Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, that is my understanding. I want to make sure that that is the understanding of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) also. In that case, there is no misunderstanding.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman would yield further, my understanding is that the first vote in the series would have to be a 15-minute vote and all subsequent votes would be 5 minutes. It is hard for me to say how many there will be because there is a germaneness question on one of these; and my substitute I would not think would take very long. I am told that there is confusion about whether my substitute is included in the 60 minutes that is set aside for Waters 2.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if the gentleman is referring to the Waters second amendment, which is the one on the Gulf war chemical warfare problem, the gentleman is correct. There is a substitute amendment that will be offered and that, indeed, could extend the time out.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a unanimous consent request which I think will be of great interest to all Members, concerning what we expect to be the events of the next hour and a half or so. I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1775, pursuant to House Resolution 179, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. I further would like to explain my unanimous consent request, Mr. Chairman, by saying that my understanding and part of the unanimous consent request is that the remaining amendments, which I will outline, on H.R. 1775, my understanding, the Frank amendment and all amendments thereto would be considered for a total of 30 minutes, that would be 15 minutes a side; that the Waters amendment that has to do with the Los Angeles drug problem be limited to 60 minutes, that would be 30 minutes a side, and all amendments thereto, if that amendment is in fact in order, which I am not certain about at this time; and that the Waters Amendment No. 2 and all amendments thereto, which has to do with the Gulf war chemical warfare amendment, be limited to 60 minutes, 30 minutes a side. That would, by my judgment, wrap up all of the amendments that we have provided, then to get back to the normal motions to recommit and closing out the bill in the normal way. I believe that if there is no opposition to our unanimous consent request, that would ensure Members until approximately 8:30, probably thereafter, before we would have the rolled votes; and that is my unanimous consent request. I would be very happy to yield if there is a question.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am happy to have the ranking member remind me of that. I should have referred to the Record. The Record will clearly show that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has already spoken in support of this amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to explain my reservation. I understand the gentleman's dilemma. We have a Committee on Rules, and we have rules for a reason, to try and have an orderly process. I believe, however, that the debate that the gentleman proposes to bring forward is a debate of great value. I am, therefore, willing to not object. Normally I would object because I think the process is important. As I say, I think this debate is worth it; and on the basis of the gentleman's request for unanimous consent, I will not object. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As President Dewey used to say, ``Be careful what you read in the newspapers.'' I think it is very important that we remember that my ranking member has addressed a lot of the issues that the distinguished gentleman from Vermont has just brought forward to us in previous sessions of the Congress in previous years. We are very concerned with our responsibilities to do our job of oversight to make sure that we are providing the best possible means of defense for Americans and America through the use of eyes and ears and brains around the world, our intelligence business, because despite the fact that the cold war is over, the danger to America and Americans and American interests is clearly not. Anybody who thinks it is might want to look in the newspapers about the World Trade Center bombing or they might want to look in the newspapers about the bombing in Saudi Arabia that regrettably cost the lives of some American troops and much wounding of hundreds of American troops, and on and on. Or they might want to go upstairs and take a look in the Intelligence Committee's area and of course every Member of this Congress is cordially invited to come upstairs and take a look at any time in what we are doing and what information we have as long as they are willing to comply with the accountability and responsibility that goes along with that knowledge. We think that it is very important that we have what I will call a factual analysis and we on the committee have tried to give it our best bet on what the facts are and what the analysis of the facts are. We have not done a data-free analysis. We have come to a thoughtful conclusion of where we are. I cannot overstate my opposition to across-the-board cuts, anyway, to intelligence bills, and even though I know that the gentleman from Vermont is well-intentioned, we have had this debate before, such an approach to budget cutting I do not think is good and it is indiscriminate. To make cuts by a percentage or a number grabbed out of thin air, whether it is 10 percent or 5 percent or any other percent, completely undercuts the duty of Congress to deliberate and make thoughtful decisions on behalf of our constituents in the best interests of the Nation. Remember, this is the one piece of legislation that must be authorized. We have an authorization charter on this committee that nobody else has. In our representative democracy, Members of Congress are elected to make responsible, informed spending decisions based on the close scrutiny of the costs and the benefits of specific government programs. That is what this permanent select committee has done. The select committee has analyzed and reviewed the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States to determine the benefit provided by those programs to the national security interests of the United States, and that is the bill we have in front of us today. To my colleagues who favor this amendment, let me ask, to what specific programs are they opposed? What should we cut back? Which programs should be terminated? Which intelligence targets should be dropped? Specific modifications to intelligence programs would be more appropriate than the broad brush approach that the gentleman proposes. In the gentleman's testimony to the Committee on Rules that was submitted in support of the amendment, he noted programs that he considers to be bloated wastes of taxpayers' money. In support of this 5 percent budget slashing amendment, he contends that the NRO, which we have heard about, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, NIMA, and the National Security Agency simply collect too much information to be thoroughly analyzed and used by policymaking consumers. He argues that because some information is not put to its best use, the entire intelligence community should suffer a 5 percent reduction in funding. Because the gentleman is unhappy with the overall lack of analytical capabilities of the intelligence community, which I would note is something that the committee specifically seeks to correct through this bill in a very thoughtful and deliberate and specific manner, he wants to reduce the analytical resources by an additional 5 percent. That is counterintuitive and counterproductive. If Members come up to the committee spaces and read the classified annex to the bill, they will see that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis did its job. The committee reviewed each program for its merit and its benefit to national security. The committee truly scrubbed each program to ensure the money would be well spent. We had a lot of debate about that. The committee held 7 full committee budget hearings, as I said, scores of briefings, 100 or so Member and staff briefings, and on and on. The committee thoroughly, let me repeat, the committee thoughtfully and thoroughly and with careful deliberation made appropriate adjustments to the President's intelligence budget proposal. The committee reported increases for those programs where it found the President's plan lacking, and it reduced authorization levels where appropriate and necessary. If Members have looked at the schedule of authorizations, they will see that the committee has made drastic, substantial, and real cuts, not just reductions in budget request levels but real cuts in several programs. The committee did so based on the merits of the program, not simply to achieve a percentile decrease that is altogether meaningless. These reductions were made for good government reasons.

Mr. GOSS. At the same time, however, the committee has increased authorization levels for certain other programs to ensure that the U.S. government has adequate intelligence capabilities so that another Kamisiyah does not occur, so that collected intelligence is not wasted, to adequately support all our deployed Armed Forces and to properly address global crises that threaten our national security interests without diminishing our capabilities in other areas of this still treacherous world. Just because the cold war is over does not make this world more safe. Quite the contrary. Radical regimes exist that wish us harm, and transnational threats of terrorism, narcotrafficking, organized crime and weapons proliferation actually threaten our way of life on a daily basis whether we are here or abroad. This amendment would indiscriminately make cuts where program funding has already been reduced by significant amounts and cut those programs that need additional budgetary resources. This amendment requires no thought for what is needed, how things operate or the fixed cost of a strong national security enjoyed by all Americans. It is purely a number thing. If this amendment passes, how will we explain to the American public that the funding for the FBI, the CIA, and others against international terrorists was cut back? How will we justify the reduction in our ability to monitor the unfair trade and economic policies of business competitors? What will we say to your business constituents after we reduce our ability to determine when foreign countries and foreign corporations try to steal us blind of our technology and commercial secrets? Should we hamstring our efforts to stay one step ahead of the radical regimes who are feverishly working to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missile systems to deliver them? And they are. That is what this amendment would do. This amendment would also put our deployed troops at risk. Passage of this amendment will result in higher casualties in all likelihood because of the inability to provide the necessary force protection. We have had a sad lesson there recently. This indiscriminate 5 percent reduction in the authorization levels will result in less accurate and less timely intelligence that is critical to disclosing the threatening capabilities or evil intentions of our foes. The parents of those serving this country in the armed services will want to know the justification for increasing the threat to their children. The global strategic reality is that we have won the cold war, but we have not resolved the danger problem.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would invite the gentleman to come upstairs to the committee quarters and we will be happy to share with him, we will provide as much staff as he likes, we will walk him through line by line and we will be the better for it and so will the gentleman.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, it is impossible to know in foresight. Let me put it this way. In hindsight we have discovered that if we had better equipment in the question of the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, we may very well have avoided that.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire for doing that. I did want to point out on a serious note that any Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, of course, enjoys a very high privilege for serving here, but they also enjoy the opportunity to examine classified information, and I believe that that is a wonderful opportunity. I hope Members will take advantage of it; I mean that very sincerely because I think that they get a better impression of what our responsibilities in the area of national security are by examining classified information and material available to the committee then they do by reading various newspapers which inevitably have a slant or point of view and less than full information, or even watching C-Span which is always dramatic; excuse me, CNN which is always dramatic. But that is not really the point. The other point I wanted to make is this: We have clearly got a responsibility, the 15 Members of the House Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence. Oversight has come a long way, baby, since we first started to have oversight of the intelligence community. We needed oversight. It all started back, and my colleague has said a long time ago, but in the Second World War became apparent that we needed to deal with the oversight question and organize intelligence, and shortly after that we did. And oversight has become much more sophisticated, much more organized, I believe much more representative. But it is true, the 15 of us on that committee have a responsibility to all of the other Members of this body to make the right decisions. We have brought forward a bill, 15 to zero, that we do not all agree with every item on to be sure, but, 15 to zero, we have brought our colleagues a bipartisan bill which we think is about right for where we are to go into conference with, and we are asking our colleagues to basically understand that we have not come out of thin air, that we have worked hard and deliberately, going time and time again into these programs dealing with these agencies, making them justify how they expend these moneys. I am a fiscal conservative. I would not be voting for pork or waste. I assure that the Members who know me know that is true. As I say, I think we have got it about right, I think the members of this committee have done a very good job, and I think a straight across the board cut that is totally indiscriminate is going to do serious damage and not going to get the kind of benefits or savings that the well intentioned sponsors of the amendment has envisaged.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1 more minute to the gentlewoman from California to wrap up.

Mr. GOSS. No, I am saying, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I will be very happy to join Mr. Dixon in responding as exactly as he has done. But it would be helpful to me to know all of the details of what the gentlewoman knows. I take very seriously, living in Florida, which is not unlike the problem in California, of drug smuggling and the impact we see on our streets. We have a problem. We are not insensitive to this, I assure my colleague, and I assure her that there are unfolding events every minute in the war on drugs, every minute, and the intelligence part of that we are attending to. We are committing dollars, and we hope we have the gentlewoman's support for our budget for those dollars.

Mr. GOSS. Let me clearly tell the gentlewoman that I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and I think Mr. Dixon has said exactly the right thing. The specific facts that the gentlewoman is basing her allegation on, I would like to know what they are. I will then deal with those facts, and I will advise the gentlewoman of relevant information, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] will be part of that process, as he has been, because he has been doing stellar service for our committee on this matter in Los Angeles because it is clearly part of his representation.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman will yield to me, I presume these questions are being directed to me.

Mr. GOSS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the gentlewoman is referring, I think, to events that transpired before I was privileged to be on this committee, and that is why, since I had no forewarning that that was going to be a subject today, I am simply not prepared to give her any specific information. I am certainly welcome to assure that we will attend to her request to see if there is anything into it, as we would with any Member who brings forward that type of a serious allegation.

Mr. GOSS. As far as I am concerned, if the gentlewoman has some new information that is additional or supplemental or complementary to any of the previous work that has been done on this, that she would bring it to the committee's attention, that we will obviously attend to it forthwith. My understanding is that there has been some work done on this; I do not know the exact status, because we are dealing with somewhat of a new subject that is just a little bit off the record here of what I thought we were talking about, but I am certainly willing, as we have been all along the way on this, with the gentlewoman, with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and as seen with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] earlier in our colloquy.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield to me?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to yield back. We have no further speakers on this subject at this time, and as long as we understand that this satisfies the full unanimous-consent request we had for the 30 minutes on either side and includes my substitute amendment, and that is the issue we will be voting on first, we are prepared to yield back.