Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 312 just passed, I call up the conference report 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.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of the conference report before us. Before I begin the main part of my statement, let me first acknowledge and thank the Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, each and every one of them, but especially our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for hard work, dedication, showing up and doing the business that needed to be done, and doing it intelligently and with a good deal of thoughtfulness. I also want to specifically thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their untiring efforts that have gotten us to this point. I very much appreciate the way they work in a nonpartisan way. Obviously, I need to thank the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Members and their staffs as well, especially under the steady hand of the chairman, my good friend, Senator Graham, and the vice chairman, my good friend, Senator Shelby. We appreciate the efforts they have put in. Mr. Speaker, by definition a conference is a time when the two bodies come together to settle whatever differences there may be between the bills, often including resolution of differences of opinion and viewpoints on how money is needed, how it should be spent, what laws should be changed, what direction the administration should go, those kinds of things. But in this case, we are talking about protecting our Nation's security at a time when this is very much in the forefront of everybody's attention. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, this conference found very, very few differences of opinion between the two bodies, and, frankly, between the points of view on either side of the aisle, on these and other areas. When it comes to national security, we seem to be pulling together very strongly in the area of intelligence. Let me briefly review some of the areas of agreement. First, intelligence is our first line of defense; and it must be treated as such, especially on our war on terrorism, one of the new transnational threats we are, regrettably, beginning to understand a lot better. Although it may get lost in the continuous CNN optic of the coverage going on in Afghanistan and the Pentagon releases of bombs exploding and troops on the move, none of the activity that is actually happening would be possible without good intelligence. Second, there are four key areas where the administration and Congress must immediately address themselves if we are to properly protect the country's rights and freedoms. They are revitalizing the National Security Agency and the signals intelligence system, upon which we have had such wonderful production and service over the years and now needs upgrading; correcting deficiencies in conducting and collecting human intelligence, a matter which we all understand very well, something we cannot do without; providing a more appropriate balance between intelligence collection and analysis to better achieve a global awareness capability, something we have been talking about for years; and rebuilding a robust research and development program across the intelligence communities. We have been so lucky and so well helped by the innovation and creativity that our country produces and the applications we have been able to use in the intelligence community over the last 50 years, and we need to have more of that in the days ahead. There are other areas of concern besides these four, but these are the most critical for the types of threats that we face now and that we are going to face, we think, over the next few years; and they are certainly the areas that we are in full agreement with the other body on. Thirdly, the intelligence community has got to be better focused on strategic intelligence and better positioned to be able to get access to so-called plans and intentions, that is, what is going on in the minds of the evil-doers, the mischief makers, in order to prevent the crisis. We do not want to be just great at sweeping up after the tragedy; we want to stop the tragedy before it happens. In short, we must have an intelligence community culture that is less risk averse. My last example is that the conferees believe that any effort to invest in and expand intelligence capabilities, and such efforts clearly must be made, will only be marginally successful if it does not also include provision for a more appropriate management structure for the intelligence community. We are talking here basic architecture and the appropriate management overlay to make the system work. Today's intelligence structure is insufficient for today's and tomorrow's challenges. We know it, and we have to get about the job of dealing with that; and I am pleased that the administration is taking up that challenge. We look forward to working with the President and his administration on these issues. They simply cannot wait. Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that there were not differences between the bodies during our conference. There were. I am happy to report that there were few and that they were worked out successfully and the result is a conference report that was approved by a vast bipartisan majority of the conferees. There are a couple of areas where I would have liked things to have turned out differently personally, but that did not happen; and in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to support what I think is a very good conference report which will serve this country well. Again, I commend my colleagues for working in that spirit. Mr. Speaker, on Monday we paused to remember the 3-month anniversary of the horrible and tragic attacks on America by the terrorists, those the President has referred to as the ``evil-doers.'' Also on Monday we laid to rest the first combat casualty of our war on terrorism, Mike Spann. The fact that the first casualty was a CIA officer speaks to the fact that intelligence is in fact in the lead in this war. There is no argument about that. But some have questioned how our Nation got into this position, how these attacks could have occurred in the first place; and frankly, there is no easy answer to that question, as there are many facets. For one thing, terrorists took advantage of the basic rights and freedoms that we so openly and charitably give to our citizens and visitors alike in this country. They abused those privileges. Another point is that communications between the entities and agencies assigned the responsibility for protecting our borders was simply not adequate. We know that. But there is also certainly an intelligence story here. Put simply, we do not have an intelligence community that is properly structured to collect the types of intelligence that would have prevented such attacks had the information been available. In part, this is of our own doing as a country and a Congress. After the Cold War, a decision was made to ``build down'' intelligence. Many thought that we were at peace, perhaps this would be part of the peace dividend. We did not have a single major threat that people really could identify, and we could afford to spend intelligence monies elsewhere. Congress acted. Money was shifted, indeed. Beginning in the 104th Congress, the Intelligence Committees of Congress on both sides, both Houses and both sides of the aisle, recognized the risks of the looming threats of transnational issues and year after year attempted to put more investment into intelligence. However, the administration's efforts were more focused on domestic issues and had little interest in that kind of investment at that time. Consequently, we ended up with a much-reduced intelligence capability, less access around the world, and a risk-averse environment, and, frankly, a growing threat. This is not to say that those brave men and women in the rank and file of the intelligence community were not doing their jobs. They were playing the hand they were dealt, and they were doing very well under the circumstances. This is also not to say that Congress was not aware of the risks. We certainly were, and we talked about them a lot. Recently, I had occasion to review the intelligence bills and conference reports since the 104th Congress. In the 104th Congress, we noted that there was a growing threat and a growing vulnerability to terrorism. We sent that message. We talked about the need to share information better between intelligence and law enforcement. Remember, this is back in the 104th Congress. We talked about the need to invest more robustly in intelligence resources. Then in the 105th Congress we noted that the intelligence community must ``keep a watchful eye on the areas that are likely to be tomorrow's crises.'' I would point out that we mentioned the transnational threats. We also mentioned that our national security was being affected by a broader set of issues that have not been identified with our global interests. We needed to rebuild our intelligence capabilities, and we expressed concern over the growing apathy toward national security and intelligence. Again these issues were raised in the 106th Congress, where we stated that there was a growing possibility that a rogue nation or group would acquire the ability to attack U.S. interests with nuclear, biological, chemical, or some other weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, I am not pointing these facts out to say ``we told you so.'' Far from it. The point is that we must engage with this administration now, and we must put significant effort into quickly rebuilding our intelligence capabilities. We cannot wait. The events of September 11, sadly, stand as a reminder of what happens when we let our intelligence guard down. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a good start toward rebuilding what the Nation needs. But it is only a start. It is a snapshot in time. Many of us refer to it as the first year of a 5-year plan. We look forward to working with the administration to secure our national freedom. We look forward to working in a nonpartisan way to do this with the passage of this conference report. I am fully supportive of the report. I encourage its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is also the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2883, the conference report just passed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 281) honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by Johnny Micheal Spann, the first American killed in combat during the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and pledging continued support for members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 281.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise obviously in very strong and sad support of this resolution; sorry that we have to have it. It is authorized by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Johnny Micheal Spann, ``Mike'' as he was known, served in the Central Intelligence Agency for approximately 2 years, just long enough to complete his training as a paramilitary and an operations officer in the clandestine service, which is arguably the most challenging and dangerous job in the intelligence community. Mike was up to the challenge. In fact, he humbly accepted the opportunity to serve his country as an intelligence officer. Prior to joining the CIA, Mike served in the United States Marine Corps; he loved the Corps. I think all Marines love the Corps and often spoke of the Corps as if it was a family. And it is a family. We all know that. He left the Corps and he joined the CIA because, in his own words, ``Somebody's got to do the things that nobody else really wants to do.'' His dedication to this country and his commitment to defending its values and liberties highlight the quality of the men and women who have decided to serve our great country. Mike did exactly what he set out to do. He served his country in a way many would not or could not. A relatively newlywed, with a newborn son and two young daughters, Mike selflessly responded to the call to serve at the forefront of our Nation's war against terrorism. Half a world away, in a dusty, inhospitable and alien environment, Mike confronted our Nation's fiercest enemy eye to eye. He did this not because it was his job, but because he was compelled to ensure that all people, regardless of their nationality or religion, could live without the fear of being victims of terrorism. That is what this is about. Mike died fighting, trying to obtain information on terrorist plans and intentions so we could save others. Face to face against those bent on killing innocent men, women, and children, Mike stood strong, he stood tireless and fearless. That is the description of an American hero and Mike was one. Up to the moment of his death, Mike never stopped being a Marine. ``Semper Fidelis.'' He was always faithful. He was faithful to the countless, nameless millions of Americans, especially those incapable of defending themselves. Mike exemplified a breed of officer not normally acknowledged in the public sector. He readily accepted the risks of service, including the possibility of death, in order to secure the safety of his fellow Americans. His death acts as a reminder of the high cost we must sometimes pay in order to secure our pursuit of liberty and happiness. We hold the greatest debt to Mike and to his family. The memory of his deeds must be held forever dear in our hearts. We pray for Mike's family and ask God to give them strength and see them through these difficult days. We also pray for Mike's fellow colleagues in intelligence and in the military, who are still standing, even now, as the Nation's vanguard in the war against terrorism. There are many Mike Spanns out there doing dangerous hard work for our country. God bless them all and keep them safe. But there is only one Mike Spann for his family and his loved ones. Mr. Speaker, we share the burden of their loss today, and we want them to know we honor him before the world from this place. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the sponsor of the legislation, to control the time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent on the part of the House to have until midnight, December 6, 2001, to file a conference report 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.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOSS. It would be my fondest wish to be able to give a date certain to the gentlewoman from Connecticut. The best I can say is that it is the intention to finish up by the end of next week. Whether or not that will be possible, we do not know. Clearly, when we start out with a good intention, it enhances the possibility that we will succeed at that good intention. But Members need to know we may in fact be working through next week, and then plan accordingly.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I understand two committees of jurisdiction are still putting some final touches on that, and that that will be announced next week, early on in the week, as far as I know.

Mr. GOSS. It is unlikely that that legislation would show up before Wednesday.

Mr. GOSS. I hope the gentlewoman will be here before Wednesday, because there will be votes Tuesday night at 6:30.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding, and I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The majority leader has announced the following legislative program for next week: The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, December 11, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. The House will consider a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices tomorrow. On Tuesday, no recorded votes are expected before 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, subject to a rule. We are also hopeful to be ready to consider the Education conference report, the Intelligence Authorization conference report, the Labor-HHS Appropriations Conference Report, and broadband legislation, all next week. And I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield.

Mr. GOSS. I would be pleased to inform her that, as far as I know, the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, still has that under consideration and we have not been advised whether it in fact will be ready for next week.

Mr. GOSS. We do not know at this point.

Mr. GOSS. So far.

Mr. GOSS. It is my understanding at this time, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that there is a strong possibility of votes on Friday and, if the business is not completed by Friday evening, that the intention is that we might well have to continue on into the weekend.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, December 10, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, for morning hour debates.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.