Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a chairman of a subcommittee of the committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a valued member of the committee and distinguished Member. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4548, just passed, that the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the Speaker. I am sufficiently embarrassed to say I very much appreciate that and I am going to sit down. I hope that the applause on the other side of the aisle was for the right reason. And I thank my colleagues, and I urge support of the bill and oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I hope not to use all my time. It is late. We have had a long day. We have a heavy legislative day tomorrow. I simply want to give Members my side of this, the committee's side of this. We have debated extensively. I guess I will start from the point that we have complaints from the other side of the aisle that we are not spending enough money in intelligence for the war on terrorism is a declaration of success that we have succeeded in getting the message across that we have a war on terrorism that we need it to fund and intelligence is important. Because last year we lost a lot of Democrats on the authorization bill. And this year I hope we do not lose any. Because I can tell my colleagues about this bill. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit because the bill takes care of our needs. We do provide for the funding for the war on terrorism. It exceeds the President's February request by 16 percent. It exceeds by hundreds of millions, I cannot tell Members the exact number, but hundreds of millions. It is a lot of money. The intelligence appropriation for 2004, 2004 does not end until October. Even when you include in the 2004 the supplemental, it is still more. This bill has been coordinated with the House Committee on Armed Services. We have had testimony to that effect today from the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman, the House Committee on Appropriations; we have had testimony today from the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and from the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the full committee. Their bills had bipartisan support. And, as we all know, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) passed yesterday with strong bipartisan support. This bill authorizes more funds than the defense appropriations bill, which was voted on yesterday, but not many more. So there is not a bunch of hollow dollars in it. There are a few. But I will say that if you voted yesterday for the appropriation, there is no excuse not to vote for the authorization today. Now, when I came out here today, I was a little concerned that my biggest problem was going to be selling to some of my colleagues that this is the largest intelligence authorization in history. It is the largest intelligence authorization in history. It is supported by the administration as the right bill, it is coordinated properly. We are prepared to do business with the Senate, which has passed their bill on a unanimous bipartisan vote. I think we have done our job well. And I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can see that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I did not make any comment or hold up this quote from the Congressional Record that indicates that Senator Kerry had doubts about intelligence to be combative or confrontational or to be insensitive or to in any way offend my colleagues on the other side. Obviously, people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have done a fabulous job over the years on a bipartisan basis. When he was in the majority he did that, and I am certain to say that. My comment is that when there was opposition to intelligence and year after year efforts to cut the intelligence budget, they did come from the Democratic side through the period of the 1990s. I have the material here. I do not want to bore my colleague with it or embarrass him with it, but vote after vote after vote. If he would like to see it, come on over. If he wants me to read it into the Record, I will read it into the Record, however he likes. The fact is that all the people who knew about intelligence worked together to make it work. And we succeeded. And that was a good thing. We did not succeed well enough. Now, we can argue all day long and say because it was the Democratic leadership in the House or the Republican leadership in the House or so forth or because it was President Clinton did not care or did care, however you are going to characterize it, we could debate that all day long. The facts are that the cutting amendments to intelligence came from the Democratic side of the aisle and were supported over the decade of the 1990s by large numbers of Democrats. That is all I am trying to convey. I thank God for the Democrats who saw the light and supported the Intelligence Community, as I do now, and I see no reason why we cannot continue. I was trying to refer, perhaps in a hurried way, to the Congressional Record. As I say, I am happy to share it. I have no bones to pick, and I am not trying to create any kind of a firestorm or throw red meat out to the gentleman from Washington. I do not think this serves any further purpose. I hope he accepts my explanation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond just to my good friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) by giving you a statement that we just received from the Director of Central Intelligence. I just saw it. I read it a minute ago. ``The damage done by inattention to the clandestine service during the first half of the 1990s cannot be repaired in the blink of an eye. It was severe.'' Now, the problem is you want it both ways. You said it was protected. Actually, the administration did a pretty good job of trying to protect the administration. It was the democratically controlled Congress that cut the budget as we have pointed out earlier in this debate. I will not defend or get involved in the Rogers amendment right now because we are talking about another amendment. But I will hold this up because this is why the problem exists. The promise was broken. I quote, ``Now that that struggle, the Cold War, is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' Now, that kind of statement just before no votes on supporting the intelligence community happens to have been made by such distinguished Members of the Congress as Senator John Kerry. That was in May of 1997 from the Record. I got books full of that stuff. There is no doubt where the Record is. The Democratic party did not support the intelligence community. If I said anything incorrect, I would be very happy to allow my colleague the opportunity on some other time to correct it, because he did not allow me to correct that. But I will say that I think that we have covered the point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has asked. Is the letter that he is referring to is the letter that was signed only by minority Members? Is that the letter my colleague is referring to? Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Dicks

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding. I guarantee, if the gentleman came up and took a look at the record of what we are doing, have done and are continuing to do, you would be proud that the committee is doing oversight properly. Now, I would also like, if the gentleman will allow me, to quote from the Director of Central Intelligence a letter.

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

Mr. GOSS. May I ask who compiled the list? Who signed this request?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is this a list that the committee has taken action on that has not been responded to?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, what is the list the gentleman is referring to? The letter that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I have written we have had response to, and we are getting more response. What list is the gentleman referring to, may I ask?

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular amendment was given very careful consideration in the committee, and it was voted down. We will have some reasons, and I am going to yield in a few minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), not yet, to explain some of them, as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence. But I think its it is important to note that our committee has really led, I think, very responsibly in the area of oversight. We have had, I believe it is five hearings now; we have something like close to 7,000 pages in seven or eight different categories. We are getting full cooperation. I do not understand exactly why it is there is a feeling that we need to go forward and shut down the money to the people who are carrying the war on terrorism because we feel they we are not getting enough cooperation. If we got much more cooperation, I would not have any staff available to prepare this bill, we have so many documents to work with. So there is no question that the oversight is being done. I think to say this was a petty gesture posing as a grand gesture or whatever the language was is not off-base. It is unnecessary. I think we hashed this out in our committee, and I am sorry it has come back again. We are doing our job. Now, before I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I do need to point out that, indeed, I just received the mail, my mail apparently does not come in quite as rapidly, but I too got the letter from Director Tenet; and it appears that Director Tenet is also having a problem with his mail, because he is referring here to language in a draft that is no longer relevant in making a complaint about language that does not exist. It is true that in our report, and I will be happy to read on page 23 the offending language. The offending language is this: ``The CIA must collect against all types of targets needed to gain the insights and the plans and intentions of our adversaries, be they terrorists, political, economic, military in nature. Countering the threat from terrorism is, of course, and should be at the top of the CIA's list of collection priorities, but the Central Intelligence Agency must continue to be much more than just a ``central counterterrorism agency'' if America is to be truly secure, prosperous, and free. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. We have weapons of proliferation, we have counternarcotics efforts, we have racketeering, things going on. What we are saying here is what every member of the committee knows, that we have insufficiency of capability in the intelligence community to do all the tasks we need to protect America from all of the threats that are out there. And I quite agree that that is a matter that we have all expressed concern on, and that is what we have done. I think for the Director to come back and suggest that there is an unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism is a stretch; and I think he has had bad staff work, and I hope he takes care of it. The second thing I would point out in the same letter is something that we have reported on today, and I am quoting: ``The damage done by inattention to the clandestine service during the first half of the 1990s cannot be repaired in the blink of an eye.'' We all know that. We all know we have an insufficiency problem, and we all understand that we have a threat that is serious and that we are trying to deal with it, and this bill builds back capability to deal with it. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, and associate myself with a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows his stuff. All-source intelligence sometimes gets confused with open-source intelligence. I think it is important to know that a huge percentage of all-source intelligence is open-source intelligence and is very valuable in the filters and the proper analysis. So I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I also want to give notice that I am going to put at the proper time a statement of the Speaker of the House in the Record in support of this bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to control the time. I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I do have some remarks.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Washington for allowing me this opportunity. I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a brief rule, it is understandable, and it is a very fair rule because it does get us to debate, but I am very much in opposition to the underlying resolution. That is the nature of this House. Even though we are against something, we bring it forward for debate. I think that is very fair. It is prudent to ensure that our legislative process continues to function when we are at war or after a catastrophe. That goes without saying. It is not only prudent. It is responsibility. We are at war. It is a fact. A loosely organized global network of radical fanatics, who use terror as their weapon of choice, has declared war on us. The escalation of terrorist attacks against us, underscored by the terrible carnage on our innocent homeland on September 11, leaves no doubt that war has been declared on us, and we are at war. So it is wise to visit the issue of continuity of Congress. However, few problems require a constitutional remedy, and I firmly believe this is not one of them. The beauty of our government is the ability to evolve and adapt to changing times and needs without altering the foundation that supports and guides us. That is our Constitution. Our country has withstood foreign wars, civil war, depression, even attacks on our own soil with only 27 changes to our Constitution over the years. As elected public officials, we must understand our responsibilities are not only to those we represent but also to the Constitution that holds our Nation together. I remind my colleagues, the opening line of our oath of office reads, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' There is no Member of this body who has ever spoken from this floor who has not sworn that oath. Not far from where we stand, an hour or so from this Chamber, lies Montpelier, the home of the father of the Constitution, James Madison. There, and in this body, his teachings live on and his wisdom resonates with the new generations. Our Nation has a powerful history based on the principles of free government and the right of all people to elect their representatives. Congress has the privilege to serve those it represents, not to appoint that right to others. When describing the special relationship between the House of Representatives and the American people, James Madison said, ``Duty, gratitude, interest, and ambition itself are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.'' In order to preserve this bond, we should not tolerate exceptions and caveats to our election process but, rather, continue to encourage Americans to gather together and to vote, solidifying our conviction for and our responsibility to a free government that serves its people. In the war on terror, we are confronting those who threaten our liberty simply because we have it and we enjoy it. Although the war made against us by terrorists is perilous and unpredictable, we have a duty to remain steadfast and strong, vigilant and upholding the ideals that have contributed to this great Nation, but not in overreacting. We must bring patient, I emphasize patient, devotion and overall intensity of purpose to prudent action without moving the foundation stone of our freedom, our Constitution. I support the rule because it provides for a deliberative debate, which is what the opposition has asked, but I strongly oppose rushing to change our Constitution. Are the terrorists trying to make us do things to ourselves that the terrorists themselves could not directly force us to do? Let us not succumb to a hasty reaction. Let us celebrate our Constitution as it is and vote ``no'' on the resolution that would amend it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. I too wish to associate myself with the praise and gratitude for the man and his service to our institution. I would characterize Charlie as the true north on the compass of this institution and the man who had the good judgment to understand when magnetic declinations were in order. He has had seasoned patience with seasoned Members, and he has had extraordinary patience with new Members, to try to explain how things happen here. I think many of us feel that his personal judgment is as much a hallmark as the knowledge of the institution, which is matched by none. The reason I asked for time to speak is that Charlie will always be in my memory on a fateful day in this country, September 11, 2001. The Speaker of the House desired that the House be opened for a prayer on that fateful day even as events were transpiring around us. It was not the right time, there was concern about precedent. Parliamentarians always worry about precedent. Charlie found a way for us to get the House opened, the prayer said, and the House evacuated. And I have, to this day, that official Record hanging on my wall in my office and it will always be a memory of my life. Because I think it was very important that that day was recorded that way about this institution, and it would not have happened without him, of course. Charlie is well regarded here and overseas, as we know. I have talked to parliamentarians, as I am sure others will testify, who come and wonder how this democracy works; how the people's House works. He has imparted that knowledge and wisdom and judgment around the globe, and I have heard it expressed many times from visitors who come here. He has added value. He has brought credit to our institution. We are going to miss you a lot, Charlie, and I wanted to say thanks.

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 H.R. 4359, the bill just passed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her kindness in yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, this comes at a benchmark moment for the United States of America, if not the world, in terms of our history. Our Nation and our allies are engaged in a global war against terrorism, we all know that, a war that began long before September 11, 2001, and is obviously going to continue well into the future. It is a war fanatics declared on America and its friends. It is a war that we cannot avoid. It is a war that must be fought, and it is a war that will be won. President Bush understood early on that this sustained conflict would be difficult, and he told us so; and the truth of his words becomes more evident as time goes by, and it is our job to step up and provide for the challenge. Our Nation's brave men and women in uniform and out face danger every day, not only in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan but actually around the whole world. We have sustained casualties. The inevitability of losses in dangerous work has not deterred us, nor has it diminished, of course, our heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifices made by some of the best our Nation has to offer, some from my home State, Florida, some from my district, as they fought in service of our country, for ideals that we all believe in, ideals that will endure, will prosper, and will better the lives of fellow human beings everywhere. These people bring credit and honor to us all. They must be remembered and cherished, and I have no doubt they will; and this legislation goes in that direction. The legislation we consider today provides the resources needed to continue the fight that we are in. H.R. 4200 allows America's military to function at a superior level. It includes programs that look forward, anticipating needs so that they can be met quickly and with precision when and wherever future threats arise. In addition, the Defense Authorization Act maintains the oversight ability of the Congress. The limited, but nonetheless damaging, instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib will be dealt with transparently and fairly to show the world that free societies respect civilized standards and enforce them. As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I appreciate that H.R. 4200 includes a strong intelligence component that ensures American war fighters on the ground or in whatever mode are provided with the best possible information; and I am most grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for understanding this and providing for it. Timely, accurate information is a vital weapon in the war on terrorism, both for force protection, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) well knows, and for mission success. Yes, we can expect more violence in Iraq as the June 30 transfer of sovereignty approaches. And, yes, unfortunately we can expect terrorists to target other events, including elections in free countries this year. But with the passage this year and maintaining levels of support for our military and intelligence capabilities, we can supply our soldiers and intelligence people with the resources and information they need to win. This rule considered a lot of things. The committee got a good bill together, and I do not think there is any reason not to go forward with the debate. I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the bill, and I urge a vigorous debate on the information herein.