[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21723-21727]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, 9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS 
                           IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 827

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence 
     community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border 
     security, and international cooperation and coordination, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed three hours and 40 minutes, with 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services; 30 minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Government Reform; 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations; 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; 
     and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on 
     Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules 
     Committee Print dated October 4, 2004. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon passage of H.R. 10 and receipt of a message 
     from the Senate transmitting S. 2845: (a) the House shall be 
     considered to have: taken from the Speaker's table S. 2845; 
     stricken all after the enacting clause of such bill and 
     inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 10, as passed 
     by the House; passed the Senate bill as so amended; and 
     insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the 
     Senate thereon; and (b) the Speaker may appoint conferees on 
     S. 2845 and the House amendment thereto at any time.
       Sec. 3. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order 
     pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in 
     order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the 
     legislative schedule within two additional legislative days 
     after passage of H.R. 10.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and structured rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. 
H. Res. 827 makes in order 23 amendments, including an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  The rule before the House today will provide for a thorough debate on 
this Nation's vision for the reform and improvement of our intelligence 
operations. Specifically, this rule provides for 3 hours and 40 minutes 
of general debate allocated between the chairman and ranking minority 
members of eight separate committees.
  H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print dated October 4, 
2004 be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and 
shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order 
against the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
text of the Committee on Rules print.
  H. Res. 827 makes in order only those further amendments which are 
printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  The rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  In addition, this rule provides that upon passage of H.R. 10, the 
Senate transmittal of S. 2845, the House shall be considered to have 
taken from the Speaker's table S. 2845, stricken all after the enacting 
clause of such bill and inserted the provisions of H.R. 10 as passed by 
the House.
  Finally, the rule provides that House shall be considered to have 
passed the

[[Page 21724]]

Senate bill as so amended, and insisted on its amendment and requested 
a conference with the Senate. The Speaker may appoint conferees on S. 
2845 and the House amendment at any time. This provision provides for 
the expeditious movement of the bill upon passage to the next stage of 
the legislative process, which is a House-Senate conference.
  The rule also provides that the motion to instruct conferees shall be 
in order only at a time designated by the Speaker and the legislative 
schedule within 2 additional legislative days after the passage of H.R. 
10. This provision is intended to protect and ensure the minority's 
right to offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years have passed since that beautiful September day 
was shattered by terrorists who despise the thought of a Nation that 
allows its people the freedom to live and worship as they choose. I 
agree with President Bush that ``the terrorists are offended not merely 
by our policies, they are offended by our existence as free nations.''
  Since that day, our Nation has fought this war on multiple fronts: 
diplomatic, financial, investigative, homeland security, humanitarian, 
and militarily. We have also committed to improving our intelligence 
operations. After the House and Senate passed the Intelligence 
Authorization bill last Congress, the President signed the bill into 
law, establishing the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the 
United States. Its goal was to prepare a complete account of the events 
surrounding the September 11 attacks. Recently, the Commission 
submitted recommendations to Congress citing the need for reforms of 
our intelligence and homeland security systems.
  I am pleased that this bipartisan group was able to come through to a 
thorough conclusion on what went wrong prior to September 11 and what 
must be done to ensure that those heinous acts never occur again.
  Proactive steps have already been taken during the month of August 
when Congress traditionally recesses to conduct work in our respective 
districts across the country, Members were called back to participate 
in no less than 20 committee hearings on the Commission's report. I 
joined my colleagues in a hearing of the House Select Committee on 
Homeland Security where we were able to listen to the testimony of 
Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton.
  President Bush has outlined a strategy for sweeping reform of our 
security and intelligence operations in his continuing efforts to keep 
our Nation safe from those who wish to do harm to our citizens. Today, 
the House continues its efforts to move forward to make the substantive 
changes that will inevitably help better protect the citizens of this 
country. The House is committed to doing everything in its power to 
enact a plan that reflects the full scope of the Commission's 
intelligence and homeland security recommendations.
  This wide-ranging bill reforms and integrates our intelligence 
capacity by establishing a National Intelligence Director to serve as 
the head of the intelligence community, a National Intelligence 
Council, and an Intelligence Community Information Technology Officer 
to assist in implementation of an integrated information technology 
network.
  The bill focuses on effective information-sharing, because we know 
that prior to September 11, the sharing of intelligence in the Federal 
Government was inadequate. This bill ensures the sharing of and access 
to information within our intelligence community with a particular 
emphasis placed on detection, prevention, and the disruption of 
potential terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10 focuses on terrorist prevention by authorizing 
Federal officials to target ``lone wolf'' terrorists, targeting money 
laundering and terrorist financing, and enhancing airline security 
through improved passenger pre-screening, and training all Federal law 
enforcement officers with in-flight counterterrorism procedures.
  This bill effectively restructures the government by strengthening 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation through recruitment and retention, 
streamlining our Nation's current security clearance procedures by 
eliminating duplicative processes and, finally, improving efficiency by 
expediting the processes that direct resources to first responders 
where they are most needed.
  In addition, in response to the Commission's detailed report on 
problems such as border security, information-sharing, and immigration 
enforcement, this comprehensive bill tackles these challenging issues 
and enhances the reforms that have been put in place since September 
11.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule for a bill that is 
critical to improving our current security and intelligence operations. 
I urge support for the rule and for the underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the last Congress, after great pressure 
from the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks against the 
United States, this institution took a positive step in fighting the 
war on terror by creating the 9/11 Commission. The Commission was 
charged with the responsibility to investigate the reasons why that 
horrible day happened and to recommend ways to ensure that it could 
never happen again.
  The Commission, ably chaired by Governor Kean of New Jersey and our 
former colleague, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, conducted a truly 
nonpartisan, exhaustive, and introspective investigation of the events 
leading up to September 11, 2001.

                              {time}  1315

  Their report is chilling. It provides ample evidence of missed 
opportunities, failures of communication, and the inability of our 
intelligence agencies to fully examine and understand the threats 
against the United States.
  As a result of these failures, the al Qaeda network and Osama bin 
Laden have been able to launch attacks against the United States in 
Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Yemen in the years leading up to 
2001 and, of course, against us on our own shores on September 11, 
2001.
  The commission on a totally bipartisan basis made 41 recommendations 
to the Congress. While not every Member of the House or the Senate 
agreed completely with every part of the commission's recommendations, 
many in this institution felt that the work of the commission deserved 
to be considered in a thoughtful and deliberate way.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leadership of the House has failed to 
give these recommendations the serious consideration they deserve. I 
must commend the chairman and ranking member who conducted hearings 
during the August district work period and into September. Many of 
these committees made substantive recommendations. But the text of the 
original H.R. 10 and the version of the bill before us today were not 
produced in a bipartisan manner; and that does a great disservice to 
this body, to the families of the 9/11 victims and to the meaningful 
work done by the 9/11 commission.
  Unlike the bipartisan work on this issue by the other body, the 
process in the House was directed and controlled by the Republican 
leadership. Unfortunately, many of the thoughtful suggestions made by 
Democratic Members and adopted by their committees were jettisoned from 
the bill before us today.
  While some of us may ultimately support H.R. 10 in an effort to move 
the process forward and in an effort to make the country and the world 
a much safer place, there is a deep concern that, on an issue of such 
great importance to every American, whether they be a Democrat, 
Republican or an Independent, that the House has missed a great 
opportunity.
  The 108th Congress has been one of many missed opportunities, and it 
is a shame that we have to include this important legislation on that 
list.
  The rule does make in order a substitute amendment to be made in 
order

[[Page 21725]]

by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The Menendez 
substitute merges the text of two Senate bills that have been endorsed 
by the 9/11 Commission, S. 2845, known as Collins-Lieberman, as 
reported from committee; and S. 2774, known as McCain-Lieberman, as 
introduced. The substitute more accurately reflects the work of the 
commission and should be considered by the House. It is unfortunate 
that we will consider H.R. 10 and the Menendez substitute under such a 
hurried schedule, but that is a hand that has been dealt to the House 
by the Republican leadership.
  I am sure that many members of the Democratic Caucus will support the 
Menendez substitute. I hope that members of the Republican conference 
will do so as well.
  Mr. Speaker, time and again we have seen the Republican leadership 
purposefully exclude Democrats from the deliberative process. At the 
hearing of the Committee on Rules on H.R. 10, I said that the 
Republican Party does not hold the lock on national security issues. 
National security is about all of us.
  I hope that ultimately a bill will be sent to the President that will 
provide for the security of our Nation and its people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for time under the rule 
is because I do not think there will be enough time during 
consideration under general debate and there are a number of points 
that I wanted to make.
  I have been a member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence for 6 years, and I am very proud and privileged to serve 
on that committee and have served on the committee when 9/11 occurred 
and obviously since that time. I want to just state for the record the 
things that we have done as a Congress and also what the administration 
has done long before a 9/11 Commission was ever created and long before 
a 9/11 Commission put out a report.
  We created a homeland security agency that put together 22 agencies 
at a cost of $40 billion. These agencies are now working together, 
communicating and cooperating together. We created a TSA agency for 
every major airport in this country to screen passengers and screen 
bags at a cost of about $5.2 billion. We gave the airline industry $4.6 
billion to secure cockpits and to make sure that the airline industry 
was able to survive after 9/11. We passed here on this floor in this 
Congress the PATRIOT Act which allows law enforcement people to 
communicate with each other, allows law enforcement people to arrest 
people in Buffalo, New York and Portland, Oregon trained by al Qaeda 
with no other purpose in mind but to hurt Americans.
  The PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement people to surveil people and 
surveil people's cell phones and look into people's bank accounts, all 
provisions that did not exist before 9/11. We created that opportunity. 
We gave to New York between $20 billion and $40 billion to compensate 
the families and to compensate New York for the work that was done to 
clean up the Twin Towers area.
  We authorized and now there are being recruited 1,000 new CIA agents, 
and we authorized and there are now being recruited 1,000 new FBI 
agents. We created TTIC, which is a terrorism task force within the CIA 
that works very closely and now is analyzing information, and there is 
a great deal of coordination and cooperation going on.
  We created the JTTFs in every major city where all law enforcement 
and prosecutors are sitting together every day talking to one another 
and doing good work. The FBI has been reorganized under Director 
Mueller, and he deserves a great deal of credit for reorganizing the 
FBI with one goal in mind: to go after the terrorists and to really 
make an effort in every office in the FBI to communicate directly with 
local law enforcement people.
  We invaded Afghanistan. We dismantled al Qaeda at a cost of about $18 
billion, an enormous cost, but we have dismantled al Qaeda. We have 
invaded Iraq. We have brought down Saddam Hussein's regime. But the 
bottom line in all of this is we have not been attacked for 3 years, 
and we have not been attacked because we have done a lot of good in 
this Congress. And the lion's share of the credit goes to this 
administration, to President Bush and his team, and this Congress for 
the work we have done to secure America, to go after the terrorists, to 
dismantle al Qaeda. And it has cost us enormous amounts of money, but 
we have not been attacked for 3 years.
  All of this was done prior to the 9/11 Commission and prior to any 
kind of report being put out.
  Now to the bill. This bill was cobbled together by a small group of 
people with little or no real help from those of us on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence or any other committee. It creates a 
so-called intelligence czar, and it creates what people have been 
criticizing around here for a long time, another bureaucracy. It not 
only creates another national intelligence czar, but it also creates 
eight or nine additional people. It creates a whole new bureaucracy.
  The criticism has been that there was too much bureaucracy. There 
were too many stovepipes. There were too many people who were not 
communicating or cooperating with one another.
  My point is this: We do not need another bureaucracy. We do not need 
another person. There are plenty of people that are communicating and 
cooperating, and the proof of that is all of the things that we have 
put in place and that the Bush administration has done. They deserve 
the credit, and we deserve the credit. And we should be talking around 
here about the things that the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and other committees have done and that we as a Congress 
have done to secure America, to go after al Qaeda, to take the war on 
terror to the terrorists. We have done a lot of good work around here.
  Now this idea that the report comes out and it is sacrosanct and it 
is the end all and be all, I think, is not accurate. And to put another 
layer of bureaucracy without consulting the communities, without 
consulting the CIA, without consulting those people that are involved 
in this on a day-to-day basis I think is wrong.
  I will vote against the bill, and I hope Members will look carefully 
at it.
  I appreciate very much the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for 
giving me the chance to have an opportunity to sound off on these 
things.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this rule does accommodate the request of 
the minority leadership to make in order the Menendez amendment. It 
allows 60 minutes in order for debate on that amendment. However, the 
text of H.R. 10, which we will consider under the rule, undercuts 
bipartisan efforts to strengthen the intelligence portions of the bill 
which were adopted in the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  My amendment offered in committee to establish an independent privacy 
and civil liberties board passed our committee by a vote of 16 to 3. A 
second amendment offered by a member of the majority, the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), to give the National Intelligence director 
stronger authority to transfer and reprogram money passed in our 
committee by a vote of 12 to 7.
  A third offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to 
prevent the executive branch from reorganizing the intelligence 
community without Congress's input passed by voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, it is as if these amendments were written in 
disappearing ink. Not one of them made it into the bill that was 
considered and reported by the Committee on Rules. Not one.
  Our new Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), is trying to restore our 
committee's long-standing bipartisan tradition

[[Page 21726]]

which had come apart in recent months. He supported two of these 
amendments, but his leadership prevented them from becoming part of the 
base bill. Why?
  Fortunately, our amendments are included in S. 2845, the Collins-
Lieberman-McCain bill which is the substance of the Menendez amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. This is one of the reasons I strongly 
support the Menendez amendment which we will discuss later this 
afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should have accommodated bipartisan efforts by 
the committee of primary jurisdiction in this House. The actions by the 
Speaker and the Committee on Rules to strip bipartisan provisions of 
H.R. 10 are a sorry way to start this historic debate. I will vote 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the rule and the bill that the rule brings to 
the floor later today.
  Mr. Speaker, on a day like today a lot of Members will get up here 
and make political arguments and try to score political points. I trust 
that the public will see through all of that.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has said, and I think so, 
well, since 9/11 we have taken a number of very important steps in this 
body on a bipartisan basis. There are a lot of things that we have 
done. Perhaps that is one reason why the 9/11 report itself says very 
clearly we are safer today than we were 3 years ago. But it continues 
on to say, but we are not safe.
  It is that last part that brings us here today. I know that we are 
all grateful that the 9/11 Commission did not give in to the finger-
pointing that we have heard so much of in the months leading up to its 
creation. But what the commission does make very clear, I think what 
the public understands instinctively is that for too many years a storm 
was growing in the terrorist world while too many of our leaders just 
turned and looked away.
  The question that we will answer over the next 2 days is, Will we 
look away once again? Will our successors 10 years from now, 15 years 
from now or more, will they look back and say that this Congress failed 
to act when we could have, when we should have, even when the signs of 
danger were unmistakable? Just as unmistakable in my view is what we 
need to do, and that is what the underlying bill is about.
  This legislation that we will take up today contains steps that will 
make us stronger, better, smarter, reforming our intelligence; 
destroying the lines of material support that make a terrorist 
operation possible; giving our officials from the Pentagon to our first 
responders the tools that they need to disrupt terrorists plans.
  There will be some good debate today, and there will be some foolish 
debate today. Some apparently are more interested in who gets the 
credit instead of what gets done, but the bottom line is simple. This 
time under our watch we must not look away. We cannot look away.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge 
them to support this rule so that we can get to the debate on the 
underlying bill.
  I urge passage of this underlying bill as quickly as we can. It will 
offer important tools. It will help this Nation be safe once again.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the remarks of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who I have the highest respect 
for, but I think it would be a great mistake to lead the American 
people to believe that we have done all we should be doing to secure 
the homeland.
  If you look at our record, though you may claim America is safer, it 
is far from as safe as it might be in light of the threats we face.
  One year after 9/11, bin Laden on his Web site said his goal is to 
kill 4 million Americans. The greatest threat we face today is a 
nuclear bomb brought into one of our major cities by terrorists.

                              {time}  1330

  In the 2 years before 9/11, we did more to secure loose nukes than we 
did in the 2 years after 9/11. Three years after 9/11, we still do not 
have a unified, accessible terrorist watch list.
  We just read in the paper the other day that 120,000 hours of 
untranslated wiretap intercepts are at the FBI. We know that 20,000 
illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico were caught and 
released last year into our country because we did not fund the 
detention space to hold them.
  We know that our administration says we need anthrax vaccines to 
vaccinate 25 million Americans in the event of an anthrax attack, and 
today, in our stockpile, we have enough vaccine to vaccinate 500 
people.
  I submit to my colleagues that the increased spending on homeland 
security has not been near what it should be. The other night, during 
the presidential debate, when John Kerry enumerated some of these 
shortcomings, President Bush had an interesting response. He said, 
well, that is going to cost a lot of money, and we have a big tax gap. 
It shows us where the priorities have been in the administration.
  Last fiscal year, our appropriations for homeland security were $20 
billion more than they were in the year before 9/11, $20 billion. The 
tax cuts last fiscal year benefiting the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans was four times that. I say we have made the wrong choices. We 
have had the wrong priorities, and we should be focusing on the real 
threat to the security of the American people, al Qaeda.
  We increased homeland security appropriations this year in the bill 
we just approved a few minutes ago by $1 billion. It sounds like a lot 
of money. We spend $1 billion every week in Iraq. It is time to take 
the real threat of al Qaeda and bin Laden seriously to protect this 
country to be sure we are safe from terrorist attacks.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have another request for time; although 
the speaker is not here on the floor at this moment. I think he will be 
here shortly. I would ask, does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) 
have any other speakers?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
  9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean is quoted today calling the bill 
the other body passed 96-2 a dream. If the other body's bill is a 
dream, I guess H.R. 10 is his nightmare.
  There are many of us with grave concerns with the underlying bill, 
H.R. 10. Analysis of the bill shows it only implements 10 of the 41 
recommendations, while tacking on an additional 50. In due time we will 
have a chance to debate this.
  More importantly, the Rules Committee has also made in order a 
substitute amendment. While the name has changed, it is the same exact 
substance of the Shays/Maloney substitute. This will allow us the 
opportunity to have a fair debate. An opportunity to pass a clean bill 
with bipartisan support.
  I will note that the Rules Committee did miss an opportunity to make 
this truly a bipartisan effort and I remind everyone that the American 
people do not want a partisan debate on their security. Both parties 
need to work together and pass this substitute.
  This is what the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Family Steering 
Committee has been fighting for.
  Over the last weeks they have been unwavering in their support for a 
fair debate and have fought for an up or down vote on clean 
legislation.
  Today they have scored another improbable victory.
  They were told by the House leadership--the same people that fought 
the creation and extension of the 9/11 commission--that the House would 
never have this opportunity. The families and commission refused to 
listen and once again fought for change.
  They told us they want us to work in a bipartisan way.
  I thank them for always keeping this House on task and I hope, with 
today's substitute, we can do just that.
  By allowing a substitute, this House will have the opportunity to 
vote up or down legislation that takes provisions from both the 
Collins/Lieberman and the McCain/Lieberman bills.

[[Page 21727]]

  This is the same legislation, H.R. 5223, Congressman Shays and I have 
introduced in the House and both have the support of our bipartisan 9/
11 Commission Caucus.
  This substitute takes Title One of the Collins/Lieberman Bill which 
creates a National Intelligence Director and a National Center for 
Counter Terrorism. For Titles two through nine, it uses the language of 
the McCain/Lieberman bill.
  This combination would allow the House to debate a bill similar to 
the bill that passed the other body 96-2, a bill that enacts the 
provisions of the 9/11 Commission without any add-ons. This is a bill 
we could have on the President's desk before we leave town.
  I ask Members to support this rule, but I urge them to support the 
substitute.
  This is the option the 9/11 Families and the 9/11 Commission have 
fought for. It would be a shame if this House does not take this 
opportunity to work together and pass this substitute.
  The American people want this Congress to work in a bipartisan way to 
enact the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Today we will have that 
opportunity by supporting the substitute.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, then I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________