Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me thank the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, each and every one of them, both sides of the aisle, for their very hard work, especially over the past 3 weeks, which have been extremely trying for all of us and certainly for our committee. The hard work in the last 3 weeks have allowed us to get to this point where we have, I think, an excellent piece of authorization legislation to bring to the House. Mr. Chairman, we will hear from many of our Members over the next hour. I would especially like to thank our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for extraordinary efforts in ensuring that our thorough review of the President's budget put the good of the Nation first in a manner that has been truly bipartisan and, perhaps more appropriately, we should say nonbipartisan. There are many other people to thank, of course, including our amazing staff, and we will get to that by and by. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is part of our normal annual authorization by which by law must be passed in order for the intelligence community to spend appropriated dollars. But the setting in which we find ourselves today as we debate the bill is hardly normal. Over the debate, we surely will hear several references to the infamous events of September 11 and the efforts to handle these and other types of threats to Americans at home and abroad. There is no way to overemphasize the importance of the demoniacal acts we witnessed. They do bear tragic witness to how the world has changed and how critical it is to have knowledge about our surroundings, about those who have made it their life's quest to destroy American freedoms, rights and values. That knowledge comes from intelligence, pure and simple and we have to have it. No one can seriously doubt that we need the best possible intelligence to prosper and be safe at home and abroad in today's world. There are some who believe that the September 11 terrorist acts were successful because of, quote, ``intelligence failures.'' I will certainly agree there are intelligence community shortcomings, that must be reviewed and fixed. That is what we do. What went wrong relative to September 11 goes well beyond the intelligence community however. Moreover, those who have complaints often do not understand what threats we actually face today, what capabilities we really do have and do not have, and, more importantly, what vital distinctions exist between intelligence and law enforcement and how we cope with those distinctions. The intelligence community operates overseas and cannot arrest anyone. Law enforcement is domestic and does not do spying; and somehow we have to have a good marriage of the two. If we look back over the past 6 years worth of our authorizations, we will see that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have consistently highlighted shortfalls and concerns calling on the administration to take action so that risks to our security could be reduced, not removed but reduced. Certainly our committee was stunned and deeply saddened by the events of September 11 as we all were. We were aware homeland America was vulnerable to terrorist attack of some type from some quarter, and we were and are aware of limitations of our intelligence system to provide specifics or better early warning or 100 percent guarantees. This bill again addresses ways to overcome some of those limitations. The solutions that get us the intelligence community that we need to protect our future must be new and it must be innovative. This bill starts us on that course while sending I think a good message to the administration about how to do it. We are working closely with the administration to translate these ideas into real capabilities which will protect Americans. Mr. Chairman, 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. 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, if the gentleman will yield, I would certainly agree that the gentleman raises an excellent point with regard to the full need for cooperation among agencies for purposes of strengthening our border security programs. I will work in conference to come up with appropriate language to direct that such information sharing occurs among the intelligence agencies and the State Department so that we have the best and most secure visa issuing system possible. I will further pledge that we will try and improve the handoff between the other law enforcement agencies that are involved as well.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), who is the chairman of our Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), a man who has had great experience in the intelligence business. (Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 California (Mr. Cunningham), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a former member of our committee.

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.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, last night a Dear Colleague was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules may meet later this week to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This letter stated that the committee amendment, including the classified annex, is now available for Members to review on request to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee report was filed last Wednesday, September 26. In order to have an informed debate, I invite and encourage Members to come to H-405 in the Capitol and review the classified annex and allow committee staff to explain the provisions or answer any questions they may have about the bill. This opportunity is offered to any Member of the House. It does not include staff. Members will be asked to sign the customary non-disclosure agreement prior to access to the classified annex. That is routine. Members may call Mr. Bill McFarland, the committee's director of security if they are so inclined. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the floor. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is the normal process that has been followed in previous years. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House. Given my expectation that H.R. 2883 will reach the floor later this week, I urge any Members who plan to file amendments to do so at their earliest opportunity.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence may have until midnight tomorrow night, September 26, 2001, to file a 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, I am much obliged to my good friend and colleague and very distinguished former member of the committee, whose wisdom we still enjoy on the committee, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). We are equally blessed to have as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has also served on committee with great distinction. I do not think this country realizes how lucky we are to have people like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who understand the sensitivity and the necessity of the business that we deal with. We do have some necessary business I need to bring up, and I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I may. I think as Members of the House are aware, the National Security Act requires a specific authorization for each dollar spent by the United States Government on intelligence and intelligence-related activities. This is a safeguard for Americans. In cases such as this, when an emergency spending bill is passed by Congress that includes funds for intelligence, it is customary to include a provisional authorization in the bill for those intelligence dollars. I would like to seek the assurance of my good friends from Florida and California that although there is a provisional authorization for intelligence funds, it is their intent and the intent of the legislation that the administration will provide the appropriate congressional committees with a detailed accounting for all intelligence spending in this bill.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague. I also definitely look forward to continuing to work closely with the gentleman and his committee to ensure that the money in this bill and all future intelligence funding is utilized to strengthen and improve our intelligence capabilities, near term and long term. Is that accurate?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we all know what an arduous and shocking day yesterday was. Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing direct and deep feelings of grief and loss for the families of the victims, so many victims there were. CeeCee Lyles of Fort Myers, Florida, in my district was a flight attendant on one of the United Airlines flights, number 93, one of the brave Americans who called her husband, reported the hijacking, and said good-bye. Imagine the terror of that. Today I started my day as usual, walking to the Capitol office from my nearby home here, and there was the Capitol dome above us, rising beautifully, boldly, reassuringly, into a bright, blue sky and the strong sunshine of the morning today. I thank the Lord for keeping it safe, and the good Americans who worked to do that as well. For a minute, it was like yesterday never happened; it was just all a bad dream. And then we all went to work. The images, the statistics, the reports, they are heart-wrenching. What kind of people, if we can call them people, could think up and carry out such fanatical and diabolical atrocities against innocent human beings? How does hate grow so grotesquely and get channeled into such devastation? What type of murderous leaders would advocate these kinds of things? Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, this is the face of terrorism. It is unspeakably evil; and we, the United States of America, are confronted with it on behalf of our citizens. I have no doubt we shall prevail. We have professionals at work who will find those responsible; and they will protect us, as they have done so well. We have the capability to render harmless those who have done this; and we have, I think, the resolve of the people in our land and the leadership of our land committed to this task. There are so many Americans stepping forward in so many ways, doing wonderful things to provide relief, compassionate help and aid where it is needed, the kind word, the message of support, all of these things. We have so many allies and friends, other nations around the world doing the same thing. We can have freedom, and we can have security. We will be debating those things as we go forward. I am reminded of something that happened in Japan after Pearl Harbor which has been referred to. There were some who said, ``We have awoken the sleeping giant. Perhaps we have done too much.'' To those who have done this, I say, indeed, we have woken up; you will be hearing from us.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 on this issue only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2563, at last. It provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Ways and Means, the three committees of jurisdiction. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and makes in order only the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It further provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debateable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. In fact, it is pretty standard and fair in terms of rules on this type of matter. What is unique is the long, long preparation, the participation of so many Members to bring this legislation to the floor. We believe on the Committee on Rules that we have crafted a good rule to have full debate for the balance of the day and probably into the early evening. We have three major amendments with time specified of 40 minutes for one, 40 minutes for another and 60 minutes for another. Members having done their homework will know what those are and we will get into them as we go along. I think this should be comprehensive and give every Member the opportunity to have their say. Mr. Speaker, this truly is a red letter day, not just for the Congress but for the American people, because today, after 10 years of debate and compromise, we are finally having the opportunity to put forth patient protection legislation that will really change the way our health care system operates for the better. A true patients' bill of rights must make our health care system more accessible. Health care insurance is no good if someone cannot get it. So accessibility of health care and health care insurance is critical. Obviously, it has to be affordable, more affordable. Affordable is an area we have focused on. And most importantly, more accountable, accountable to the Americans that health care serves. This fair rule and the underlying legislation represents a reasoned, commonsense approach that allows people that disagree with health care providers an opportunity for just and impartial appeal. This is what Americans have been asking for. I have worked on health care legislation with so many colleagues ever since coming to Congress, and I can tell my colleagues that this is something that matters a lot back in my district and every other place I go in the country when I talk about it. When I am back in my district, not one town hall meeting goes by without constituents registering concerns about their health care and questioning how things will be fixed, how much it will cost, can I afford it, will I be able to get it, and so forth. It has always been a very delicate balance to come up with something that will be supported by the House, of course our colleagues in the other body, and the administration; and I commend the hard work of so many, but especially the diligent efforts now on a timely basis of people like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and President Bush, who understood compromise is still better for the American people than nothing at all. Laws are better than unresolved issues. Frankly, one of the reasons we can be here today is because of the respect our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, has in this body. In the words of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and I quote him, ``If Dr. Norwood, who I think knows the issue better than anyone else does, feels that some of these proposals are acceptable, I would certainly entertain them.'' Well, we are entertaining them today in an amendment that every Member has had a chance to read, and we will have 60 minutes set aside for debate on that. What is important is that when our constituents ask, will I have access to affordable health care, we can say forthrightly, look them right in the eye, and say yes. When they ask, can I sue my HMO if there is cause, the answer will again be yes. With these positive reforms comes great responsibility, of course; and I commend my colleagues for entertaining the compromise that will not overburden the courts with frivolous lawsuits but will still allow justice under the law. We must be sure that the courts are the last resort and not the first. This bill provides for an independent review process that is immediately responsive to patients' needs. My constituents in southwest Florida are tired of standing in lines, as I suspect Americans are elsewhere. The lines at the doctor's office is bad enough, to say nothing of waiting times. They certainly should not be waiting in additional queues at the courthouse. Instead of driving people to court, a true patients' protection plan will enable Americans to get the care they need and ensure the accountability of medical providers. And I think that is what this legislation does. Certainly the rule is designed to bring out the debate on these points. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the careful manner in which this legislation was drafted, and I urge them to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished member of our leadership, the deputy whip.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a major player in this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has also been a major player in this legislation.