[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29990-30000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2004

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker pursuant, to House Resolution 451, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolutions 451, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 19, 2003, at page H 11605.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference 
report for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004. And I want to personally thank members and staff of the 
committee for their industry, their skill, their professionalism, and 
their dedication in crafting what I believe is a strong nonpartisan 
bill which will see us well through the year.
  Perhaps the job was made a bit more difficult this year given the 
attempts by some in the media and elsewhere to throw American 
intelligence capabilities into the meatgrinder of partisan Presidential 
politics, but I am confident that a review of this legislation will 
show just how successful the members of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence have been in putting the Nation's security 
needs first, rejecting the divisiveness, the partisan trickery and 
treachery that has been elsewhere.
  H.R. 2417 authorizes funding for all intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the United States Government, the Community 
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
Disability System. Generally speaking, we have authorized funding for 
the National Foreign Intelligence Program in fiscal year 2004 at a 
level slightly above the President's request and substantially equal to 
that provided in the appropriations process.
  There is much in the bill to recommend it to Members of the House. I 
would like to mention just a few of the important provisions and 
highlights.
  First and foremost, this conference report supports the men and women 
in the intelligence community who are dedicated to protecting our 
Nation's citizens and their freedom, many of whom do this work under a 
shroud of secrecy, carrying out very tough tasks and, in fact, heroic 
deeds with little, if any, recognition.
  Intelligence is the fundamental element of the global war on 
terrorism. It is crucial to America's efforts in the hot parts of the 
war such as Afghanistan and Iraq, just as it is essential to protecting 
Americans overseas and at home, that is, offense and defense. This 
conference report funds many important counterterrorism programs.
  Also of note in the fight against terrorism, we are witnessing 
history being made this day. This is the first intelligence bill to 
authorize funds for the intelligence functions of the new Department of 
Homeland Security. We on the committee are acutely aware of the vital 
need for intelligence community resources to be effectively marshaled 
in protecting the homeland. In the past year, the Federal Government 
has moved to realign national resources to better leverage capabilities 
in the war on terrorism. We have been hard at work on that. In addition 
to the establishment of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
Protection Directorate over at the Homeland Security, the Terrorist 
Threat Integration Center was created and is under the control of the 
Director of Central Intelligence, and a new Terrorist Screening Center 
is being established and put to work at the FBI.
  These resources, among others that we have been working on 
previously, will require continued investment and strong leadership to 
overcome a number of challenges including, by the way, the challenge of 
being the first of their kind. Our committee will continue to be 
actively engaged in defining how the intelligence community is evolving 
to meet the challenges of homeland security. We actually have no 
greater obligation.
  Counterterrorism and counterintelligence are the driving forces 
behind section 374 of the conference report. This provision brings the 
definition of ``financial institution'' up to date with the reality of 
the financial industry. The current definition in the Right to 
Financial Privacy Act was crafted back in 1978. That was a quarter of a 
century ago. This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and 
spies to ``follow the money'' more effectively and thereby protect the 
people of the United States more effectively.
  This conference report contains a provision that has received some 
degree of attention, section 405 dealing

[[Page 29991]]

with the Central Intelligence Agency's compensation reform proposal. 
The conferees support the idea that improvements can be made, should be 
made, in the old GS system of pay and promotion. I certainly feel we 
can do better by the officers at CIA. However, it is important to 
replace the outdated system with a better one, not just a new one. So 
section 405 will assist CIA management in finding the right system by 
allowing important fine-tuning and workforce buy-in.
  The conferees were concerned that CIA managers were rushing a bit 
into the implementation of an undertested and unevaluated compensation 
system. To address this concern, section 405 delays slightly the 
implementation of CIA's compensation reform plan to allow time for the 
review, evaluation, and for adjustment, where needed, of the 
compensation program currently being tested in a congressionally 
mandated pilot program which we have all been very interested in and 
are following very closely. I think the final result will be a better 
system for managers and employees alike and a significant improvement 
for the institution. If it takes a month longer to get there, I think 
it is going to be well worth the investment.
  I could go on for some time detailing many other worthy provisions, 
but I will conclude my opening remarks here with the observation that 
this conference report reflects the committee's view that the U.S. 
intelligence community is making progress in many areas. In the past 3 
years, it has recovered to a degree from the devastating cutbacks and 
budget personnel capabilities and frankly flagging political support 
that occurred during the mid-1990s. But as I have said, it will be a 
long road to recovery, and it takes time to build intelligence 
capability. It will take years of sustained effort and attention and 
reinvigorated political backing to rebuild a fully capable intelligence 
community that does all the things we need it to do for us. We are on 
the road to recovery. I am proud of that. Investment in timely 
intelligence is the best investment for our homeland and national 
security, and I hope most Members agree with that.
  This conference report represents progress on that road, and I urge 
the House to adopt it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2417. Earlier today, several large truck 
bombs exploded in Istanbul killing the British Consul General and 
dozens of others, wounding at least 450, and causing substantial 
property damage. The attacks appear to have the earmarks of al Qaeda, 
and they make today's action even more pressing.
  This bill is not perfect, but it represents a lot of hard work to 
come to bipartisan agreement on tough issues. In the past 2 years, the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has completed a joint 9-11 
inquiry and is currently reviewing prewar Iraq intelligence. These two 
reviews, among other activities we have undertaken, have pinpointed 
deficiencies in collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence 
that cannot be fixed one brick at a time; nor can meaningful 
intelligence improvements be made simply in response to the latest 
crisis. This bill represents progress; but, Mr. Speaker, systemic 
transformation is needed, and it hopefully will be the committee's 
primary focus in the coming year.
  I am particularly satisfied that this bill requires a lessons learned 
study on Iraq intelligence as soon as possible and no later than a year 
from now. This House, just 2 days ago on a virtually unanimous basis, 
instructed the conferees to include this language, and we did. In the 
course of 6 months of review, the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings 
in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and 
ties to terrorism. A bipartisan letter earlier this fall details the 
preliminary view that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I 
hold. My own view is that estimates were substantially wrong and at a 
minimum the intelligence community overstated the strength of 
underlying data supporting its conclusions. Asking the intelligence 
community to do an introspective study is not an unreasonable request 
to ensure the credibility of our national security strategies. It will 
also ensure our troops and our leaders are served by the best 
intelligence.
  In intelligence collection, the bill funds initiatives to improve 
technical and human collection. It pushes the intelligence community to 
hire and develop officers who speak foreign languages and who have deep 
experience in other countries and cultures, important issues raised in 
an unprecedented public hearing a few weeks ago.

                              {time}  1200

  In intelligence analysis and dissemination, the bill provides a new 
infusion of resources to modernize analyst infrastructure, including 
new information technology tools, training, and hiring new analytic 
expertise. There is also strong support for improving information-
sharing across the IC and with State and local law enforcement 
partners.
  The bill provides funds to support integration of watch list efforts 
across the Terrorist Threat Information Center, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Terrorist Screening Center, and other relevant 
players. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
working with the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney 
General, to establish a training program to help local and private 
sector officials identify threats and report information to Federal 
partners. Information-sharing, as we have shown again and again and 
again, was a primary intelligence failure pre-9/11. This bill goes a 
long way to fix it.
  I am pleased that the bill addresses the development of data mining 
efforts for fighting terrorism, while maintaining adequate privacy 
protections for U.S. persons. The defense appropriations conference 
report, which we have already voted on, terminated DOD's Terrorist 
Information Awareness program, but it transferred funds and projects 
from that program to the intelligence community. For these programs, 
there are restrictions on mining databases containing information on 
U.S. persons, and I applaud those restrictions. But data mining, 
properly applied, is an excellent way to isolate who the bad guys are. 
It is also important to ensure that research and development on data 
mining tools continues, even while deployment awaits the full 
development of policies, guidelines, and procedures for use of these 
tools.
  Let me be clear: I do not support deployment without limitations, but 
I think that R&D continues to be important. Responsible, respected 
groups like the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in 
the Information Age and the Center for Democracy and Technology, along 
with scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation, 
all have concluded that data mining tools can be enormously beneficial 
for our national security, and that these operations can be done in a 
way that preserves privacy and protects civil liberties.
  But it will not happen automatically. It will require real work from 
the administration, especially in view of the hole it dug for itself 
over the TIA project. The bill tasks the administration to come to 
grips with the policy issues posed by advanced data mining technology, 
requiring the administration to report to Congress with proposed 
modifications to laws and policies, and I hope the administration will 
embrace this opportunity.
  The bill contains a provision to expand the definition of ``financial 
institution'' in the context of the FBI's authority to issue national 
security letters which compel the production of financial records 
without a warrant. The expanded definition closes a potentially 
significant loophole in the government's ability to track terrorist 
financing. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on 
this point. On the other hand, however, I worry that language in the 
bill is not as clear as it needs to be that this authority to obtain 
records only pertains

[[Page 29992]]

to the customer's financial relationship with institutions. I would 
have preferred this clarification to be in the statute. It is in the 
report language. I would have preferred the report language to be even 
stronger, and I remain concerned that the expanded definition leaves 
the potential, hopefully that will never be realized, for abuse in a 
classic fishing expedition.
  The bill authorizes new personal services contracting for the FBI to 
allow it to more efficiently and flexibly surge capabilities against 
new missions. These powers granted to the FBI must not become a 
substitute for hiring full-time employees for the Bureau's long-term 
strategic needs or lead to other abuses in hiring practices. I spoke 
earlier this week with FBI Director Mueller and received his assurances 
that he will personally review this program and be sensitive to 
potential abuses. It is important to have strong standards and criteria 
alongside the increased flexibility.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has said, and I agree, 
that intelligence community reform, or transformation, must be a 
central focus of the committee next year.
  Issues raised by our Iraq review and the Joint 9/11 Inquiry point to 
systemic challenges and raise fundamental questions of roles, missions, 
capabilities, and organization. These include whether the intelligence 
community should be headed by a Director of National Intelligence; 
whether the Nation would be best served by a domestic intelligence 
agency; the shortcomings of budgeting by supplemental; and our 
committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), made this 
point I thought quite effectively in our previous debate on the rule 
for this conference report. Also, strengthening the quality of HUMINT 
and other collection on hard targets; the roles and authorities of the 
Department of Defense in intelligence activities; and the roles and 
responsibilities of policy officials and intelligence analysts 
regarding objectivity of intelligence products.
  Transforming the IC's approach to language and cultural expertise 
will also require special attention. I note the work of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), two committee members, and strongly support the gentleman 
from Florida's (Chairman Goss) proposal for a major initiative focused 
on building these skill sets.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the best intelligence is key to stopping 
the insurgency and permitting reconstruction in Iraq today. It is key 
to addressing threats in Afghanistan today. It is key to countering 
threats from terrorism in Turkey and elsewhere today, and to addressing 
challenges in Iran and North Korea today and tomorrow. To produce less 
than our best intelligence is to protect national security less than is 
needed.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to serve as ranking member of this 
committee. Our 2004 authorization conference report was approved 
unanimously by our Members, and I urge its strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished 
vice chairman of the committee who is also chairman of our Subcommittee 
on Intelligence Policy and National Security. He is indeed a busy man.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
authorization legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time.
  The conference report takes important steps to strengthen the 
intelligence community's ability to provide global analysis. I think it 
is an excellent report and an excellent effort on the part of the 
chairman, ranking member, and all Members and our staffs.
  We are all aware that we are waging an aggressive war against 
terrorism. In addition, U.S. military forces are fighting the remnants 
of the former regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet we have global interests, 
for despite the immediate threats that we face, we must not devote all 
of our intelligence energies to Iraq and al Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks on two primary points. The 
first is related to human intelligence. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons), I am sure, will cover that subject very well, since it is a 
primary responsibility of the subcommittee he chairs, so I will move to 
the second area. This relates to attacking the terrorists' finances. 
The gentlewoman from California talked about that to some extent just a 
few minutes ago. The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) 
has been very supportive in the progress that is being made in this 
legislation through his leadership. I think the important point is what 
we have done through this legislation within the Treasury Department.
  Terrorist networks like al Qaeda obviously cannot function without 
significant financial backing. These terrorists, supported by (A) a 
shadowy network of fund-raisers, money lenders and shakedown artists; 
(B) businesses and charities serving as front organizations; and (C) 
unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen.
  Now, prior to the attacks of September 11, the Treasury Department 
was not organized or equipped to take steps such as the freezing of 
terrorist bank accounts or assets. Frankly, it has never been as high a 
priority in Treasury as it should have been. H.R. 2417, this bill, 
creates an Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of 
Treasury headed by an Assistant Secretary and tasked with the receipt, 
analysis, and dissemination of relevant foreign intelligence and 
counterintelligence information. In short, the conference report makes 
the Department of Treasury a real player, which can be an effective 
partner agency, in the global war on terrorism. This Members extends 
his appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Financial Services for working in a constructive manner to 
include this important provision in our legislation today. This Member 
also congratulates the staff for the exceptional work here.
  I think that the leadership presented by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), the chairman, and the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, has been demonstrated in 
bringing forth a genuinely bipartisan product. The conference report is 
a very serious effort to improve our intelligence capacity. Each and 
every member of the committee and its staff dedicated long hours to the 
drafting of this legislation. Each member recognizes the importance of 
our actions and responsibilities and things yet to come. This body can 
justifiably, I believe, be proud of the efforts of the HPSCI in this 
case and, in particular, the leadership of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges strong adoption of the conference 
report to H.R. 2417.
  Together, these endeavors have severely tested the capabilities of 
our intelligence resources. However, America's interests remain global, 
and we must not devote all our energies to Iraq and al Qa'ida. The 
Intelligence Community must continue to provide timely, actionable 
intelligence on a host of potential threats--from nuclear proliferation 
threats on the Korean peninsula, to narco-traffickers in the jungles of 
Colombia, to collapsing regimes in West Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a new world, and face new and more terrible 
threats. In many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat 
was the Soviet Union. Frankly, the Intelligence Community has been slow 
in adapting to this new environment. Our intelligence services did not 
reach out aggressively to recruit the ``human intelligence'' sources 
that could have provided us invaluable information. We lost far too 
many of the skilled analysts whose job is to provide early warning. 
H.R. 2417 provides much-needed funding to rebuild a dynamic, wide-
ranging, global analytic capability. But we should be under no 
illusions--it takes years to develop skilled analysts who are able to 
``connect the dots'' and provide our policymakers with timely 
information.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee.

[[Page 29993]]


  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of our 
committee and ranking member for their commitment to working in a 
bipartisan manner on the very important work that this committee has to 
do.
  I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 
2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. Conferees and staff 
worked together closely to craft a bill that provides new and better 
capabilities to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, as well 
as to address a range of global intelligence challenges that we, as a 
country, face today.
  I want to highlight two features of this very important bill. The 
first one is the requirement that the Director of Central Intelligence 
submit an Iraq Lessons Learned Report to the intelligence committees as 
soon as possible. Tuesday we debated the merits of the lessons learned 
in Iraq. I argued that Iraq must not become another Vietnam. We need to 
know from the intelligence community what has and what has not worked, 
and what has and what has not gone well in Iraq. Better intelligence is 
essential to defeating the expanding insurgency that we are seeing 
there today. I am pleased that the bill underscores the urgency of 
intelligence lessons learned.
  This bill also establishes a pilot project within the intelligence 
community to enhance the recruitment of individuals with diverse ethnic 
and cultural backgrounds, skill sets, and language proficiency. The 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently held a rare 
public hearing on this very issue of diversity. A panel of experts 
highlighted the capabilities that a diverse workforce bestows upon the 
intelligence community. It brings added language capability and better 
understanding of foreign cultures. I am pleased that this bill 
encourages diversity in the intelligence community.
  In a similar vein, this bill also fences a portion of the funds 
authorized for the community management account until the Director of 
Central Intelligence submits a report to this committee outlining his 
plan to improve diversity throughout the intelligence community.
  I tried also to include in this bill conference language urging that 
the Drug Enforcement Agency to make funds available for the El Paso 
Intelligence Center's Open Connectivity project. That language 
unfortunately was not included. Nonetheless, I still feel that EPIC has 
an important role to play in countering terrorism, and I hope that it 
is recognized for that role in this committee and others in the near 
future.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, 
and a man who has carried some of the more difficult projects that we 
have had to deal with in this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Intelligence Authorization bill, and I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for granting me this 
time to speak on it.
  This is a very good bill, Mr. Speaker. It represents a lot of hard 
work by very dedicated staffs on both sides of the aisle. It addresses 
intelligence needs that this committee has highlighted for many years. 
The good news is, Mr. Speaker, that some of the most crucial needs of 
our intelligence community, the human intelligence and analysis, are 
getting the funding and attention that they deserve. We are fighting a 
war on terrorism, and I cannot overemphasize how important human 
intelligence, also known under the acronym of HUMINT, is to the 
security of the American people and to our national interests.
  The satellites of the Cold War were key intelligence collectors, and 
our current reconnaissance vehicles are even better today than they 
have ever been in the past. However, in the world we live in right now, 
an overreliance on overhead photography and other technical programs 
would be a mistake. They cannot provide America with plans and 
intentions of terrorists who plot in secret, hide in civilian 
populations, and communicate with messengers.

                              {time}  1215

  What you have to have is HUMINT, collected by professionals 
possessing foreign language skills, foreign cultural knowledge, and 
specialized training necessary for success. This committee encourages 
the enhancement of these critical skills areas. And this bill 
authorizes essential funding needed to accomplish these goals.
  The second crucial area in the war on terrorism is analysis. Our 
committee has expressed time and again the importance of a well-
trained, experienced analytic cadre. Like the HUMINT capability, 
building a truly professional analytical cadre takes years of 
investment in people, technology, and training. The critical skill sets 
and professional cadres are still too thin and still too few in number. 
We are still paying the price for the mistakes of the mid-1990s. The 
good news is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill commits great resources to 
correct those mistakes.
  CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and other intelligence and law 
enforcement agencies desperately need qualified analysts. It takes 
years to develop them, but the development is under way. This committee 
has seen to that. And this bill is a key measure.
  In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the bill before you will 
significantly help the intelligence agencies increase and sharpen their 
effectiveness, especially against terrorist groups.
  I strongly support this measure, Mr. Speaker. I urge its passage and 
once again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
leadership in this.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. BOSWELL), our committee member who is the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and 
Counterintelligence.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the 
ranking member, for their leadership and untiring efforts to work 
together and produce this very meaningful bill. Plus I have never seen 
better and more dedicated staff than I have seen on this committee, and 
I appreciate them very much.
  It is basic: we have to have the best possible intelligence to enable 
our troops and protect our Nation again a basic must-do. So I rise in 
support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 
2004. What is the bottom line of this bill? The bottom line is that it 
funds important new intelligence capabilities while demanding 
accountability and improvement in certain areas.
  Here are three examples: first, the conference report requires the 
intelligence community to conduct a review of lessons learned for 
military operations in Iraq. Based on the committee's reviews so far of 
prewar intelligence on Iraq, there were some serious deficiencies in 
collection and analysis that needed to be fixed, must be fixed. The 
lessons learned provision is essential and will identify new tools and 
techniques needed.
  Second, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I want to strengthen 
HUMINT collection efforts around the world. In our efforts and 
briefings and in our committee members' oversight trips to Baghdad and 
other places, members have talked to dozens of intelligence officers 
who are fighting the war on terrorism and fighting to win the peace in 
Iraq. I admire their bravery, their patriotism, and their selfless 
dedication to duty.
  This conference report provides them with tools they need to 
accomplish their mission. It expands language and cultural expertise in 
the intelligence agencies. It asks the administration to set up a 
process for reviewing the laws and guidelines associated with data 
mining. And it supports new tools for sharing information through the 
Terrorist Threat Integration Center and

[[Page 29994]]

with local officials to the Department of Homeland Security and local 
FBI joint task force on terrorism.
  Finally, the conference report includes measures that will strengthen 
the capabilities of defense human intelligence. Through further 
transformation and reform, defense HUMINT will become more flexible, 
agile, readily responsive to the Department of Defense intelligence 
requirements. This is a good bill that will protect Americans. I am 
pleased to support it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who is the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. And that subcommittee 
has, indeed, been hard at work.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 and thank our chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me this time.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his 
extraordinary leadership and the outstanding job that he does and also 
compliment our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman), for the good work that she does and the way in which both the 
chairman and the ranking member are able to work together. I too want 
to compliment our staff. I think they do a terrific job and work long 
hours on behalf of really tying to improve intelligence gathering and 
really keeping the Members posted on what is happening.
  Never before have we needed or have we demanded so much of crucial 
importance from our intelligence community. The intelligence community 
provides the eyes, ears, and analytical brain power necessary to 
identify and prevent terrorist attacks. The cataclysmic events of 
September 11, 2001, provide a unique and compelling mandate for strong 
leadership and constructive change throughout the intelligence 
community. This bill adds to that impetus for change.
  I believe our committee has authored legislation that strives to 
fully invest in and engage those economic, military, foreign policy, 
and law enforcement elements of our intelligence community in the war 
on terrorism. It strives to employ, integrate, and enhance the 
capability of the intelligence community to track down and destroy 
terrorist organizations both overseas and within the United States.
  For instance, this legislation supports the attack on international 
financial support for terrorism, supports the unique analytical 
capabilities of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury 
Department and further develops these capabilities by establishing the 
Office of Intelligence Analysis within the Treasury Department. The 
last measure will streamline and centralize the U.S. Government's 
capability to track terrorist financial networks around the globe.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I 
am acutely aware of the vital need for our intelligence resources to be 
marshaled not only on the international front but also in our homeland.
  In order to defeat terrorism threats to our Nation, all elements of 
government must communicate and coordinate more effectively among 
themselves. The conference report supports efforts to encourage the 
flow of information, measures including FBI efforts to make internal, 
structural, and technological changes to improve and expand the use of 
data mining and other cutting-edge analytical tools; authority for the 
FBI director to enter into contracts for needed services like language 
skills, intelligence analysis, and other high-value requirements relate 
to the flow of information not already available; the creation and 
nurturing of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center as a central 
office to monitor threats to the Nation; the inauguration of the 
Department of Homeland Security's office of Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection to facilitate timely sharing of relevant 
information with all appropriate Federal and State and, very 
importantly, local first responder authorities.
  Our committees will continue to encourage the intelligence community 
development of clear policies and guidelines by which no resource is 
wasted, no credible terrorist threat left undetected, and threats to 
our homeland continue to diminish.
  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is very proud of 
the men and women that serve in the war on terrorism. I am convinced 
that the bill will make them more effective in their efforts to defend 
our country. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation.
  I would be remiss, though, if I did not say something about what has 
taken place in what I would characterize as the politicizing of the 
intelligence gathering in the other body. Specifically, the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence has, I believe, tried to use 
intelligence gathering as a political vehicle for nothing other than 
political gain against the President and his team. This is wrong and I 
decry those who want to use the intelligence efforts of this country 
for political gain.
  These political efforts are unprecedented and I hope the 
embarrassment brought to bear on the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence will put an end to the charade that has taken place.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I will enter into the Record the memo that 
has been made public that came from the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
       We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and 
     believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as 
     follows:
       (1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that 
     may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or 
     questionable conduct by Administration officials. We are 
     having some success in that regard. For example, in addition 
     to the President's State of the Union speech, the Chairman 
     has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz) as 
     well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. 
     The fact that the Chairman supports our investigations into 
     these offices, and cosigns our requests for information, is 
     helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will 
     find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far 
     greater when we have the backing of the Majority. (Note: We 
     can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are 
     pursuing).
       (2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to 
     attach to any interim or final reports the committee may 
     release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we 
     intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have 
     already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by 
     senior Administration officials. We will identify the most 
     exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence 
     estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional 
     views will also, among other things, castigate the majority 
     for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats 
     will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of 
     establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine 
     amendment).
       (3) Prepare to launch an Independent investigation when it 
     becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully 
     collaborate with the Majority. We can pull the trigger on an 
     independent investigation of the Administration's use of 
     intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once. The 
     best time to do so will probably be next year either:
       (A) After we have already released our additional views on 
     an interim report--thereby providing as many as three 
     opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) Additional 
     views on the interim report; (2) announcement of our 
     independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the 
     final investigation; or
       (B) Once we identify solid leads the Majority does not want 
     to pursue. We would attract more coverage and have greater 
     credibility in that context than one in which we simply 
     launch an independent investigation based on principled but 
     vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence.
       In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized 
     independent investigation, we continue to act independently 
     when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the Majority. 
     For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at 
     the request of the Vice Chairman; we have independently 
     submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing 
     further independent requests for information.
     Summary
       Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's 
     concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an 
     important role to play in revealing the misleading--if not 
     flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior 
     Administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, 
     preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the 
     best prospect for exposing the

[[Page 29995]]

     Administration's dubious motives and motives.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members it is not appropriate during debate to characterize the actions 
or inactions in the other body.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague and classmate, the ranking 
member on our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National 
Security.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. 
And I want to express in the beginning of my comments my appreciation 
for the hard work, the cooperation of all of my colleagues on the 
committee, of course, our distinguished chairman and, most 
particularly, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who I think 
really leads us so well on our side and really brings such credit to 
the work that we do. To the staff of our committee, and, certainly, 
from where I speak, the minority staff; The word ``intelligence'' is 
used all the time--I think it resides first with them. They are second 
to none. And I really salute them for the work they do day in and day 
out.
  This legislation was prepared with our minds still focused on the 
lessons of September 11 and as the drama in Iraq was unfolding. By 
these yardsticks this conference report reflects important progress in 
many areas. One of the most significant lessons to emerge from the 
joint congressional inquiry into the 9/11 tragedy is the need to 
improve information-sharing through the extension of modern information 
technology. Sounds like a no-brainer. But what we have found is that 
simply was not the case.
  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence made a concerted 
effort this year to chart a path to bring the information revolution to 
the intelligence community. So it is imperative for the Congress to 
sustain the pressure next year and for the executive branch to embrace 
this vision.
  Regarding so-called data mining of government and private sector 
databases, this is an extraordinarily large issue, and it contains 
extensive information on U.S. persons. And this conference report 
strikes what we believe is the right balance between security and 
privacy protection for the American people. The American people care 
about this. The conference report authorizes continued development of 
data mining tools, but it prohibits their use against domestic 
databases. It calls for the administration to begin defining the 
policies, the procedures, and the technologies necessary to safeguard 
this privacy.
  I would like to turn just briefly to the problem of prewar 
intelligence. The intelligence community has to face up to the problems 
and the shortcomings in its Iraq estimates. That is why I strongly 
support the conference report's requirement for the intelligence 
community to report on lessons learned.
  I want to again thank the committee, the committee staff, my 
colleagues, most especially our gifted leader, the vice chairman of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who is chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and, obviously, a 
critical member of the team who has also been one of our world 
travelers to places that not everybody wants to go to.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2417 and 
the conference report to accompany the 2004 intelligence authorization 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as a member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. It is my pleasure to commend the leadership 
and direction of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), on this 
nonpartisan bill at a time in this country's history when it is needed 
most.
  This bill addresses the critical need to review the Nation's imagery 
capabilities and the intelligence community's strategic plan for an 
imagery architecture. It is imperative that the community sees into the 
future with a utility of a cohesive imagery structure that focuses on 
each technical collection system and how it fits uniquely or with 
intentional redundancy into this broader framework we call an imagery 
architecture strategy. I think we have a fair spending plan here that 
provides the support that is needed, yet challenges the community to 
see more clearly a comprehensive vision of a much-needed cohesive 
architecture. Just like an architect, we must have a blueprint.
  Mr. Speaker, on that note I would also like to express my 
disappointment that the choices presented to us in this conference 
report require us to fund a particular classified collection system 
within this bill. This system does not fit into what we hope will be 
our Nation's well-conceived architecture. In fact, it is a 
transgression. It may perpetuate a series of problems.
  I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons), for his efforts in spearheading a committee campaign to 
educate all members of the committee on the pros and cons of this 
program and to praise him for the impact that he had on the 
authorization for the program in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community is building a number of 
tools. I believe we need to use them and use them jointly and across 
services and agencies. I am glad to say that this bill addresses the 
need for greater emphasis on tasking, processes, exploitation, and 
dissemination practices within the intelligence community.

                              {time}  1230

  These intelligence systems are becoming so proprietary and so complex 
and so autonomous that neatly networking them is becoming equally as 
difficult. It is very important that we observe collectively how these 
systems are used and by whom for greatest benefit. I believe this bill 
enforces that concern.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 supports our intelligence community as it 
supports our country's defense. Most visibly our intelligence community 
is fully supporting our military and other personnel in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom, in Operation Enduring Freedom, at Guantanamo Bay and here in 
homeland security operations. Mr. Speaker, intelligence is our Nation's 
first line of defense. We needs to support it and our intelligence 
professionals who continue to do heroic, but unheralded, work around 
the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill properly supports the 
intelligence community as it proves our best and first line of defense 
for America. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2417.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), another committee member.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues have already done, I 
would like to compliment the chairman on his commitment to 
bipartisanship within the committee, not only in the presentation of 
this bill but in so many of the committee's activities. The two sides 
may not see eye to eye on every issue, but the two sides do share a 
commitment to national security.
  I especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), for her leadership and bipartisanship. She 
brings to her position a vigorous commitment to the Nation's 
intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2417. The bill enhances our 
Nation's intelligence capabilities in several important ways: In all 
source analysis, in foreign language capabilities, in human 
intelligence, in counter-terrorism watchlists and in particular 
programs. It is a step forward in what is I think a long-term 
transformation of the intelligence community.

[[Page 29996]]

  The bill is based on a good measure of oversight, but as I spoke 
earlier today here, it is difficult to provide the kind of full 
oversight of such a multifaceted and secretive undertaking, but it is 
essential that we do so.
  Intelligence, like law enforcement and policing, is essential to an 
orderly society; but like policing, it has great potential for misuse, 
challenging personal rights and civil liberties and abroad it can harm 
as well as advance our interests.
  It is also essential that we, as a committee, support and stand 
behind the dedicated people and very talented people who sacrifice so 
much, sometimes even their lives, to keep alive American ideals.
  We know that our intelligence is not perfect. We have a particularly 
good example of that in the intelligence that led up to and into the 
war with Iraq. I hope the committee will continue to scrutinize the way 
in which intelligence on Iraq's threat or perceived threat to the 
United States may have been deficient and to draw lessons for the 
future. The committee's oversight of this issue will be especially 
important if the long-term transformation of the intelligence community 
is to result in better intelligence.
  I hope we will continue to move toward more use of understanding of 
unclassifieds and open sources. There is often, in fact, more useful 
knowledge in open sources than from the secret sources that the 
intelligence community sometimes so depends on.
  I am disappointed that this bill does not include my proposal to 
authorize $10 million for two programs designed to increase language 
proficiency in America. Inadequate language capabilities actually 
threaten our national security. We must invest more in the creation of 
a workforce possessing requisite language skills; and to do this we 
must build greater proficiency throughout the country. We must increase 
the pool. There is bipartisan agreement on that, I believe, in the 
committee.
  I appreciate the chairman's commitment to finding a comprehensive 
solution to intelligence community deficiencies, indeed, national 
deficiencies in our language capabilities. I look forward to doing that 
with the chairman in the next session on, as in so many things in this 
committee, a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very dedicated member of 
our committee who is well known for other capabilities as well.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan effort. The members, 
the people that have been on the committee and the new members I think 
have done a good job, and especially the staffs. Everybody should vote 
for this bill. It is good however, I have some concerns that I would 
like to bring up, not about the bill, but about the intelligence 
process.
  For years, our military has been drawn and cut down in half. If you 
look at the Air Wings, the number of services, the number of tanks, the 
number of ships, the number of Marine Corps, the number of Air Wings 
that we have, it has almost been cut in half, but yet we ask our 
military to do almost four times what they did during previous years.
  Now, how does that effect the intelligence community? Because every 
time DOD is deployed, our intelligence agents have to deploy with them. 
We spread them thin. And there are Members in this body and the other 
body that continually, through their liberal views, choose to cut 
defense and intel to pay for social programs.
  Now, those in many cases are the same Members that I have heard get 
up on this floor and in the other body talk about, oh, how devastating 
it is that we do not have enough body armor for our troops or we cannot 
upgrade Humvees or that George Tenent should be replaced. But in some 
cases, those same Members have voted to cut the funding necessary to 
give those individuals the tools they need to do their job, and that is 
wrong.
  You will not see that portion in any report that we have done either 
in this body or the other body, because I do not think they have got 
the guts to put it in there. They will not point at themselves, because 
they won't give our kids and our intel folks the funding that they 
need.
  We have older systems that have been drawn out. In the previous 
administration, we went into Haiti and Somalia. Those places are the 
hell holes of the Earth, and they are still there. Look at Kosovo, the 
number of missions. You know how many tanks we sunk in Kosovo? Five. We 
destroyed a country, but we had five kills and we wore out our 
equipment. Guess what? CIA and intel and NSA, they were all involved in 
that, and we spread them thin. So I would caution the Members who 
chastise Mr. Tenent or any of the other leadership that we put in those 
positions because we need to give them the tools to do their job. They 
are hard working, dedicated individuals, spread to thin.
  The other thing that I would bring up that upsets me is that there 
have been some memos using this committee in the other body as a 
partisanship tool to take a majority and the White House. That is 
wrong. During a time of war, Mr. Speaker, that does disservice to this 
Nation, to this committee and to the American people.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members it is 
not appropriate during the debate to characterize actions or inactions 
in the other body.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would just point out that Members on our side strongly support the 
women and men in the field who work in our intelligence community. I 
assume the prior speaker is aware of that.
  We also, to my knowledge, have not produced any memos around here 
that could be characterized as divisive. We are all pulling in the same 
direction, and that is, hopefully, to enhance our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), a senior member of our committee and a senior member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking 
member, and she is my friend, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cun-
ningham), our colleague on the other side who just spoke, has left the 
room. For I did want to remind him what the ranking member just has 
said and that is every member of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence vigorously and actively supports the intelligence 
community in its entirety and fully recognizes the extraordinary and 
dangerous work that they do on behalf of this great Nation.
  I rise in support of this measure. As ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have had the 
privilege to meet many talented and dedicated intelligence 
professionals. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifices they have made to 
ensure that United States interests both in our homeland and abroad are 
protected. We must make a continued investment in human resources, our 
greatest intelligence assets. This bill does that by increasing funds 
available for language proficiency maintenance and awards initiatives 
and providing specialized training for collectors and analysts.
  I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision similar to one 
I offered on the House floor. It requires the intelligence community to 
establish a pilot project to recruit people of diverse ethnic and 
cultural backgrounds and those proficient in critical foreign 
languages. Annual statistics, and the committee's November 5 public 
diversity hearing demonstrate that the intelligence community continues 
to lag behind the Federal workforce and the private sector in the 
number of women and minorities in its ranks, especially in core mission 
areas. Clearly, more must be done to increase diversity across the 
intelligence community. I believe that this pilot project is another 
important step in this regard.

[[Page 29997]]

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

                              {time}  1245

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

[[Page 29998]]

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

[[Page 29999]]

  I also want to say that about a year ago we were just packaging up 
the joint inquiry product. We had an extensive effort with our 
colleagues in the other body to understand 9/11, what went wrong. We 
came up with a good report. It was a long one. I think it steered us in 
some directions that corrections have already been taken. It also 
created a follow-on commission, the national commission, which is at 
work now under the leadership of Governor Kean and former member Lee 
Hamilton, for whom we have great admiration. I think that I should 
point out to the people in the United States of America that we are 
part of the review they are doing. We have invited them to conduct 
oversight of how we do oversight. So the American people can be 
reassured that there is oversight of the intelligence community, and 
some of the things we cannot talk about are indeed watched by others.
  My time has come to an end. We have had a good year. We look for a 
better year ahead dealing with capabilities to make sure our country is 
safer.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 
and to note the Financial Services Committee's interest in three 
sections of the report. All of the sections seek to improve this 
country's ability to fight the financing of terrorists, and I 
wholeheartedly support them.
  Section 105 of the report establishes an Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis within the Department of the Treasury, headed by an Assistant 
Secretary appointed by the President after consultation with the 
Director of Central Intelligence. Formation of the office is necessary 
because the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and its 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are essential tools in the fight 
against the funding of terrorism, but today lack access to some 
``secure'' information essential to that effort. Establishment of the 
office creates a secure channel for that information to flow, as 
necessary, to FinCEN and OFAC, and for them to send back appropriate 
information.
  Section 374 modernizes the definition of financial institutions that 
may be served administrative subpoenas, as rigidly controlled by the 
existing Right to Financial Privacy Act. When that Act was written, 
banks were really the only ``financial Institutions'' a terrorist might 
have used to stash or transfer money. As our efforts to stamp out 
terror financing have become more successful, a lot of that activity 
has moved over into other, less-traditional sorts of financial-services 
businesses--even, for example, to dealers in precious commodities such 
as gold or diamonds. The USA PATRIOT Act appropriately expanded the 
definition of ``financial institution'' to include these other 
financial-services businesses. This section establishes parity in the 
definition of ``financial institution'' between the PATRIOT Act and the 
RFPA, allowing the judicious use of administrative subpoenas in terror 
cases to reflect this larger universe of businesses that might be 
exploited. Here I must note my discomfort that the conference report 
ignores the Financial Services Committee's request that Section 374 
include the right to injunctive relief as provided for in Section 1118 
of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
  Section. 376 allows for the ``in camera'' review of sensitive 
information that leads to imposition of `'special measures'' isolating 
rogue countries or banks, as defined under Sec. 311 of the PATRIOT Act. 
Under the previous version of Sec 311, there is no ability to protect 
this sensitive information should it be necessary for the imposition of 
the ``special measures,'' and that omission argues against use of the 
powers as effectively as we would like. For example, if the Central 
Intelligence Agency should have information that a bank were doing 
business with a terrorist, it quite possibly would be counterproductive 
to expose the CIA's sources and methods to indict individuals or shut 
down the bank, but the Treasury's ``special measures'' under Sec. 311 
could effectively isolate the bank if the sensitive information could 
be used ``in camera.'' This section merely provides protection of that 
sensitive information that might be used to support the imposition of 
those measures.
  Mr. Speaker, these three sections are all important tools in the 
fight against terrorism, and I strongly support their inclusion. I 
regret that Section 1118 was not reference in the report's Section 374, 
and the Financial Services Committee reserves the right to address that 
issue later. Meanwhile, I support the conference report and ask for its 
immediate passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to a 
provision in this conference report that intrudes on our civil 
liberties and will do little, if anything, to protect us from 
terrorism.
  I think it is important that law enforcement have the powers it needs 
to investigate acts of money laundering that are connected to terrorism 
and espionage, but we must ensure those powers are reasonable and 
appropriately crafted. Current law already gives the FBI the ability to 
obtain financial records from various financial institutions, which are 
defined as banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and credit unions, with 
little or no judicial oversight. In fact, the government can delay 
notification to a court that it has sought such records if it merely 
certifies in writing that it required emergency access to the 
documents.
  Now, the FBI is seeking investigative authorities beyond what are 
necessary for terrorism and intelligence investigations. Section 374 of 
the conference report would give the FBI even more unfettered authority 
by subjecting a broader group of ``financial institutions'' to the 
FBI's special investigative authorities. The FBI would be able to seek 
financial records not only from traditional financial institutions but 
also from pawnbrokers, travel agencies, car dealers, boat sellers, 
telegraph companies, and persons engaged in real estate transactions, 
among others.
  The record of the Bush administration demonstrates that this 
provision is a significant intrusion on our civil liberties that will 
not be used to protect us from terrorism. In the days after September 
11, the administration demanded from Congress expanded powers to root 
out terrorist activity. Congress granted much of those powers in the 
form of the USA PATRIOT Act, but the administration has yet to justify 
how it has used those powers to find the planners of the 2001 attacks 
or to thwart other, planned attacks. Instead, the administration 
returns to Congress with requests for more authorities, such as this 
one, in a grab for power.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
conference report.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I stand today strongly opposed to the 
Conference Report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
FY 2004.
  Although the House of Representatives recently voted in a bi-partisan 
and overwhelming fashion to repeal Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, a 
provision that threatens Americans' rights by allowing for ``sneak and 
peak searches'', it appears the administration is poised to move ahead 
with further actions that endanger civil liberties by slipping an 
expanded PATRIOT Act power in the Intelligence Conference Report.
  The hidden measure would significantly expand the FBI's power to 
acquire financial records without judicial oversight from car dealers, 
pawnbrokers, travel agencies, and many other businesses. Traditional 
financial institutions like banks and credit unions are already subject 
to such demands, but this dramatic expansion of government authority 
will mean that records created by average citizens who purchase cars, 
plan vacations, or buy gifts will be subject to government seizure and 
analysis without the important requirements of probable cause or 
judicial review.
  This provision initially appeared in a leaked draft of so-called 
``PATRIOT II'', a proposal the American public and Members on both 
sides of the aisle in the House and Senate publicly rejected. It is now 
clear the administration's strategy is to pass PATRIOT II in separate 
pieces with little public debate and surreptitiously attached to other 
legislation. This is far from an appropriate or democratic way to 
handle issues that affect the fundamental liberties and freedoms of 
Americans.
  I urge the administration and the Attorney General to openly and 
honestly return to Congress to discuss options that curtail, not 
expand, the PATRIOT Act to make it consistent with the United States 
Constitution. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Intelligence Conference Report and this unnecessary and dangerous 
expansion of the government's assault on civil liberties.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

[[Page 30000]]



                          ____________________