Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), a valued member of the committee as well.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Members for their participation and their help in explaining what this bill does for the American people and our national security.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could agree with everything that my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), just said. I agree with a great deal of what he just said. The problem is, this is the wrong vehicle, and this is the wrong type of blue ribbon committee. In fact, in order to be germane to this bill, this blue ribbon committee will be limited in what it can do to just what the oversight and intelligence committees actually do. Otherwise, this would be a nongermane amendment, as we all know, and actually the intelligence committees are planning to continue doing just what they are doing. And, in fact, they are not only doing their daily job but we are doing a joint bicameral 9-11 review. So virtually actually everything that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said this blue ribbon commission could do, is being done by the committee in their daily work and the joint committee, the 9-11 review. I would also point out that while I agree with the gentleman's idea to have a genuine bona fide blue ribbon national committee that has much broader scope to deal with this as they did in Pearl Harbor, that would include such thing as Presidential appointees in addition to the congressional appointees, that would include such things as looking into the oversight of how Congress does its job. We should be held accountable too on the oversight committees. And a true blue ribbon commission could do that. This commission is not going to be able to do that. What we basically have is a proposal that is a little strangulated in order to comply with the germaneness rules. So what we have is a lot of duplication to what we are already doing. In fact, a lot of work that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harmon) and their subcommittee did so well and so proudly, and I think it is being digested now. So we have duplicative work in part of this. Then we have a part of this that talks about a lot of provisions that I do not think are very well crafted. I am not sure how the noninterference provision works, and we do not want to have interference with the 9-11 work that is ongoing because it is extremely important. I know a good faith effort was made to make sure there is no interference but I am not sure that is actually the result. I think there does need to be an executive branch appointment to this. I do not think Congress should reserve the right to make all the appointees. I think back to the Aspen Brown Commission and how it profited from having outsiders come in. I think that was a valuable lesson that I learned because that is sort of what we are looking for here, another 9-11. I would also point out there are other committees of jurisdiction that should be involved in appointing a blue ribbon committee. We have not had hearings on that. I know there is a freestanding bill which I believe deserves to be heard by those committees. They should go through the process, and we should come out with a blue ribbon committee that actually provides the views of the working standing committees of this House and all of those who have equity in it, rather than to try at midnight on this lovely day to put together what is really sort of a jury-rigged proposal. Well-intended, I take nothing away from that. I think, finally, the one thing I want to congratulate the gentleman for is I agree entirely with him. He is doing something which is very important here which is requiring that there be a look at intelligence architectural reform. I totally support him in that effort. I think that part of this is good, but when you add it all up, I do not think this is the right place to do what he wants to do. And I am afraid his co-sponsors from New Jersey are going to be very disappointed. They are going to be delivering a product to those survivors who are also talking to me, believe me, and we have some in my district. This is not going to do the job they want because it does not have the scope to do it.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, there are four other chairmen and four other ranking committee members, and all the members of those committees who are counting on the rules of the House to make sure that they get their equities protected in what the gentleman is trying to propose. And the gentleman knows, and as we have talked before, I am not opposed to what he is trying to do. I am opposed to trying to do it in this restricted scope way that does not accomplish his purpose and adds a burden to my bill and which, frankly, I do not think will serve the purpose either of us wants.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank those involved in this amendment. I know that this has been a success story already on the floor, but I am pleased it is added to the bill. I think it is important as it has been explained. I congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). The committee accepts the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as stated in our report language, section 501 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 regarding the use of funds for counterdrug and counterterrorism activities for Colombia is intended to be consistent with similar language included in fiscal year 2002 Defense Department appropriations bills. The gentlewoman from California has properly, rightly and helpfully offered an amendment to replace section 501 in order to conform with the language in H.R. 4775, as voted out of conference and approved by the House on July 23, 2002. Therefore, the Committee accepts the amendment and thanks the gentlewoman for the gracious and harmonizing effort to make this all work better.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk, and that the modification be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the ranking member as a cosponsor of the amendment as modified. This language has been coordinated with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) on the Committee on Appropriations, and I wish to express my gratitude for his support as well. The committee is concerned about a recent budgetary trend to use supplemental funding to cover intelligence needs not met through the regular budget process. The committee believes the practice of seeking and receiving large supplemental appropriations has become part of the expected yearly process and only grown worse with a new type of ``emergency fund'' created in the wake of the tragedy of September 11. By continuing to rely on supplemental appropriations year after year, the intelligence community risks fostering a budget process that is ripe for abuse and long-term funding gaps. Moreover, the creation of the Defense Emergency Response Fund, the DERF, has further complicated matters. The Defense Emergency Response Fund was originally created to pay for emergency items that arose due to the war on terrorism, but it has now turned into just another vehicle to fund items that the intelligence community did not receive funding for through the regular budget and planning process. It is bad budget practice and bad government to do it that way. Congressional oversight is minimized, and finally, the committee believes that the supplemental gravy train will not last. In any sustained ``crisis'' action, there comes a point where short- term stopgap practices must be phased out and long-term strategic plans put into place. This amendment is meant to highlight this concern to the administration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the gentleman from New York for his attention to this problem and the process. A very constructive conversation I know has taken place. I have read his amendment. I understand what he is trying to accomplish, and I appreciate his understanding and his explanation tonight of the problem we have doing it that way. I sympathize very much with what the gentleman is trying to accomplish and I hope that the people who are working on this problem will be able to get the results we both desire and I appreciate his understanding.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and several others I suspect have had a hand in this and they have actually made a very valuable contribution in offering this amendment to establish a civilian linguist reserve corps. I think it is a good idea, and I think I read an article not too long ago by Jeff Porter saying that we had capabilities that were not being properly utilized in this area, and I think this is a very creative response and I am very happy to accept it. The events of September 11, 2001, and the ongoing war against terrorism has shown us that America must have a linguistic quick response capability, and there is no reason why we cannot. On behalf of the committee, I am very pleased to congratulate those involved in this and to accept the bipartisan amendment that we have.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It is true that my colleague from Florida has been a champion on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and elsewhere on behalf of the thoughts that these two amendments contain and that is making sure that we are getting adequate reporting back from the intelligence community on their efforts on diversification and encouraging a broader and richer, I think, capability in the community by utilizing diversification, and we have had a couple of hearings that I think have been helpful. I know that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has also been a champion in this area, and I congratulate all involved and particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) this evening. The fact is the intelligence community does need diversity in a very bad way. This is a global world and that message needs to continue to be reinforced. So I am very happy to accept the en bloc amendment presented by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). The one caveat I would offer is a minor caution, and that is, we have some reporting now and I want to make sure we are not creating a duplication. I would rather take what we have and make sure it is what we need and what we want rather than create another requirement. So if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will help me with that, maybe we can streamline that a little bit.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GOSS. The gentleman continues to make a contribution to the committee, and we hope to see him again.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 4628 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 497, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered after the legislative day of July 24, 2002, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their designees for the purpose of debate.

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. 4628) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 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, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4628, just passed, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, there exists a nation that for over 40 years has repeatedly declared its hostile intentions towards the United States of America and American citizens. It has consistently allied itself with our enemies, it has sought nuclear weapons on its soil, and abused its own citizens. It has violated human rights in an egregious way. This nation today is on the State Department list for sponsoring terrorism, and in the past it has provided funds and shelter for terrorist groups, groups such as the ETA, the Basque Nationalists, Colombian guerrillas, committing some of the great atrocities going on in our hemisphere now, IRA leaders, possibly even Iranian agents and others. This nation's dictator has failed to share any useful intelligence information with us since 9/11, and calls our military response in Afghanistan not ``a war on terrorism,'' but ``a war for terrorism.'' The state, of course, I am referring to is Cuba, a nation only 90 miles from the southern boundaries of the United States of America. Coming from a south Florida district, Mr. Chairman, I have long heard the arguments from both sides about the Cuban embargo and travel ban. Usually this debate evokes emotional issues on topics like human rights and free trade. I have not come to the floor today to rehash the old fights on those scores, because while these concerns are certainly still valid and will certainly be debated, I think the center of gravity in this discussion has shifted very dramatically since 9/11. There is no doubt that Cuba has sponsored terrorist activity in the past. That is not arguable or debatable. It is fact. Whether it is a terrorist sponsor today remains a difficult, open question and one which of our executive agencies are working on, and one we do not want to have answered the wrong way or the hard way. I do not see how, in good conscience, we can do business with Cuba's current regime when its activities are veiled by a closed society. How can we tell the world we will not tolerate terrorism, but, at the same time, open our economic door and all the benefits that that implies to a clearinghouse for those who harm innocent civilians? Castro's coffers should not be enriched by the bounty of American travel dollars if he is aiding and abetting brutal criminals. Our tireless enemies are disciplined, they are persistent, and they are adaptable, as we have found out to our regret. They leave us few physical targets to attack and they are difficult to track. However, they are vulnerable. Terrorists, like any other organization, need residence, they need logistic support, they need travel aid, they need money, they need safe harbor. Without these, they are little more than bitter outlaws. Back in September, President Bush drew a clear line for all nations of the world when he declared, ``You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.'' It is essential that groups like al Qaeda never again find a safe haven from which to rebuild, especially a place so near our nation. For this reason, I bring this amendment to ask that the President certify a clean bill of health for Cuba before travel is allowed. The amendment specifically asks the President to certify that Cuba is not developing biological weapons and that it is not providing technology, shelter or assistance to terrorists. I strongly support President Bush's efforts to bring real democracy to the people of Cuba. We all want a better life for our innocent neighbors that have long suffered off our shores. However, in our rush to help the oppressed people of Cuba, let us ensure we are not strengthening a regime that is now running a terrorist comfort station. Our job is to look out for the national security of the United States of America and Americans at home and abroad. This is a simple amendment to give us an extra measure of assurance in that area. Should the administration determine that the Cuban-Castro regime passes the test, then there is no problem with those who object to this amendment. If he does not pass the test, then there is every reason why this amendment should pass.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 327, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 328, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate with great interest tonight, and have heard my amendment seriously mischaracterized. I would like to point out that the amendment merely is a safeguard for America and American national security. If everything is all right and the President certifies everything is all right, then there is no problem. But if everything is not all right, then there is a problem. I think Members would agree that national security for the United States of America and Americans is our first priority. I want to point out that the nation of Cuba has been about the most aggressive spying on the United States of America. We have now convicted 17 spies in the past year or two. I do not know the exact number, but that is close. Certainly the highest-ranking analyst at the Department of Defense in the DIA has recently been apprehended and has been a long-time spy for Fidel Castro's Cuba. These are not friendly motives. These are harmful to the national security. Those are the kinds of things that we are worried about.