[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[House]
[Page 25489]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          INDEPENDENT THINKING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, our Nation 
suffered the most horrible attack ever on American soil at the hands of 
those with a deep-seated, enduring hatred for freedom.
  Since that day, every one of us has been anxious to do whatever we 
can to protect our Nation's security. We have made great strides in 
this direction over the past 3 years, and much of the bill currently 
being considered seeks to capitalize on the success of the policies of 
the Bush administration.
  When 9/11 Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton and Commission member 
Slade Gorton testified before the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
promised that I would carefully analyze any proposal that would come 
before this Congress to ensure that independence and ingenuity are 
preserved and that any intelligence-gathering entity or entities are 
not susceptible to groupthink.
  The creation of the National Intelligence Director in this bill is 
precisely the formula for groupthink.

                              {time}  1900

  I absolutely believe the sharing of information is essential, but a 
National Intelligence Director with budget control and hiring and 
firing authority will create the climate for top-down groupthink. This 
groupthink will eliminate the competition of ideas and hinder 
innovation and creativity. Next time, it will not matter how faulty the 
information sharing, but a matter of the information not being 
generated or discovered to begin with. Instead of seeking to create 
out-of-the-box, non-linear thinking, creative, effective intelligence 
organizations, this legislation is carving square pegs to fit into 
round holes. It is impossible not to reach the conclusion that 
groupthink is the inevitable result of the 9/11 Commission NID 
proposal.
  We need to establish open channels of information-sharing between 
agencies, but not cripple them with top-down control. The testimony 
both before and by the 9/11 Commission established that there was not a 
single model of an intelligence culture that got it right. We must find 
the models we can use to create the types of agencies that can think 
outside the box.
  Just as importantly, our national security begins at our borders. 
H.R. 10 included many immigration reforms that would have greatly 
improved the security of the United States. The conference committee 
either completely removed most of those provisions or mutilated them 
beyond recognition.
  They removed a requirement that all people entering the U.S. must 
provide secure verification of their identities and citizenship; a 
requirement that people present secure identification to establish 
their identity to Federal employees. They took out provisions which 
would have expedited the removal of illegal aliens and prevented 
terrorists from obtaining asylum.
  They stripped a provision that would have cut down on excessive 
judicial review of the deportations of criminal aliens. They cut a 
provision which would have mandated that dangerous aliens who cannot be 
deported be detained. They chopped a section that would have imposed 
criminal penalties for false claims of citizenship.
  Finally, the issue that has received the most attention lately, they 
cut a provision that would have barred illegal aliens from obtaining 
driver's licenses.
  After all of this, they told the people who lost their loved ones on 
September 11 that those who are truly seeking to improve their safety 
are the ones holding this bill up in conference.
  This is not a time for partisan politics or turf wars. If the goal 
here is truly to improve the security of our Nation as best we can, we 
cannot stifle intelligence activities nor ignore the mammoth threat 
pouring through our borders and living among us.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in refusing to settle for a bill that 
does not do all it can to improve the safety of those who sent us here 
to represent them.

                          ____________________