Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on my return from my overseas travel, as a result, I was not able to be present for rollcall votes 449 and 450. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' for rollcall vote 449 and ``yes'' for rollcall vote 450.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of November 14, I had to depart early for a previously scheduled meeting at the White House. As a result, I was not able to be present for rollcall votes Nos. 439 and 440. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both measures. I request that this statement appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on my return from my district in Southwest Florida, as a result, I was not able to be present for rollcall votes 436 and 437. Had I been present, I would have voted yes for rollcall vote 436 and yes for rollcall vote 437. I request that this statement appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time and for her service, of course, on the Committee on Rules as well. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to defend democracy and freedom, which is what this Nation is about today, and the battle in the war against terrorism within our own borders, it is important to remember that we are not alone. We are not the only country that upholds the ideals that we are fighting for. Our friends and allies in the NATO alliance have helped us to defend democracy across the Atlantic and beyond in so many ways and for so many years during the Cold War. We now have the opportunity to expand our NATO alliance and allow new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and other areas to join in the defense of freedom, something we all care greatly about. This legislation outlines and reaffirms congressional support for further enlargement of NATO as expressed in statements by President Bush and former President Clinton. It does not call for the admission of any specific country to NATO, but is supported by the candidates of all contenders which meet the criteria outlined by the current NATO members. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Baltics, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania are keenly interested, I know from personal experience, and there are others. In addition, the Solomon Act authorizes funding for military assistance for each candidate in accordance with administration requests for 2002. In other words, we are together on this here on the Hill and downtown. The modest cost of this assistance is a very small price to pay for the potential of gaining long-term allies in a formalized way in this critical region of the world. As a member of the House of Representatives delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have been privileged to see firsthand how the expansion of NATO is a lot more than about just the falling of the last remnants of ice from the old Cold War. The fact is, just a dozen or so years ago, many of these nations we are talking about were part of a Warsaw Pact that was pledged to destroy NATO. Think about that. Now, these nations are vying for a relationship of mutual protection with the West. As we move through these uncertain times, it is of great importance, of course, that we cultivate the strongest ties possible with all of the nations of Europe. NATO expansion, under membership guidelines and procedures already agreed upon, will help the United States achieve this very, very important goal. Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly count the number of hours, meetings, trips, speeches, reports, or personnel we have talked to and invested in the question of NATO expansion. In all of this, Jerry Solomon, his vision, his leadership, showed the way; and he made the case very forcefully. He even made the case in Moscow that someday Russia will join NATO, and I have no doubt to believe that. This legislation will send a strong and welcome signal. People do pay attention to what this Congress does, and now is the time to gear up for the expansion in NATO that will be discussed one year from now in Prague. I urge support for this legislation. It really does matter.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I am submitting my speech that I gave, Mr. Speaker, at the Honorable Gerald Solomon's funeral. Were I a fully finished disciple of Jerry Solomon I would now set out right here on the lectern a big accordion file with ``Solomon'' written boldly across the front--this was his hallmark. The funny thing is--he didn't need it--everyone knew when Jerry was in the room. It will be easy to remember Jerry--so active, so involved in so many things. He touched so many lives--family, colleagues, marines, veterans, the people of the 22nd district and so many others. It will be very hard not to miss him. How many times since Jerry left Congress have I thought ``where's Solomon when you need him?'' When confronted with issues of the day, especially now when patriotism is so much in the forefront. The display of our flag these days is just what he loved. I am reminded of Jerry daily--or at least whenever the Rules Committee meets (so perhaps I should say nightly given our recent schedule) because his portrait in the committee room is positioned so he looks right over my shoulder--so close, he could whisper in my ear, which I am sure he will. Jerry left his marks of fairness and dynamism and good spirit on the committee--they last today under David Dreier's able leadership. Jerry wasn't perfect. He failed to convince me that milk marketing orders were a good thing. He never could get David Dreier to agree to his views on trade. But, he ran a tight ship, even had his own phraseology, designed to save words and make the point. ``step out side,'' and ``taking you out to the woodshed'' are phrases that had meaning when Jerry spoke. The Washington Post this week labeled him a ``blunt conservative,'' A more politically correct paper would have used ``straight-talking patriot.'' Political correctness was not his way but Honest-to-God concern for people and his country were. Many of us here today traveled with Jerry and Freda to far off places--some places I'd barely heard of--to serve our Nation's Interest. Somehow it just doesn't seem normal to get on a Codel plane without having Jerry and Freda leading the way. Early on, I found out that Jerry had discovered the best maple ice cream is found in Gander, Newfoundland. It was never a surprise to find ourselves on a plane that needed to refuel in Gander. He really loved that maple ice cream. My favorite recollection dealing with European Parliamentarians-- which we did a lot--occurred one otherwise quite Sunday mid-winter morning in Brussels. A certain self-approving Euro-speaker took some serious liberties describing U.S. foreign policy to belittle our country at a fairly high level gathering of influential parliamentarians. Without a note, Jerry instantly stood up, delivered a magnificent, passionate oration tracking in some detail American sacrifice and contribution to Europe from WWI to the Cold War. It was so stunningly effective that our European colleagues were literally ``speechless''--a condition in which European parliamentarians have not found themselves before or since. On another occasion in Bucharest, I watched Jerry take on Mr. Zhirinovski--a one-time Russian presidential candidate--who was making particularly obnoxious remarks about the United States without cause. Jerry made short work of him as he did of anyone showing disrespect to our country. Jerry always got the job done--somehow. One day in the Ukraine, our delegation was offered a visit to Sevastopol, Russia Fleet Headquarters on the Black Sea. This had been an ``off-limits'' area--so we were eager to go, but the Ukrainians were adamant we must go on their plane (a well used Russian model) rather than our own Codel plane. Jerry dutifully took a vote of the delegation--which was unanimous--to go only if we could use our plane. Jerry ``fixed it.'' We arrived at the airport dawn the next day--got on the Ukrainian plane and flew to Sevastopol. So much vodka was consumed that day celebrating the American presence that it didn't matter what plane we flew on. Jerry got the job done. Jerry's energy was legendary, he never saw a hill he didn't charge; some say he made hills where none existed just so he could charge up them. To Freda and family go our love and support and the certain knowledge that Jerry rests comfortably atop the Lord's hill now. General Leave

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 503 and 506. By way of explanation, 506 is a technical amendment which I understand has now been incorporated within H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. With respect to section 503 on the status of intelligence fusion centers in Florida and California, I have been asked by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to defer further action on this provision pending consultations between our committees. Mr. Chairman, I certainly am prepared to honor the gentleman's request and would like to do so.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment and his work in the area of the intelligence community. I know that he brings a value-added contribution because of his experience, and we value that. The provision improves on language and authority that was included in last year's intelligence act. As does the gentleman from Connecticut, I believe giving the DCI discretionary authority to provide full insurance liability protection to CIA employees is a small but important benefit that we can provide to public servants who are putting their lives at risk for us. This amendment is timely, and I accept it on behalf of the committee and congratulate the gentleman for it.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I want to simply say that I know of the gentleman's work on behalf of the support for the men and women in our intelligence community. I think he has it exactly right on this question of the borders. The gentleman has already heard one colloquy today with our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), on the subject. I certainly accept this amendment as timely and reasonable; and on behalf of the committee, I would be prepared to accept it.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, of course we will do that in conference; and we will do more. We have a special subcommittee that is working on some of the matters, as is the whole committee. I thank the gentleman for his efforts to enhance our national security. I especially appreciate the amendment that urges the full information of the counterterrorism recommendations offered recently by the Bremer Commission. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) was on that commission. I share the gentleman's concern that the intelligence community has failed to adopt the recommendations of the Bremer Commission. We understand that there is work to be done, and we have noted it in this bill. As reflected in the committee's adoption of section 403 rescinding the CIA's 1995 guidelines on foreign asset recruitment, the committee as a whole has acted on the Bremer Commission's most urgent recommendation. There is full committee support on that. Given the tragic events of September 11, this amendment is timely and reasonable; and I will accept it on behalf of the committee and thank the gentleman for his innovation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of serendipity that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I both do serve on the Committee on Rules and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And that is not by design, but it is a great pleasure to work with my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe that is accurate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend and colleague on Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only on this matter, as is customary. Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly traditional rule for this type of legislation. As far as I know, it is not controversial in any way. Given the September 11 terrorist attacks, some may have wondered why we might not have responded with a closed rule on intelligence on a hurry- up basis, which would have precluded the opportunity for a lot of extensive deliberation under the extraordinary circumstances of the moment, as we all recall them, tragically. But on the contrary, we felt that in these tumultuous times, we thought it best to allow Members the opportunity to fully review the bill and debate the issues that they feel are important to our Nation's security. Each of us, I know, feels that responsibility very strongly. Therefore, as in past years, the rule is a modified open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, which shall be considered by title as read. In addition, based on consultation with the Parliamentarian, the rule waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule. It also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3(C) of rule XIII (requiring the inclusion of a statement of general performance goals and objectives.) The rule further provides for the consideration of only pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate and those amendments printed in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and shall be considered as read. This has allowed for vetting of amendments regarding classified matters in years past, and proved to be a good practice, actually. Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair rule and the underlying legislation, as well. This is late in the year to bring this bill to the House floor, but obviously the timing has been dictated by forces well beyond the control of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: We have a new administration, a comprehensive defense and intelligence review ongoing, the delayed arrival of the budget request, and of course, the tragic consequences of September 11, to name just a few. If there is a silver lining here, it is that in marking up this bill, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has addressed many of the immediate and critical intelligence needs in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States. In the upcoming general debate, no doubt we will discuss many of the specific provisions in H.R. 2883 in some detail. That is the intelligence authorization bill. But I would like to highlight a few of the ways that this legislation seeks to tackle both critical counterterrorism challenges, as well as long-term problems facing the intelligence community in the United States in the 21st century. To combat terrorism, the intelligence authorization increases investments for the FBI's counterterrorism efforts, increases funding for language training, promotes a more focused analytical effort against the terrorist target, and it calls for a more aggressive approach to learning the plans and intentions of terrorists through human intelligence. The war on terrorism will be won through the acquisition of specific, accurate, and timely intelligence. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has stepped up to provide the President, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and President Bush's national security team with the intelligence tools they will need to win this war. That is one of the strong reasons I urge support for this legislation. However, we have also addressed the long-term needs of the intelligence community, making specific changes today to avoid serious problems in the years to come. H.R. 2883 provides the resources to continue rebuilding our human intelligence capabilities; promotes investment in new technologies for intelligence collection, processing, and analysis; and it provides the committee's view on where future bold changes need to be made in the basic structure of the U.S. intelligence establishment. I believe it is a very good bill. I think it is a fine rule. I encourage support for both the bill and the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have heard over the course of the last hour or so many Members talk about our intelligence needs, and especially the need to address the shortfalls related to counterterrorism. We have also heard about the need to invest in the broader areas of intelligence. It is this investment in time, thought, funding, and actually action that I would like to address as we close on our side of the general debate. The President, his Cabinet and Members of this body have rightly told the American people that the war on terrorism is going to be a long- term effort, and that even if we were to get Mr. bin Laden tomorrow that would not put an end to terrorist activities, sadly. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, if we only make fixes to the intelligence community to address counterterrorism capabilities, we will not fully protect our national security and other quarters from the multitude of others threats that could befall us. In a recent classified publication called the Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review, there are some specific unclassified trends that speak to the challenges of our future. Briefly, adversaries increasingly will target the U.S. homeland; military threats will be quantitatively and qualitatively different, involving very short-notice contingencies and a very high premium on flexibility response; warning of global crisis will be more difficult by 2015 because of the scope and complexity of requirements and the speed of events; revolutionary information technology capabilities will be available to friend and to foe; and adversaries will use new, highly-effective means to select and neutralize sensitive clandestine operations or technically sophisticated collection devices. These are just a few of the kinds of challenges out there. Mr. Chairman, all of these points go to the fact that this country will need a vibrant, flexible, and strong intelligence community. More importantly, however, is that these points, in my view, challenge the wherewithal of our current national security structure. Therefore, in this bill we send a message to the administration that now is not the time to circle the wagons and attempt to address the issues with a status quo approach. We must take a look at whether the structure of the intelligence community can meet the challenges that we know are out there; and I believe the answer is that it cannot in its present form, and whether our overall national security apparatus needs to be updated and revised, and I believe it should, and I do not think anybody disagrees with that. The reason that this is so important at this time is thrown into stark relief obviously by the horrible tragic events of September 11, which I agree with my ranking member, is sacred soil. The same attacks demonstrate that the issue of the safety and security of the rights and freedoms of the civilized world as a whole are at stake. If you do not believe me, I would like you to take a moment just to take a look at this map, which shows in the red countries, those are the countries that suffered loss during the September 11 attacks. There is a lot of red on that map around the globe; and that is what I suggest, that national security is a global issue and we indeed are looked at as the leaders. In closing, let me again thank all the members of the committee, and I mean each and every one, especially our subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members. I know it has been a lot of hard work, and we have reorganized HPSCI this year to take on the extra load. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) particularly for her cooperation and very sincere consideration of the provisions of this bill. The management of her side of these matters has been extraordinary. I also want to pay special attention to our committee staff, Mr. Chairman. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff is a group of very professional, very experienced, dedicated people who have gone through a great deal since September 11. They have worked literally tirelessly through weekends, nights to respond to several additional tasks that the Speaker and, of course, circumstances have placed on the committee, as well as to prepare this bill for Members' consideration, and other bills that are coming shortly on the subject of intelligence, as we all know. This was always a bipartisan effort, and I am thankful we have such an extraordinary professional staff. I would name each and every one of them for citation for their extraordinary work, and I will put their names in the Record. I am most grateful that they work so well together and so professionally. I also need to point out the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), have done an amazing job of staying tuned to what our extraordinary circumstances and being there for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and intelligence matters when we needed them; and I must also include the appropriators, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), of course, a former member of the committee; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), of course, a former member of the committee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for the work they have done to understand our problems. Finally, I want to pause for a moment to recognize those from the intelligence communities who lost their lives on September 11 in the service of the Nation at the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, 15 people from the community lost their lives, seven from the Defense Intelligence Agency, seven from the Office of Naval Intelligence. They will be sorely missed by the community, and, of course, extremely missed by their families and loved ones. It is in their honor we will push to ensure that the proper investments and changes are made to ensure that their comrades and Americans around the world can enjoy the rights, the freedoms, the securities at home and abroad. These are the symbols of the American culture, these are what we stand for, this is what we seek to protect and provide for.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence- related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.