What incentive does a CIA case 
officer have to do the job if he or she is subject to liability 
lawsuits? Why would they take any risks in their professional duties if 
the government was unwilling to cover the cost of their liability.
  I realize I served at a different time and in different places, but I 
still had 100 percent of the backing of my government. And I think it 
is time that we extend this backing to agents today engaged in 
counterterrorism activities.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not a new idea; and it is not an original idea. 
In fact, it was a recommendation of the same commission that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), referred to a few 
minutes ago. That report said, ``The risk of personal liability arising 
from actions taken in an official capacity discourages law enforcement 
and intelligence personnel from taking bold actions to combat 
terrorism.'' Discourages intelligence personnel from taking bold 
actions to combat terrorism.
  The tragic events of September 11 have changed us all, and it is 
apparent from those events that we must do better in our 
counterterrorism activities. We must have case officers and agents who 
are bold in their actions to combat these activities. The least we can 
do is provide them with the liability coverage they need to ensure that 
they have the full backing of the government.
  I believe my amendment provides this backing, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman for his 
amendment and his work in the area of the intelligence community. I 
know that he brings a value-added contribution because of his 
experience, and we value that.
  The provision improves on language and authority that was included in 
last year's intelligence act. As does the gentleman from Connecticut, I 
believe giving the DCI discretionary authority to provide full 
insurance liability protection to CIA employees is a small but 
important benefit that we can provide to public servants who are 
putting their lives at risk for us. This amendment is timely, and I 
accept it on behalf of the committee and congratulate the gentleman for 
it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the gentleman. The 
amendment ensures that those CIA employees for whom the Director of 
Central Intelligence determines that there is a need to carry 
professional liability insurance, the full cost of that insurance will 
be borne by the CIA, and as the distinguished chairman mentioned, the 
determination of the need is left at the discretion of the DCI. The 
amendment serves a very useful purpose. We accept it as well.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 501. AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE ITEMS OF NOMINAL VALUE FOR 
                   RECRUITMENT PURPOSES.

       (a) Authority.--Section 422 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Promotional Items for Recruitment Purposes.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may use funds available for an 
     intelligence element of the Department of Defense to purchase 
     promotional items of nominal value for use in the recruitment 
     of individuals for employment by that element.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 422. Use of funds for certain incidental purposes''.

       (2) Such section is further amended by inserting at the 
     beginning of the text of the section the following:
       ``(a) Counterintelligence Official Reception and 
     Representation Expenses.--''.
       (3) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of subchapter I of chapter 21 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``422. Use of funds for certain incidental purposes.''.

     SEC. 502. FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS AT MENWITH HILL AND BAD AIBLING 
                   STATIONS.

       Section 506(b) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-93; 109 Stat. 974), as 
     amended by section 502 of the Intelligence Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-107; 111 Stat. 2262) and 
     by section 502 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-120; 113 Stat. 1619), is 
     further amended by striking ``for fiscal years 2000 and 
     2001'' and inserting ``for fiscal years 2002 and 2003''.

     SEC. 503. CONTINUATION OF JOINT INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE AT 
                   CURRENT LOCATIONS IN FLORIDA AND CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Main Location.--The Secretary of Defense shall continue 
     to maintain the Joint Interagency Task Force at Key West, 
     Florida, with the responsibility for coordinating drug 
     interdiction efforts in the Western Hemisphere and with such 
     additional responsibilities regarding worldwide intelligence 
     for counterdrug operations as the Secretary may assign.
       (b) Component Location.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     convert the Joint Interagency Task Force located at Alameda, 
     California, to be a component site of the main location 
     specified in subsection (a).
       (c) Director.--The Director of the Joint Interagency Task 
     Force shall be a flag officer of the Coast Guard.

     SEC. 504. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO 
                   INTERDICTION OF AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN ILLICIT 
                   DRUG TRAFFICKING.

       (a) Certification Required for Immunity.--Subsection (a)(2) 
     of section 1012 of the

[[Page 18938]]

     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
     (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2837; 22 U.S.C. 2291-4) is 
     amended by striking ``, before the interdiction occurs, has 
     determined'' and inserting ``has, during the 12-month period 
     ending on the date of the interdiction, certified to 
     Congress''.
       (b) Annual Reports.--That section is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 each 
     year, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     assistance provided under subsection (b) during the preceding 
     calendar year. Each report shall include for the calendar 
     year covered by such report the following:
       ``(A) A list specifying each country for which a 
     certification referred to in subsection (a)(2) was in effect 
     for purposes of that subsection during any portion of such 
     calendar year, including the nature of the illicit drug 
     trafficking threat to each such country.
       ``(B) A detailed explanation of the procedures referred to 
     in subsection (a)(2)(B) in effect for each country listed 
     under subparagraph (A), including any training and other 
     mechanisms in place to ensure adherence to such procedures.
       ``(C) A complete description of any assistance provided 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(D) A summary description of the aircraft interception 
     activity for which the United States Government provided any 
     form of assistance under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in 
     unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.''.

     SEC. 505. UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE 
                   NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY.

       (a) Authority To Carry Out Training Program.--Subchapter 
     III of chapter 22 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 462. Financial assistance to certain employees in 
       acquisition of critical skills

       ``The Secretary of Defense may establish an undergraduate 
     training program with respect to civilian employees of the 
     National Imagery and Mapping Agency that is similar in 
     purpose, conditions, content, and administration to the 
     program established by the Secretary of Defense under section 
     16 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. 402 
     note) for civilian employees of the National Security 
     Agency.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``462. Financial assistance to certain employees in acquisition of 
              critical skills.''.

     SEC. 506. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 2555 of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     section 1203(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted by Public 
     Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-324), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Convey or'' in the subsection heading and 
     inserting ``Transfer Title to or Otherwise'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``convey'' and inserting ``transfer 
     title''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' after ``equipment;'';
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) inspect, test, maintain, repair, or replace any such 
     equipment.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``conveyed or otherwise provided'' and 
     inserting ``provided to a foreign government'';
       (B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (D) by striking paragraph (3).


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Goss:
       Strike section 503 (page 23, lines 1 through 16).
       Strike section 506 (page 26, line 1, through page 27, line 
     5).

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 503 and 506.
  By way of explanation, 506 is a technical amendment which I 
understand has now been incorporated within H.R. 2586, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. With respect to section 
503 on the status of intelligence fusion centers in Florida and 
California, I have been asked by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to defer further 
action on this provision pending consultations between our committees.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly am prepared to honor the gentleman's 
request and would like to do so.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that issues raised 
by 503 will be addressed in the conference report. With that 
understanding, I am pleased to agree to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe that is 
accurate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2883) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 252, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1200