9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
(House of Representatives - October 07, 2004)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H8664-H8704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1419


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence community, 
terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and 
international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Bonilla (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 3 hours and 40 minutes, with 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by each chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, Committee on 
Financial Services, Committee on Government Reform, and the Committee 
on the Judiciary; and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by each 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) each will control 20 minutes of debate from the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act.

[[Page H8665]]

  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is a bill that reforms the intelligence 
community of the United States. To be sure, this bill has provisions to 
improve our Nation's ability to prevent and prosecute terrorism, to 
improve border security, and to improve international security 
cooperation and coordination. But it is the specific focus of the 
intelligence reform that I wish to address.
  This bill, very specifically and very wisely, implements the 
intelligence reform recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and the 
House/Senate Joint Inquiry Report. H.R. 10, for example, creates a 
National Intelligence Director who has dramatically improved 
authorities and capabilities to manage and coordinate the disparate 
efforts of the various intelligence components and elements of the 
United States Government. It makes the National Intelligence Director 
truly the leader of the entire community, and it makes this person 
responsible for the coordinated efforts of the entire community.
  Some will say that H.R. 10 does not follow all of the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission. In constructing this bill, we critically 
reviewed the ramifications of one of their recommendations, 
declassifying the budget. We believe that the unintended negative 
consequences of such a move outweighed any possible benefits. Why, at a 
time of war, share any information that our enemies might find useful? 
I want to be clear to the American people. Structural changes and 
enhanced authorities cannot and will not ensure perfect knowledge about 
our enemies' plans and intentions. It is important to say that those 
who would do America harm are clever. They are very secretive. The 
asymmetric threats that they can both imagine and effect require us to 
be many fold better at defense than they need to be in offense. That 
said, I firmly believe the improvements provided in this bill will make 
significant improvements in the outcomes of our intelligence analysis, 
collection, and dissemination.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
want to ensure the strongest, most empowered intelligence director 
possible. It is with that specific intent that we met with negotiators 
from the other affected committees of the House and crafted what I 
consider to be a very strong bill. H.R. 10 addresses five major 
improvements for the intelligence community.
  First and foremost, the bill creates an empowered National 
Intelligence Director who is the head of the intelligence community and 
who is the principal adviser to the President on all intelligence 
matters.
  Second, it provides this new director with enhanced management 
authorities to coordinate and manage all aspects of intelligence 
operations. These new authorities are, I believe, unprecedented and 
strike a careful balance between the equities of the National 
Intelligence Director and the heads of the departments that contain the 
elements of the intelligence community.
  Third, the National Intelligence Director is vested with the 
responsibility and authority to dramatically improve information-
sharing of intelligence across the government.
  Fourth, the National Intelligence Director is made responsible for 
strengthening intelligence analysis across the community.
  And, finally, this bill creates a National counterterrorism Center. 
This center will be responsible for analyzing and integrating all 
intelligence pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism.
  Finally, I want to mention that this legislation also addresses 
several provisions for dramatically improving intelligence community 
training and education, particularly in the areas of foreign language 
expertise and analyst proficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also be remiss if I did not turn to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and thank her for the 
intelligence reform legislation that she offered earlier this year. I 
hold in very high regard the bipartisan manner in which the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman) and her staff have worked with us on the 
intelligence provisions of H.R. 10 and look forward to working with her 
staff as we continue moving through this process, move through the 
process of a conference committee and bring a bill to the desk of the 
President.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is real reform of the intelligence community. 
It is far better and more well thought out than any other legislation 
we will address today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 10.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the 
new chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for the 
comments he just made, not just about me and the members of the 
minority but about our staff. We work hard, and we welcome the fact 
that the winds of bipartisanship are again blowing through our 
committee. It is a good thing for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I hail from California, the land of earthquakes. 
Yesterday, Washington experienced two near simultaneous earthquakes. In 
California, we would call that ``the big one.''
  The first was the Duelfer report, which conclusively established that 
we invaded Iraq based on wrong intelligence. Four ancient chemical 
warheads, one vial of Botox and a centrifuge hidden under a rose bush 
in 1991 did not and do not constitute an imminent threat.
  The second earthquake was last evening's spectacular 96-to-2 victory 
of the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation, S. 2845, implementing the 
9/11 Commission recommendations. Kudos to Senators Collins and 
Lieberman, amazing legislators who presided over 2 days of markup and 
withstood votes on dozens of floor amendments over 6 days to produce an 
excellent bipartisan bill.
  In contrast, Mr. Chairman, although this House was first to identify 
our intelligence gaps and could have played the leadership role in 
fixing them, we are playing catch-up. More than a year ago, former 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss and I 
sent a letter to George Tenet detailing our preliminary findings that 
``there were significant deficiencies'' in our intelligence about 
Iraq's WMD capabilities and that the intelligence community's 
``judgments were based on too many uncertainties.''
  Last April, as we heard from our chairman, all nine Democrats on the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence introduced H.R. 4104 
to provide ``Goldwater/Nichols''-style jointness for the intelligence 
community. Our bill put a dozen intelligence agencies with different 
rules, cultures and databases under one unified commander for the 
entire community just the way we put our military services under 
unified command. We are told our bill formed the basis for many of the 
9/11 Commission recommendations on intelligence reform, including the 
creation of the National Intelligence Director.
  Mr. Chairman, the concepts we will debate today were developed from a 
House bill. It started here, and it stalled here when the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence majority took no action to mark up our 
bill. It remains stalled, Mr. Chairman, because the Republican 
leadership insists on pursuing a highly partisan process. Fortunately, 
the Menendez substitute has been made in order, and I urge its 
adoption.
  S. 2845, the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill, which would replace H.R. 
10 if the Menendez amendment is adopted, provides full budget execution 
authority to the National Intelligence Director. In contrast, H.R. 10 
creates an ``N-I-D'' but it is a ``Neutered Intelligence Director,'' 
passing funding through the NID without giving the NID adequate 
control.
  S. 2845 provides for a National Counterterrorism Center with real 
power to integrate our counterterrorist operations. H.R. 10 reduces the 
NCTC's power. S. 2845 provides for an independent Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Board. H.R. 10 does not.
  S. 2845 follows the excellent recommendations of the nonpartisan 
Markle Foundation and creates a trusted Information Sharing Network so 
that government agencies can connect the dots about the terrorists but 
not infringe on the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. H.R. 10 
has no such provision.
  S. 2845 allows the public to see the overall amount we spend on 
intelligence by declassifying the top line,

[[Page H8666]]

something we did in 1997 and 1998 without jeopardizing national 
security. H.R. 10 insists on unnecessary secrecy.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the wrong bill. In case anyone 
missed it, the terrorists did not check our party labels before they 
attacked us, and they certainly will not care whether we are Democrats 
or Republicans when they try to attack us again. Mr. Chairman, the 
American people want us to defend our country, not our turf.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip and a member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, the House is taking bold steps today to 
reform the way our intelligence community works for the first time in 
two generations. The legislation that we are debating here today 
responds to the 9/11 Commission's look at an unprecedented and 
horrendous day in American history. The Commission made recommendations 
for dramatically changing our intelligence operations, and seven House 
committees of jurisdiction held 20 hearings and five markups. Despite 
some claims to the contrary, our committees have worked in a bipartisan 
fashion to contribute with strong bipartisan votes, sweeping and much-
needed components of change of the legislation that we are discussing 
today.
  I would like to focus on the intelligence reform for a minute. I have 
had the privilege of joining the gentleman from Michigan's (Chairman 
Hoekstra's) and the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Harman's) 
committee last week during the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence's markup of the components of the 9/11 Commission bill. 
This legislation establishes a strong empowered National Intelligence 
Director who will coordinate the efforts of all the U.S. intelligence 
agencies. The National Intelligence Director will head up the U.S. 
intelligence community and serve as the President's principal adviser 
on intelligence matters. The new National Intelligence Director will 
also be responsible for establishing and running a new National 
Counterterrorism Center. This center will be the primary organization 
for analyzing and integrating all terrorism and counterterrorism 
intelligence.

                              {time}  1430

  The center will help keep Americans safe by integrating all national 
efforts to detect, deter and disrupt terrorist activities.
  This bill enhances the community wide intelligence budget, operations 
and personal management authorities for the new National Security 
Director. The Director will have, for example, increased authority to 
manage and oversee execution of the National Intelligence Program and 
its annual budget.
  One of the strengths of this bill is that this bill still keeps that 
budget secret from our enemies. Divulging the top line of the national 
intelligence budget to our enemies is not a good idea. If it is a good 
idea, why not divulge the next to the top line and the line after that 
and the line after that? This is just simply information that does not 
need to be disclosed. This is the only option that protects that 
information.
  The 9/11 Commission Implementation Bill will also improve information 
sharing. The landmark legislation also sharpens intelligence tools, 
making the National Intelligence Director responsible for the accuracy 
of intelligence analysis and for ensuring the quality of human 
intelligence and other intelligence capabilities around globe. This 
legislation provides a better intelligence structure and improves our 
national security.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10, to defeat any substitutes, 
and to move forward toward this important landmark piece of 
legislation.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), a excellent senior member of our committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time, and want to thank our new chairman for working on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we had passed three amendments that have 
been stripped out of H.R. 10. Having said that, I have been a member of 
the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence for nearly 4 years now. Through that 
subcommittee's work, I have focused on the issue of strengthening our 
intelligence response to terrorism. I have also served on the Joint 
Congressional Inquiry of 9/11, and for almost 8 years on the House 
Committee on Armed Services. So I understand the importance of 
intelligence to our troops in the field.
  We must reform the intelligence community to avoid another 9/11, but 
the bill before us today is not the way to do it.
  H.R. 10, from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, is just too weak. The 
National Intelligence Director created under the bill would not have 
the minimum necessary control over funding and appointment of officials 
or personnel assignments. For example, if the National Intelligence 
Director cannot hire and fire people, they do not really work for him 
or her.
  In both the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
Committee on Armed Services markups, I offered amendments to strengthen 
the hiring and firing authority of our National Intelligence Director, 
using the language of the Collins-Lieberman bill passed by the Senate 
and endorsed by our White House, The 9/11 Commission and 9/11 families.
  The Senate's completely bipartisan bill would properly implement the 
Commission's recommendations. The House bill is not bipartisan, and my 
amendments in committee failed on basically party-line votes.
  I believe that today we should be adopting a bill to be closer to the 
bipartisan Collins-Lieberman effort on the Senate side. The voters, and 
the 9/11 families, in whose honor we work, deserve the strongest 
efforts to make this happen.
  Our ability to counter future attacks from al Qaeda and other 
terrorist groups demands a bipartisan effort. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, we 
fail that test today with H.R. 10. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) a distinguished member of the committee and 
our ``top gun.''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I could expound to all of what is in 
H.R. 10, but I would like to go through a few of the differences and 
why.
  I think for anybody to espouse complete acceptance of the 9/11 
Commission recommendations is irresponsible, totally irresponsible, and 
I will be specific.
  The bill that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) presented 
is thoughtful, caring and actually has many, many of the H.R. 10 
legislation bullets in it. She has done a good job. But there are many 
things that I totally disagree with that I think would do more harm for 
this country than good. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is 
a friend and we work side by side. It does not mean we have to agree on 
every issue.
  First of all, putting the National Intelligence Director under the 
White House, everybody knows how it works around here. The closer you 
are to the White House, the more political things become. If you have 
everything that is scrubbed through the National Intelligence Director 
by the White House, regardless if it is a Republican or a Democrat, 
that White House is going to be concerned that anything that is done is 
going to reflect on their next election and it is going to cause 
gridlock at that level.
  It is going to keep our intelligence agents from being flexible and 
mobile and have initiative. I think that is wrong, and it could harm 
this country's intelligence services. That is one.
  Secondly, control of the NID totally over the defense budget, I think 
that is wrong. If you look at Senator John Kerry, that is exactly what 
he tried to do, is gut defense, for 30 years. And if they are able to 
have a person as a NID control the Secretary of Defense and the entire 
defense budget, that is exactly what they want. It is politically 
motivated, and I think it is wrong.
  If you take a look, look at the Army Times. Seventy-two percent of 
the Guard, Reserves and active duty, officer and enlisted, are going to 
vote for

[[Page H8667]]

G.W. Bush, and they want to stymie that.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my friend the last speaker that 
both in Collins-Lieberman and H.R. 10, the NID is not part of the White 
House, the Executive Office of the President. It is separate. I agree 
with his comments on that.
  As far as the budget of the NID is concerned, tactical intelligence 
is totally exempted.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  (Ms. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to say I appreciate the 
work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) with our committee, 
the fresh leadership, and his working together with the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman), who is doing a great job for us as 
ranking member. It is good to see my neighbor and friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) participating as he is standing in for Mr. 
Boehlert.
  Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission examined ways that terrorists are 
trying to attack us and pointed out problems with how our intelligence 
agencies tackle this threat. Our intelligence community was set up more 
than 50 years ago to deal with threats from the Soviet Union in the 
Cold War. I personally participated in rewriting FM 101-5 when I was 
instructor at Command General Staff. We knew we had to change, we had a 
new threat, the Cold War.
  Today we face new threats and our intelligence agencies need to 
adapt. The 9/11 Commission showed us a way to do that.
  I believe H.R. 10 is too weak. It does not do enough to address the 
threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction our country 
faces. I offered an amendment in committee last week to improve the 
bill's provisions on the budget authority of the National Intelligence 
Director. It was voted down on a party-line vote, even though the same 
provision is part of the bipartisan Senate bill that passed 96 to 2 
yesterday.
  I think the issue of budget authority is actually a simple one. The 
National Intelligence Director needs the authority to do the job we are 
asking him to do. That means power over the intelligence budget. And to 
be effective, to be allowed to do his or her job, they must have 
authority over the budget.
  With weak authority, the National Intelligence Director will 
inevitably be weak, exactly as the Director of Central Intelligence has 
been weak for half a century.
  There have been many, many studies of intelligence reform over the 
decades, and most of them have urged stronger budgetary authority for 
the Director of Central Intelligence. The 9/11 Commission strongly 
recommends that the National Intelligence Director be fully in control 
of the budget, from developing it to implementing it, to ensuring that 
the National Intelligence Director has the clout to make decisions.
  Over in the Senate, the Collins-Lieberman bill keeps faith with those 
recommendations. H.R. 10 does not. I hope that we will be able to 
improve the bill, amending the budget provisions and other provisions 
that are far too weak.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Jo Ann Davis), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, and I thank my 
friend and colleague from Michigan for yielding me this time.
  The legislation before us today contains the most substantial reform 
of the United States intelligence community since its inception in 1947 
and it contains five major improvements to the current intelligence 
community.
  First and foremost, this legislation creates an empowered National 
Intelligence Director who is the head of the intelligence community and 
the principal adviser to the President for all intelligence matters. 
Because this new position will be separate from that of the director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency, we will finally have an individual 
whose sole purpose is to direct the overall functioning of the 
intelligence community.
  Second, the legislation provides a new National Intelligence Director 
with enhanced management authorities to coordinate and manage all 
aspects of intelligence operations as well as improved authorities over 
and control of intelligence budgets.
  Third, the legislation vests in the National Intelligence Director 
the responsibility and authority to dramatically improve information 
sharing across the government. We are all too familiar with the failure 
of agencies to communicate vital information with each other prior to 
9/11.
  Now the head of the intelligence community will have the ability to 
implement an integrated technology network and establish uniform 
security standards that can break down stovepipes and promote the 
fullest information sharing possible.
  Fourth, this legislation makes the National Intelligence Director 
responsible for strengthening analysis across the community and for 
ensuring the sufficiency and quality of human intelligence and other 
intelligence capabilities.
  Finally, the legislation creates a National Counterterrorism Center 
that will be responsible for analyzing and integrating all intelligence 
pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism. No longer will the left-
hand not know what the right hand is doing with respect to 
counterterrorism activities.
  As the central knowledge bank of all terrorist and counterterrorist 
information and the central point for strategic operational planning, 
we can now take the fight to the terrorists in the most coordinated 
manner possible.
  It is vital that the intelligence community reform better align U.S. 
resources and management authorities to effectively target both the 
terrorist threats of today, as well as new threats of tomorrow. I 
strongly urge support of the legislation.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a member of our committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is not the best bill 
that this body could produce. H.R. 10, as introduced, included a 
curious provision in Title V, section 5021 of the bill would give the 
President the authority to draft a completely new intelligence reform 
bill and submit it to Congress for only an up or down vote with no 
ability to amend.
  Now, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee 
with the expertise and jurisdiction on restructuring the intelligence 
community, voted on a bipartisan basis to strike this provision. But 
the Committee on Rules overruled the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and left section 5021 in the bill before us today.
  This provision would create the same mess that we already have when 
we are dealing with Trade Promotion Authority, a situation where the 
Congress has almost no say in what the administration does in our trade 
agreements. Why would we want to set up another system like that? It 
would undermine Congress' ability for effective oversight of our 
intelligence operations, and that is clearly not the right thing to do.
  In addition, I do not understand why the House Republican leadership 
is ignoring the President's endorsement of the Senate's bill and so 
much of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Their approach is not 
going to help us get to where we need to go on this bill and get done 
in a constructive and timely manner.
  I believe the proposed National Intelligence Director should have 
strong authority in the areas of budget control, appointment of senior 
officials in the intelligence community and assignment and tasking 
authority of personnel, and we should have a strong National 
Counterterrorism Center with responsibilities for assigning roles and 
planning counterterrorist operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill passed by the other body is much 
preferable to H.R. 10 in all of those areas, and I think that is the 
direction that we should go.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished

[[Page H8668]]

gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, understandably in this debate, we tend 
to emphasize our differences, but I think it is important to step back 
a little bit and remember that the basic premise upon which the 9/11 
Commission report is based and upon which this legislation is based is 
that the arrangement of the intelligence organizations we had for the 
Cold War is not necessarily the best arrangement for today or for 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  1445

  That should not be surprising. It has been true of the military, and 
we are making changes in the organization of the military. It has been 
true of our homeland security organizations, and we have made changes 
there; and it is also true of our intelligence organizations, and this 
bill begins to make those changes as well.
  The issues related to whether we need an overall director of national 
intelligence have been around since the second Hoover Commission of 
1955. CRS has documented about a dozen or more studies that have made 
this point over the years since then. This bill does it.
  There has been unanimous agreement since September 11 that we need to 
have better fusion of intelligence from all sources, and this bill 
formalizes that with the National Counterterrorism Center.
  There is concern about providing intelligence for the warfighters, 
and this bill tries to strike the balance to make sure that the 
warfighters on the ground get the information they need but, at the 
same time, it recognizes that if we are going to be successful in 
preventing terrorism, not just managing terrorism, but preventing 
terrorism, we have to do a better job of bringing that intelligence 
together and getting it to the policymakers.
  This is an important step, but it is only a step, because as the 9/11 
Commission recognized, moving boxes on an organizational chart is 
important, but there are other things that need to be done with the 
border, with economic development assistance, with public diplomacy, 
and a variety of other issues that they brought out, and this Congress 
and the government need to follow that up as well.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the last 
speaker and welcome him to the committee.
  It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), who is ranking member on one of our 
subcommittees, a new member of our committee, and my California sister.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the House Select Committee on Intelligence for yielding me this time.
  Today I think it is an historic opportunity for the Congress to 
confront the critical threats to our national security. But the House 
Republican leadership unfortunately has refused to address this problem 
in a comprehensive and bipartisan manner.
  Last April, 6 long months ago, all 9 Democrats of the House Select 
Committee on Intelligence introduced a reform bill. We incorporated the 
lessons from the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 and the 
intelligence failures on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The 9/
11 Commission, inspired by the families of the victims, built on our 
bill and they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations to 
overhaul the intelligence community.
  The Senate, the other body, embraced the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 96 to 2 and passed 
a bill that the 9/11 families support and the Commission fully 
endorsed. No amendment was accepted that reduced the authority of the 
national intelligence director or the mission of the National 
Counterterrorism Center. This is the bill I believe we should be voting 
on today.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is not such a bill. It is not endorsed by the 
9/11 Commission, and it does not fulfill the mandate of the victims' 
families, as well as I think the hopes and aspirations of the American 
people.
  Last week, at the House Select Committee on Intelligence markup, I 
offered an amendment to strengthen the quality of analysis in National 
Intelligence Estimates. That is the ultimate document that is offered 
to the President and to the Congress to rank and to determine what the 
threat is. Have we not learned, I say to my colleagues, the failures 
that were incorporated in that national intelligence estimate that led 
us to war, and this country is at war today.
  I think we can do better. I believe that we should be emulating what 
the Senate has done, do this on a bipartisan basis. I do not believe 
this fits the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns about H.R. 10. Today we 
have a historic opportunity to confront the critical threats to our 
national security, but the House Republican leadership has refused to 
address this problem in a comprehensive, bipartisan manner.
  Last April, all 6 months ago, Democrats of the House Intelligence 
Committee introduced an intelligence reform bill.
  We incorporated the lessons from the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 
9/11 and the intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons of mass 
destruction. The 9/11 Commission--inspired by the families of victims--
built on our bill and developed their comprehensive set of 
recommendations to overhaul our Intelligence Community and 
congressional oversight of intelligence.
  The other body embraced the 9/11 Commission recommendations in a 
bipartisan manner, and by a vote of 96-2 passed the bill that the 9/11 
families support and the 9/11 Commission fully endorsed. No amendment 
was accepted that reduced the authority of the National Intelligence 
Director, or the mission of the National Counter Terrorism Center. This 
is the bill we should be voting on today. H.R. 10 is not such a bill. 
It is not endorsed by the 
9/11 Commission, and it doesn't fulfill the mandate of the victims' 
families and the American people.
  Last week at the House Intelligence Committee, I offered an amendment 
to improve the quality of analysis in National Intelligence Estimates. 
The amendment required intelligence analysis to provide a better 
analysis of the quality of their sources and the uncertainties in their 
judgments. It was defeated on a party-line vote.
  Ultimately, I supported Title I of H.R. 10 in Committee markup last 
week, because it contained 3 bipartisan amendments which made this bill 
a better reflection of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
  The bill the Rules Committee brings to the floor today includes none 
of the bipartisan amendments passed, and rejects many of the core 
recommendation of the Commission.
  This bill falls far short of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations--
far short of what the other body passed overwhelmingly. The National 
Intelligence Director doesn't have the necessary authorities to direct 
the intelligence community or to move resources when priorities change. 
The National Counter Terrorism Center will have a director without 
clout, with a limited mission, and with little ability to coordinate 
counter terrorism operations across the Federal Government.
  And to make matters worse, the Republican leadership has included so-
called ``poison pills '' in the bill--such as anti-immigration policies 
dressed up as counterterrorism, and a provision that could undue our 
treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture. This is 
nothing but a cynical ploy, an attempt to label those Democrats who 
will not support this weak legislation as somehow ``weak'' against 
terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, our responsibility today is to strengthen our national 
security as the 9/11 Commission recommended. We can honor the 9/11 
families and pass the bill they've been fighting for for 3 years. H.R. 
10 simply isn't that bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I tried to focus earlier on, under consideration of the rule, my many 
long list of things that those of us on this committee have been doing 
since 9/11, and that the Bush administration has been doing. We have 
done a lot. We have really tried to do an awful lot to dismantle al 
Qaeda, to secure America, to secure our airports, and all of it long 
before there was ever a 9/11 Commission and long before there was a 9/
11 Commission report.
  This Congress, President Bush and his team, have done an 
extraordinary job, and the proof of it is that America has not been 
attacked for 3 years. We deserve this credit for that. We ought to take 
the credit for it. This was before there was any kind of a report 
printed. Now, all of a sudden, there is

[[Page H8669]]

this report that comes out that says we need another level of 
bureaucracy. I do not think we need another level of bureaucracy. We do 
not need anybody else on top.
  There has been a lot of coordination and a lot of communication that 
has taken place since 9/11. The FBI has been reorganized under Director 
Mueller and he is doing a good job, and we have a new CIA director and 
he is doing a good job. He has a new team in place. The CIA has 
embedded agents in the FBI and the FBI has agents embedded in the CIA 
who have created JTTFs all over the country. We have the TTIC that is 
operating very well. These acronyms maybe do not mean much to anybody, 
but there is a lot of activity that has taken place in this government 
under the leadership of President Bush and under the leadership of 
Congress, and to put another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of 
people, I think, makes no sense at all.
  One of the criticisms prior to 9/11 is that this kind of bureaucracy, 
there was too much bureaucracy; we do not need any more bureaucracy, we 
do not need any other layers of government. This position would not 
have prevented 9/11. Had this position been in place prior to 9/11, it 
would not have prohibited 9/11.
  I urge Members to look carefully at this bill. I plan to vote against 
it.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
another committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their 
leadership.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 10, a partisan and wholly 
inadequate bill, a pale shadow of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. It does not come close to addressing many of the key issues 
raised by the Commission. I should underscore that this is not an 
academic exercise, this is not about boxes on a bureaucratic 
organization chart, Mr. Chairman; these are life and death issues, as 
the families of more than 100 9/11 victims would attest.
  Let us remember why we are here. There are well-publicized failures 
and shortcomings in our intelligence, failures of intelligence agencies 
to communicate in the days and months leading up to 9/11, absence of 
anyone coordinating activities, absence of self-criticality, accepting 
and perpetuating unfounded reports of weapons in Iraq. That is what we 
are trying to address.
  But this legislation does not give the intelligence director the 
personnel and budgetary authority to coordinate activities or to direct 
communications. There is nothing in here to guarantee that the 
intelligence community does not, once again, fall victim to false 
assumptions and group think.
  Furthermore, H.R. 10 includes other changes unjustified by the 9/11 
Commission or by the committee's own findings.
  I am grateful that the Committee on Rules has allowed the amendment 
of my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to come 
to the floor. It is clearly a superior alternative to H.R. 10 for many 
reasons, not the least of which it rejects the noxious provisions of 
H.R. 10 that would mindlessly shred civil liberties while sanctioning 
the outsourcing of torture of unconvicted terrorist suspects by 
transferring them to other countries with deplorable human rights 
records.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 10 and to vote for the Menendez 
substitute.
  Our constituents have asked Congress to reform the intelligence 
community because of a self-evident lack of coordination among 
agencies, a confirmed failure to communicate critical threat 
information, and repeated instances of the use of questionable 
assumptions and faulty conclusions in key intelligence assessments. The 
bill before us addresses none of these deficiencies in a meaningful 
way, and in many cases does not address the key problems at all.
  With regard to this legislation's proposed budget and personnel 
authorities for the National Intelligence Director, I share the view 
expressed by 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean (Washington Post, 
October 1): ``This is not an area where one can compromise,'' he said. 
``If you're not going to create a strong national intelligence 
director, with powers both appointive and over the budget, don't do 
it.''


                       serious flaws with h.r. 10

  The bill before this House would also add other changes unjustified 
by the 9/11 Commission or by the committee's own findings. H.R. 10 
fails to address the ongoing problems in the intelligence community 
with regard to information sharing. Congress must craft specific 
legislative language--not simply vague guidance to the executive 
branch--to create a mechanism for ensuring the sharing of information. 
I posed an amendment that would have done that by implementing the 
thoughtful, bipartisan solution incorporated in the Collins-Lieberman 
bill.
  H.R. 10 also ignores the need for Congress to create an independent 
capability for judging the veracity of both finished assessments--be 
they NIE's or PDB's--and the sources that underpin those assessments. 
The executive branch's past failures in the area of ``Red Teams'' or 
``Team B's'' have been well documented, including by the 9/11 
Commission in its final report. Omitting this glaring necessity is 
simply irresponsible.


 House Intelligence Committee Markup-up of H.R. 10: Bipartisan In Name 
                                  Only

  With very few exceptions, H.R. 10 was not drafted in a bipartisan 
manner. During September's House Intelligence Committee mark-up of H.R. 
10, a number of amendments offered were in the spirit of strengthening 
H.R. 10 and strengthening our capabilities against terrorists.
  To be accurate, the Committee approved 3 amendments in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  The Gentlelady from California, Jane Harman's amendment to add an 
independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, similar to a 
provision of S. 2845, passed on a bipartisan vote of 16-3. An amendment 
by Representative Gibbons to increase budget-reprogramming authority, 
modeled on the Intelligence Transformation Act (H.R. 4104), passed 12-
7. The Committee also accepted on a voice vote an amendment by U.S. 
Representatives Peterson and Boswell to strike a provision in Title V 
of H.R. 10 that would have allowed the President to ignore statutory 
direction and reorganize the Intelligence Community with only an up-or-
down vote from Congress. Such a provision could conceivably be used to 
erase the reorganization of the intelligence community in Title I. It 
would also have undermined by HPSCI's oversight of intelligence 
community reorganization.
  I note for the record that when the amended H.R. 10 went before the 
Rules Committee, these bipartisan provisions were stripped out, thus 
demolishing any claims that H.R. 10 was a bipartisan bill.
  An independent bipartisan commission has determined that systemic 
problems across multiple agencies contributed to the 9/11 catastrophe, 
in particular, and that the essential problems that led to 9/11 remain 
unaddressed. The executive branch has not cleaned up its act. I 
certainly heard nothing in the multiple hearings in the HPSCI to 
convince me that the major problems have been solved.
  Also, H.R. 10 makes no effort whatsoever to reform how the Congress 
handles our oversight functions in the national security arena. The 
Menendez substitute does begin to take some steps in this direction, 
but I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that we 
have much more work to do in this area, as the Commission has made very 
clear in its final report.
  Mistakenly, H.R. 10 provides new authority allowing the President to 
completely undo the intelligence reforms mandated by Congress. Under 
this provision a presidential plan to reorganize the intelligence 
community would be guaranteed an up or down vote, with no amendments, 
within 90 days of submission to Congress.


                      backsliding on human rights

  Clearly, supporters of this bill learned nothing from the Abu Chraib 
prison debacle that stained our efforts in Iraq, when disclosed less 
than 6 months ago. H.R. 10 makes an exception to America's legal 
obligations under the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms 
of Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for some 
aliens as well as terrorists and criminals. Indeed, I have introduced a 
bill (H.R. 4951) that would allow independent monitoring and mandate 
that interrogations of prisoners and detainees in the war on terrorism 
be video recorded, something that I understand that Pentagon has 
finally started doing, albeit on a limited basis. This proposal in H.R. 
10 to potentially sanction further abuse in third world countries is 
simply unconscionable and it should be categorically rejected by both 
the House and the Senate.


          more erosion of civil liberties and personal privacy

  H.R. 10 would allow the U.S. government to spy on individuals without 
proving they are connected to a foreign government or terrorist group. 
Since when did we decide to bring back the ``good old days'' of 
allowing our intelligence community to spy on Americans without 
impunity? We know what happened the last time we allowed our 
intelligence community to run amok here at home: spying on anti-war 
groups whose only agenda was to end

[[Page H8670]]

our nightmare in Vietnam and make the government accountable to the 
people it was created to serve. This is a back-door effort to create a 
domestic spy agency without any genuine public debate or examination of 
the perils of such a proposal, and it too should be roundly rejected.


   collins-lieberman-mccain and shays-maloney: real bipartisan reform

  Let me turn now to a more positive, bipartisan alternative to H.R. 
10.
  In my view, the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill provides the best 
available vehicle for strengthening the intelligence community, and I 
support Mr. Memendez's substitute which is based on that. The 9/11 
Commission and the 9/11 families have endorsed this approach and it was 
reported unanimously out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, 
and our Senate colleagues are on the verge of passing that bill as we 
speak. The Administration also released a Statement of Administration 
Policy supporting that bill, albeit with some caveats.
  The Menendez substitute to H.R. 10 establishes a National 
Intelligence Director with strong authorities over the Intelligence 
Community's budget and a decisive role in appointing the heads of all 
elements of the Intelligence Community. In this way, it is consistent 
with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The creation of a 
strong National Intelligence Director with strong authorities over 
budgets and agency heads was also the number one recommendation of the 
bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11.
  If the National Intelligence Director is going to have real power, he 
or she must have stronger budget and hiring authority than H.R. 10 
proposes. The only way to get a dozen intelligence agencies to work 
together to help defeat the violent, extremist Islamic insurgency we 
are facing is to have a single director with real power.
  The Menendez substitute also has the advantage of being a ``clean'' 
bill. It focuses exclusively on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. 
In contrast, H.R. 10 is a 543-page bill loaded with provisions 
unrelated to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. H.R. 10 makes 
changes to immigration laws that have nothing to do with the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations, and are bad policy. Our legislative 
purpose must be to make American safer--not to undermine civil 
liberties, expand authorities for domestic spying, or erode the rights 
of immigrant communities.
  Finally, the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill is genuinely bipartisan, 
and thus the Menendez substitute is, by extension, bipartisan. Making 
America safer is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue--it is an 
American issue. As my colleague, the Gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Harman, has observed on numerous occasions, terrorists are not going to 
check our party labels before they attack us.
  I understand that the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil 
rights advocacy groups expressed concern about the Collins-Lieberman 
measure that was passed by the Senate. Specifically, the ACLU stated 
that ``senators failed to address concerns about the creation of an 
``Information Sharing Network,'' a system that the ACLU said lacks 
privacy and civil liberties safeguards.'' I understand and share their 
concerns, but I believe the Menendez substitute--which does create a 
civil liberties board--addresses this issue. I will also encourage the 
House-Senate conferees on this legislation to strengthen these 
provisions as well.
  I want to close by appealing to my colleagues to remember why we're 
here: to pass legislation that implements the recommendations of a 
bipartisan commission that was created out of both the pain and the 
hopes of the families of 9/11. Those families have endorsed the 
Collins-Lieberman Bill. They will freely admit it is not perfect, a 
sentiment I share. But they know, as I do, that it is a far superior 
proposal to the one we're debating today and it is for those reasons I 
urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute to H.R. 10.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in July, the 9/11 Commission released its 
report. This report detailed the terrorist mindset, the hatred, the 
religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment to harm us 
and destroy our culture. Today we are considering legislation based on 
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations that is making the most sweeping 
changes since the CIA was created more than 50 years ago. I believe the 
most important part of the bill is the creation of a national 
intelligence director for intelligence community management, which will 
unite the intelligence community, leaving the day-to-day duties of 
running individual agencies to their directors.
  This legislation mandates a network designed to share information 
across agencies and promote the distribution of information. The 
legislation will also reduce the barriers of our domestic law 
enforcement and forward intelligence activities by creating a National 
Counterterrorism Center.
  This bill has the strong support of all of the committees of 
jurisdictions, so I ask my fellow Members to give it their full 
support. September 11 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It 
also taught us the deficiencies of our own system. It is important, as 
Members of Congress, we do not let it happen again, and for that reason 
I urge that we pass this legislation.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our 
committee.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Senators Collins and 
Lieberman for their bill which was endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, the 
9/11 families, and the President. This bipartisan bill passed the 
Senate yesterday 96 to 2 and shows us that Congress is capable of 
getting it right.
  The Senate bill is not perfect, but it is tough, historic reform. Of 
course, there are other important national security issues, like border 
security, and we must and we will deal with them.
  Now is the time to throw partisan politics out the window. Now is the 
time to come together on behalf of the American people. This is about 
life and death. This is about the national security of our families and 
our communities. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission did an outstanding job 
for 20 months, with 1,200 witnesses and millions of documents, and 
reached a unanimous conclusion. The country stands behind their work 
and their recommendations. We need to move forward and follow the 
Commission's incredible work.
  The most important recommendation we can implement is that of a 
strong national intelligence director with real authority and budget 
control. When I was Baltimore County Executive, I managed over 15,000 
people. A leader needs real budget authority to be able to give people 
the resources they need to get the job done and hold them accountable 
for performance.
  We owe it to the 9/11 families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it 
to the 9/11 Commission, and we owe it to the American people to set our 
politics aside and get it right.
  This should not be about turf battles. I urge all Members to vote 
their conscience and vote for the Menendez substitute amendment, which 
is the closest to the Senate bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney), my colleague who has fought for the recovery of 
New York, and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  In the brief time that I have, I briefly want to say a couple of 
things. One, this bill is important for a lot of structural reasons, 
and if we think about the fact that we have, in Congress, not done such 
a great job, dating back to the 1970s, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry) pointed out earlier. This is a huge and significant step.
  So for those out there who say we still need to do more, or we have 
some disagreements and we need to get it right, I would say this. I 
think this bill strikes a perfect balance at this particular time, and 
I have every bit of confidence that the new chairman of the Select 
Committee on Intelligence will be able to get us to exact point that we 
all can agree on and where we all want to be.
  Some would argue let us centralize it more; some would argue let us 
give it more power. Others on the other side say it is another bit of 
bureaucracy and we do not need it at all. I will say this simply. 
Deciding to establish a national intelligence director and establishing 
a National Counterterrorism Center will end the buck-passing that has 
occurred all too often around here.
  I think it is a bold and significant stroke. I think it is the right 
balance at this point, and I also would point out for first responders 
that in this bill, this Congress takes its first steps forward to 
making those fundings risk-based. I salute the chairman for that.

[[Page H8671]]

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  It used to be an axiom of American politics that partisanship ended 
at the water's edge. We have no greater responsibility to our 
constituents than the security of this Nation.
  On September 11, 2001, Republicans and Democrats died together in the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Today tens of thousands of 
American troops, Democrats and Republicans alike, are battling 
insurgents and chasing al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our 
police, firefighters and air marshals, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
are working every day to keep Americans safe.
  In return, our troops, our first responders, and the American public 
expect us to organize the government so that we are better able to 
perform the mission of the defense of this country. In late July, the 
9/11 Commission produced its report and laid out a series of 
recommendations that they believe would best ensure the security of the 
country. I said then and I say again today that the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations should be the basis for any actions taken by this 
Congress in reorganizing and best configuring this government's 
response to the threat of terrorism.
  The Menendez substitute closely adheres to the recommendations of the 
commission. It has no extraneous provisions that are not central to the 
mission of securing this Nation from terrorism. I also note that it has 
the support of the 9/11 families and their voices are ones we should 
not ignore. It grants more authority to the National Intelligence 
Director to enact real reforms in the intelligence community and 
creates a more powerful national counterterrorism center than the one 
proposed by the base bill. And, most important, it includes a mandate 
supported by the commission to strengthen Nunn-Luger's cooperative 
threat reduction and the Proliferation Security Initiative.
  The threat of a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands is the 
most significant threat we face.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10. I know we 
have made a lot of changes over the last 3 years in our intelligence 
community, with the most recent being a change in the DCI, from Mr. 
Tenet to Mr. Goss. And I think that is probably the most important 
change that has been made.
  The DCI is an important position. It will be replaced by the National 
Intelligence Director. What concerns me, though, Mr. Chairman, is how 
far Congress will go in trying to manage or micromanage the 
intelligence community. The intelligence community is one of the most 
important agencies of our government. They gather information. They 
analyze information. And they present that information to the Commander 
in Chief. Lives depend on that information and we should never do 
anything that will stand in the way or weaken the efforts of our war 
fighters.
  I will support this bill. I like this bill much better than I do 
anything I see from the other body or any substitute that I have heard 
about. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, previous speakers have detailed the strength of the 
Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill and the weaknesses of H.R. 10, and they 
have done an excellent job. I would like to close by reminding everyone 
what is at stake.
  We have had multiple intelligence failures over the last 3 years with 
catastrophic consequences. We failed to anticipate and stop the attacks 
of September 11. Then our intelligence agencies failed to provide an 
accurate assessment of Iraq's weapons programs as was conclusively 
established with the release of the Duelfer Report. And we failed to 
predict the post-war looting and the strength of the post-war 
insurgency in Iraq.
  The President seems to be in denial. He has not even acknowledged the 
existence of the Duelfer Report. But we cannot afford to be in denial. 
The terrorists are preparing their attacks right now. We need to act 
not as Democrats and not as Republicans, but as Americans.
  A spokesman for the Speaker stated last week that the purpose of this 
exercise is to ``spank Democrats.'' I think the purpose of this 
exercise is to prevent, deter, and disrupt the next terrorist attack 
with the best intelligence we can field. I think the purpose of this 
exercise is to make America safer. I think the American people agree 
with me, and I urge us to adopt the bipartisan Menendez substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for his outstanding work on this issue.
  I want to also say that this body has been at the forefront of 
dealing with issues prior to 9/11 that if the CIA and other agencies 
had paid attention to us would have allowed us to be better prepared 
than we were on September 11. In fact, it was the House Committee on 
Armed Services that put language in three successive defense bills 
starting in 1999 calling for the creation of an interoperability 
center, a data fusion center.
  That initiative was not established and set until January of 2003, 
which today is called the TTIC. We had language in three successive 
bills to do that in the previous Congress, the previous administration. 
And the CIA on November 4 of 1999 in my office said, we do not need 
that capability. That was 2 years before 9/11.
  It has been this body and the various committees that have done a 
good job in allowing us through efforts like the Gillmor Commission to 
make recommendations that could have helped us. That did not happen. 
But the bill we have today is a good bill.
  The alternative, which I understand was crafted a matter of days ago 
or hours ago, is certainly not something I can support. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed by some of the partisan tone that at 
times permeates through this debate. The Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has been racked by a series of failures over the last 13 
years, not the last 3: the failure to anticipate the World Trade Center 
bombing in 1993; the failure to anticipate the attacks on our barracks 
in Saudi Arabia; the failure to anticipate the attack on the USS Cole 
or our embassies in Africa.
  But there are many hard-working men and women in the CIA and in the 
intelligence community who have done a phenomenal job. This bill fixes 
the problems.
  We would have had an opportunity in a bipartisan way to move this 
bill forward, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle walked 
away from any bipartisan amendments and only wanted one.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The time for general debate 
for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expired.
  Under the rule, the Chair now recognizes from the Committee on Armed 
Services, the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that my partner on the Committee on Armed 
Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), will have 15 
minutes also.
  Mr. Chairman, we do have an opening statement, and we do have a 
number of Members who wish to speak on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation, and the 
Committee on Armed Services had a very important role here. I think we 
want to applaud all the other committees that

[[Page H8672]]

participated in putting this bill together, but our role was to a large 
degree a protective role. It was a role of making sure that the men and 
women who are fighting right now in the war, fighting in theaters in 
Iraq and Afghanistan have that lifeline between themselves, whether it 
is a Special Forces team or a Marine platoon in Fallujah or an Army 
company in Tikrit, that they have that lifeline between the war 
fighters on the ground and our national platforms, including our 
aircrafts, our UAVs and our satellites; maintaining that lifeline of 
immediate information to the war fighters so they can prosecute this 
war against proper terror and protect their soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and Marines.
  So when we look at this creation of the National Intelligence 
Director, which I think is a needed thing and is an important step for 
our country, a director who can set rules for the dissemination of 
intelligence and information across the broad scope of American 
agencies so that an agency that can use a piece of information is able 
to get it without having to go to great length. And so that our 
classification system, when you decide who is going to be allowed to 
listen to certain things or hear certain things, it has a set of rules 
so that they can see what they need to carry out their job in 
protecting our country.
  The National Intelligence Director is going to do all of those 
things. He is also going to set this broad strategic plan and this 
blueprint for our intelligence apparatus, and he is going to develop 
the intelligence budget. And he is going to make sure that that budget 
is moved through the various wickets of the bureaucracy and ends up 
buying the right kind of things, developing the right kind of 
capabilities, and bringing to this important team the right kinds of 
people.
  Now, the Department of Defense, but more specifically people on the 
ground who wear the uniform of the United States, have an enormous 
stake here. They need to have that lifeline of intelligence available 
at all times; and it needs to come from all different sources. So they 
need to sit at the table in partnership with the National Intelligence 
Director when we are talking about information that is going to make a 
difference on the battlefields. And in this bill, different from any 
other bill, we do that.
  We maintain that partnership between people in uniform, and this 
direction comes from having lots of names, lots of discussions with 
people from war fighters in the field right up through the directors of 
our intelligence units. To do that, to make sure that that partnership 
is maintained, we have maintained the Department of Defense, not in 
developing the budget but in the execution chain of that budget so that 
you have informed buyers when you are buying things like satellites and 
other types of platforms, and also when you are choosing the head of 
these agencies like the NSA, the NRO, geospacial, so that while the 
Department of Defense could overrule the DCI in the old days, today it 
is going to be a true partnership. It is going to be true concurrence, 
where the National Intelligence Director and the Secretary of Defense 
need to concur on a decision or on a recommendation for the head of the 
NSA, very important intelligence apparatus.
  So we have true concurrence, and that is another way to maintain this 
important partnership. Right now, Mr. Chairman, we have people sitting 
in rooms deciding where our intelligence assets are going to look next, 
whether they are going to look at some place over in Africa that is an 
important area or maybe some place up in the hills of Pakistan and they 
are making decisions as to what we look at next. And this partnership, 
this collaboration, is working and this bill today, Mr. Chairman, that 
we are producing as written does maintain that partnership. I would 
urge that everybody support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 10. Mr. Chairman, 
this bill is a bill to reorganize our Nation's intelligence community. 
This bill proposes to reform the organization and structures of 
national intelligence capabilities in an effort to better protect us 
against catastrophic terrorist attacks similar to those of 9/11. Of 
course, that is a laudable goal.
  The bill that is before us is far from perfect. Many of us on this 
side believe this bill does not go nearly far enough in revamping our 
national intelligence system. In addition, unnecessary provisions on 
immigration and the PATRIOT Act have been added.
  This bill could and should be a better product. We can make it better 
if we adopt the Menendez substitute amendment which will bring the bill 
into line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission as well as 
the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill in the Senate that was passed 
yesterday.
  The bill before us creates a new National Intelligence Director with 
the authority to develop, manage, and reprogram the budget of the new 
intelligence.

                              {time}  1515

  The Menendez bill creates real budgetary power. The National 
Intelligence Director is authorized to transfer personnel and appoint 
key leaders throughout the intelligence community. Moreover, under this 
bill the National Intelligence Director is expected to establish the 
guidelines and priorities of the entire intelligence community. Better 
coordination is the aim of the Menendez substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the foremost concern that I have about the bill relates 
to battlefield intelligence. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines 
are the ones on the front lines of the war on terror. We all know that. 
The intelligence community both serves and relies on them. Forward 
deployed, they are the ones collecting much of the intelligence. In 
fact, more than 80 percent of our Nation's intelligence capability is 
derived from Department of Defense resources. I am hoping that whatever 
conference agreement is achieved on this bill will recognize this and 
respect the role and unique responsibilities of the Secretary of 
Defense.
  I do, however, want to register my unhappiness over the process that 
brought us to this point. This bill was written behind closed doors.
  I would also like to note that although the Committee on Armed 
Services marked up this bill, several titles of the bill have made it 
to the House floor, Mr. Chairman, without any committee consideration 
of any committee of the House of Representatives. Moreover, several 
amendments adopted in the committee markup are not included in the text 
of the bill before us. That is just simply wrong.
  One omission is the proposed creation of a civil liberties oversight 
board to oversee the issuance of intelligence-related legal and 
regulatory guidance to ensure consistency with our Nation's 
Constitution and our civil rights law.
  Another provision that should be included in this bill would 
establish an independent Inspector General with the responsibility to 
investigate alleged fraud, waste and abuse under the new system and 
within the office of the National Intelligence Director. This is 
important, but it is not there.
  Other provisions that should be in this bill would improve our 
national ability to reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction around the world. We all know that it is the most 
dangerous, Damocles' sword that hangs over the head of the free world. 
H.R. 10 does not go far enough in curbing the flow of nuclear, chemical 
or biological weapons to terrorists. Robust counterproliferation 
programs, in my opinion, are essential to winning the war against 
terror.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, I believe all of us support a better 
intelligence capability, and toward that end, I will support H.R. 10. 
However, as I said earlier, reluctantly, in my view, though, this would 
be a much better, better bill now if the process that led to its 
consideration had been a full and bipartisan one.
  We have a chance to improve this bill today. We can do it simply by 
adopting the Menendez substitute, and I urge my colleagues to support 
that amendment when it comes before this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

[[Page H8673]]

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10. This bill, as it has 
already been said, creates a National Intelligence Director which I 
think is extremely important, but I also think it is important that it 
maintains the director of Central Intelligence as a key player and a 
Secretary of Defense as the third key player.
  This, from our point of view on the Committee on Armed Services, is 
an extremely important point. That being so, because the Secretary of 
Defense has traditionally been responsible for managing those defense 
intelligence agencies such as NGA and NRO and NSA and others which have 
done a very credible job in their areas of expertise.
  This is extremely important today because of the support that is 
necessary for the intelligence community to give directly to the 
warfighter. Mr. Chairman, the methods of collection and necessity of 
collecting have changed dramatically over the last decade or so. Prior 
to the early 1990s, we had the necessity of collecting information on 
the Soviet Union with big armies, with an arsenal of weapons that we 
knew about, with fighting capabilities that we knew about.
  Today, we collect on a completely different adversary. We collect on 
someone who we know little about, with whom and who has been very 
difficult to infiltrate their organizations because of the nature of 
the culture. So, intelligence has changed and so have the defense 
intelligence agencies that collect on the new threat.
  Today's intelligence agencies are able to answer questions such as 
these: Where am I, and what does my environment look like? Where 
exactly is my adversary, and what does his environment look like? What 
capabilities does the adversary appear to possess? Are new situations 
or capabilities emerging from my adversary? What are my adversary's 
centers of gravity, limitations and vulnerabilities? And this list goes 
on. These are questions that were important historically, but they are 
more important today. Our defense intelligence agencies have evolved 
and changed to answer these questions.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important debate. All Americans 
have a stake in the outcome of this debate, and it is a fascinating set 
of issues because, on the one hand, basically supporting the provisions 
of the Menendez substitute, we have none other than the President of 
the United States, the 9/11 Commission, most all of the 9/11 families, 
96 United States Senators, including all 51 Republican Senators. We 
have such a notable defense expert such as the chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. That is on one side of the 
debate.
  On the other side of the debate, in favor of H.R. 10, a bill that 
came out of nowhere, a purely partisan bill, we have the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Now, which side would most House Members choose to support? The 
President, the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 families, 96 Senators, 51 
Republican Senators, including Senator Warner, or our colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)? I suggest that should be a 
pretty easy question for most Members of this House to decide.
  What really matters is the substance, and our friend, the gentleman 
from California, has said many times, including in today's Wall Street 
Journal, that it is vitally important to preserve that link between the 
warfighter and intelligence asset. I could not agree with the gentleman 
from California more. I think all Members of the committee are in favor 
of preserving that link. I would submit to the gentleman that the White 
House and our President are in favor of preserving that link. That is 
why they have endorsed basically the Collins-Lieberman bill, which the 
closest thing we will be allowed to discuss is the Menendez substitute. 
They have not, to my knowledge, unless the gentleman has gotten a 
secret submission from the White House in the last few hours, supported 
the gentleman's approach.
  So, for my friends on the other side of the aisle who are standing 
with our chairman, that puts the White House in a curious position. Are 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle counting the White House 
as being incompetent and somehow supporting a bill that would do bad 
things to our troops? Or are they accusing the White House of being 
insincere and not really meaning their endorsement of Collins-
Lieberman? Which is it? Because the two sides could not be more at 
odds.
  The American people reading the newspapers today probably thought 
that the Congress of the United States is well on its way toward 
intelligence bipartisan reform. Well, if the wrecking crew that is 
being put forward on this side of the House has its way on this side of 
the Capitol building, there might not be a conference that can succeed 
at all. It is very important that the American people get reform so 
that we can be better protected.
  I would urge the Members of this House to not just consider this a 
routine vote, not just to routinely go along with leadership. These are 
very complex issues. It is a lot to ask Members to read some 600-page 
bill that we got handed basically on Monday, a much longer bill than we 
were dealing with last week. Most of the committees that had 
jurisdiction were very poorly able to conduct their business.
  As the gentleman knows, in the Committee on Armed Services, 
discussions of weapons of mass destruction was ruled to be nongermane. 
So, due to a technicality, the Committee on Armed Services was not 
allowed to discuss weapons of mass destruction issues. I would ask, 
what is more important than discussing such issues? What is a better 
forum than the House Committee on Armed Services? But we were not 
allowed to discuss it due to a technicality.
  Other committees, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
they adopted three amendments in the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence on a bipartisan basis, but somehow all those amendments 
were struck before the bill got to the floor.
  So the process has been an abomination. Not only did our chairman not 
consult the ranking member of this committee in formulating H.R. 10, 
the process has ignored weapons of mass destruction, has struck 
bipartisan amendments that were reached in other committees. That is 
not the right way to reform intelligence in this country.
  The right way, I would suggest, is the way the other body did it, by 
working together in a calm and bipartisan fashion to achieve consensus 
such as a consensus they achieved yesterday with a 96-2 vote, complete 
unanimity among the Republicans, in agreement with the White House, but 
that, sadly, is not what we have on this side of the Capitol.
  So I would urge my colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, 
support the Menendez amendment. Oppose H.R. 10, and do the right thing 
for our country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for 
being one of the 59 members of the Committee on Armed Services who 
voted unanimously for the bill that is before us right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon), the vice chairman of the committee.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for the time, and I rise in support of the legislation, and I 
would just like to reemphasize what my colleague and leader said.
  The gentleman who just spoke voted with us in support of this 
legislation in committee. The vote was 59 to zero, and I would further 
add that I hope the gentleman's not trying to imply that the White 
House or the President supports the Menendez amendment. Is he implying 
that?
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, the statement of administration policy said 
they supported H.R. 2840.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman said they were supportive 
of the Menendez amendment.

[[Page H8674]]

  Mr. COOPER. The Collins-Lieberman bill, and the closest thing we are 
allowed to vote on is the Menendez bill. As I said, the Menendez 
amendment is the closest thing we are allowed to vote on in the House.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not being 
truthful to the Members of the Congress. He said the same thing in 
committee when he told the Members in committee that the amendment he 
offered had passed another committee of the House, and one of our 
colleagues on the Republican side had to correct him, and they had to 
admonish the gentleman because he gave false information.
  He said in the committee that one of the other full committees had 
passed in markup the bill that we were considering in the Committee on 
Armed Services, and it was wrong.
  The President and the White House is not supporting the Menendez 
amendment in no way, shape or form, and it is wrong to give that 
impression to our colleagues.
  What I want to do is spend, for a moment, a minute congratulating my 
distinguished chairman. He is doing what the Committee on Armed 
Services has done since I have been here for 18 years under Democratic 
leadership and Republican leadership. He is doing what is right for our 
soldiers.
  It was the Committee on Armed Services in 1995 and 1996 that told the 
CIA and the Air Force to arm the Predator. Now, back then, the same 
argument could be made. The Air Force did not want to arm the Predator, 
neither the CIA, neither the White House. Guess what? We provided 
leadership, and the Committee on Armed Services required the Predator 
be armed, and the Predator became a key asset for us. But, now, the 
previous administration has been trying to take credit for it.
  It was the Committee on Armed Services in 1999 that established the 
Gilmore Commission. The White House at that time did not want the 
Gilmore Commission. The White House said we do not need that 
commission. The Gilmore Commission was stood up, chaired by Governor 
Gilmore, bipartisan members. The Gilmore Commission issued three 
reports before 9/11. Unfortunately, the previous administration did not 
listen to the recommendations of the Gilmore Commission, many of which 
were repeated by the 9/11 Commission. If they had, we would have been 
better prepared for 9/11.
  Third, it was the Committee on Armed Services, three times in three 
defense bills, that called for the creation of a national collaborative 
center to fuse intelligence data, three successive bills.
  On November 4, 1999, in my office, I had the deputy director of the 
CIA, deputy director of the FBI, deputy director of Defense. We gave 
them a 9-page proposal to establish a data collaborative center, a 
national collaborative center, today called the TTIC. The CIA and the 
previous administration, 2 years before 9/11, said we do not need it.
  So to somehow now say that this committee is not doing right because 
it is exercising its legitimate authority is absolutely wrong. I am 
glad our chairman had the guts to stand up for the intelligence needs 
of the military, and I am glad to stand here and support it, and I am 
glad the vote was 59 to zero.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to 
voice my frustration over H.R. 10, the House Republican leadership's 
version of intelligence reform. Instead of following in the tradition 
of the 9/11 Commission, which issued a thorough, bipartisan 
recommendation, the House leadership shut Democrats out.

                              {time}  1530

  We were not allowed to help in drafting this legislation. This 
legislation actually undercuts the Commission's recommendations, the 9/
11 Commission recommendations.
  For example, the 9/11 Commission was adamant that an effective 
National Intelligence Director, or NID, be given powerful personnel 
authority. This bill does not do that. The 9/11 Commission was adamant 
that the NID be given substantial authority over the personnel of our 
national intelligence agencies. This bill does not do that. The 9/11 
Commission was adamant that Congress increase its oversight over the 
intelligence community, but H.R. 10 limits congressional oversight.
  I offered an amendment to H.R. 10 in the Committee on Armed Services 
to partially correct that problem and it was defeated by a party-line 
vote, but my amendment would have required that the first NID be 
confirmed by the Senate, a measure that was strongly recommended by the 
9/11 Commission. H.R. 10, in contrast, gives the President, whoever he 
or she may be, the authority to make the CIA director the first NID.
  Now, the first NID, the first director, is very important in this 
process because he or she defines that office. They indicate how 
serious our government is about intelligence reform, and it sends a 
message to our enemies that we are determined to root them out at home 
and abroad. This bill shuts Congress out from finding the best person 
for that job.
  In actuality, this bill does a great disservice to the American 
people who are counting on and who actually want real reform and 
meaningful oversight of our intelligence community. I believe that this 
is the wrong way to move forward on such an important issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentlewoman for voting for our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time and giving me the opportunity to speak on this 
bill.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 10 and the provisions within the 
legislation that will protect the Department of Defense's vital control 
of military intelligence capabilities. All of us in Congress must tread 
carefully as we evaluate how we will reform the United States 
intelligence community. When I first became a physician and took the 
Hippocratic Oath, I swore to do no harm. Today I think this oath is 
very relevant to our current efforts.
  I believe that most Members of Congress see the tremendous value of 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations and they want to enact sound and 
carefully crafted legislation that will embrace the concept of a 
National Intelligence Director. However, we must not blindly surrender 
all authority to this new NID without considering the direct and 
specific needs of our brave troops stationed around the world. I 
believe, as written, the House version of the bill embraces this 
careful balance between giving the new NID ``proper'' authority over 
our Nation's intelligence assets and protecting the specific needs of 
our troops.
  In a recent op-ed that the chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter), wrote, he summed up this intricate balance very well when 
he said, ``At stake is more than just a bureaucratic reshuffling 
exercise inside Washington. The reforms Capitol Hill ultimately 
endorses could impact how the Department of Defense provides critical 
up-to-the-minute intelligence to our troops, America's sons and 
daughters who are fighting insurgents and terrorists worldwide. Before 
leaping, Congress must be certain that any bill it passes does not 
endanger their lives and missions.''
  One specific way that H.R. 10 ensures that the military's 
intelligence lifeline remains intact is it limits the funds the NID can 
transfer from the defense agencies that directly support our troops to 
$100 million a year, while simultaneously retaining the NID's 
flexibility to manage the overall funds.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is a carefully crafted bill, and I believe will 
go a long way in protecting our troops abroad and our citizens at home, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the first time I saw H.R. 10, the base 
bill, was 5 minutes before markup. As I leafed through all 609 pages of 
it to see what was in it, I quickly saw there were two glaring 
deficiencies. The first is the National Intelligence Director. Oh, 
there is an NID in the base bill, but it

[[Page H8675]]

is an NID in name only. This bill does not have the superpowers the 9/
11 Commission considered necessary to pull together the 16 component 
parts of the intelligence community to fuse foreign and domestic 
intelligence.
  This NID is clearly lacking in those powers, and let me give two 
examples why I say that. One is the power of the purse, the power to 
make the budget. There is an old adage in the Defense Department called 
the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules. Well, the NID in 
this bill does not have the gold, so he will not be making the rules 
that really matter. He does not have the power to set priorities or to 
make programmatic budget decisions. He is basically a facilitator; a 
coordinator.
  The same diminished powers apply to personnel, the hiring, firing, 
and promoting; putting the team together that can get the job done. He 
is not a CEO. He is not even a coach or a quarterback. He simply does 
not have the power the Commission conceived necessary. The prime mover 
in the 9/11 Commission report in this bill has a name but he does not 
have substantive powers, which begs the question: Can the NID 
``effect'' real change, radical change, without real power? I doubt it.
  The other missing piece is nuclear nonproliferation. The other night 
the President and Senator Kerry agreed on one thing, that nuclear 
terrorism is the gravest threat facing this country. So what does this 
bill do about the gravest threat facing this country? Next to nothing. 
Oh, it calls for a study, but we have had countless studies. Howard 
Baker and Lloyd Cutler, you do not get more high powered than that in 
this town, did the last study and they called for us to triple the 
amount of money we spend on nuclear nonproliferation. It has not 
happened.
  So the base bill slights the single most significant reform, the NID, 
and it ignores the gravest threat facing the country. That is why the 
White House, the Senate, and the 9/11 Commission support the 
substitute, and why I will support it and urge others to do the same.
  Mr. SKELTON. May I make an inquiry, Mr. Chairman, as to the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has done a lot of work on this bill 
and who has been over to theater many times and has a personal stake in 
this war against terrorism.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from California for yielding me this time and, indeed, I am on the 
Committee on Armed Services, and very grateful to be serving on the 
Committee. At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to speak 
in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the House Committee on Armed Services, under the 
leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
was tasked with the consideration of title I of this measure. We had 
hearings during the break in August. We had a great deal of input from 
so many different people. This was an open process, and we achieved, I 
think, a great deal.
  I particularly note we achieved the creation of a National 
Intelligence Director separate from the director of the CIA. This 
legislation creates a National Counterterrorism Center within the 
Office of the National Intelligence Director to integrate all Federal 
agencies that deal with intelligence services. There are 15 that need 
to be coordinated.
  The Committee on Armed Services considered all the recommendations, 
and were careful to ensure we were strengthening our national 
intelligence infrastructure, particularly with respect to the men and 
women in uniform. The Department of Defense operates the majority of 
national intelligence capability and uses those assets to support 
troops engaged in combat in addition to supporting the director of the 
CIA. It is critical that the Department of Defense maintain the ability 
to provide the best intelligence directly to our troops on the ground 
as they wage the war on terrorism.
  The Committee on Armed Services, as you heard, 59 to nothing, 
approved this unanimously in committee. As the father of three sons 
currently serving in the military, I want to thank again Chairman 
Hunter for his leadership on behalf of our troops. He has a special 
insight, in that our chairman is a veteran himself, and his son has 
just returned from distinguished service with the U.S. Marines in Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this measure, 
not because I endorse all of its provisions, but because I believe that 
the Congress must act swiftly to reform our intelligence community and 
to protect our homeland.
  As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I do want to 
point out that H.R. 10 does not go far enough to combat the threat of 
nuclear weapons proliferation, and it could have. I also have 
reservations about the potential impact of some of these provisions on 
civil liberties. However, I am pleased that H.R. 10 recognizes the need 
to improve our diplomatic, educational, and cultural exchange 
initiatives with other nations, and would also enhance our human 
intelligence capabilities, for it is in these areas that we will help 
in ensuring that we win the long-term war on terror.
  I am deeply, though, disappointed that the House leadership has 
denied the minority a voice in drafting this bill and has ignored many 
of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission while adding extraneous 
provisions. But I am confident that when the bill gets to conference 
that we will be able to improve this legislation in negotiations with 
the Senate and the White House.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. COOPER. Two corrections, Mr. Chairman.
  First, the statement of administrative policy is dated September 28 
endorses S. 2845. The closest thing we can vote on in the House to that 
is the Menendez amendment.
  Also, in the Committee on Armed Services, we reported out the bill 59 
to zero, but the real vote in committee was 33 to 26, a more closely 
divided issue.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me make this prediction. Unless the Menendez substitute is 
adopted by this House, this bill, at the end of the day, will go 
nowhere and the United States of America will be without intelligence 
reform.
  We saw what the Senate did, we know what the White House wants, we 
know what the families of 9/11 have endorsed. And I hate to say it, but 
this may lead to a graveyard for legislation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if people are looking at the Menendez substitute, which 
is going to come up here and is going to, in my estimation, tear apart 
that partnership that the military has with the intelligence agencies 
in maintaining the lifeline between our troops and their assets; if the 
American people are reading that, one thing that may strike them as 
just remarkable and somewhat illogical is the idea that we will reveal 
to the world, under the Menendez substitute, under, I guess, what is 
called a transparent government, our intelligence numbers, or how much 
we spend on intelligence.
  This is a figure we have been trying to keep out of the hands of the 
bad guys for a long time. Americans who are looking at this bill as a 
response to the attack on 9/11 on American soil are probably puzzled as 
they watch from around the Nation saying, let me see, how are we 
possibly going to prevent an attack on America by telling the bad guys 
what our intelligence number is and allowing them to peel that onion 
back and then discover what our priorities are, and what our strengths 
are, and, ultimately, what our weaknesses are? That makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  The provision we have carefully crafted here maintains that delicate 
balance for America's security. Support the base bill. Do it for our 
troops.

[[Page H8676]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time for general debate for the Committee on Armed 
Services has expired.

                              {time}  1545

  Under the rule, the Chair recognizes the Committee on Financial 
Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for 15 minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise to address those provisions of H.R. 10 favorably reported by the 
Committee on Financial Services that have been included in the 
legislation that we are considering today. The committee's additions to 
H.R. 10 continue the work it, and Congress, began in the tense hours 
and days after the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. During that 
unsettled time, the committee pulled together to produce comprehensive, 
bipartisan legislation that aimed to disrupt the financing of terrorism 
and to strengthen the country's anti-money laundering laws. That bill, 
H.R. 3004, later became title III, the anti-terror finance title of the 
USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law less than 7 weeks after the attacks.
  It is a testament to that legislation that the 9/11 Commission report 
issued a month ago cited it with approval and said that on anti-terror 
finance and anti-money laundering issues, the various elements of the 
government generally are doing a good job.
  But we must not be complacent. The 9/11 Commission's final report 
states that ``vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain 
front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.'' The commission 
urged Congress and both the law enforcement and intelligence 
communities to engage in an ongoing and rigorous examination of the 
financial system for ``loopholes that al Qaeda can exploit, and to 
close them as they are uncovered.''
  In response to this challenge, the Committee on Financial Services 
assembled a bipartisan legislative package that centers on four broad 
themes: one, additional funding for the fight against terrorist 
financing; two, new tools for the government to combat terrorist 
financing schemes; three, improved international cooperation and 
coordination on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing 
initiatives; and, four, enhanced preparedness of the financial services 
sector in the event of another large-scale terrorist attack.
  Among the key provisions in H.R. 10 that reflect contributions by the 
Committee on Financial Services are the following:
  Technical amendments to the anti-terror finance title of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, which was largely drafted in the Committee on Financial 
Services;
  Authorization of additional funding for Treasury's Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network, which serves as the Federal Government's financial 
intelligence unit and plays a critical role in the collection and 
analysis of data on suspicious financial activity;
  A reauthorization of the national anti-money laundering strategy, 
along with grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to 
investigate the financing of terror and other financial crimes;
  Additional enforcement tools to prevent the counterfeiting of U.S. 
currency;
  Enhanced authority for the SEC to respond to extraordinary market 
disruptions caused by terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events; 
and
  Codification of strong interagency cooperation and communication on 
international financial standard-setting matters related to anti-
terrorist financing where the Treasury Department is in the lead.
  At the committee's markup last week, several thoughtful and largely 
noncontroversial amendments were adopted, including one offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) that seeks to address the 
vulnerability identified by the 9/11 Commission of the international 
funds-transfer system to terrorist financing; related amendments by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) to promote greater public-private coordination 
on preparedness issues relating to the financial services sector; an 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) to strengthen interagency 
cooperation and clarify negotiating authorities between the State 
Department and the Treasury Department with respect to international 
financial institutions and other multilateral financial policymaking 
bodies; and a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
to prohibit Federal bank examiners who serve a lead role in the 
supervision of an insured depository institution from accepting 
employment with that institution for 1 year after leaving the 
government.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services Committee's contribution 
to H.R. 10 makes needed changes that respond directly to the 9/11 
Commission's call for a continuous examination of the U.S. financial 
system to identify loopholes capable of being exploited by al Qaeda and 
other terrorist organizations, and to close those loopholes both at 
home and abroad.
  As for the larger body of legislation, I support H.R. 10 and urge its 
swift passage, a speedy conference, and quick adoption of the 
conference report. That will require a lot of work over the next 
several weeks, but it is work that is absolutely vital to the security 
of our Nation.
  Finally, I hope the conferees will be able to resist the suggestions 
of some that the final legislative package be limited strictly to 
reshuffling the intelligence community's architecture. There are very 
important pieces of anti-terror legislation in H.R. 10 from a number of 
committees of jurisdiction, and the fact that they do not deal 
precisely with who directs the course or funding of the intelligence 
community does not mean they are any less important, or that they can 
wait for another year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the sections of this bill that are relevant to the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services are useful ones and 
not controversial. Indeed, in our committee, as the chairman has 
mentioned, we adopted a couple of amendments which make some 
improvement. Some of them, while not directly related to terrorism, the 
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) regarding conflict of interest 
potential at the Comptroller of the Currency is a very good piece of 
legislation. It is not directly relevant to terrorism, although it does 
not detract.
  But I am troubled by the choice the House is being forced to make on 
this in general. I believe that overall, the bill that will be offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey, who will be speaking to it shortly, 
is a far better response to the terrible tragedy of 9/11 and subsequent 
than the bill that the majority has put forward. It reflects the 
deliberations of that 9/11 Commission far better on the central issues 
involving intelligence, involving the way in which the government is 
organized in the security areas. It has the potential to be genuinely 
bipartisan as we saw from the other body.
  And, in fact, what we are being asked to do is something we have been 
asked to do all too often recently. What we ought to be doing is what 
was done in the Senate. We ought to have a bill before us that is 
amendable. That is what many of us asked to have before us. Instead, we 
get two packages, and in the end Members will have to choose all or 
nothing. I will choose the bill when we come to vote on the substitute 
that more nearly reflects the 9/11 Commission, indeed, very closely 
tracks the 9/11 Commission.
  It has several advantages. It does follow the extensive deliberations 
of the 9/11 Commission in a thoroughly bipartisan manner. It also makes 
it likelier that we will get a law passed, because if the bill put 
forward by the majority passes, the differences between House and 
Senate versions will be quite substantial and the likelihood of a 
conference report being adopted before the election in time for that 
bill to go into effect this year will be slight.
  I do not understand why we have not been able to follow in this bill 
and in

[[Page H8677]]

many others the normal democratic process in which a bill comes forward 
and we are able to amend it and vote on amendments. That is the way it 
used to be. I can remember when we would do that. Today, what we are 
told by the rule is you will choose one package or another, and neither 
package will be perfect. Given that choice, I much prefer the 9/11 bill 
as opposed to what we are being given by the majority as their version.
  But I regret very much the continued loss of democracy in the House. 
I regret very much the failure to follow what a parliamentary democracy 
ought to follow. Bring a bill to the floor, and let it be amended. As 
we try to bring democracy to parts of the world that have not had it 
before, I fear that we set them a very poor example; and I have to 
hope, Mr. Chairman, that they are paying less attention to us than I 
would like to be able to say.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, 
and the staffs of the committee for their work in producing an 
outstanding package of financial services initiatives that were 
reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis and included in H.R. 
10.
  Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission recognized our country's success in 
tracking and freezing terrorist finances in the post-9/11 period, and 
that was certainly welcome news. But the sad truth remains that we are 
only as strong and successful as our weakest link. Our weakest link may 
be a country, or several countries, with antiquated financial systems, 
a weak economy, or inadequate oversight and enforcement of the money 
that flows within their borders.
  Through diplomatic and other means, we are aiding other nations and 
encouraging them to join in our fight against money laundering and 
terrorist financing. The 9/11 Commission testified before our committee 
that there must be experts at the forefront of our efforts to continue 
to counter terrorist financing. We must keep our Treasury experts, in 
collaboration with our State Department experts, on the front lines in 
our dealings with international financial bodies, especially when those 
bodies are making decisions with regard to anti-terrorist financing.
  With that in mind, the committee adopted an amendment that I offered 
along with my colleague from New York (Mr. King) that seeks to ensure 
that the Treasury Department's role as the lead Federal agency in 
international financial matters is clear. By confirming that the 
Secretary of the Treasury is the lead U.S. representative and 
negotiator to international financial institutions and multilateral 
financial policymaking bodies, we will ensure that the U.S. has 
consistent financial leadership, a consistent financial message, and 
endorses consistent financial policies.
  Secondly, I want to point out that this bill now contains important 
language that will encourage best practices in building private-public 
partnerships to detect counterterrorist financing activities and 
enhance financial sector disaster preparedness and response. The 
Department of the Treasury and ChicagoFirst are one such partnership 
that can serve as a model for other agencies and industries.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, today we must undertake the most important 
task entrusted to us, our responsibility to protect the American people 
and our country, to defend our borders, and to preserve our way of life 
against those who already have, and those who would again, do us harm. 
Specifically, we must address the shortcomings in our Nation's defenses 
that were exploited by murderers who killed 3,000 unsuspecting, 
innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001. Too many of 
these shortcomings have simply gone unaddressed in the last 3 years.
  After months of painstaking and bipartisan work, the 9/11 Commission 
produced a thoughtful road map to guide our efforts at shoring up our 
intelligence and homeland security capabilities. The Senate accepted 
this road map, began working immediately in a bipartisan manner on it, 
and has produced legislation supported by the families of the 9/11 
victims, the commissioners, and 96 Members of the Senate. Regrettably, 
yet again, the House Republican leadership has chosen to legislate in 
an exclusionary, partisan process, resulting in a bill that not only 
falls short of many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations but also 
contains divisive, extraneous provisions.
  Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their 
concerns about the unnecessary expansion of law enforcement authority, 
the undermining of immigrants' fundamental rights, and the erosion of 
basic civil liberties contained in H.R. 10. I share those concerns. I 
am also troubled that this House bill fails to adequately address the 
gravest threat to our national security, terrorists acquiring weapons 
of mass destruction. Interestingly enough, both Senator Kerry and 
President Bush in the last debate made it clear that they thought that 
was the highest priority. Yet this bill on the floor does not address 
it. Luckily, the substitute does.
  H.R. 10 fails to strengthen the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat 
reduction program which is designed to prevent these weapons from 
falling into the hands of terrorists, as the commission recommended and 
as the Senate bill does. The Menendez alternative addresses the issue 
of expanding our ability to acquire and get off the market for 
terrorists such nuclear weapons.
  This legislation represents a missed opportunity to learn lessons 
from September 11 and to implement meaningful improvements to our 
ability to better detect, prevent, and respond to future terrorist 
attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute. It can 
clearly pass the Senate; 96 Senators have already supported it.

                              {time}  1600

  At a time when time is of the essence, we ought to act in as 
bipartisan and cooperative a fashion as we can. The Menendez substitute 
mirrors the bill passed in the Senate which incorporates the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and it will allow us to better 
fulfill our sacred duty of protecting the American people and doing so 
in a very efficient, effective, and quick fashion. We ought to adopt 
the Menendez substitute.
  And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this 
critically important effort. I know that he lost many constituents in 
that tragic event, and I thank him for following up so diligently since 
then to ensure that it does not happen again.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me first start out by saying that the 
9/11 Commission said that the work of the Committee on Financial 
Services and the legislation that we passed in the aftermath of 9/11 
had worked very well, very well, to make it much harder today, and this 
is some very good news for all Americans as a result of the Patriot Act 
and also President Bush's Executive Order 13224, they said the 
combination of our efforts and the efforts of the Treasury Department, 
of FinCEN and OFAC, the Justice Department and the State Department and 
others, that today it is much harder, much harder for al Qaeda to raise 
money. It is much more difficult for them to conceal that money and it 
is much more difficult for them to move that money. They said that we 
had identified almost 400 terrorist financiers or people that 
facilitated the funding of terrorists. We have made it much harder, and 
we have chilled donations. We have decreased donations to a great 
degree.
  And let me deal with just two of those. One is the Executive Order 
that President Bush offered only 2 weeks after 9/11, 13224. As a result 
of that, we have actually identified millions of dollars, not only here 
but overseas, of al Qaeda money. We have seized that money. We have 
designated terrorist facilitators, and, finally, we have actually under 
that and under PATRIOT

[[Page H8678]]

Act title III, section 311, we have identified banks that were actually 
involved in taking money for the terrorists and transferring that.
  We only have seven countries today in the world that have not 
cooperated with us in one respect or another. We have come from 58 
countries at the time of 9/11 that were actively involved in tracking 
and seizing terrorist financing to about 100 countries that are doing 
an exceptional job. And, in fact, 209 countries are actually making 
financing efforts to combat terrorist financing, 174 countries. We have 
built quite a coalition when it comes to disrupting terrorist 
financing, 174 countries. Contrast that to 58 countries at the start of 
our efforts. Today, 174 countries are seizing terrorist finances and 
have offered freezing orders. We have had great successes.
  The 9/11 Commission did say that it was essential that we allow the 
Treasury Department, FinCEN to have some new ways of working with 
foreign governments, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) has 
included in this provision, and this is very important that we get this 
through, actually some implementation legislation that will allow us to 
better cooperate and coordinate with those foreign governments that 
want to ally with us and our efforts. As a result of the train bombings 
in Madrid, the bombings in Moscow, the bombings in Casablanca and 
Istanbul, these countries are ready to help us, but we do need to 
change these laws.
  I would urge us to pass this legislation. It passed out of committee 
overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way. It is very important.
  And I would close by saying that we have got a counterfeiting measure 
in this. The law says we have got to catch the counterfeiters. Just the 
fact that we have counterfeiting equipment is not enough. It is in this 
provision. We need to pass this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who has been a leader on this 
issue and who is the author of the very important substitute amendment 
which genuinely embodies the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  As my colleagues know, the minority party always asks for a 
substitute to be made in order. To have asked for anything less than 
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations would have been to do a 
disservice not only to the 9/11 families but to the memories of over 
2,900 people that were murdered on that fateful day over 3 years ago.
  And I think there is a real consequence to enacting the Republican 
bill, legislation whose title suggests enactment of the 9/11 Commission 
report but that leaves us far short of where the 9/11 Commission and 
the families have said we need to be. Instead, the People's House needs 
to serve this Nation and those families well by truly protecting our 
country from further terrorist attacks. On this issue, we need to put 
partisanship aside.
  I want to be perfectly clear to all my colleagues in the House about 
what exactly my substitute amendment is and what it does. My substitute 
is identical to the bipartisan Shays-Maloney substitute amendment that 
was taken before the Committee on Rules, endorsed by the 9/11 
commissioners and the 9/11 families. That is, in essence, the Collins-
Lieberman-McCain legislation that passed so rigorously yesterday in the 
Senate. In fact, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and other 
Members wrote asking that the Shays-Maloney substitute be made in 
order, and I would suggest that the Committee on Rules did exactly that 
by making the Menendez substitute in order. And after a 96 to 2 vote 
yesterday in the Senate on legislation that is the essence of this 
substitute, the principles and provisions of this amendment are also 
supported by Senate Republicans and Senate and House Democrats.
  Unfortunately, the House Republican bill, H.R. 10, includes 
provisions that are unnecessary, unrelated to the bill's stated 
purpose, which is the reorganization of the intelligence community 
aimed at strengthening the Nation against terrorist attack. In doing 
so, there are over 50 extraneous provisions that were not recommended 
by the Commission included in that bill, many of which are highly 
controversial.
  H.R. 10 also leaves out many of the bipartisan recommendations of the 
unanimous 9/11 Commission. In fact, out of the 41 recommendations, it 
appears that only 11 are implemented; 15 are not implemented at all, 
and 15 others are done incompletely. In fact, the base bill that we 
consider today is weaker than the 9/11 Commission's recommendation, 
weaker than what the Senate passed. It does not provide the National 
Intelligence Director with budget execution authority and only provides 
the NID the unilateral authority to nominate the CIA Director. That is 
in direct contravention of the statement of administration policy put 
out by President Bush where he says that they support the Collins-
Lieberman bill and specifically oppose any amendment that weakens the 
establishment of the NID with full, effective, meaningful budget 
authority and other authorities to manage the intelligence community, 
including the statutory authority for the newly created National 
Counterterrorism Center. They are running against the President on 
this.
  The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center is not appointed 
by the President, not confirmed by the Senate, does not have budget 
authority or hiring authority. Their legislation does not create an 
information-sharing network, a new trusted network with common 
standards to share information within the intelligence community.
  Their legislation only requires the Transportation Safety 
Administration to give priority to explosive detection, but it does 
not, as the commission called for, require improved detection 
capabilities.
  Their legislation does not create an independent civil liberties 
board. It does not declassify the intelligence budget topline.
  So, today, we have an opportunity to see who really supports the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations and who does not. Those who support the 9/
11 Commission's recommendations will have the opportunity to do so when 
the Menendez substitute comes to the floor. That is the one that has 
passed in the Senate. That is the one supported by a unanimous 
bipartisan vote of the 9/11 Commission. That is the one that is 
supported by the overwhelming majority of the 9/11 families. That is 
the one that best protects the Nation and creates the changes necessary 
to ensure that this Nation is safe, secure, as that Commission, after 
thousands of hours and thousands of pages, decided.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, my home State of Wyoming is the least 
populated State in this Nation but a proud provider of many of the 
resources on which America depends.
  Wyoming and our neighboring States produce the bulk of our Nation's 
agricultural and energy resources. We have vast deposits of coal, 
uranium, and natural gas. Significant portions of our Nation's power 
plants, pipelines, highways, and railroads cross Wyoming and rural 
States. We manage and preserve national parks and landmarks, where 
countless numbers of visitors can be found at any given time.
  But perhaps most importantly, however, rural America houses our 
military landbased nuclear weapons, which are absolutely necessary for 
our Nation's defense system.
  I had submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to ensure our 
first responders in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and 
Colorado, which house America's nuclear arsenal, had the resources they 
needed to prepare for a possible threat against these nuclear weapons. 
In rural America, first responders cannot even communicate sometimes 
between one department and another like policemen and firemen. We have 
not had the money to develop those communication systems yet. We have 
started, but with lower funding in this bill, we will not be able to 
finish that. Needless to say, I was gravely disappointed when my 
amendment was not allowed on the floor for a fair debate today. That 
decision was

[[Page H8679]]

a vote against the safety of Wyoming citizens and the rest of rural 
America. In fact, I believe rural America became the whipping post for 
the large populated areas.
  While the needs of first responders in high-population States such as 
California and New York are addressed in this bill, first responders in 
rural America are left with the scraps. Rural Americans are spread thin 
over a lot of land. We have 490,000 people in Wyoming spread over about 
100,000 square miles. So one can imagine the difficulty of trying to 
protect resources and people spread over that area. Money to pay for 
first responders cannot be appropriated on a per capita basis, as has 
been suggested.
  Rural first responders are the brave individuals who protect our 
communities after an attack, and those men and women deserve the same 
respect and resources in Wyoming and rural America as they do in New 
York.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), one of the members of the 
Committee on Financial Services who has been most active on this issue 
in a very informed way.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 should be about restructuring 
our Nation's intelligence agency, strengthening our homeland, and 
better protecting our citizens by following the framework recommended 
by the 
9/11 Commission. However, as currently written, H.R. 10 violates our 
Constitution and attacks immigrants by subjecting immigrants living 
here less than 5 years to expedited deportation at the hands of 
overworked immigration agents and without access to a judge.

                              {time}  1615

  Restricting States from issuing driver's licenses to immigrant 
drivers, placing public safety at risk.
  Prohibiting Federal acceptance of consular cards and other identity 
documents issued by foreign governments other than passports, no matter 
how secure these documents are when trying to secure a Federal entrance 
even to a Federal building.
  Deporting asylum seekers to their torturers and authorizing the 
deportation of immigrants to countries that lack a functioning 
government, all without judicial review.
  Prohibiting habeas corpus review of a variety of immigration issues.
  These anti-immigration issues do nothing to protect our homeland. In 
fact, leaders of the 9/11 Commission wisely called on House Republicans 
last week to remove these controversial provisions from the bill for 
fear it would slow its progress through Congress.
  As if that is not enough, family members of 9/11 victims recently 
sent a letter to this body urging a ``no'' vote if these provisions 
that I have mentioned are not stripped from the bill. I applaud the 
commissioners and the 9/11 families for their courageously speaking out 
strongly against these dangerous provisions. It is unconscionable that 
certain Members this body would politicize national security in a 
misguided attempt to advance their malicious attacks on our Nation's 
immigrant community in the name of public safety.
  Immigrants died and lost family members in the Twin Towers, they 
helped rebuild the Pentagon, and they serve on the front lines in 
Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terror. It is shameful that 
legislation that rose directly from the tragedy of 9/11, legislation 
that bears the name of the darkest day of our Nation's history, 
legislation designed to ensure that we are never again attacked on our 
soil, would be so malicious an attempt against a group of serving, 
sacrificing, and helping people and try to put on their shoulders the 
responsibility of the post-9/11 world.
  Republicans in this House still have time to do what is right and 
reasonable, as the Senate has done in their legislative package, by 
capturing the recommendations without attacking our Nation's newcomers.
  Republicans and Democrats alike should vote for the Menendez 
substitute, the components of which have been endorsed by the 
commission and even the White House. If Republican leaders insist on 
playing politics with this critical legislation, I will vote against 
H.R. 10, as it is anti-immigrant, un-American, and flies in the face of 
9/11 families and the commission's hard work. I would urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, you have heard from the gentleman from New Jersey and 
the gentleman from Maryland the criticisms of what are not in the 
majority's bill. Much of what the 9/11 Commission asked for is not in 
the bill. I want to talk to my objections about what is in their bill 
that was not in the 9/11 Commission report, and not just to the 
specifics, but the procedure.
  The House has been put into a position time and time again of being 
given legislation, and it is kind of like being a dog given a pill. 
When people want to give medicine to a dog, they wrap it in something 
the dog wants to eat.
  When the majority has controversial pieces of legislation that could 
not pass on their own, they wrap it in something which Members will be 
afraid to vote against. And that is what we have in this bill. Not in 
our section dealing with financial services, but in the majority's bill 
is an example of a tactic that has been used repeatedly. You take 
controversial things, things that ought to be fully debated, things 
that many Members would not support on their own, and you wrap them in 
something which has a great deal of political appeal to try and coerce 
Members into voting for it.
  It is in repudiation of that tactic that I and many others, if the 
substitute fails, will vote against the basic bill, because I am tired 
of being given legislation that resembles nothing so much as a pill 
being fed to a dog.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This section of the bill we are debating from the Committee on 
Financial Services was a great bipartisan effort. We had testimony from 
Lee Hamilton, our former colleague, who was praiseworthy of what our 
committee was able to do in the PATRIOT Act and moving forward and 
trying to deal with terrorist financing.
  I think this process has been pretty good. I think that, overall, I 
understand over 200 Members have been able to offer amendments in the 
committee process, with regular order in the committee process. Our 
committee was no exception. I think the product that we have come up 
with in H.R. 10 is positive.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it 
clear that my criticisms do not extend to our part of the bill. I 
lament that the House in general has not followed the example we have 
set.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for general debate for the Committee on 
Financial Services has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the Committee on Government Reform. The 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act. The purpose of this landmark 
legislation is to address the problems and weaknesses identified by the 
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States by 
improving the intelligence and security operations of the Federal 
Government.
  I am proud of what we have achieved in this legislation on behalf of 
the American people, who understandably are clamoring for change. It 
accomplishes the goal of revamping our intelligence network and makes 
other

[[Page H8680]]

changes necessary to protect our national security.
  I would like to elaborate on a few of the provisions of the larger 
bill that fall within our jurisdiction at the Committee on Government 
Reform and why we believe they are critical to this effort.
  One is executive reorganization authority for intelligence agencies. 
H.R. 10 would give the President the power to submit reorganization 
plans, limited to the intelligence community, to Congress for a 
guaranteed up-or-down vote.
  We cannot afford to assume this legislation is a panacea that will 
somehow be the last word on intelligence reform. Reorganization 
authority is authority every President had government-wide from 1932 to 
1984. It enables the executive branch to come forward with a plan that 
would come to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendment. The 
President should have the ability to make further tweaks to the 
organization without having to worry about his proposal getting 
watered-down or just plain blocked in Congress over petty 
jurisdictional fights between committees. Congress, of course, retains 
the ultimate say.
  We have enhanced information-sharing. This legislation would task the 
President with establishing a trusted and secure information-sharing 
environment to promote the sharing of intelligence information and to 
change the culture in the Federal Government from a ``need to know'' to 
a ``need to share'' basis. This initiative is the result of 
collaborative efforts of multiple committees of jurisdiction.
  The rationale for this language is straightforward. As a Nation, we 
must be able to identify terrorist threats and defeat them. Our success 
depends on collecting, analyzing, and appropriately sharing information 
found in data bases, transactions, and other sources.
  Streamlined financial disclosure for appointees in the intelligence 
community. Just about anyone who studies the Presidential appointments 
process realizes that it is broken. It takes too long to confirm 
individuals to key positions, and the process itself often drives away 
some of those best qualified to serve. Financial disclosure 
requirements are supposed to protect against conflicts of interest 
concerns; but they have become proxy statements for a nominee's net 
worth, with more detail than is necessary, extending the vetting 
process so that nominees cannot even move forward to Senate 
confirmation. This legislation would return to the original intent of 
financial disclosures.
  An improved security clearance process. This legislation would assign 
security clearance management and oversight to the Office of the 
National Intelligence Director. The NID would set uniform standards and 
policies and require reciprocity among agencies. This would enable an 
individual with a top secret clearance at, say, Treasury to retain that 
clearance should he or she move to another agency.
  Previous efforts to enforce reciprocity have failed, but this 
legislation finally addresses this important part of the process by 
putting an end to the time and money-wasting practice of redundant 
security clearance investigations and adjudications. This redundancy 
drives up the cost of doing business, and this cost is ultimately 
passed on to the taxpayers.
  New Federal standards for identification cards and birth 
certificates. We need to have confidence that when someone shows a 
State driver's license to board a plane or a State birth certificate to 
get a passport, that the ID is valid. We need to know that people are 
who they say they are.
  Is this a national ID card? No. We are simply saying the Federal 
Government must have documents that it can trust, and it is perfectly 
within its right to establish minimum standards for Federal acceptance.
  This important provision would provide grant money to help States 
meet the new Federal guidelines and gives them 3 years to comply. 
Though States have made strides in improving the security of driver's 
licenses and identification since 9/11, the commission outlined the 
need to establish minimum standards as a framework for improvement.
  This language was crafted with the assistance of the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the National 
Association For Public Health and Information Systems who administer 
these programs for the States. They have been hard at work developing 
studies, best practices and guidelines on this issue, especially since 
the terrorist attacks on our Nation; and this legislation closely 
follows those recommendations for action. Importantly, this provision 
is also strongly supported by the 9/11 victims' families.
  A revitalized FBI workforce. H.R. 10 would provide for retention 
bonuses and critical pay authorities to help the FBI improve its 
intelligence directorate. It also would allow for delays in mandatory 
retirements and the creation of a Reserve Service so the agency can 
reactivate retired employees with very specialized skills.
  The improvements to the operations of the Federal Government that are 
included in H.R. 10 are essential to making this country safer. I urge 
my colleagues to support this carefully crafted legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the House is taking up legislation of 
enormous importance: how to make our Nation safe from future terrorist 
attacks. Outside of this body the effort to protect our Nation has been 
a united, bipartisan effort. Against the odds, the 9/11 Commission 
produced unanimous recommendations about how to protect our Nation. The 
Senate has carried their work forward. By an overwhelming 96 to 2 vote, 
the Senate has approved legislation embodying the commission's 
recommendations. Unfortunately, this bipartisan process has been 
hijacked in the House.
  There are just three numbers that you need to remember: 41 were the 
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission; 11 were the number of 
recommendations out of the 41 that they implemented; and 50 are the 
number of extraneous provisions inserted into the bill.
  The missing components are no minor oversights. H.R. 10 does not give 
the National Intelligence Director the full authority recommended by 
the 9/11 Commission. It falls short on border security, on aviation 
security, and on emergency response.
  During the first Presidential debate, both President Bush and Senator 
Kerry agreed that preventing nuclear proliferation was the single 
greatest threat facing our Nation, yet incredibly the Republican bill 
does not implement the recommendations for stopping nuclear 
proliferation.
  For the next 30 minutes we are going to talk about the areas of the 
bill in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. Here 
the same pattern emerges. Key recommendations from the 9/11 Commission 
are ignored, while damaging extraneous provisions are inserted.
  One of the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to 
improve information-sharing among intelligence agencies. In our 
committee we unanimously adopted an amendment to implement the 
information-sharing provisions recommended by the commission. These 
essential provisions, however, even though adopted unanimously by the 
committee, were dropped by the Republican leadership on the way to the 
House floor.
  At the same time, H.R. 10 includes extraneous provisions that are 
both dangerous and controversial. In one provision, and most people may 
not even be aware of it, the legislation establishes a fast track 
legislative procedure that allows the executive branch to undo all of 
the bill enacted in the legislation. The President can then send 
legislation to Congress that reverses the reforms we have just enacted, 
and Congress would be prohibited from amending the President's 
proposal.

                              {time}  1630

  And here is another inexplicable extraneous provision. The bill 
actually repeals financial disclosure requirements for the intelligence 
agencies. Under this legislation, top intelligence officials no longer 
have to reveal if they own assets worth over $5 million, $25 million, 
or even $50 million.

[[Page H8681]]

  The substitute amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) addresses all of the Commission's 
recommendations, it has the same structure and provisions as the Senate 
legislation that passed 96 to 2. It is that legislation that we should 
be enacting today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), an able member of our 
committee.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Davis) for his leadership on this bill and the leadership in 
working with us on a number of amendments. I want to go on record 
before I get into my particular area on two things.
  The 9/11 Commission report is a great book, it is a great starter, 
but it is not the Bible, and it is not perfect, and we need to forward. 
On this question of defense intelligence, they completely missed. If we 
compromise and put the people that vote in my district at risk because 
we make a mistake in intelligence, they may die because of our error 
and we have to address that.
  Secondly, these immigration reforms and security changes are 
absolutely essential, because everything we are spending on homeland 
security breaks down if we do not know that the person actually is the 
person they say they are. We are dependent then on them telling us the 
truth about their background. We need secure IDs and we are trying to 
address that.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
Human Resources, I would like to highlight two provisions of the bill 
that address the dangers drug trafficking poses to homeland security. 
Many of us forget that many of the largest anti-narcotics agencies and 
over 20,000 people in the United States die a year from the narco-
terrorism on the streets. Furthermore, this money often funds these 
terrorist groups, and legacy Customs, legacy Border Patrol, legacy 
Coast Guard are all in the Department of Homeland Security.
  We need two things to make sure it stays part of it. First, that it 
strengthens and clarifies the role of the counternarcotics officer who 
is in the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate these efforts; 
and the second requires that drug enforcement activities be one of the 
benchmarks for relevant employee performance appraisals at DHS. It was 
appalling that inside the Department of Homeland Security, narcotics 
enforcement had been neglected and not even mentioned in the whole 
system, yet these agencies absolutely are the first line of defense.
  Now, specifically, what this does is change the personnel incentives 
and also takes this counternarcotics officer and makes him a director 
of counternarcotics enforcement subject to Senate confirmation 
reporting directly to the Secretary assigned specific responsibilities 
to the new director because, up until now, he has been detailed and had 
to battle for each employee and authorize permanent staff to be 
assigned to him as well as detailees from the relevant agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to take our eye off the daily battle 
on our streets as we try to deal with the new world challenges, 
particularly when our drug habit is financing many of these terrorists 
efforts around the world.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has taken 
such a strong leadership role in this legislation and is a cosponsor of 
the Shays-Maloney bill, which is part of the Menendez substitute.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his outstanding leadership in so many areas, 
especially health. We really appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, reform for our Nation's security and intelligence is 
now the sole responsibility of the House of Representatives. The other 
body, both sides of the aisle, unanimously, almost with complete and 
total support, passed the strongest intelligence reform in our Nation's 
history, with a vote of 96 to 2.
  The Collins-Lieberman bill is before the House today in the form of a 
bipartisan substitute, the Menendez substitute. It will make our 
country safer by creating a strong national intelligence director with 
full personnel and budgetary authority and a National counterterrorism 
Center that will share intelligence.
  Regrettably, the House leadership bill has no such authority. Last 
week, the 9/11 Commission chairman, Governor Kean said, ``If the 
National Intelligence Director does not have budgetary authority, you 
might as well not do anything.''
  If we pass today the Collins-Lieberman-Menendez bill out of the 
House, we can get it to the President's desk for his signature before 
we adjourn. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission members support the 
substitute. The White House has lined up behind it. So has the 9/11 
family members, the steering committee, as well as editorial boards 
across this Nation. The only lone wolf muddying the process with 
extraneous, unrelated, controversial provisions is the House Republican 
leadership.
  The Commission made 41 recommendations. Of these, the House 
Republican leaders fully implemented only 11. This is the exact 
opposite of what the Commission recommended. They recommended a 
package. Instead of implementing the key Commission recommendations, 
the House Republican leaders added over 50 extraneous provisions that 
are not mentioned anywhere in the 9/11 Commission report. Even the 
President has asked the House leadership to strip these provisions out 
of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record a letter from the White 
House in support of Collins-Lieberman, a Washington Times article, and 
an L.A. Times article that speaks to the administration's support for 
Collins-Lieberman and against the many add-ons that have been loaded on 
to the Republican bill. Some of the 50 extra provisions are innocuous, 
but many are controversial poison pills that will only sidetrack and 
delay the legislation.
  The truth of the matter is that if the Republicans really cared about 
these extra provisions, they could have passed it 3 years ago or added 
it on later. Yesterday, Chairman Kean said that the Senate bill is a 
giant step forward and the right vehicle for our recommendations. He 
called the bill that passed out of the Senate that is before us today a 
dream, and if this is the dream, then I say that the House leadership 
bill is an absolute nightmare that will only delay and hurt the process 
and will make it harder for us to make this country safer and enact a 
law that implements the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 1, 2004.
       To the Editors of the Washington Post: Yesterday's 
     Washington Post inaccurately reported that the Bush 
     Administration supports a provision in the House intelligence 
     reform bill that would permit the deportation of certain 
     foreign nationals to countries where they are likely to be 
     tortured.
       The President did not propose and does not support this 
     provision. He has made clear that the United States stands 
     against and will not tolerate torture, and that the United 
     States remains committed to complying with its obligations 
     under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 
     or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that 
     treaty, the United States does not expel, return or extradite 
     individuals to other countries where the United States 
     believes it is likely they will be tortured.
       As the President has said, torture is wrong no matter where 
     it occurs, and the United States will continue to lead the 
     fight to eliminate it everywhere.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alberto R. Gonzales,
     Counsel to the President.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Oct. 4, 2004]

                 House Told To Alter Intelligence Bill

                           (By Stephen Dinan)

       The White House has told House Republicans that it wants 
     them to remove provisions in their intelligence-overhaul bill 
     that would crack down on illegal aliens' obtaining drivers' 
     licenses, allow easier deportation and limit the use of 
     foreign consular ID cards.
       The Senate's bill lacks those provisions, and as the two 
     chambers race toward trying to pass a bill before the Nov. 2 
     election, the measures are a potential stumbling block.
       The White House wants those provisions out, according to a 
     congressional source familiar with the bill.
       ``They have expressed desire to kill some of the 
     immigration provisions and gut some of

[[Page H8682]]

     others,'' the source said, speaking on the condition of 
     anonymity.
       Rosemary Jenks, a lobbyist for stricter immigration 
     controls for the group NumbersUSA, who has been tracking the 
     bill, said White House policy officials met with Republican 
     staffers to urge them to remove the provisions, even though 
     White House officials initially had signed off on those same 
     provisions before the bill was introduced officially.
       ``The White House was involved in the negotiations before 
     the bill was introduced, and now, for some reason, it has 
     come back and decided to insist that the main provisions, the 
     most effective provisions of the bill, be gutted,'' she said.
       She said House Republican leaders appear to be standing 
     firm in refusing the White House demands. A White House 
     spokesman did not return a call for comment yesterday.
       Peter Gadiel, spokesman for 9/11 Families for a Secure 
     America, said his organization will drop its endorsement of 
     the bill if the immigration provisions are removed.
       ``This goes to the very heart of the entire conspiracy of 
     9/11,'' he said. ``These people entered the country, got 
     driver's licenses, used those driver's licenses to obtain the 
     services they needed, and then used those driver's licenses 
     to get on the plane.''
       The House bill restricts federal employees' acceptance of 
     consular identification cards issued by other nations, which 
     the Government Accountability Office said last week helps 
     illegal aliens evade immigration law.
       The bill also would set standards for driver's licenses 
     that would make it much more difficult for illegal aliens to 
     obtain them and for temporary visitors to keep licenses past 
     their visa expiration.
       The legislation also would expedite deportation of 
     immigrants who have entered the United States illegally in 
     the past five years and curtail court reviews of deportation 
     proceedings even when the person faces torture when returned 
     home.
       Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration 
     Forum, said adding those amendments is an attempt to sink the 
     entire bill.
       ``The piling on of unrelated legislative pet projects, 
     especially by the Republican Party's anti-immigration wing, 
     could throw the carefully reasoned, bipartisan 
     recommendations of the 9/11 commission to the curb,'' she 
     said.
       Members of the National Commission for Terrorist attacks 
     upon the United States held a press conference last week to 
     complain about some of the House provisions and praise the 
     Senate bill as it now stands. Commission Vice Chairman Lee H. 
     Hamilton singled out some of the House immigration provisions 
     as particularly problematic for commission members.
       The White House also has issued a statement praising the 
     Senate bill.
       But Mr. Gadiel said removing the immigration provision 
     would be breaking Congress' promise to pass all of the 
     September 11 commission's recommendations.
       He said senators should be warned: ``If you really have the 
     nerve to kill a final bill--ignore all the recommendations of 
     the 9/11 commission and spit in the faces of the 9/11 
     families because the final bill [includes] all of the 
     recommendations, not just the ones you find palatable, go 
     ahead, kill the bill. See what the American people feel in 
     November.''
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times Oct. 6, 2004]

                  House Intelligence Measure Targeted

                           (By Mary Curtius)

       Washington--Eager to get an intelligence reform bill 
     through Congress before the Nov. 2 elections, the White House 
     is pressing to get controversial immigration provisions 
     stripped from the House measure, Republican lawmakers said 
     Tuesday.
       Both the House and Senate are moving toward final votes 
     this week on differing versions of bills that seek to 
     overhaul the nation's intelligence community by putting a 
     single director in charge of all 15 agencies. Both major 
     parties are eager to take credit for completing the most 
     sweeping intelligence changes since the Cold War.
       The more comprehensive House version includes provisions to 
     tighten border controls and make it easier for law 
     enforcement to track and quickly deport suspected terrorists.
       Democrats have joined civil libertarians, members of the 
     Sept. 11 commission and families of victims of those attacks 
     in criticizing the measures. Democrats describe the 
     provisions as ``poison pills'' that threaten the chances for 
     reconciling the two chambers' bills.
       House Republicans said Tuesday that they believed the White 
     House was fearful of a backlash against the House bill by 
     immigrant voters.
       ``I sincerely hope that the White House is not seriously 
     thinking about walking away from this effort in the interest 
     of political expediency in a few states,'' said Rep. Thomas 
     G. Tancredo (R-Colo).
       Tancredo, chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, 
     and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a member of the House Judiciary 
     Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, said 
     in interviews that their staffs had been told by the House 
     leadership that the White House wanted the immigration 
     provisions removed from the bill. Both men said they urged 
     the leadership to resist the pressure.
       The White House, according the King and Tancredo, has 
     specifically targeted provisions in the House bill that would 
     make it easier to deport illegal immigrants, make it harder 
     to use foreign consular identity cards as forms of identity 
     in the United States and make it harder for illegal 
     immigrants to obtain driver's licenses by imposing federal 
     standards.
       The American Civil Liberties Union has denounced those 
     measures as ``anti-immigrant policies'' it says would ``deny 
     immigrants basic judicial review over unfair, arbitrary or 
     otherwise abusive deportations'' and allow suspected 
     terrorist to be deported to countries ``lacking a functioning 
     government.''
       The House leadership says it stands behind its bill and all 
     its provisions, and that it will bring it to a floor vote 
     Thursday or Friday. But a White House spokesman said Tuesday 
     that negotiations over the bill's provisions were continuing.
       ``What I can say is that the president supports strong, 
     effective immigration reform,'' said Erin Healy, a White 
     House spokesman.
       ``We will continue to work with members of the House on 
     their proposal. We continue to meet with them--to work with 
     them on the legislation. It is a work in progress.''
       House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said no one had 
     spoken to him about removing provisions of the bill.
       ``Whether it be redesigning our intelligence-gathering 
     capabilities or protecting our borders or going after 
     terrorists,'' DeLay said, all the measures ``are designed to 
     keep Americans safer.''
       But pressure has been mounting on the House Republican 
     leadership to produce a bill that looks more like the Senate 
     version.
       Editorials across the country have criticized the House 
     bill for endangering prospects for quickly completing real 
     reform of the intelligence community.
       The Senate, on the other hand, has been praised for 
     producing a bipartisan bill, coauthored by Republican Susan 
     Collins of Maine and Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
       With the political maneuvering around the bills 
     intensifying, Republicans and Democrats in the House held 
     competing news conferences Tuesday, each producing family 
     members of Sept. 11 victims to bolster arguments for or 
     against the legislation.
       At one point, family members who support the House bill 
     clashed publicly with family members who gathered with 
     Democrats and Sept. 11 commission members to demand that the 
     controversial provisions be dropped.
       Both the Senate and House bills call for the creation of a 
     national intelligence director to oversee the nation's 15 
     intelligence agencies. But the Senate version would give the 
     director greater control over the intelligence community 
     budgets and personnel than the House version would.
       House Democrats have pushed the leadership unsuccessfully 
     to allow a floor debate on a substitute bill that would more 
     closely conform to the Senate version.
       The Senate bill, which has survived seven days of floor 
     debate largely intact, is expected to be voted on today. 
     Differences between the final versions of the bill will be 
     dealt with in a conference committee.

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the former 
Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10 and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill in the spirit of bipartisanship 
exhibited by the 9/11 Commission in their report and their subsequent 
recommendations as well.
  Clearly, our Nation needs to better prepare ourselves for the 
challenges facing us as we continue to successfully prosecute this war 
on terror.
  And as we examine the intelligence failures in the aftermath of the 
absolutely horrific attacks on our Nation on 9/11, we see the need to 
improve our intelligence-gathering and move from the need-to-know to 
the need-to-share.
  It is said that once in a generation is there truly an opportunity to 
structurally reform government, and this is our opportunity. We 
remember in the 1940s when we created the Joint Chiefs to better meld 
our military, and the naysayers had lots of reasons why it would not 
work but, in fact, it has served our Nation remarkably well. This 
legislation today will serve our intelligence community well, and so 
allow us to better protect our homeland.
  I am particularly pleased to have helped draft the provisions in this 
bill which deal with national standards for issuing State driver's 
licenses and State identification cards. This is long overdue, as are 
the provisions regarding the breeder documents or identification 
documentation required before you can obtain a driver's license or a 
State ID card.
  In today's world, the driver's license is the foundation of your 
identity. It is the photo ID that is most commonly

[[Page H8683]]

used to get on an airplane, to enroll in a flight school, or to get a 
commercial driver's license with perhaps an endorsement for 
transporting hazardous material.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to coming to Congress, I served 8 years as the 
Michigan Secretary of State with the principal responsibility for motor 
vehicle administration, and I totally agree with the 9/11 Commission 
statement, ``Sources of identification are the last opportunity to 
ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they 
are terrorists.''
  Let us remember that 18 of the 19 9/11 terrorists had valid driver's 
licenses, many acquired through fraudulent documentation. This 
legislation will allow our States to stop the terrorists from using our 
freedoms against us.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the other day I heard the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) assert on the floor of 
this House that the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation were 
being considered by the various committees in this House on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Well, in the Committee on Government Reform, there were some areas of 
strong bipartisan agreement. As the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) said, one of those areas was the need to implement one of the 
central recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report to develop a 
system of information-sharing among different Federal Government 
agencies that collect and analyze information. When you are trying to 
pull together information about a threat, it makes no sense for one 
agency to keep hold of its information and not share it. You need all 
the pieces to put together the puzzle.
  Now, this bill, H.R. 10 as it was introduced, had nothing with 
respect to information-sharing. So I, together with some of my 
colleagues, offered an amendment in the committee to do exactly that. 
And on a bipartisan basis in the committee, supported by the chairman 
of the committee, and echoing the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, we unanimously supported that amendment and that 
recommendation.
  Well, guess what? The bill left committee and on the way to the 
floor, that information-sharing amendment was stripped out of the bill 
by the House Republican leadership and replaced by what is just a 
hollow shell, virtual dribble, nothing of serious substance on that 
issue. Apparently, the real test being applied here by the House 
Republican leadership is not bipartisan cooperation, but where there is 
bipartisan cooperation on the committee, let us get rid of that 
provision of the bill, because it does not fit with the overall 
objective, which is to use this bill and use national security for pure 
political purposes.
  Why would the House leadership remove a provision also contained in 
the Senate Collins-Lieberman bill to promote information-sharing? Why 
are they sticking up for creating separate turf and different fiefdoms 
among government agencies? That is a question they are going to have to 
answer to the victims and the families of the victims of 9/11.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my 
friend, unfortunately, other committees shared jurisdiction on this, so 
when the Committee on Rules wrote it, we did not get our committee 
language.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my 
colleague yielding me this time. I will be rising later in the day to 
express my very serious concern about the Menendez substitute, but that 
is for a later time.
  But I wanted to take a moment to express the House's deep 
appreciation for the work being done every day by the men and women who 
make up our security agencies. We all know that during the 1990s, much 
of their work was disrupted by undermining, especially of our HUMINT 
assets in the country, throughout the world, particularly in the Middle 
East. But between now and then, those men and women who work every day 
and put their lives on the line on our behalf, those who make up the 
agencies that are our security agencies, need to know that there is 
broadly-based bipartisan support for their work here in the Congress.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Menendez substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez substitute because I 
believe that its provisions, like those in the Shays-Maloney bill, 
better reflect the recommendations contained in the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission Report: To improve our intelligence gathering and analytical 
capabilities and create ``an enhanced system of checks and balances'' 
to adequately protect civil liberties.
  I regret, however, that the options before us today fail to fully 
embrace available technologies to modernize our driver's license and 
identification systems. Some States are taking action, for example, as 
some of my colleagues may have read in today's Washington Times and 
Washington Post; a plan to use embedded chip technology is currently 
under consideration in the Virginia legislature. Still, the pace of 
change remains slow and problems in our driver's license system 
persist.
  The holes in our system continue to support a thriving black market 
for fake IDs, create security risks that are national in scope, and 
therefore warrant adequate Federal resources to repair.
  The September 11th hijackings illuminated many holes in our domestic 
security, for example 13 of the 19 hijackers were able to obtain 
driver's licenses or ID cards, some from black market ``brokers'' who 
often charge $2,000 for a single fake license.
  Utilizing chip technology and biometric identifiers will make a 
quantum leap in the efficiency of the system and make it significantly 
harder for criminals and terrorists to obtain fake licenses. 
Unfortunately, neither side of the aisle took full advantage of this 
opportunity to utilize on-card biometric technology to repair holes in 
the system.
  In light of the currently available technologies, the bills being 
considered on the House floor today simply do not go far enough.
  The on-card biometric technology we need to adopt in our driver's 
license system is not entirely new. Private companies and government 
agencies currently utilize embedded chips in their ID cards. The smart 
cards have been in use for years in the military with the Common Access 
Card, or CAC, and Congress sanctioned the use of on-card biometric 
technology in the US-VISIT visa program.
  Both the 9/11 Commission Report and its predecessor, the Markle 
Foundation Task Force Report, hailed on-card biometrics as an excellent 
example of how technology can be used to improve the integrity of a 
number of identification documents.
  Why not use it on our driver's licenses? The legislative solution I 
have proposed retains traditional State authority over non-commercial 
driver's licenses, but recognizes that disparate standards, outmoded 
technologies and inadequate security features create risks that are 
national in scope and therefore justify Federal resources and technical 
assistance.
  Many states are open to adopting the technology, but they need 
Federal assistance to implement it.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not delay any further. The time to act has 
come. A driver's license is a dangerous tool in the hands of a 
criminal, or worse, a terrorist. It allows them to easily travel on our 
roads, open bank accounts, rent vehicles, and take domestic flights. 
The driver's license has come to represent more than authorization to 
operate a motor vehicle; it imparts a stamp of legitimacy and is often 
taken as unquestionable proof of identity. Possession of a driver's 
license allows terrorists to easily travel and blend into the 
population.
  Of course there are many out there who fear new uses of technology. 
Civil libertarians, conspiracy theorists and absolutists will attempt 
to characterize smart cards as a threat to individual privacy. In fact 
the opposite is true. By reducing identity theft (clearly a privacy 
concern), controlling access to personal data through encryption and 
proper regulations, and making it easier to create a digital paper 
trail on government employees who access your data, smart cards will 
actually reduce privacy violations.
  Smart cards will not allow the government to track people's 
movements; the chips don't work that way. The best government could do 
in tracking your movements is maintain records of where and when you 
are asked to show your license, something it already does by writing 
down your driver's license number.

[[Page H8684]]

  Of course it is difficult to completely allay the concerns of civil 
libertarians and privacy advocates, lest we do away with all forms of 
identification. But smart cards will not create invasion of privacy 
risks that do not already exist today. They will, however, 
significantly reduce the risk of identity theft, and correct current 
widespread abuses in the system. As an added benefit, the technology 
will make it easier for law enforcement officials to do their job by 
eliminating wasted time filling out paperwork, but it will not 
magically transform every law enforcement officer or civil servant into 
a voyeur or jackbooted thug bent on harassing you at every turn.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to take the next logical step and 
implement smart card and biometric technology in driver's licenses and 
ID cards. I look forward to working with relevant committees in 
advancing this important policy. In light of the serious problems that 
persist, we can't afford delay.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the Committee 
on Government Reform.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to just address one part of this bill.
  I feel strongly that we ought to go with the substitute amendment 
that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will be presenting, 
and that this House ought to try, in a bipartisan fashion, to work 
within the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation, and that the surest 
way to do that and to get a bill now is to make sure that this House 
acts in a bipartisan way, and not in the manner that seems to be before 
us today, a poison pill that will tie this issue up and not allow us to 
have the kind of legislation we need to protect this country.
  The 9/11 Commission, in its work, was very adamant about the idea 
that congressional oversight should be reinforced and strengthened, 
particularly if there is going to be some strengthening of the 
legislative and executive branch. Any executive power that is going to 
be enhanced ought to be met with commensurate increases in 
congressional oversight.
  Section 5021 of this bill authorizes the President to essentially 
reorganize all of the work that Congress would do in establishing the 
intelligence regime under this bill. It would have the President be 
able to submit a reorganization plan with expedited approval, up or 
down, with no amendments; in essence, abrogating all of our 
responsibilities as legislators to the White House.
  Now, I am surprised that this would get any support and, 
unfortunately, in the Committee on Government Reform, it did get enough 
support in a 20 to 21 vote. My amendment that would obliterate this 
recommendation was defeated. But it did pass. It was successful in the 
markup of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence community 
markup, but in the Committee on Rules, as is its penchant for rewriting 
the law, it reappears with us here today.

                              {time}  1645

  The fact of the matter is that allowing the process to just organize 
and bring us something to vote up or down is an absolute total 
abrogation of Congress's responsibilities. I am shocked that our 
colleagues would even consider that premise.
  They should look at one another. They should determine whether or not 
they came here to just give our role to the White House or we came here 
to do what our constituents elected us to do, which is to deliberate, 
to debate, to decide, and to vote, and to vote on matters of this 
significance.
  Yes, in one of the issues one of the Members brought up in the 
committee was that this would take time, we would go from committee to 
committee and House to House. The fact of the matter is, that is hard 
work as the President likes to say, but it is the hard work we are 
supposed to be doing. It is our responsibility to legislate. It is the 
executive branch's responsibility to give us a recommendation that we 
should consider. But in the end we need to do our job, and this bill 
should be done in such a way as to meet the Menendez substitute. We 
should all vote for that and not for the base bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  What abrogates our responsibility is taking the substitute that is 
offered by the other side. Basically we are saying to the other body, 
we are going to take your version and adopt your version. We have a lot 
of good ideas that emanate from this side of the Capitol. Those ideas 
will then go into a conference, and we can take the best of both.
  The Congress does not abrogate their responsibility by allowing the 
President to submit for an up-or-down vote, the changes they wish to 
make in the intelligence community; we get to vote them up or down. But 
we do circumvent some of the jurisdictional battles that so often 
prolong these fights and make us very inefficient. I might add, this is 
authority that we had for Presidents for 50 years prior to 1984.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this House has a choice to make today. It 
has been more than 3 years since September 11. We can put the safety 
and security of America first, put the security of its people first and 
pass the Menendez substitute which has the Shays-Maloney language in 
it. This substitute bill will protect America, our families, our civil 
liberties; and it does not play politics with intelligence reform.
  Yesterday, the other body passed a bipartisan intelligence reform 
bill, 96 to 2. The other body's vote put America first and will help to 
make America safer, and it abandons cheap partisan politics. The 
Republican leadership's bill, H.R. 10, is a bipartisan bill intended to 
derail intelligence reform while al Qaeda plots against us.
  H.R. 10 ignores the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and it is a 
dangerous partisan distraction that should be defeated.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I sat in a committee that I must say tries 
and often is bipartisan. I kept looking for gravitas of the 9/11 
recommendations. One that is not here actually stunned me and that is 
the recommendation to strengthen our counternuclear proliferation 
efforts.
  During the first Presidential debate there was a moment of rare 
agreement between Kerry and Bush. They both said that nuclear 
proliferation was the single most serious threat facing the United 
States. The commission agreed. It says that al Qaeda has tried to 
acquire or make nuclear weapons for the last 10 years and that the 
maximum effort should be made. H.R. 10 relegates this issue to a study. 
A study is a way not to do anything.
  The Senate knew exactly what to do. You do not study it any more. You 
expand the proliferation security initiative and the proliferation 
programs literally on the books now. I represent this city. What a 
small nuclear device would do to the Nation's capital I do not want to 
contemplate.
  The commission understands what nuclear weapons would do nation-wide. 
No serious effort can exclude nuclear nonproliferation.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time as I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission was born of the most 
brutal attack in this country's history on our soil, and we should 
remember that the commission was created to investigate our weaknesses 
and also to make recommendations on strengthening our national 
security. I think that the commission should be commended and the 
families that have been involved in making those recommendations at our 
hearings should be commended for their good work and for remaining 
above our partisanship.
  But what I see here today in this bill is that after that long 
process of the

[[Page H8685]]

commissioners and the involvement of these families, that much of their 
key recommendations have been set aside, and I think that is a shame. 
And we should, I think, instead, support the Menendez substitute that 
agrees with the recommendations made by the other branch which I think 
properly protects American security and brings accountability to our 
intelligence systems that were so flawed prior to the attacks.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my colleagues, we are 
talking about something of the most significant importance to this 
Nation. We should not allow politics to be played with this matter.
  We have had a commission that was set up by a vote of the Congress. 
They came back with a unanimous recommendation. The other body adopted 
their recommendations unanimously, Democrats and Republicans. I 
strongly urge support for the Menendez substitute and a rejection of 
the Republican partisan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of H.R. 10 and support for the 
substitute amendment so we can be in sync with the bipartisan vote in 
the Senate and the bipartisan recommendations before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my friends on the other side 
in the committee for working cordially with us to improve this 
legislation. I know we have some disagreements.
  I want to take up just a minute to correct what I think is 
misinformation about this legislation, namely, that some of the 
sections of this are not within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's 
report. I want to walk through the provisions that were added at the 
request of our committee. All of these initiatives were things that the 
committee had been working on to make our country safer prior to the 
release of the report, but they can also be traced to report language.
  Our language on identity security, for example, is identified as an 
urgent need on page 309 of the report, where it says, ``The Federal 
Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates 
and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in 
identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry 
points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, 
sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that 
people are who they say they are and to check whether they are 
terrorists.''
  Our language on appointments reform is in direct response to a 
finding in the report on page 422: ``Since a catastrophic event could 
occur with little or no notice, we should minimize as much as possible 
the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of 
administrations by accelerating the process for national security 
appointments.''
  Our security clearance language is based both on work that we have 
been doing in the committee and the commission's report which said on 
page 422 that the Federal Government needs uniform application 
investigation in adjudication procedures, a single database to store 
clearance information, and an expedited clearing process for 
Presidential transition team personnel.
  Our language to revitalize the FBI workforce responds to a finding in 
the report on page 425, where it says ``a specialized and integrated 
national security workforce should be established at the FBI consisting 
of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are 
recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure a deep expertise 
in intelligence and national security.''
  And our language on information-sharing and security addresses the 
commission's finding on page 400 that we need to unify the many 
participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a 
network-based information-sharing system that transcends traditional 
governmental boundaries.
  As you can see, Mr. Chairman, all of these provisions that were 
marked up by our committees and included in the version on H.R. 10 
today are direct responses to problems or weaknesses identified by the 
9/11 Commission.
  I take exception to Members who think the other body had thorough 
knowledge and exhausted all of the ideas on this.
  We look to a good conference where we can iron out some of these, but 
more importantly I think we thoroughly address some of the concerns 
raised by the commission. At a time when the terrorists are moving 
dollars electronically and communicating in nanoseconds, we have to 
give the executive branch a rapid response for additional 
reorganization changes as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10 and reject the Menendez 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for general debate for the Committee on 
Government Reform has expired.
  The Chair recognizes from the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 15 minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10. On September 11, 2001, 
foreign terrorists attacked the United States without provocation in a 
failed effort to crush our spirit and our resolve.
  In the last 3 years Congress has taken bold bipartisan steps to 
strengthen the ability of the law enforcement intelligence community to 
protect the American people against future terrorist attacks. The 
Committee on the Judiciary has played a central role in addressing 
vulnerabilities that the terrorists exploited on 9/11.
  Bipartisan passage of the PATRIOT Act, the Barbara Jordan Immigration 
Reform and Accountability Act, the Homeland Security Act, and other 
legislation have made America safer; but there is still much more work 
to be done.
  In November of 2002 President Bush created the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission. I supported the President's creation of this independent 
commission, and I am pleased that this bill implements and addresses 
its recommendations and findings. H.R. 10 provides specific legislative 
substance to those recommendations. First, the creation of the National 
Intelligence Director, then the establishment of a National 
counterterrorism Center in title I are reforms that will ensure that 
the wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement is 
never again exploited by terrorists. In addition, section 1112 codifies 
the laudable efforts of the FBI to better assist and thwart terrorist 
attacks before they occur.
  The Judiciary sections in title II enhance penalties for terrorism 
hoaxes; increase penalties for supporting, financing, or cooperating 
with terrorist organizations; expand the scope of laws that prohibit 
the shipments or use of weapons of mass destruction; provide additional 
funding to combat terrorist financing; and enhance the use of 
biometrics to reduce terrorist threats against air travel.
  Several 9/11 hijackers either should not have been admitted to the 
United States or violated the terms of their visas. Title III of the 
legislation contains important provisions to enhance border security 
and reduce opportunities for terrorists who enter and stay in the 
United States. As the 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel declared, 
``The challenge for national security in an age of terrorism is to 
prevent the people who may pose overwhelming risk from entering the 
United States undetected.''
  The Judiciary sections of title III require Americans returning from 
most parts of the Western Hemisphere to possess passports; require 
Canadians seeking entry into the United States to present a passport or 
other secure identification; authorize additional immigration agents 
and investigators; reduce the risk of identity and document fraud; 
provide for the expedited removal of illegal aliens; limit asylum abuse 
by terrorists; and streamline the removal of terrorists and other 
criminal aliens. These provisions reflect both commission 
recommendations and

[[Page H8686]]

legislation that was pending in the House.
  Finally, I am pleased that this legislation safeguards the privacy 
and civil liberties of all Americans. These provisions establish a 
privacy officer in the office of the NID; require Federal agencies to 
prepare a privacy impact analysis during rulemaking process; and direct 
the head of each Federal agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism 
functions to appoint a chief privacy officer.

                              {time}  1700

  The bill reflects careful, thoughtful and principled consideration of 
the 9/11 Commission's bipartisan recommendations and staff report. 
Unlike some other proposals, this legislation does not merely 
transcribe sometimes vague proposals. Rather, it does the hard work of 
implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations with the legislative 
clarity and depth they deserve.
  H.R. 10 also received the full committee deliberation that the House 
committee process provides. The committee process greatly enhanced the 
quality of this legislation.
  America has so far been spared another large-scale attack within our 
border since 9/11. Yet the terror in Beslan, Russia, just weeks ago 
chillingly reminds us that the global threat of terrorism has not 
receded nor has the need for vigilance and foresight.
  While much has already been done, much remains to be done. Passage of 
H.R. 10 will make America safer still, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  I am also happy to put in the Record, a letter dated October 7, 2004, 
from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America that states, ``we strongly 
support H.R. 10 and oppose all the alternatives that have been 
proposed. The reason is simple: H.R. 10 is the only bill that addresses 
the recommendations on pages 385-390 of the 9/11 Commission's report.'' 
I would include this letter in the Record at this point.

                           9/11 Families for a Secure America,

                              New York, New York, October 7, 2004.
       Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Over the past 
     few weeks, several articles in the press and statements from 
     individuals have implied falsely that the families of victims 
     of the September 11, 2001, attacks support alternatives to 
     H.R. 10. Our organization, 9/11 Families for a Secure 
     America, represents hundreds of families of those murdered on 
     9/11, and we strongly support H.R. 10 and oppose all the 
     alternatives that have been proposed. The reason is simple: 
     H.R. 10 is the only bill that addresses the recommendations 
     on pages 385-90 of the 9/11 Commission's report.
       Family members of 9/11 victims worked long and hard to have 
     an independent commission appointed to investigate the 
     attacks. Now that the Commission has completed its task and 
     presented Congress with its recommendations, we believe that 
     Congress must address all of the 41 recommendations, 
     including those relating to immigration policy. We will be 
     satisfied with nothing less.
       All of the 9/11 family members with whom we have been in 
     contact agree that immigration reform is a key component of 
     the implementation of the Commission's recommendations. 
     Sadly, some of our elected officials have misled 9/11 
     families by convincing them that no legislation will pass 
     this year if we insist that immigration reform be part of it, 
     because immigration is simply ``too controversial.'' We are 
     appalled that any public official would suggest that national 
     security is ``too controversial'' to be addressed.
       We applaud the House Leadership for making security their 
     top priority and we strongly urge all Members of the House to 
     support H.R. 10. We have read the immigration provisions in 
     H.R. 10, and we have compared them to the Commission's 
     recommendations. The provisions some have labeled 
     ``extraneous and unrelated'' are, in fact, clearly and 
     directly related to the Commission's findings and to 
     preventing terrorist attacks in this country. The simple fact 
     is that if the 9/11 terrorists have not been able to enter 
     the United States and operate freely in our country--to 
     obtain driver's licenses (over 60 licenses for 19 hijackers), 
     open bank accounts, rent homes and cars, and board 
     airplanes--they would not have been able to murder our loved 
     ones. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical; but more 
     importantly, it is an invitation to future terrorist attacks.
       Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the 
     last three years that they would honor our loved ones who 
     were murdered by implementing the reforms needed to ensure 
     that Americans will never again face the same horror we live 
     with every day. We ask you to stand by your promise and pass 
     H.R. 10, rather than dishonoring us and our loved ones to 
     protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart 
     our families on September 11, 2001.


                      9/11 FSA Board of Directors

       Peter & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age 23.
       Will Sekzer, Detective Sgt (ret'd) NYPD, Sunnyside, NY, 
     Father of Jason, age 31.
       Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart.
       Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph.
       Joan Molinaro, Staten Island, NY, Mother of Firefighter 
     Carl Molinaro.
       Bruce DeCell, Staten Island, NY, Father in law of Mark 
     Petrocelli, age 28.
       Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Det. Sgt. NYPD, Ret'd), 
     Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard.
       Grace Godshalk, Yardley, PA, Mother of William R. Godshalk, 
     age 35.
       April D. Gallop, Virginia, Pentagon Survivor.
       Lynn Faulkner, Ohio, Husband of Wendy Faulkner.
       Colette Lafuente, Poughkeepsie, NY, Wife of Juan LaFuente, 
     WTC visitor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes on 
behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
distinguished ranking member, who I am looking to join us soon, of the 
full Committee on the Judiciary. We did work together. In fact, as our 
colleagues in America are seeing, we worked together with any number of 
committees that will be on the floor today and the very fact that we 
worked together with so many committees, it looks as if we would have 
been able to reach maybe a very easy consensus, but it appears that we 
did not.
  Allow me just to offer, as I begin, the words of two of the 9/11 
family members, Donald W. Goodrich and Sally Goodrich, in a 
conversation this morning, words that were offered to me as written by 
James Joyce seem to be particularly relevant to this debate, and it is 
particularly relevant based on all of the work and all of the pain and 
all of the adversity that the 9/11 families have gone through. James 
Joyce said, it is the now, the here through which all future plunges to 
the past.
  I guess what I would say to my colleagues though we have the 
responsibility of securing the homeland, we also have the 
responsibility of a concise, consensus method and format in which to 
take that journey. I believe the Shays-Maloney legislation, conforming 
to the Collins-McCain-Lieberman proposal, meets that standard and that 
test.
  In our work of H.R. 10, we have a duty to take into account the 
families that will be affected. We have in this august body the duty to 
take into account all American families, and as I have said over and 
over again, we have a responsibility to take into account that the 
government failed the American people.
  So I wish that we would have come to the floor with this single bill, 
but yet we have 50 extraneous provisions. Let me just list a few as I 
close: giving the President fast track authority to reorganize the 
intelligence agencies; undermining the reforms recommended by the 9/11 
Commission; no budgetary authority to the new intelligence director, 
giving the President authority to bypass Senate confirmation of the 
director of CIA and other key intelligence and defense officials, 
weakening congressional oversight; giving Federal law enforcement 
officials new authority to deport foreign nationals, revoke visas and 
deny asylum without judicial review, uncalled for by the 9/11 
Commission, maybe valid issues to consider later but certainly holding 
up this legislation; creation of new national databases of driver's 
licenses, birth certificates and criminal histories, raising civil 
liberties and privacy concerns; and, of course, expanding a grand jury 
without oversight.
  I thank the distinguished chairman, and I hope that we will pass the 
substitute of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), that 
incorporates the 9/11 Commission report and fixes our broken national 
intelligence system.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), my colleague.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.

[[Page H8687]]

  Mr. Chairman, much of the attention on this bill has been focused on 
intelligence reforms, rightly so because they are absolutely necessary, 
but I would argue that the provisions under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Judiciary are every bit as important and every bit as 
urgent.
  A few folks have tried to argue here that somehow these are 
extraneous. They are wrong. These provisions strike at the support 
network that makes a terrorist operation possible. They give us the 
tools to prevent the movement of those who would hide and move in the 
shadows, who offer support to terrorism, who provide training, 
logistical information, transportation and so on. Those who provide 
material support to terrorists are, in many ways, as dangerous as the 
evil figure who pulls the trigger.
  If we attack and remove those who provide such support, we yank at 
the links in the chain. We break those links, we break the chain of 
destruction. These are essential provisions to make this Nation safer. 
They are an essential part of the war on terrorism.
  I urge my colleagues to support the work of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I control the 
time on the minority side for the purpose of yielding time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 
her brilliant opening statement.
  This measure before us today could be called, A Tale of Two Bills. 
One is our substitute, that reflects both the spirit and the substance 
of the 9/11 Commission's work, and like the Commission itself, it is 
bipartisan, a theme that we continue to underscore even in the closing 
days of the 108th Congress. We are supported by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
and Senators McCain, Collins and Lieberman. Yesterday, in the other 
body, this measure that we will bring forward here this evening passed 
the other body by a vote of 96 to 2. In substance, it reflects exactly 
what the 9/11 Commission recommendations contained, and it was endorsed 
by the commission and by the September 11 families.
  On the other hand, we have before us a bill that was cobbled together 
haphazardly, with only the input of one party. It fails to implement 
many of the Commission's recommendations, and therein lies our 
grievance, and contains provisions that the Commission, after months of 
study, did not ask for at all.
  But the main omission is that the 
9/11 Commission recommended, at a time of increased and consolidated 
government authority, there should be a board within the executive 
branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the 
commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties. Why is 
there no civil liberties board in the majority bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
  September 11, 2001, changed our world. It changed the way in which we 
must deal with terrorism and the way in which we, as a country, must 
protect ourselves.
  Since then, Congress and the administration have taken steps to help 
better protect our Nation at home and abroad. We have provided law 
enforcement with enhanced investigative tools and improved our ability 
to coordinate activities designed to protect against the future threat 
of terrorism.
  Yet these actions are not enough to guarantee our Nation's security 
or freedom. The 9/11 Commission report and recommendations showed us 
that security and freedom can only be accomplished through continued 
vigilance and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.
  But these broad antiterrorism efforts do not have to come at the 
price of our rights here at home. The joint hearing held by the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution reaffirmed that ignoring important civil liberties 
will not only erode our freedoms but would undermine legitimate efforts 
to increase our security here at home.
  The directives set out in H.R. 10, requiring Federal agencies to 
consider, for example, the impact that proposed and final rules have on 
an individual's privacy and establishing chief privacy officers within 
agencies that conduct law enforcement and antiterrorism activities, and 
establishing a civil liberties protection officer within the Office of 
the National Intelligence Director and a Civil Liberties Protection 
Board, ensures that effective antiterrorism measures do not come at the 
price of our constitutional principles.
  I am confident that both Houses will come together on this issue to 
ensure that we continue to improve our intelligence capabilities, 
strengthen our defenses, and stay one step ahead of the terrorists.
  I want to again thank and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Congressman Sensenbrenner), the Committee on the Judiciary's chair, 
for his leadership on these issues.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations. This bill is John Ashcroft's wish list.
  Ground Zero is in my district, and I understand the grave danger and 
harsh reality of terrorism. It is absolutely imperative that we 
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and strengthen 
our security and win the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, House 
Republicans would rather play partisan political games on the eve of 
the election.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security grants be 
distributed based on risk, but this bill contains a political pork 
barrel funding formula that directs funds away from key targets like 
New York and Washington, D.C.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that we strengthen 
counterproliferation efforts to prevent al Qaeda from getting nuclear 
weapons. This bill ignores that recommendation and does little to 
prevent the terrorists from exploding atomic bombs in our cities.
  This bill even fails to establish a strong, independent National 
Intelligence, by not providing that office with sufficient authority 
over the budget and personnel of other intelligence agencies.
  House Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag and 
in 9/11 to hide the fact that they are loading up this bill with 
questionable provisions that will not make us safer but will undermine 
our civil liberties. For example, this bill would permit people to be 
deported to countries that engage in torture. This will not stop 
terrorists from entering the United States. It would not have stopped 
the 9/11 terrorists. If we do have suspected terrorists among us, we 
should not deport them. We should charge them, interrogate them and 
convict them.
  This bill includes egregious provisions that would expand the secret 
surveillance powers of the Federal Government and relax grand jury 
secrecy requirements while depriving people of their constitutionally 
protected right to due process and to the writ of habeas corpus. It 
would give the Federal Government new authority to revoke visas and 
deny asylum without judicial review.
  This legislation is a betrayal of the families and the hard and 
thorough work of the 9/11 Commission. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean 
and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton have asked the House Republicans to 
remove extraneous provisions and pass a clean bill. The New York Times, 
The Washington Post, and Miami Herald, to name a few, call this bill a 
``political sideshow'' and ``election-year posturing.'' They see this 
bill for what it is, a step in the wrong direction that in many cases 
does the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended.

[[Page H8688]]

  The House Republicans should stop playing politics with the war on 
terrorism and start protecting the American people. As those of us from 
New York know all too well, we must do everything we can to prevent 
another September 11. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation 
and pass a bill that will actually make us safer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time to talk on this most important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill should have been voted on and passed a long 
time ago, but the President and the Republican leadership have simply 
dragged their feet. We must not forget that Republicans opposed the 
creation of the 
9/11 Commission. Now, House Republicans are pushing a bill that does 
not make all the necessary reforms that will help ensure the safety of 
this Nation.
  The 9/11 Commission has done outstanding work. It spent months 
interviewing members of the intelligence community, hearing testimony 
and reviewing documents. After all that, the Commission unanimously 
approved its report and the recommendations included in it. Most 
importantly, the families of those who lost loved ones on September 11 
have endorsed the Commission's report. Unfortunately, the House 
Republicans continue to delay and to refuse to embrace the Commission's 
work.
  I find it appalling that the Republican leadership thinks it has a 
monopoly on the wisdom needed to make our country safe. I urge my 
colleagues to support a bill that incorporates the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Much has been mentioned on this floor about what has been left out of 
this report and things put in that were extraneous. Well, I do not know 
how those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can support this bill 
when so much of the work we included in the bill was stripped out of 
it.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they visited New 
York, were amazed and awestruck about the level of preparedness we in 
New York had, and I think even the Speaker said that we need to do more 
for New York. In the September 11 report, they said we need to do more. 
In our committee we included a provision to fund the anti-terrorism 
cops. Stripped out in this bill on the floor. We included a provision 
to allow all localities to make retroactive application for funds. 
Stripped out in this bill. We certainly did not include any language to 
have a minimum guaranty for cities like New York, to make sure if the 
list grows too long, they still have the basic amount they need.
  What we did manage to do is do the opposite of what the September 11 
Commission recommended, which was to have a minimum guaranty for all 
States irrespective of their needs. I just hope my colleagues remember 
that when the agriculture bill comes on the floor and those of us from 
Brooklyn and Queens and Manhattan come and we say we want a minimum 
guaranty of wheat subsidies or corn subsidies.
  But I will tell my colleagues something that certainly did get 
included in the bill, is a provision on page 395 of the bill, saying 
``it is the sense of Congress we should have a more robust dialogue 
between the government of the United States and the government of Saudi 
Arabia in order to provide a reevaluation and improvements to the 
relationship by both sides.'' What is it with the love affair that you 
have with the Saudi Arabians?
  The problems with our relationship on both sides? Have we jacked up 
their gas prices? Did we not be thankful to them when they defended our 
country? Did we send 15 of 19 bombers to their country?
  Why do you keep doing this, every time we stand up in this House and 
say, enough with the Saudis, you stick language like this back in. What 
is with the love affair of President Bush and your party with the Saudi 
Arabian government? They are not our allies. They have not behaved like 
our allies. Yet, in the September 11 report, in the ultimate sign of 
contempt for the victims, you are laying down and prostrate at the feet 
of the Saudi Arabians. It is a shame.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 10. This legislation includes 
important immigration provisions that are vital to improving homeland 
security. The expansion of expedited removal is particularly important 
to me because it is a provision I originally authored in the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996.
  Back in the mid 1990s, thousands of aliens arrived at our airports 
without valid documents and then made fraudulent asylum claims. They 
knew they would be released into the community pending their asylum 
hearing, and few were ever heard from again. We created expedited 
removal to allow us to immediately return an alien to their country of 
origin if they showed up in the U.S. without proper documentation. The 
result is that we no longer have a serious problem of aliens arriving 
with false documents at airports.
  The situation is much different on our land borders. Every day 
thousands of aliens enter the country illegally, and because we do not 
have adequate detention space, they are released pending a hearing. A 
high percentage of these aliens, and this should not surprise anybody, 
are not from Mexico, they are from every other country you can imagine.
  The Department of Homeland Security recently reported that aliens 
have been apprehended on our borders from such countries as Iran, Saudi 
Arabia, and Syria. The 1996 Act created authority for the 
administration to use expedited removal for any alien in the country 
illegally, but until recently, they have not made use of that 
authority. The 9/11 Commissioners expressly pointed out how dangerous 
it is not to have expedited removal at our land borders. Potential 
terrorists will attempt to cross our land borders, and we should help 
the administration stop these terrorists from entering the United 
States. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that section 3006 of this 
legislation would expand expedited removal to our land borders.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former U.S. attorney and a 
distinguished member of the California bar.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the Menendez substitute, a substitute 
that closely adheres to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and 
most importantly, from my point of view, incorporates the 9/11 
Commission's recommendation that we strengthen our efforts to prevent 
the proliferation of nuclear material, technology, and expertise around 
the world.
  In the Committee on the Judiciary, I offered a series of amendments, 
some which adopt the language now found in the Menendez substitute, 
which was in McCain-Lieberman, to strengthen our nonproliferation 
efforts; others that identify and prioritize the sites of highly-
enriched uranium around the world, those amendments were adopted. I 
want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support in 
committee. They were also supported by the Chair of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  But for some reason, Mr. Chairman, they were stripped out of this 
bill prior to its arrival on the floor, leaving this base bill far 
weaker than the substitute when it comes to the number one danger 
facing this country, as the President and Senator Kerry outlined in the 
debates, the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Menendez substitute 
addresses this problem, and I support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page H8689]]

  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if you just read the title of this bill, 
you might think the House is finally acting on the 9/11 Commission. But 
if you read the bill's content, you find, sadly, no.
  Out of the 41 recommendations by the Commission, only 11 are in the 
bill, 15 are incomplete, 15 were totally ignored, and there are 50 
extraneous poison pill provisions.
  The Menendez substitute is the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This 
bill is not. And I hope that we will support the 9/11 families and the 
Commission by adopting the Menendez substitute instead of this flawed 
measure.
  The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, issued its report on 
July 22nd. A full 78 days have passed since this important document was 
published. Today we are voting on a bill entitled, ``9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act.'' If you just read the title of the 
bill, you might think the House is finally acting on the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Yet, upon closer examination of the bill, you realize the title has 
little to do with the bill's content.
  There are several provisions in this bill that have absolutely 
nothing to do with the recommendations by the bipartisan, independent 
9/11 Commission. There are others that simply miss the point made by 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Worse yet, there are several 
Commission recommendations that are totally ignored.
  Out of 41 recommendations made by the 
9/11 Commission, only 11 are addressed in the bill, 15 are incomplete, 
and 15 were totally ignored. Over 50 extraneous ``poison pill'' 
provisions that were not recommended by the Commission are included.
  In H.R. 10, the Republican leadership simply ignored some of the most 
important recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10:
  Fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority 
over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies; fails to 
strengthen U.S. efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons; fails to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate 
screening systems; fails to mandate and fund the use of explosive 
detection devices for airline safety; fails to provide radio spectrum 
for first responders to communicate during emergencies; fails to 
provide additional security assistance to Afghanistan or economic 
development assistance to Arab and Muslim countries.

  H.R. 10 contains several provisions that undermine Commission 
recommendations by weakening Congressional oversight and giving the 
President too much power in reorganizing the intelligence agencies. The 
bill includes controversial immigration and tort provisions that had 
nothing to do with 9/11 Commission recommendations. They will delay or 
ultimately frustrate enactment of 9/11 Commission recommendations.
  The bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission should not be exploited 
today to enact the majority party's agenda that has very little to do 
with the Commission's recommendations.
  It is time for the Republican leadership in this House to take the 9/
11 Commission seriously. We should pass a bill that truly implements 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations, such as the bill that was passed 
by the Senate yesterday, or the Menendez amendment in the House today. 
Unlike H.R. 10, the Senate bill was worked out in a bipartisan fashion 
with a vote of 96-2, and has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission.
  More importantly, the Menendez substitute has the strong support of 
the 9/11 families, who know too well the tremendous suffering that 
comes with a terrorist attack.
  The republican leadership in this House is ignoring the families of 
the 9/11 victims, the 
9/11 Commission, and a strong agreement reached in the Senate in a 
bipartisan fashion. It is time for the Republicans to stop playing 
politics with our Nation's security. Let's vote against H.R. 10 and 
instead for a bill that represents a consensus across the political 
spectrum.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watts), the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, to close for our side.
  (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, numerous groups have found that, 
along with the imperative to enhance the flow of information necessary 
to detect, combat, and prevent future acts of terrorism, comes a 
parallel and increased imperative to protect the privacy and civil 
liberties of individuals. These groups believe that balancing security 
and liberty is not only possible but fundamental to the fight against 
terror. In other words, they believe that individuals should have 
personal rights and privacy even after 9/11.
  The report of the 9/11 Commission was equally clear on this point, 
stating that, ``The shift of power and authority to the government 
calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the 
precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.''
  Chief among the Commission's recommendations was the recommendation 
that an entity within the executive branch be established ``to look 
across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves 
to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' That 
was a clear unequivocal recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  I find it astonishing that this bill that we are considering today 
completely ignores this recommendation and fails to create a board to 
protect the civil liberties of the American people. Refusing to 
establish a civil liberties watchdog is an insult to the unanimous 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission report and an affront to the values we 
cherish.
  Further, by refusing to establish a civil liberties watchdog in this 
bill, the bill is also inconsistent with the bill reported favorably 
from the Committee on the Judiciary and it is inconsistent with the 
Senate Bill.
  Last month, at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, two 
members of the Commission testified that the board should have quite 
robust powers, and that the board should be independent and should be 
powerful enough so that it gets listened to.
  Consistent with these views of the distinguished members of the 9/11 
Commission, during the markup of H.R. 10 in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I offered an amendment to create a strong bipartisan board 
to supervise civil liberties compliance. After substantial debate about 
one aspect of the amendment, whether the board should have subpoena 
power, the Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill that included a 
version of my amendment. But it did include a civil liberties board.
  It is, therefore, unbelievable that this bill, while giving the 
government even broader powers that may affect the freedoms of our 
citizens, flatly rejects the obligations to protect those freedoms from 
abuse. The American people should not be asked to sacrifice the very 
liberties they are defending against terrorist attack without the 
benefit of a board with genuine oversight authority. I request my 
colleagues to reject this bill and support the substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate since it began 
several hours ago. And those who are promoting the Menendez substitute, 
time and time again, criticize the base bill, H.R. 10, for extraneous 
and unrelated issues. Mr. Chairman, let me be blunt. Many of these 
extraneous and unrelated issues are designed to prevent terrorists from 
coming to our borders; or, if they get inside the United States, making 
sure that they do not game the system to be able to stay here and have 
the time to plot to do ill to America and its people and its values.
  I would like to talk about a couple of these issues. First of all, 
aliens who apply for American drivers' licenses will have to present a 
passport. We know that the driver's license is the type of ID that is 
used at airports and other transportation facilities, as well as to 
prove a person's age when they are buying alcohol or tobacco. If the 
driver's license that is issued by a State Department of Motor Vehicles 
is based on phony and unsecure identification, then that person can use 
the result of the use of the phony and unsecure identification to be 
able to do a lot of things, including hijack airplanes and get on them 
and fly those airplanes into buildings.
  We have heard a lot about some of the changes in the immigration law 
that are contained in the base bill but not in the Menendez substitute. 
Let me say that those changes in the immigration law are designed to 
get at people

[[Page H8690]]

who are criminals, and not United States citizens, and deal with them, 
like the deportation of criminal aliens and those that wish to use the 
asylum laws to game our system, like Sheikh Rahman did when he was 
plotting the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

                              {time}  1730

  There is a difference between illegal aliens who wish to game the 
system and those that overstay their visas and those people from other 
countries who wish to come here to live legally and peacefully. And 
unless we tighten up the system, it is this latter group that are going 
to end up being tarred with the sins of the former group. The 
provisions in the base H.R. 10 bill that deal with expedited removal, 
et cetera, are designed to protect legal immigrants to the United 
States so that they do not have to pay for the sins of those who wish 
to commit crimes and acts of terrorism. That is why those provisions 
ought to stay in this bill and not be stricken out during the 
amendatory process.
  The base bill is a good bill. It makes America safer than the 
Menendez substitute and the Senate-passed bill and ought to be 
approved.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time having expired for 
the Committee on the Judiciary, it is now in order to recognize the 
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for 10 minutes 
each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The final report of the 9/11 Commission made recommendations on how 
best to confront the threat of terrorism in the 21st century. Of these 
44 recommendations, one-third of them fell within the jurisdiction of 
the House Committee on International Relations.
  H.R. 10 will prepare us to better respond to this threat using all 
available tools as recommended by the commission, including diplomacy, 
public diplomacy, international cooperation, foreign aid, sanctions, 
covert action, security enhancement, and military force when necessary. 
H.R. 10 goes beyond the mere urging of the issuance of a report or a 
``sense of Congress'' as many of the other legislative initiatives 
propose.
  It offers practical, focused, and concrete initiatives that take 
effect immediately. Although some foreign policy issues are addressed 
in the Menendez substitute, it mainly addresses only intelligence 
reform efforts while H.R. 10 delves more deeply into foreign policy and 
diplomacy efforts which, I might add, were developed in a bipartisan 
fashion with my good friend from California, the ranking member of the 
House Committee on International Relations.
  For example, I refer Members to the response to the commission's 
recommendation to define and defend our ideals abroad. H.R. 10 places 
the emphasis on training, language proficiency, and a creative 
recruitment process to fulfill our various public diplomacy needs. The 
Menendez substitute has no comparable provisions.
  The commission remarked on the need to develop a comprehensive 
coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism. The Menendez substitute 
offers no comparable response, while H.R. 10 has a series of provisions 
to strengthen the capabilities of the State Department to engage in 
multilateral diplomacy and to build working relationships with like-
minded democratic nations.
  Another difference between H.R. 10 and the Menendez substitute is how 
we propose to deal with countries that provide sanctuary for 
terrorists. H.R. 10 requires the President to develop a strategy to 
eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and, most importantly, requires that 
U.S. exports be regulated to countries that act as sanctuaries. The 
Menendez substitute includes no such provision.
  Another example of how H.R. 10 translates the broad recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission into concrete action is the creation of a 
terrorism interdiction initiative modeled after the successful 
proliferation security initiative, and the establishment of regional 
counterterrorism centers and terrorism prevention teams. The Menendez 
substitute contains no such provisions.
  The commission could not have been clearer that targeting travel is 
at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting money. 
H.R. 10 includes specific language which expands two important programs 
that screen passengers and inspect passports and visas of U.S.-bound 
visitors prior to their departure at foreign airports. The Menendez 
substitute has no comparable provisions.
  H.R. 10 also increases staffing and improves training of our consular 
officers who are the first line of defense in screening out potential 
terrorists. In addition, it increases penalties for convictions 
involving fraudulent government-issued visas and passports. Again, the 
Menendez substitute is silent.
  In line with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, H.R. 10 
explicitly requires the State Department to make denial of terrorist 
mobility a top priority of the Department's chief counterterrorist 
official. No similar provision exists in the other legislative option.
  With regard to Afghanistan, which is just 2 days away from its first 
national elections, the provisions included in H.R. 10 are far superior 
to those in the Menendez substitute. The commission concluded that the 
allocation of reconstruction funds in Afghanistan was too 
compartmentalized. We have solved that problem with the appointment of 
a coordinator tasked with broad authority. H.R. 10 also restates our 
commitment to the rule of law and vital education programs in 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, although the Menendez substitute represents a serious 
effort to address a few of the problems posed by terrorists to the 
security of this country, its unspoken premise is that difficult 
problems can be easily solved by the simple act of throwing money at 
them. In the final analysis, we cannot substitute money for careful 
thought, nor can we buy our way out of the difficult task of crafting 
wise and effective policies. H.R. 10 does not just throw money at the 
problem, it defines priorities by which to eliminate fragmented 
management and operations structures, redirecting resources to where 
they are most necessary in order to build intelligence capabilities to 
counter terrorist threats through the best possible means, exactly as 
the commission recommended. It is time to enact these concrete 
solutions to confront the threat head-on.
  The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 
criticized the United States Government on is fragmented management and 
operations structures and questioned its ability to direct resources 
where necessary to best build intelligence capabilities to counter 
terrorist threats or to address broader issues of national security 
challenges. The final report issued 44 recommendations on how to best 
confront this threat. Of these 44 recommendations, one-third of them, 
or fifteen, fall within the jurisdiction of the House International 
Relations Committee.
  In sum, these recommendations suggest that the United States use all 
tools available to respond to this threat, including: diplomacy, public 
diplomacy, international cooperation and coordination, foreign aid, 
sanctions, covert action, security enhancement and military force when 
necessary. With each of these instruments, the United States should 
focus its efforts on attacking terrorists and their organizations, 
preventing the continued growth of terrorism, and protecting against 
and preparing for future attacks.
  H.R. 10 goes beyond the mere urging of the issuance of a report or a 
``Sense of Congress,'' as many of the other legislative initiatives 
propose. It offers practical, focused and concrete initiatives that 
take effect immediately, rather than waiting for another study to 
determine whether the full recommendation of the Commission should be 
implemented. To put it simply, the authors of H.R. 10 did not stop 
reading the Commission's report halfway through, but instead, crafted 
thoughtful solutions to the tough recommendations. We took the abstract 
and made it concrete.

  Although some foreign policy issues are addressed in the Menendez 
Amendment, it mainly addresses the first ``track'' on the intelligence 
reform efforts, while H.R. 10 delves more deeply into foreign policy 
and diplomacy efforts. In fact, many of the provisions of H.R. 10 were 
developed in a bipartisan fashion, gaining the expertise and guidance 
of my dear friend from California, the Ranking Member of

[[Page H8691]]

the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos.
  For example, I refer you to the response to the Commission's 
recommendation to ``define and defend our ideals abroad,'' or conduct 
better public diplomacy. H.R. 10 places the emphasis on training and 
the creative recruitment process to find the skill-set needed, such as 
language proficiency, for the various public diplomacy needs. The 
Menendez Substitute does not offer anything more than reporting 
requirement or non-binding ``Sense of Congress'' language. H.R. 10 
directs the State Department, in coordination with other government 
agencies involved with communications or public outreach, to 
collaborate on a strategic plan and conduct annual assessments to 
measure progress.
  Expanded broadcasting to the Muslim world is too new to fairly 
evaluate. Sufficient time is necessary to determine the appropriate 
course corrections, if any. However, I recognize that professional, 
contemporary communications are ``a must'' as we compete against 
satellite networks feeding misleading news to the region.
  The Commission remarked on the need to engage other nations in 
developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist 
terrorism. The Menendez Substitute offers virtually no response to this 
suggestion, while H.R. 10 has a series of provisions designated to 
specifically strengthen the capabilities of the State Department in the 
multilateral arena. It addresses the systemic weaknesses of the 
Department on the multilateral front by increasing training and 
education. H.R. 10 also addresses the importance of building working 
relationships with like-minded democratic nations through the work of 
such organizations as the Community of Democracies and through the 
establishment of a democracy caucus at the United Nations.
  Another difference between H.R. 10 and the Menendez Substitute is how 
we propose to deal with countries that provide sanctuary to terrorists. 
H.R. 10 provides a clear policy statement on terrorist sanctuaries, 
requires the President to develop a strategy to address and eliminate 
terrorist sanctuaries and, most importantly, requires that U.S. exports 
be regulated to countries that are found to be terrorist sanctuaries. 
This provision puts meat on the bones. It directly implements the 9-11 
Commission charge to ``use all elements of national power'' by 
saying that if a foreign country provides sanctuary for terrorists, 
then we will condition the trade of our goods and services with that 
country. There is no such provision in the Menendez Substitute. It 
contains only identical findings, non-binding policy language and a 
one-time report.

  Another example of how H.R. 10 translates the broad recommendations 
of the 9-11 Commission into concrete actions is the creation of a 
Terrorism Interdiction Initiative, modeled after the successful 
Proliferation Security Initiative. The 9-11 Commission calls for 
expanded collaboration with other governments on terrorism. Other 
legislative initiatives only have ``Sense of Congress'' provisions 
suggesting the establishment of a contact group. By contrast, H.R. 10 
mandates the negotiation, on a bilateral basis, of international 
agreements to secure global support, cooperation and coordination, and 
to maximize and integrate resources for attacking terrorists and 
terrorist organizations. It establishes specific requirements for these 
agreements under the Terrorism Interdiction Initiative which include 
``Interdiction Principles;'' establishment of Regional Counter-
terrorism Centers; and establishment of Terrorism Prevention Teams to 
address current and emerging terrorist threats.
  On the important question of curtailing terrorist travel, the 
Menendez Substitute falls short of the provisions contained in H.R. 10. 
The Commission could not have been clearer that ``targeting travel is 
at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting money.'' 
H.R. 10 includes specific language which expands two important programs 
that screen passengers and inspect passports and visas of U.S.-bound 
visitors prior to their departure from foreign airports. This keeps 
terrorists away from our shores, and perhaps most importantly, it 
prevents those who want to do us harm from even boarding flights headed 
for the United States. The Menendez Substitute has no comparable 
provisions.

  H.R. 10 also increases staffing and improves training of our consular 
officers who are the first line of defense in screening out potential 
terrorists. In addition, the legislation increases penalties for 
convictions involving fraudulent, government-issued visas and 
passports, Again, the Menendez Substitute does not address these 
problems.
  In line with the 9-11 Commission's recommendation, H.R. 10 explicitly 
requires the State Department to make denial of terrorist mobility a 
top priority of the Department's chief counterterrorist official. No 
similar provision exists in other legislative options.
  With regard to Afghanistan, which I might add is just two days away 
from its first national elections, the provisions included in H.R. 10 
are far superior to the Mendendez Substitute. The Commission concluded 
that the allocation of reconstruction funds in Afghanistan was too 
compartmentalized. We have solved that problem with the appointment of 
a coordinator tasked with broad authority. H.R. 10 also restates our 
commitment to the rule of law and vital educational programs in 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, although the Mendendez Substitute represents a serious 
effort to address a few of the problems posed by terrorists to the 
security of the United States, its unspoken premise is that difficult 
problems can be easily solved by the simple act of throwing money at 
them. We have no shortage of examples of government programs were this 
approach has not only failed, but actually rendered our problems worse. 
Here, the greatest danger stems from the complacency that will result 
from our merely having increased spending while congratulating 
ourselves for having taken swift action.

  In the final analysis, we cannot substitute money for careful 
thought, nor can we buy our way out of the difficult task of crafting 
wise and effective policies. H.R. 10 doesn't just throw money at the 
problem. Instead, it defines priorities by which to eliminate 
fragmented management and operations structures, redirecting resources 
to where they are most necessary in order to build intelligence 
capabilities to counter terrorist threats through the best possible 
means--exactly as the Commission recommended. It is time to enact these 
concrete solutions to confront the threat head-on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the country is at war, and the first requirement of a 
country at war is unity. Yesterday, the other body voted 96 to 2 to 
approve legislation that the 9/11 Commission's chairman, former 
Republican Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean, hailed as ``a dream come 
true.'' Afterward, one of the Republican authors of that legislation, a 
universally respected and admired war hero, said, ``This is one of my 
prouder moments because of the way this entire body has acted in the 
national interest.''
  Mr. Chairman, what will we in what is known as the people's House be 
able to say of our debate today when it is done? That we pulled 
together in the same spirit that all Americans showed when we came 
together after September 11? Or that we deepened divisions by 
subjecting this process to rancorous and divisive partisanship?
  Later in this debate, we will have the perfect framework to bring 
unity to our Nation that experienced such unspeakable loss of life on 
September 11, a Nation that in the heat of an election season is 
becoming divided even over things that once brought us together. The 
Menendez substitute reflects the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission which in turn have been strongly endorsed by those who lost 
the most on that tragic autumn day, the families of the victims of 
September 11.
  The Menendez substitute, Mr. Chairman, minutely follows the unanimous 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and of the 
legislation approved yesterday by the other body, let me repeat, by a 
vote of 96 to 2. The most conservative Republicans and the most liberal 
Democrats saw fit to vote for that legislation which is the Menendez 
substitute. The two dissenters raised no substantive concerns 
whatsoever. They simply believed that the bill was moving too fast 
through the legislative process.
  Mr. Chairman, if there are no major substantive problems with the 
legislation approved by the other body, why do we need to reinvent the 
wheel? Or perhaps more aptly, spin our wheels on legislation with 
divisive additional measures and legislation that does not reflect the 
9/11 Commission's report?
  The American people do not wish to see further divisions in 
Washington. Troops are bleeding in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens of 
thousands of military families have been affected dramatically, but the 
bill before the House only exacerbates divisions that are fueled by the 
fervor of a national election. We may disagree on the virtues and 
shortcomings of the two major proposals, but we can all agree that 
divisiveness and partisanship are contrary to our national interest in 
the autumn of 2004. Soon we will hear some severe criticism of the 
Menendez substitute, but I ask my friends across the aisle, how can the 
Menendez legislation be so terrible since every single Republican 
Senator voted for it?

[[Page H8692]]

  While I strongly support the Menendez substitute, I would be remiss 
if I did not acknowledge the bipartisan spirit in which the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my 
dear friend from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), approached the provisions of this 
legislation which are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
International Relations. Chairman Hyde took into account Democratic 
views in crafting title IV of this bill; and I support many of its 
provisions, although some measures the Democrats had proposed were left 
out.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at the hinge of history. The 9/11 Commission has 
spoken and the Nation is waiting. Now Congress must move assertively to 
further protect our Nation's security by enacting legislation in line 
with the commission's findings and what the American people want: well-
laid plans for our security that do not sacrifice our solidarity.
  Mr. Chairman, in a short while we will have the opportunity to vote 
for a bill strongly endorsed by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the 
families of the victims, and 96 Members of the other body, and to speed 
this critically important bill to the President's desk. The other 
choice is a partisan bill that does not embody all of the 9/11 
Commission's intentions. I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
Menendez substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members that it is 
not in order to cast reflections on the actions of the Senate or its 
Members, individually or collectively.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I intend to offer amendments 
to strike two provisions of H.R. 10, section 3006 and 3007, which, if 
enacted, would radically alter U.S. immigration law and put true 
refugees, bona fide refugees, at risk of injury or harm.
  My amendments are supported by approximately 40 religious, refugee 
and human rights organizations, including the Catholic Bishops 
Conference, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, Boat 
People SOS, Refugees International, and many others.
  I want to point out to my colleagues that the Bush administration in 
its statement of administration policy, SAP, which I just received a 
few minutes ago, makes clear that the administration strongly opposes 
the overbroad expansion of expedited removal authority which is 
contained in the underlying bill. These sweeping changes that I would 
strike, Mr. Chairman, were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission nor 
have these provisions been sufficiently vetted and analyzed to fully 
understand their effect.
  What we do know is that section 3006 drastically alters and expands 
existing authority known as ``expedited removal'' and it could put 
hundreds of thousands of refugees at risk of immediate deportation.
  What we do know is that section 3007, among other things, replaces a 
clear, longstanding defined ``burden of proof'' standard for proving an 
asylum claim with a brand new unfair test that will almost certainly 
result in deportation regardless of merit.
  One might ask, what is wrong with expanding expedited removal? A lot. 
Expedited removal takes away the rights of legitimate asylum seekers to 
a fair hearing before the proper authorities.
  Tomorrow, we will take this up or perhaps later on tonight. I hope 
Members will support the amendments.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations for yielding me this time and also for 
continuing to forge bipartisan consensus on Committee on International 
Relations issues.
  Let me just say today that I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, 
which is the fundamentally flawed bill before us today, and in support 
of the Menendez substitute.
  What a shame that the Republicans decided really to take, as I say, 
the partisan low road in crafting this bill and opted to play politics 
with the single most important issue facing this Nation today, our 
homeland security. What a shame, Mr. Chairman, that the Republicans 
inserted anti-immigrant and other controversial and really extraneous 
provisions into this bill. What a shame that the Republicans ignored at 
least 16, 16 provisions of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations. And, yes, what a shame that this Republican bill is so 
weak, especially when it did not have to be.
  But I guess, really, we should not be shocked by these actions. After 
all, the White House resisted the 9/11 Commission in the first place 
and really have taken every opportunity to politicize the most 
important of issues before this House.
  Fortunately, we do have a stronger bipartisan alternative to H.R. 10. 
Fortunately, we have an alternative which respects civil liberties by 
creating a Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Fortunately, we have a bill 
which recognizes the true threat of nuclear proliferation by taking 
steps to strengthen efforts to secure nuclear materials. It is a bill 
that reflects the input of both sides of the aisle, days of 
consideration and debate and fully implements the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of 
the Democratic Caucus, the author of the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a senior member of the Committee on 
International Relations, I am shocked that the Republican bill falls 
well short of the Commission's recommendations. On four key 
international relations proposals designed to reduce the threat of 
terrorism, our Democratic amendment provides new money while the House 
Republican bill does virtually nothing. On prioritizing efforts in 
Afghanistan, reforming education in the Middle East, promoting American 
ideals abroad, encouraging economic development in the Middle East, our 
bill provides real support, and their bill does virtually nothing.
  Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute 
protects the United States by taking real action to secure the peace in 
Afghanistan, the home of the Taliban and breeding ground for bin Laden 
and al Qaeda. Our bill puts new money on the table to fight terror and 
promote democracy in Afghanistan. Their bill asks for new reports. When 
will we learn that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States, not 
Saddam Hussein?
  Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute 
recognizes that the gravest threat our Nation faces today is the 
potential for a nuclear weapon to land in the hands of terrorists. That 
is why we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons and secure the 
world's existing stockpiles. Our amendment requires a plan to do 
exactly that. It also pushes the administration to secure loose nuclear 
material in the former Soviet Union and allows for increased funding to 
deal with proliferation threats elsewhere.
  At a time when this country has secured less weapons material in the 
2 years after September 11 than in the 2 years before it, the House 
Republican bill only calls for a study.
  Vote for the Menendez substitute, which embodies the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations on international relations and nuclear 
nonproliferation. That is, in essence, the way in which we strengthen 
America.
  And I thank the distinguished ranking Democrat for his very strong 
statement and his expertise, and I only wish that we can get our 
substitute passed because it embodies his views.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) for yielding me this time.
  And I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for 
putting together a comprehensive package of reforms to reinvigorate 
U.S. diplomacy in our war against Islamist terror.
  I think that this comprehensive legislation includes many provisions 
to

[[Page H8693]]

improve our safety, including cracking down on illegal U.S. visas and 
passports, and it gets the ball rolling towards the use of biometric, 
tamper-resistant machine-readable passports. Clearly, border security 
is national security.
  I also wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment suggested by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for expedited removal. And I 
do that because an illegal alien who has been in the United States for 
less than 5 years under this proposal is subject to expedited removal 
unless he applies for asylum and shows a credible fear of persecution. 
Then he is exempted. So this bill addresses that issue.
  But what the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) would do is eliminate the expedited removal provision. The 
reason we have the provision is that, currently, many of the illegal 
aliens picked up on the border have to be released, and they have to be 
released because of lack of detention space. So they are asked to show 
up to a special hearing, and, of course, 87 percent, as we know, do not 
show up for that deportation hearing. This bill was crafted to solve 
the problem. The gentleman from New Jersey's (Chairman Smith's) 
amendment would prevent that.
  Secondly, the Ninth Circuit in California has given asylum to illegal 
aliens whose home governments believe they are terrorists on the theory 
that they are being persecuted because of the political beliefs of the 
terrorist organization. So the provision of the bill provides that if 
the alien applying for asylum is believed to be a terrorist, the alien 
has to show that a central reason is persecution for race, gender, 
political beliefs or religion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for debate has 
expired for the Committee on International Relations.
  It is now in order to recognize the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak regarding H.R. 10, 
the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.
  I realize the importance of this legislation and understand the need 
for improving our intelligence gathering and coordination. The failure 
of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to communicate has 
been demonstrated on numerous occasions. However, while there is no 
doubt that we must protect our country and our people from the threat 
of terrorism, we must also protect the viability of our economy. I want 
to stress that, the viability of our economy, and if we do not do so, 
especially in our Nation's transportation, the bad guys have won.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has worked very 
hard on a bipartisan basis for the last 3 years to develop the best 
transportation security possible. It was our committee that proposed 
and passed the first legislation to create the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA. We have improved that legislation and moved other 
bills that improved security as well. We have exercised our oversight 
jurisdiction both thoroughly and prudently and with due respect to the 
concerns of the Department of Homeland Security and other federal 
agencies.
  H.R. 10 contains new recommendations from our committee regarding 
improvements in aviation security and additional improvements in the 
area of maritime security. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure also reported recommendations regarding the funding of 
first responders.
  Recently, I personally experienced how it felt to be on TSA's no-fly 
list when I was confused with another person with the same name. This 
was not a pleasant experience, but I was able to clear up the confusion 
fairly quickly and continued on my trip. H.R. 10 includes 
recommendations from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
that will provide travelers who are misidentified by the TSA an 
opportunity to appeal.
  I have serious concerns regarding section 5027, encouraging the 
Committee on Rules to act on the recommendation regarding committee 
jurisdiction prior to the next Congress. This House should have an 
opportunity for full and fair debate on any changes to the structure of 
the standing committees or any changes to their jurisdiction. There 
should be regular order and a fair process for consideration of changes 
that could have seriously impacts on all the stakeholders and 
industries who will be affected by the way we exercise our jurisdiction 
and carry out our oversight.
  The decision regarding the rules of the House should be made at the 
beginning of the next Congress. This is not a fight about turf as some 
might claim. It is about doing the best job for legislating that we can 
for the American people and that requires both expertise and balance. 
The committee with a single focus only on security, not balanced by 
concern for the economic and other consequences, could result in posing 
unreasonable burdens on the taxpayers and our economic base.
  The current recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security eliminate the ability of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to exercise legislation or oversight jurisdiction over 
transportation security. The Select Committee on Homeland Security's 
recommendation has extremely serious consequences and deserves full 
consideration over the coming months.
  Should this bill go to conference, I strongly encourage the conferees 
and the Committee on Rules to refrain from taking action that would 
prevent a full and fair debate on the changes to the rules. As we 
legislate to protect the homeland security in all areas of our national 
life, we must look at the whole picture and find the right balance 
between security and economic stability.
  And may I respectfully suggest to the leadership of the House on both 
sides of the aisle and those that might be in the conference, and I 
will be one of them, if we, in fact, change the rules without going 
through the due process, I will vote and work against this legislation. 
Because if we disrupt our economic base, if we cannot continue the 
mission of moving our goods and people, then the bad guys have won. So 
we have to be very careful what we do. As we rush to judgment to pass a 
piece of legislation recommended by the 9/11 Commission, I will assure 
the Members that I want to study it very closely to make sure that we 
provide the security that is necessary but keep in mind the economic 
well-being of our people in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I join at the outset with our chairman, the gentleman 
from Alaska, in expressing support for reserving to the next Congress 
the issue of jurisdiction of homeland security and how the matter of 
legislative authority over these issues should be handled. The 
gentleman is absolutely correct, and we are in full agreement.
  Unfortunately, the bill we are considering, H.R. 10, implements only 
11 of the 41 recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Our 
committee actually reported stronger language and better provisions 
than are in the vehicle before us today, and, had the process provided 
for it, our committee proposals in aviation and in transit would have 
been superior to what is in the pending legislation.
  Actually the Menendez amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
superior. It implements all of the Commission recommendations and 
borrows from the other body's approach, which passed the other body 96 
to 2. We are not likely to have that kind of outcome on the House floor 
today.
  In a process where 50 items not recommended in the September 11 
Commission report are added to this bill, our side is not allowed to 
offer amendments to the Menendez substitute in which we could have made 
major improvements, including not only those recommendations of our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but many that we 
considered but have not yet acted upon.

[[Page H8694]]

  Gaps exist, and, unfortunately, the September 11 Commission did not 
deal with highway, bridge, transit, rail and port facilities. We passed 
a port facility bill. We got it enacted, but it has not been funded.
  The administration has not seen fit to put money into the port 
security requests that have come in the nature of some $2.9 billion 
requested by ports, both saltwater, fresh water and river ports in the 
United States. They are woefully inadequately funded, and yet all of us 
recall the tragedy of the USS Cole and the merchant vessel Limburg just 
2 years ago. I can envision a scenario when the same type of attack is 
made upon cruise ships or LNG tankers or chemical tankers.
  There are also threats from the 6 million containers that enter U.S. 
ports every year. We have no comprehensive means of screening 
containers. We need to do that. We need to invest maybe not the $7 
billion the Coast Guard proposed, but something in that nature, and 
this H.R. 10 document does not move us in that direction.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and ask unanimous consent that 
he be allowed to control it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10. In fact, I think 
one of the most important parts of this legislation deals with aviation 
security. We have worked very hard over the past 2 years to try to come 
up with bipartisan solutions, things that really would make a 
difference. Many of those recommendations are contained in the 9/11 
report.
  Now, the 9/11 report is not perfect. It is put together by 10 people, 
and it does have some flaws in it. I want to talk about, unfortunately, 
the adoption and anatomy of adopting one of those flaws in the Menendez 
substitute which weakens the provisions of H.R. 10.
  First of all, the Menendez substitute would strip vital provisions 
from H.R. 10. We have $60 million in mandatory funding for checkpoint 
explosive detection devices. Nothing is more important or no greater 
risk.
  Actually, there are two risks. One is someone walking through a 1950s 
metal detector technology, metal detectors we have at our airports, 
with explosives strapped to themselves, and those metal detectors will 
not detect that. We need to deploy them now. The Menendez amendment 
strips that.
  Second is biometric identification. We cannot tell today Mohammad 
Atta from Sam Hill. We need a biometric identification provision. We 
have a bipartisan provision, which the Menendez substitute drops from 
this bill.
  Another potential threat is shoulder-launched missile 
nonproliferation programs. We have worked hard in a bipartisan fashion 
to eliminate that threat, and we have a four-part, well-thought-out, 
well-reasoned approach to dealing with that threat. Again, the Menendez 
substitute weakens and destroys things that we have been working on.
  We have improvements in arming our pilots, one of the most effective 
protective measures, and secondary cockpit barriers. We paid attention 
to looking at those weaknesses. And also the Menendez substitute 
weakens international air marshal deployment.
  So, again, I rise in strong support of the provisions of H.R. 10.
  One of the things that I wanted to address tonight, and, 
unfortunately, it has even reached the presidential debates, to those 
uninformed candidates and some of my colleagues on this floor who 
continue to try to scare the traveling public to suggest that our air 
cargo carried in on a passenger aircraft is not screened and that we 
must take extreme measures and build a bureaucracy and march forward in 
different directions. As a result, they have put forward proposals that 
are not only unworkable, but would bring this Nation's economy to a 
grinding halt.
  In fact, the facts are that we have a risk-based system in place now. 
Is it flawless? No. The facts are that building a larger TSA 
bureaucracy is not going to solve the problem. In fact, it will make 
the problem worse. The facts are that scaring people and running around 
the country and saying ``the sky is falling'' is just wrong and 
irresponsible.
  Let us talk about the Menendez amendment and how it deals with 
hardened containers. Let me give you the anatomy of the development. 
Turn to page 393 of the report and see what the Commission recommended. 
Our committee has worked on these issues day and night, weekends, 
tirelessly, and our staff, since September 11, and even before that, on 
aviation security issues.
  The Commission recommends, ``The TSA should require that every 
passenger aircraft carrying cargo must deploy at least one hardened 
container to carry any suspect cargo.''
  That is not our recommendation. We met with these folks. Who in their 
right mind would allow suspect cargo on an aircraft? We have provisions 
already that do not allow ``suspect cargo'' on an aircraft. They also 
put ``one hardened container.'' What a goofy idea. ``One hardened 
container.''
  First of all, the current law that we have a definition of and we 
have used again to define what we want is ``blast resistant 
container.'' So they just copied a recommendation without actually 
having it make sense.
  Now, most of our aircraft that you fly on, a 737 that I fly on 
usually, an Airbus, regional jets that are our biggest proliferation of 
new aircraft, do not have aircraft containers. So what are we going to 
have to do, build one to put on there? They do not have containers. 
737s have a container.
  Think of how goofy this is. A 737, I am told, has 30 containers, so 
which container are we going to make blast resistant and allow 
suspicious cargo in violation of our current rules that do not even 
allow that? We are going to do ``eenie, meenie, minie, moe, in which 
one would the explosive cargo go?''
  And I am pleased that the gentle-lady from California, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, whose district includes the manufacturer of these containers, 
supported the testing proposal when it was unanimously approved by the 
Transportation Committee.
  TSA is currently drafting new, comprehensive standards for air cargo 
security, which should be finalized in the next several weeks. TSA has 
in place risk based, layered air cargo security system.
  These directives include key components on the Known Shipper Program, 
the Indirect Air Carrier Program, the Freight Assessment Program and 
other increased oversight initiatives.
  In addition, the airline industry has taken steps to upgrade their 
extensive ``known shipper'' program, which is currently the basis for 
air cargo screening procedures.
  Right now we have a risk-based security system that targets high-risk 
shipments for additional screening, and combines layers of security 
along the supply chain.
  Contrary to rhetoric, the Department of Homeland Security pre-screens 
100 percent of all cargo that comes into the United States and conducts 
100 percent inspections of high-risk shipments.
  Rushing ahead without carefully considering all the risks and all the 
implications of security mandates would be destructive to ongoing 
efforts and have far-reaching and damaging implications.
  The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) has warned that some 
mandates could ``damage their efforts to provide security in the 
aviation environment and ensure the smooth flow of legitimate goods and 
people.''
  DHS has also warned that due to ``significant technology 
limitations,'' ``. . . there is no practical way to achieve 100 percent 
manual screening and inspection of all air cargo.''
  Only with technology can we effectively screen air cargo. Why do we 
not have that technology--I ask Senator Patty Murray who in 2002 
diverted R funds.
  Therefore, given the lack of technology for screening air cargo, any 
mandate to screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger aircraft would 
require actual physical inspection of each piece of cargo placed aboard 
a passenger aircraft.
  Now I know that my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would 
like this approach, because then we could hire thousands more screeners 
to do this work. According to the IG manual screening for weapons and 
explosives is the least effective means of detection.
  This type of requirement would grind the transportation of air cargo 
to a virtual halt, or it would also result in a situation where 
passenger carriers would be denied the ability to transport cargo and 
guarantees the final nail in the bankruptcy coffin of our ailing major 
airlines.
  Just as important, communities who rely on air cargo to receive much 
needed supplies, medicines, food, mail, and other necessities of life 
will be left high and dry.

[[Page H8695]]

  We've spent $10 billion dollars since 9/11--just for passenger 
screening. And $6 billion of that on labor-costs alone--48,000 Federal 
screeners. All for a screening system that the DHS Inspector General 
reports fails to detect the most dangerous items most of the time.
  We let the Fear-mongers push an unworkable deadline for baggage 
screening. Consequently, in our haste, we've wasted billions on 
ineffective, labor-intensive stand-alone and ineffective manual trace 
systems. If we had done it right in the first place, we would already 
have highly effective and highly efficient systems for passengers, 
baggage and cargo.
  You would think that we would have learned from our mistakes--and not 
react in a knee jerk fashion. We need to be smarter about where we 
place our scarce and limited resources.
  We must find the proper balance between enhancing air cargo security 
while ensuring that the flow of air commerce is not disrupted.
  The Department of Homeland Security is doing all it can to find 
additional ways to enhance air cargo screening while technology catches 
up.
  TSA budgeted about $55 million for fiscal year 2004 for research and 
development projects to enhance air cargo security.
  Projects being funded include a pre-screening system to identify 
high-risk cargo, and technology and equipment to screen containerized 
air cargo and mail.
  TSA also budgeted an additional $45 million in fiscal year 2004 for 
key initiatives in air cargo security oversight, including known 
shipper enhancements, canine explosives detection and 100 additional 
cargo inspectors.
  And, both the House and the other body have allocated $75 million in 
research and development funds for air cargo security in fiscal year 
2005.
  Clearly air cargo security is being given much attention by both the 
Congress and the Administration.
  Bottom line, the Department of Homeland Security is the proper entity 
to lead this effort and Congress should refrain from micro-managing 
this process.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan 
bill that would make needed changes to our Nation's intelligence 
community. Ninety-six Senators voted for it and the 9/11 Commission 
supported it. Whether you read the executive commission report, the 
executive summary or the full report, it is quite specific what they 
recommend.
  Everyone recommends it, except the leadership of the House of 
Representatives. Once again, the important work of this body has 
morphed into a political exercise, and it is an additional tragedy that 
this comes as no surprise to any of us.
  The leadership had their chance to proceed on this critical endeavor 
in a judicious, fair and thoughtful manner. H.R. 10 fails to give the 
National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and 
personnel of the intelligence agencies. H.R. 10 fails to fully address 
transportation modes, such as inner-city rail and public transit. H.R. 
10 fails to provide additional security assistance to Afghanistan or 
economic development assistance to Arab and Muslim countries. Yet 
somehow 50 extraneous provisions, none of which were recommended by the 
9/11 Commission, have been added.
  So today I will support the Menendez substitute. This substitute is 
based on the bipartisan Senate bill to fully implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. It is the most effective approach to ensure 
that this process does not get sidetracked or enmeshed in a superfluous 
quagmire.
  The safety and security of our Nation deserves more than the 
political ploys of the House leadership. I implore my colleagues to 
vote for the Menendez substitute.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time and for his work on this issue, and I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Mica) too.
  I believe the chairman and I share an opinion, and that is that the 
greatest threat to today's civil aviation is explosive devices. There 
are several ways in which the explosive devices can get on the plane. 
One is cargo. We have already talked about the inadequacies there. This 
bill does nothing to deal with that. Another is baggage. I had hoped 
this bill would deal with that.
  In fact, our committee dealt with it. We doubled the annual 
investment in in-line automated baggage screening, but, strangely 
enough, that money disappeared before this bill came before us today. 
That is unfortunate.
  When you link that to the fact that the majority party has 
arbitrarily limited the number of screeners we can have so they are not 
even utilizing the inadequate trace equipment and other things they 
have, and we have reports on how sometimes they cannot even operate the 
machines they have because they do not have enough people, we are not 
investing in the people and we are leaving gaps.
  The bill does improve and begins to deal with the threat of suicide 
bombers and carry-on explosives, $30 million a year. We should do more. 
The Transportation Security Administration's own expert on this says it 
is a mature technology, we are using it to guard nuclear plants, 
military bases, we do not need to be testing it, we need to deploy it.
  The $30 million a year in this bill is a lot better than what the 
administration is doing today. It is still not enough. We should have a 
goal of immediately purchasing and deploying explosives detection for 
all passenger checkpoints and carry-on bags, doubling at least the 
budget for in-line explosive screening, and doing a bottom-up survey to 
find out how many people we really need to do this job. It has never 
been done.
  We had an arbitrary cut in the number of screeners. 11,000 were cut 
by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of jurisdiction. For 
what reason? Well, he said because we are going to buy new equipment. 
Then, of course, he did not fund the new equipment.
  So we are leaving extraordinary gaps in our Nation's security. This 
is of tremendous concern and it should be, to the traveling public. 
This is a foolish place to save money. We can borrow money to give tax 
cuts to millionaires and billionaires. We can borrow to build 
infrastructure and provide security in Iraq. But we cannot afford the 
investment we need in the United States of America to do the things we 
need to do to make flying safe and prevent a tragedy like happened in 
Russia, which we have been predicting for more than 2 years is likely 
to happen here.

                              {time}  1815

  I wish that we could get the vote on a bill that would do all of 
those things. They will not let us do it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
for yielding me this time, and his leadership.
  Indeed, following on the heels of my friend, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our distinguished ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Mica) and with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), we know in 
our committee how to work together to solve problems. We should be 
celebrating today what should be the ultimate expression of bipartisan 
support to make America safer.
  Sadly, as has been chronicled by my friend, the gentleman from Oregon 
and others, that is not what we are doing today. We bypassed these 
opportunities and, instead, we have inserted in this bill provisions 
that would allow the deportation of suspects to countries where they 
can be tortured, enshrining a bizarre and despicable practice, even 
after the debacle at Abu Ghraib. It is not just immoral and in 
violation of treaties we have signed; it is a terrible risk to American 
lives.
  If we were working together the way we know we can in our Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, we would not have provisions like 
this. We would have been able to work through the Commission 
recommendations, not leaving out 14 that are incomplete and 16 not 
included at all, but the way the other body has done, supported by the 
administration.
  We would not have failed to take action to strengthen nuclear counter 
proliferation efforts. We would find a way

[[Page H8696]]

to provide additional security assistance in Afghanistan, and we would 
not be in a situation where we failed to bring together, to give the 
National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and 
personnel of all of the intelligence agencies. We still have not 
remedied a fundamental flaw in our system that was made so evident in 
the report from the 9-11 Commission, what every Member of this House 
who has looked at it has discovered, that the FBI and the CIA could not 
communicate with each other, let alone with people within their chain 
of command.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better. The America public deserves better. 
We need to reject this proposal, adopt the Menendez amendment, and use 
that as a point of departure to give the American public the security 
they need, want, and deserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, all in all, unfortunately, we had a great opportunity 
to do something really good with this H.R. 10 from the recommendations 
of our committee. Had we gone further to deal with Amtrak and other 
rail protections, include our transit security provisions, and expand 
that to port security, we could have had a really good bill if our 
committee had been permitted to participate in the full, open process, 
instead of spending an enormous amount of time, like we have done over 
the last couple of days, naming post offices and other minuscule 
resolutions.
  We have not achieved the goal that we should have of a really 
substantive bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  It is now in order to recognize the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations 
Implementation Act.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, I want to begin by thanking my ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner). The significant portions of H.R. 10 that were 
produced by the Select Committee on Homeland Security will represent 
the lasting contribution of our retiring colleague, and he is to be 
congratulated for his hard work in this effort.
  I am sponsoring this legislation, H.R. 10, because I believe it 
represents a significant step in our ongoing battle to protect our 
Nation from terrorism. It is a truly comprehensive response to the 9-11 
Commission recommendations.
  Although the Commission's report and its recommendations are only 2 
months old, the Select Committee on Homeland Security has been working 
on these very issues for 2 entire years; issues such as reforming our 
first responder funding system, enhancing interoperable communications, 
integrating intelligence and operational information to better track 
terrorists and frustrate their planned attacks, and improving 
information-sharing and cyber security. All have been the work of this 
committee.
  Building on this work in over 50 hearings over 2 years, the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security has held hearings this August with the 
9/11 Commission. We took testimony from Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman 
Hamilton, and from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, Tom Ridge, among others, about the substance of these 
recommendations and the substance of this legislation. Based on this 
work, the Select Committee on Homeland Security has included in this 
legislation several proposals that comprise the bulk of H.R. 10.
  First, reform of first responder grant funding, Title V, subtitle (a) 
of H.R. 10, fully incorporates H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter 
Funding For First Responders Act. This legislation satisfies each and 
every one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations concerning the 
delivery of Federal homeland security assistance to State and local 
governments. Of all the proposals to reform Federal terrorism 
preparedness funding, H.R. 10 best exemplifies the spirit and intent of 
the Commission's recommendations in this area.
  Specifically, H.R. 10 will require the Department of Homeland 
Security to prioritize homeland security assistance grants based upon 
risk to persons and to critical infrastructure. That is a key 
Commission recommendation. H.R. 10 requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to establish specific and measurable essential capabilities 
for State and local government terrorism preparedness, based on the 
recommendations of a 25-member advisory body comprised of first 
responders themselves, another key Commission recommendation that will 
help to control and prioritize spending in this area.
  H.R. 10 requires States to allocate their Department of Homeland 
Security grant funding according to these prioritized criteria, as the 
9/11 Commission recommends. And, H.R. 10 guarantees that each State 
will receive a sufficient minimum amount each year.
  Mr. Chairman, beyond the Commission's recommendations, the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security also found that billions of dollars 
authorized and appropriated by this Congress and granted by the 
Department of Homeland Security, intended for first responders, are 
stuck in the pipeline. That money is not being spent. Only 29 percent 
of the billions of dollars of assistance from 2003 that this Congress 
has authorized only 29 percent of that assistance from fiscal 2003 has 
yet been spent. This legislation will unclog that pipeline and make 
sure the money gets to the front lines, the men and women who need it 
most.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) for the bipartisan effort that he has put in with 
me on the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act, which is 
included in H.R. 10. I might say it has been an honor and a pleasure to 
serve with him over the last 2 years in what is I think the most 
important challenge of our time: making America safe.
  We took 2 bills and we made them into one. It was a truly bipartisan 
effort. We are going to, for the first time, use the billions of 
dollars in first responder grants to build the essential capabilities 
that we need in this country to make America safer. We do not know 
today what we are getting for our investment; we certainly do not know 
what progress we are making. That will change with this bill. Instead 
of basing funding on arbitrary formulas, we will, for the first time, 
base funding on the risk and vulnerabilities that our communities, our 
regions, and our States are facing.
  The bill before us improves our grant system in 2 ways. It builds a 
system of planning and accountability that does not exist today, and it 
allocates a much higher percentage of first responder funds to the 
areas that face the greatest threats and vulnerabilities. I appreciate 
the good work the chairman and I have been able to do together on this 
bill, as well as the work of the other members of our committee.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues of critical 
importance that have not been addressed in H.R. 10. The Menendez 
substitute is a much more comprehensive effort to implement all 41 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10 is, in fact, 
a missed opportunity to take concrete steps to win the war against our 
terrorist enemies.
  As the bipartisan 9/11 Commission stated, and virtually everyone has 
agreed, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism over the long term requires 
pursuing three strategies simultaneously. First, we must aggressively 
attack the terrorist cells wherever they exist. Secondly, we must 
protect the homeland. And third, we must create conditions to prevent 
the rise of future terrorists. Any legislation that purports to 
implement the findings of the 9/11 Commission must contain meaningful 
provisions on all three strategies.
  The 9/11 Commissioners have strongly urged that all 41 of their 
recommendations be enacted. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues 
who drafted H.R. 10 did not heed the advice

[[Page H8697]]

of the 9/11 Commission. We looked at the recommendations of H.R. 10 and 
found that it implements only 10 of the 41 fully, it implements 15 of 
the recommendations only partially and, of the final 15, they are 
either completely ignored or dealt with in no meaningful way.
  In contrast, the bipartisan bills coming out of the Senate and the 
Menendez substitute implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. H.R. 10 falls short in moving us forward faster and 
stronger in the war on terror.
  Three years after 9/11, Mr. Chairman, bin Laden, the enemy who 
attacked us, is still on the loose, and al Qaeda is expanding its 
reach. Just last week, General Abizaid warned us about the growing 
threat in the Middle East and Central Asia region. We must double our 
special forces to go after the terrorists in over 60 countries around 
the world.
  Three years after 9/11, we still do not have a fully integrated 
terrorist watch list. Three years after 9/11, the government still 
checks the watch list on airline flights that come from overseas after 
the plane is in the air, rather than before the passengers board. And 
we still do not check all of the air cargo for explosives that fly on 
the airplanes with us every day.
  The greatest threat, Mr. Chairman, we face is a nuclear weapon in the 
hands of a terrorist. Yet, 3 years after 9/11, we still have not 
installed sufficient numbers of radiation detectors to check all of the 
cargo containers that come into our country by sea, land, and air. 
Three years after 9/11, our first responders still cannot communicate 
with one another in the event of an emergency, even though technology 
exists that allows them to do so. Three years after 9/11, our 
intelligence agencies can still not communicate one with another and 
share an integrated database so that a border inspector or a law 
enforcement officer can identify whether the person standing before 
them is a suspected terrorist or not.
  Three years after 9/11, we still have 120,000 hours of untranslated 
terrorist-related wiretaps at the FBI that may contain information 
about the next terrorist attack. Three years after 9/11, our borders 
are still porous. A recent investigation by our committee revealed that 
over 25,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico came 
into this country, were released on their own personal bond, and 90 
percent of them never showed up again.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been 2 years since we were attacked with anthrax 
here on Capitol Hill and the administration said we need anthrax 
vaccines to vaccinate up to 25 million Americans. Today, in our 
national stockpile, we have enough vaccine for anthrax to vaccinate 500 
people.
  It is all about choices. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation is $20 
billion more than we spent in the year of 9/11. Last year alone, the 
top 1 percent of Americans by income received 4 times as much in tax 
cuts as we spent in increased funding for homeland security over that 
4-year period. Just today on this floor, we moved to instruct the FY 
2005 homeland security appropriations bill and in it, the President had 
requested a half a billion dollars more. Fortunately, we gave him $1 
billion more, and yet we spend $1 billion every week in Iraq.

                              {time}  1830

  It is all a matter of priorities. And, Mr. Chairman, we must get our 
priorities straight and make America safe again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), the vice chairman of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Commission Implementation Act of 2004.
  As the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I 
am especially pleased that the Faster Smarter Funding for First 
Responders bill is part of this legislation.
  Our committee traveled throughout the country to learn firsthand from 
first responders about the tools they need to protect our homeland. The 
message we consistently received was, our current system for funding is 
broken and needs to be fixed.
  Despite unprecedented appropriations immediately following 9/11, our 
Nation's first responders were not receiving the funds on the ground 
fast enough, and some were not receiving any money at all.
  They know and we know that, as terrorists are not arbitrary in 
selecting their targets, the Federal Government cannot afford arbitrary 
formulas for distributing the money. Dollars must be handed out on 
risk-based reasons, not population, not politics. The first responder 
section of H.R. 10 will fix the flaws in the current system.
  The 9/11 Commission agreed and supported the committee's 
recommendation that ``homeland security assistance should be based 
strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''
  Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our first responders, those law 
enforcement and emergency personnel who put their lives at risk every 
single day to protect American citizens. Our committee crafted the 
legislation that will fix current funding problems by, one, creating a 
streamlined funding system; two, supporting partnership and mutual aid 
agreements; and, three, by assisting local officials in setting 
preparedness goals.
  These innovative solutions are endorsed by 26 first responders 
organizations across the country, and I applaud the House leadership 
for making them part of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today, H.R. 10, deserves the support 
of every Member of our body and I urge its passage.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) for yielding me time. I would like to congratulate and thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) for their outstanding leadership. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) will be missed. I know he will contribute to this country 
in many ways in the future.
  The underlying bill represents a squandered opportunity to advance a 
consensus of the 9/11 Commission's report. The Menendez substitute 
represents that consensus, and it ought to be adopted.
  The 9/11 Commission said that one of the flaws that led up to the 9/
11 attack was that our intelligence agencies did not have incentives to 
share information with each other. The Menendez substitute provides 
those incentives. The underlying bill does not.
  The 9/11 Commission acknowledged the fact that terrorists will strike 
a variety of targets. It acknowledged the fact that 90 percent of the 
critical infrastructure of this country is in private lands, nuclear 
power plants, chemical plants and other such facilities. The Menendez 
substitute picks up the 9/11 Commission's report and requires an 
analytical toughening of our defenses of that critical infrastructure. 
The underlying bill ignores that problem.
  The 9/11 Commission report pointed out the travesty that on 9/11 
police officers and fire fighters in New York City literally could not 
talk to each other because of the problem of the interoperability 
lacking among first responders. The Menendez substitute directs that 
that problem be fixed and funds it as per the 9/11 Commission. The 
underlying bill does not.
  This bill will be back before us as a conference report. I hope that 
a strong vote for the Menendez substitute will add impetus for that 
conference to add here to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
report and fix these problems.
  Let us not squander an opportunity to advance a national consensus as 
set forward by Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton. Let us advance 
that consensus tonight by voting ``yes'' on the Menendez substitute.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Cyber 
Security, Science and Research and Development.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier in the debate, I 
think understandably the debate here

[[Page H8698]]

on the floor emphasizes differences we have with the underlying bill; 
but when you look at it, there is a lot of agreement in the general 
thrust of this bill and in the specific provisions.
  One of those specific provisions is one that the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I have worked on to 
elevate the position of the Director of the National Cyber Division to 
an Assistant Secretary position in the Department of Homeland Security.
  The reason we think that is a good idea is so that cybersecurity as 
an issue does not get lost in the bureaucracy; secondly, so that you 
can attract the kind of person one needs to attract that has the trust 
of industry and academia to do the kind of work that needs to be done 
in that position. But also, thirdly, so you can be at a level to deal 
with other elements of the government at an appropriate level and have 
other folks and other Departments treat you and treat the issues you 
bring before them appropriately.
  Now, that is one provision. It has widespread support among the 
industry groups. We have worked with the Committee on Government 
Reform, the Committee on Science, the Committee on the Judiciary to 
formulate this provision; and it has, as far as I know, complete 
support on both sides of the aisle. There is a lot in this bill that 
helps make America safer, and I believe it deserves the support of all 
Members.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are many items in this 
legislation that could make us safe, but we would be much safer if we 
had focus and kept our eye on the target in support of the 9/11 
Commission legislation under Shays-Maloney and, of course, under 
Collins-Lieberman-McCain.
  These are the extraneous provisions: expedited removal of aliens 
without judicial review; extraneous provision, revocation of visas; 
extraneous provision, making it more difficult to obtain asylum; 
extraneous provision, limiting judicial review of orders of removal.
  All of these have been condemned by the White House. All of these are 
extraneous and do not keep our eye on the target.
  Extraneous provision, deportation of suspected terrorists to 
countries that engage in torture. We still have not corrected that. 
Extraneous provision, national driver's license and birth certificate 
requirements. We can do all of this better. We just need to do it in a 
more directed manner. Putting extraneous immigration matters into the 
bill does not make us safer. The 9/11 terrorists came in on legal 
documents. We can do a better job of comprehensive immigration reform 
in a bipartisan manner. This is just not the bill to do it.
  Pass the Menendez substitute, the Shays-Maloney bill.
  H.R. 10 lacks focus. It does not keep its eye on the target, which is 
the need to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
  Extraneous Provision: Expedited Removal of Aliens
  House Bill: Section 3006 directs immigration officers to order the 
expedited removal ``from the United States without further hearing or 
review'' of (a) arriving aliens and (b) aliens already in the United 
States who have false travel documents, who have not been admitted or 
paroled into the United States, and who have not been living 
continuously in the United States for the previous five years. This 
does not apply of the alien in question is applying for asylum. 
However, an alien applying for asylum cannot avoid expedited removal if 
he or she has been in the United States for more than a year.
  Analysis: Under this provision, asylum-seekers with legally valid 
claims of persecution could be removed to their countries of origin to 
face that persecution. The provision also extends the use of expedited 
removal to aliens who have lived in the United States for several 
years. This is the first time expedited removal will be used against 
aliens already in the United States. Under current law, only arriving 
aliens are subject to expedited removal.
  Extraneous Provision: Revocation of Visas
  House Bill: Section 3008 eliminates all judicial review of a revoked 
visa, including habeas corpus review. The provision also makes an alien 
deportable if his or her visa has been revoked. In addition, this 
section eliminates the requirement that a petitioner receive notice of 
the revocation of his or her immigration petition. This provision also 
transfers the authority to review petitions of revocation from the 
Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  Analysis: Aliens who used a fraudulent visa to enter the country can 
already be removed based on unlawful admission. The provision 
eliminates the basic protections of notice and judicial review for 
discretionary decisions made by the Justice or State Department.
  Extraneous Provision: Making It More Difficult To Obtain Asylum
  House Bill: Section 3007 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to change evidentiary requirements for all asylum-seekers. Under the 
provision, the burden of proof is on the asylum-seeker to establish 
that he or she is a ``refugee'' under the statute. In order to sustain 
this burden, the applicant must (a) corroborate his or her testimony or 
(b) at the discretion of the trier of fact, provide an explanation as 
to why such corroborating evidence cannot be presented. Judicial review 
of a determination as to the availability of corroborating evidence is 
limited.
  Analysis: Many of this provision's requirements are not tailored to 
suspected terrorists, but apply to all asylum-seekers. The new 
evidentiary standards will make it more difficult for legitimate 
asylum-seekers to obtain asylum and may do nothing to prevent 
terrorists from entering the country.
  Extraneous Provision: Limiting Judicial Review of Orders of Removal
  House Bill: Section 3009 amends the Immigration and Naturalization 
Act to eliminate habeas corpus review of certain orders of removal. 
Under the provision, circuit courts of appeal may only hear petitions 
based on constitutional claims or pure questions of law and are the 
sole and exclusive means of defense against an order of removal.
  Analysis: This provision further restricts federal court review of 
discretionary immigration decisions and applies these restrictions to 
pending cases.
  Extraneous Provision: Deportation of Suspected Terrorists to 
Countries that Engage in Torture
  House Bill: Section 3031 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to permit individuals whom the Secretary of Homeland Security 
determines to be ``a danger to the security of the United States'' to 
be removed to a country where they are likely to be persecuted or 
threatened. Section 3032 excludes suspected terrorists from protection 
under the Convention Against Torture.
  Analysis: These sections conflict with the Convention Against Torture 
by allowing the Administration to turn suspected terrorists over to 
countries where they can be tortured.
  Extraneous Provision: National Drivers License and Birth Certificate 
Requirements
  House Bill: Sections 3051 through 3067 place a long list of 
requirements on the states relating to drivers licenses and birth 
certificates, including what information must appear on drivers 
licenses and birth certificates and what documents must be required to 
receive a state authenticated drivers license or birth certificate. The 
provisions require the verification of all identity documents before a 
drivers license or birth certificate is issued, as well as the creation 
of a national database of state drivers license records accessible by 
all states and the federal government. The provisions also require that 
states create a national network of electronic birth and death 
registration information.
  Analysis: These provisions go well beyond the 9/11 Commission 
recommendation that the federal government ``set standards for the 
issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification,'' which 
could be achieved without the elaborate and overly burdensome 
requirements set forth in the bill. They are opposed by the National 
Governors Association and the National Association of State 
Legislators, which predict that the new paperwork burdens will result 
in individuals waiting hours, if not days, to get a new drivers license 
or birth certificate. Civil liberties groups object to the potential 
loss of privacy created by the new national databases. Moreover, the 
linkage of all state databases, without any requirements for security 
or privacy protection, creates a severe risk of identity theft.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency 
Preparedness and Response.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying 
bill, H.R. 10; and I want to thank all of those who were involved in 
crafting its provisions. I think it is important to our Nation.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Chair of 
the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, I am extremely 
pleased that H.R. 10 includes critically important provisions regarding 
the funding for our first responders. My colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the full committee vice chairman, talked 
about these issues.

[[Page H8699]]

  I strongly believe, as does the chairman of the full committee and I 
think the 9/11 Commission, that it is important that we dispense 
homeland security funds not based on politics or peanut butter to every 
Member's district, but rather based on risk, to where we face a real 
threat. The provisions of that bill which are incorporated in this 
legislation moved through my subcommittee, and they ensure that States 
are awarded grant money to locals in a timely and efficient manner by 
establishing stringent timelines and incentives for grant disbursement, 
along with penalties for failure to disburse those funds.
  They requires States to pass through at least 80 percent of their 
funds to local government so that first responders actually get the 
money and get it no later than 45 days after receiving the funds from 
the Federal Government.
  They establish clear benchmarks for terrorism preparedness to help 
localities determine spending priorities with confidence. And they 
require parties to make spending decisions before the money is even 
allocated, thus facilitating quicker distribution of these funds to all 
recipients.
  We move the planning process to the front end. The Senate bill does 
not fix this problem of back-ended distribution fights that slow 
distribution.
  The 9/11 Commission supported this language. I think it is critically 
important, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Border Security and Infrastructure of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). He has been doing a 
great job, and we are going to miss him.
  What do we need to do to be safer? I think there are three things we 
need to fix the intelligence system: we need to protect our 
infrastructure; we need to protect our assets in this country; and we 
need to prepare. We need to know how to react to an attack that is 
called the First Responders Issue, but I think this bill falls very, 
very short of really helping America. For example, protection of our 
ports still remains a glaring vulnerability in our Nation, and H.R. 10 
largely ignores maritime security imposing a deadline or two, but 
really as far as things not really getting to what the problem is.
  The Coast Guard estimates that required port security upgrades will 
cost $5.4 billion over the next 10 years; and despite this estimate, 
the administration has requested less than 1 percent of that amount for 
port security improvements. A terrorist attack involving a container at 
our ports could result in substantial loss of life and billions of 
dollars of economic losses.
  This is not the first time this administration has ignored our 
vulnerabilities.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  H.R. 10 includes several different provisions that the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security produced and assisted in drafting in 
this final product.
  One is the provisions responsive to the 9/11 Commission's concerns 
about terrorist travel. H.R. 10 includes specific activities to be 
undertaken by several Federal agencies. It establishes a program within 
DHS to focus exclusively on terrorist travel. It ensures that this 
critical information will be shared with frontline personnel at our 
borders, our ports, and our consulates.
  The Menendez bill, unfortunately, does not include these vital 
provisions and simply requires DHS to submit a strategy. H.R. 10 and 
the Select Committee on Homeland Security produced recommendations, 
legislative recommendations, to increase the number of border patrol 
agents, immigration and customs and enforcement investigators on our 
Nation's borders.
  The ranking minority member on the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security produced a very thorough report highlighting the vulnerability 
of our Nation's borders. This is a very real concern to which H.R. 10 
responds, but the Menendez bill strips out all of these provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have learned a lot about politics today, but this 
debate should be and ultimately is not about politics but about policy. 
Unfortunately, politics seems to come in every now and then. The 9/11 
Commission's report is a substantive document describing and examining 
the circumstances that 3 years ago allowed 19 men to conceive, plan, 
and execute the murder of 3,000 Americans right under our noses. It is 
a highly detailed, exhaustive, thorough report, 567 pages; and Congress 
has the responsibility to respond with equal gravity and vigor, and now 
we have.
  The bill before us now is the product of seven committees and more 
than 20 subcommittees. It is a substantive document that solves the 
substantive problems laid out by the 9/11 Commission report. Every 
provision, every word, Mr. Chairman, of this bill will make Americans 
safer and help to prevent terrorism from ever striking our soil again 
as it did on 9/11. It makes tough choices, it sets tough policy, and it 
will reaffirm the one fact that too often is ignored by too many: we 
are at war.

                              {time}  1845

  The first priority in this war is the protection of the American 
people, the first priority.
  I know some have portrayed the House bill as controversial, but the 
more information about its contents that is revealed, the more support 
it garners.
  The policies set forth in this bill before us are so obvious, so 
self-evidently necessary that most Americans would probably be 
surprised to learn that they are not already on the books. Forget the 
spin for a moment and look at the policies.
  The House bill creates the National Intelligence Director and the 
National counterterrorism Center. It authorizes law enforcement 
authorities to track lone wolf terrorists. It cuts off material support 
for terrorists. It strengthens laws against weapons of mass destruction 
and enhances airline security.
  It doubles the number of border patrol officers and triples the 
number of immigration enforcement agents.
  It targets terrorist travel and ensures terrorists and violent 
criminals from other countries are deported, instead of released back 
on our streets.
  It streamlines our homeland security and intelligence agency, and it 
improves Federal funding for first responders.
  These provisions are not outside the scope of the 9/11 Commission 
report. They are the 9/11 Commission report. Those eight provisions 
alone that I just mentioned answer 18 separate commission 
recommendations, and I just chose them at random.
  By contrast, consider one of the principal policy initiatives of the 
proposal preferred by the Democrats, the disclosure and publicizing of 
the United States intelligence budget. Just think about what that means 
for a second. Not only would an al Qaeda be able to track every last 
dollar we are spending to capture and kill them, but Iraqi insurgents, 
the governments of Iran, North Korea, Communist China, they will know 
exactly when and where and how our Nation defends itself.
  The words of President Bush on this issue are worth repeating: 
``Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during wartime, the 
amounts requested by the President, and provided by the Congress, for 
the conduct of the Nation's intelligence activities would be a 
mistake.''
  In other words, we do not tell the bad guys how exactly we plan to 
capture and kill them.
  Those who have crafted the alternative proposal have done so in good 
faith, I guess, but their final product, Mr. Chairman, is woefully 
insufficient. It does not secure our borders. It does not provide law 
enforcement authorities with enough tools to catch and prosecute 
terrorists, and it does not engage the international community in the 
diplomatic front on our war on terror.
  I might say, the substitute that is going to be offered by the 
Democrats and claim to be bipartisan is a fraud. If it were bipartisan, 
then why did the

[[Page H8700]]

Democrats take the Shays-Maloney bipartisan bill, copy it and introduce 
it as the Menendez Democrat bill? That is not bipartisan. It is a 
cynical attempt to play politics with the safety of our families.
  No, Mr. Chairman, this is the bill. This is the bill that will make 
every citizen in this country safer and make every terrorist hunting 
our citizens less safe. This is the bill that calls a war a war and a 
terrorist a terrorist. This is the bill that will help America stay one 
step ahead of the men who, if they could, would kill every last one of 
us, regardless of party, race, creed or color. This is the bill that 
will help us defeat an enemy, win a war and secure a future of freedom 
for our children.
  I urge all my colleagues to do the right thing, make the difficult 
choices they were elected to make and vote for this bill and vote 
against the substitute.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, during floor debate on H.R. 10, Mr. Weldon 
referred to me as being ``untruthful'' regarding two matters: (a) White 
House support for, as I described it during the debate, ``basically the 
Collins-Lieberman bill; the closest thing to which we will be able to 
discuss is the Menendez substitute'', and (b) my description during the 
Armed Services Committee markup of H.R. 10 of a voice vote on an 
amendment I offered in another committee, the Government Reform 
Committee.
  As I stated during the floor debate, but I was unsure the official 
reporter heard, since Mr. Weldon refused to yield time to me, I felt 
strongly Mr. Weldon was mistaken in his characterization.
  (a) What is the White House's position? According to the White 
House's Statement of Administration Policy of Sept. 28, 2004, ``the 
Administration supports Senate passage of S. 2845 (the Collins-
Lieberman bill).'' Since the Rules Committee did not allow the Collins-
Lieberman bill to be voted on by the House, the Menendez substitute was 
the closest approximation of the Collins-Lieberman legislation. In 
fact, as described by the Rules Committee, the Menendez substitute 
``merges two bills endorsed by the 9/11 Commission: Collins-Lieberman 
(S. 2845) . . . and McCain/Lieberman (S. 2774). . . .''
  (b) What happened in the Government Reform Committee? The draft 
transcript of the Government Reform markup of Sept. 29, 2004 includes 
the following statement from Chairman Tom Davis on my amendment, ``In 
the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. I will ask for a rollcall 
on that.''
  Later in the Government Reform markup, when I asked Chairman Davis 
for his recollection of the voice vote, he said, as reported in the 
draft transcript, ``Let the record show the ayes had it at the time, 
but I had the right to request a rollcall . . .''
  In summary, it is clear from the record that the White House supports 
S. 2845, and that a voice vote in my favor occurred in the Government 
Reform Committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10--the 9/
11 Recommendations Implementation Act.
  On September 11, 2001, life in America was irreversibly changed. That 
day we were quickly drawn into a war to confront a threat we did not 
fully understand.
  In July, after months of hearings and research, the 9-11 Commission 
released its report on the events leading up to, including, and 
following that infamous day. The report laid it all out in a 
straightforward manner that the public easily understand. I don't think 
any government publication has ever landed on the bestseller list, 
which speaks not only to the Commission's work but also the level of 
commitment of Americans to understanding and stemming terrorist 
activity. I'd like to thank the Commission for their work and also the 
families of the victims for their unwavering commitment to improving 
national security.
  The 9-11 Commission report detailed the terrorist mindset; the 
hatred, the religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment 
to do us harm and destroy our culture. Osama bin Ladin's Letter to 
America of November 24, 2002 states that the Islamic nation ``desires 
death more than you [America] desire life.''
  The 9-11 report tells us that: ``Plans to attack the United States 
were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. 
Bin Ladin saw himself as called to . . . serve as the rallying point 
and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the 
world to Islam.''

  We are fighting a war like this country has never seen. A war against 
an enemy that doesn't value life, that does not in their own words 
``differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and 
civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa.'' This makes our job to 
literally protect our way of life much harder.
  Today we are considering legislation that addresses the 
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. It proposes the most 
sweeping changes to our national security apparatus since the CIA was 
created more than 50 years ago. Most importantly, we are creating a 
position, the National Intelligence Director, that will have broad 
authority over the entire intelligence community. Divisions and 
tensions between the different intelligence agencies have hampered our 
ability to effectively target al Qaeda. This legislation will provide 
the authority necessary to unite the intelligence community and address 
problems before they materialize.
  The new National Intelligence Director will have enhanced budgetary 
and personnel authority over the elements of the intelligence 
community--and will dedicate his full attention to the job of 
intelligence community management. This will leave the day to day 
duties of running intelligence agencies to their directors.
  The 9-11 Commission identified deficiencies in the ability to share 
information that is essential to preventing future terrorist 
activities--and we are fixing that.
  This legislation mandates the National Intelligence Director to 
create a network designed to share information across agencies and 
break down the barriers. There will be uniform security policies that 
will promote sharing information rather than hoarding it for one 
agency's use.
  This legislation will also reduce the barriers between our domestic 
law enforcement activities and our foreign intelligence activities by 
creating a National Counter Terrorism Center.
  There are many additional provisions in this act that will strengthen 
our capability to protect Americans at home and abroad.
  This bill has the strong support of all the committees of 
jurisdiction.
  So, I ask my fellow Members to give it their full support.
  If Osama bin Ladin was here today, he would surely oppose it. For a 
divided intelligence community, and a divided America would allow him 
to operate more freely in carrying out his war against our culture and 
our people.
  September 11, 2001 showed us in the danger of Islamic terrorism. It 
also taught us that deficiencies in our own system made it possible for 
terrorists to operate right under our noses.
  Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our 
Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. For that reason, we 
must pass this legislation and improve our intelligence capabilities.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the terrorist attacks on our homeland that 
occurred on September 11th, 2001 changed the world forever for all 
Americans. The collective national loss we felt on that day is no less 
painful today, and ranks as one of the darkest moments in our national 
history. In that solemn hour, our President was rightly resolved to 
take the fight to the terrorists and not to stop until justice 
prevailed and the threat was mitigated.
  Today, 3 years later, we are still very much engaged in the war on 
terror. Since the release of the 9/11 Commission report in July, the 
national media and many politicians have called for the immediate 
adoption of all the report's 41 recommendations, which is the path 
being taken by the other body. Mr. Chairman, I fear that we are moving 
too fast to implement a solution that does not match the problem. 
Moreover, election year politics are driving us to address the 
shortfalls between foreign and domestic intelligence by unwisely 
tinkering with the military. This could prove to have grave and 
unintended consequences to our troops currently in battle and our 
future military operations.
  Long before the 9/11 Commission report hit bookstores and the 
commissioners launched their book tours, this Republican-led Congress 
and the Bush Administration took many measures designed to enhance our 
Nation's homeland security. I feel it is important to highlight these 
accomplishments that clearly illustrate Congress's dedication to keep 
our Nation safe. At an August hearing held by the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, Vice-Chairman of the Commission, Lee 
Hamilton admitted that a lot of progress has been made in many areas, 
including hurting al Qaeda and inhibiting their ability to respond, 
while also beefing up security here at home. In fact, it has been 
disclosed that our security efforts have since prevented several post 
9/11 terrorist incidents.
  Furthermore, we have already taken action through Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Iraq Freedom to eliminate safe havens for terrorists in 
foreign lands--including Al Qaeda's top sanctuary, Afghanistan. 
Additionally, we have made progress in blocking sources of weapons of 
mass destruction from terrorists, including the elimination of the A.Q. 
Khan nuclear proliferation network and Libya's WMD and long-range 
missile programs.
  On a more positive note, this legislation does encompass many of the 
recommendations adopted by the Committees on Armed Services and 
Intelligence to improve intelligence operations. This measure reforms 
the

[[Page H8701]]

intelligence community consistent with the framework established by the 
9/11 Commission by creating a National Intelligence Director (NID) with 
substantial budget and personnel authority as well as a National 
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

  Specifically, the NID will have expanded statutory, budgetary, and 
personnel powers over the National Intelligence Program (NIP). The NIP 
is composed of CIA, parts of the National Security Agency (NSA), the 
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Geospatial Agency 
(NGA), FBI, State, and Homeland Security. This excludes the Pentagon's 
joint military and tactical intelligence programs, which allows the 
Secretary of Defense to continue to directly support the joint and 
tactical requirements of military intelligence. The budget authorities 
given to the NID were carefully crafted to preserve the ability of the 
Secretary of Defense to rely on these agencies to provide the best 
military intelligence directly to combatant commanders, which in my 
view makes this superior to the other proposal adopted by the other 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the 9/11 Commission did 
not suggest that DoD management of intelligence agencies contributed to 
9/11. In fact, when testifying before the House Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Hamilton suggested that the military intelligence system 
is not broken. As such, it is imperative that we preserve the 
intelligence lifeline to our troops by ensuring that more bureaucracy, 
distance and unnecessary obstacles do not come between our troops and 
strategic and tactical intelligence; an increasingly critical tool in 
today's battlefield. Specifically, Mr. Hamilton said, ``I think the 
committee has helped us in understanding the importance of tactical 
military intelligence. And I think some of our recommendations can be 
refined.'' He also added, ``I think the questions that are being asked 
here are helpful to us and causes me to think that we need to refine 
some of our thinking in this very important area, and we will try to do 
that.''
  Mr. Chairman, there are 158,000 troops currently in theater and their 
combatant commanders need to know they can count on the military chain 
of command to quickly access critical intelligence resources. As has 
been said before, first do no harm. The balance maintained in this bill 
can be literally a matter of life and death for these brave men and 
women serving overseas. My support of this legislation is predicated 
upon my strong reservations about the measure adopted by the other 
body, and with the hope that the provisions of H.R. 10 that I outlined 
will prevail in conference.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act.
  I appreciate the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security and Claims' efforts to include additional full-time border 
patrol agents in this legislation. I also appreciate the fine work of 
your staff to create awareness about the significant need for 
additional resources to the Mexico-New Mexico border.
  As Customs and Border Protection augments its efforts through 
additional money, agents and technology to the more high-profiled 
southern Border States such as California, Arizona and Texas, New 
Mexico's border law enforcement agencies are left understaffed and 
unprepared for the increased drug trafficking and human smuggling 
resulting from the crackdown in neighboring states.
  Today, after $19 billion spent for border security and technology in 
the last 2 years, DHS has increased its emphasis on Arizona border 
security through its Arizona Border Control Initiative.
  This Initiative invests $10 million in the Tucson Customs and Border 
Protection region to hire more border agents, improve technology and 
provide unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). As a result, more than 2,000 
border patrol agents will be assigned to the region. This makes an 
average of six agents for each mile of border in Arizona.
  However, with only 425 border patrol agents in New Mexico, there are 
fewer than 2 agents per mile of border. Yet, increasing pressure 
against illegal activity on the Arizona border has resulted in 
increasing drug and human trafficking spilling over into New Mexico.
  For example, in FY 2004, agents in Lordsburg, New Mexico made 141 
percent more apprehensions than all of last year.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to consider providing New Mexico 
with additional resources to make our border more secure. I look 
forward to working with the Committee to ensure the necessary resources 
are provided to protect our border.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 10.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today greatly 
disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that the majority has 
once again decided to trump substantive policy with petty politics. As 
we are well aware, in late August the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued 
the report they diligently prepared regarding the circumstances 
surrounding the horrific and tragic terrorist attacks that took place 
on September 11, 2001. I immediately called upon the Majority to bring 
Congress back in session to respond to the 9/11 Commission Report. 
Sadly, the Majority has ignored a great number of the recommendations 
of the bipartisan report.
  As part of their report, the 10 members of the commission made 41 
recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks. In fact, H.R. 10 
contains only 11 of these recommendations. Equally alarming to the 
number of recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission that are not 
included in this bill, is the number of recommendations not made by the 
9/11 Commission that are included in this bill. Amazingly, the Majority 
has inserted over 50 extraneous provisions not found anywhere in the 9/
11 Commission Report. Several of these are so controversial that even 
the 9/11 Commission itself and families of victims of the tragic events 
of 9/11 have voiced their opposition to H.R. 10.
  Mr. Chairman, thankfully for those of us who recognize this 
legislation for what it is, a partisan attempt at political gain, we 
can take solace in the fact that the Senate just yesterday passed the 
bipartisan Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation. This legislation 
reflects the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission and is also similar to Mr. Menendez's substitute that I will 
support today. It is my hope that the legislative product that emerges 
from conference with the Senate will much more accurately reflect the 
9/11 Commission recommendations that H.R. 10 does today. The future 
security of our Nation depends on it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10. 
This is a bad bill. This is a partisan bill. This is an arrogant bill. 
Unlike the other body, the majority excluded Democrats from the 
process. They met behind closed doors and came up with their bill. They 
did this with the Medicare Bill. They did this with the Energy Bill. 
Now they are doing this with important Intelligence Reform bill.
  The Commission made 41 recommendations. These were unanimous. There 
were 5 Republican and 5 Democratic Commissioners. There was no dissent. 
This bill implements only 11 recommendations. It ignores 15 
recommendations of those recommendations. Worst of all, this bill 
includes over 50 extraneous provisions that were not in the final 9/11 
Commission report. This bill does not meet the important requirements 
of the 9/11 Commission report.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress handed the bipartisan 9/11 Commission the 
task to thoroughly investigate Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and 
how it financed, trained, and aided the terrorist hijackers.
  We asked them to create a report of there findings. They did. We 
asked the commission to come back with recommendations. They did. We 
must not pick and choose recommendations based upon the election 
season. As the 9/11 Commissioners repeatedly emphasized before our 
congressional committees, it is important to enact the recommendations 
as a complete package.
  This bill fails to create the government wide civil liberties board 
recommended by the commission and contained in the Senate bill. This 
bill fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient 
authority over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies. 
This bill fails to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate 
screening systems. Worst of all, it includes over 50 provisions that 
were not part of the report.

  Of those additional provisions, three are particularly appalling. It 
gives the President ``fast track'' authority to reorganize the 
intelligence agencies, undermining the reforms recommended by the 9/11 
Commission. It gives the President authority to bypass Senate 
confirmation of the Director of the CIA and other key intelligence and 
defense officials, weakening congressional oversight. Finally, it gives 
Federal law enforcement officials new authority to deport foreign 
nationals, revoke visas, and deny asylum without judicial review.
  If we brought up the bipartisan bill offered by Congresswoman Maloney 
and Congressman Shays we could avoid the wrangling of a conference 
committee. We could avoid the delays and avoid weeks of uncertainty. 
Most of all, we could provide the American people some peace of mind.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not play politics with the national security of 
our country. We must work on a bipartisan basis to reform the system to 
make us more secure. This bill does not meet the important requirements 
of the 9/11 Commission report. This bill will not make us safe. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this arrogant, partisan bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act and the provisions included in the 
legislation that ensure the privacy and integrity of Social Security 
numbers.
  According to the 9-11 Commission report, ``secure identification 
should begin in the United States.'' A critical step toward that goal 
must include safeguarding the Social Security number from theft and 
misuse.

[[Page H8702]]

  When the Social Security number--commonly known as the ``SSN''--was 
created 68 years ago, its only purpose was to tract a worker's earnings 
so that Social Security Taxes could be collected and benefits could be 
calculated. But today, use of the SSN is rampant.
  Although SSNs are used for many legitimate purposes, their widespread 
use has made them very valuable to criminals. Someone who steals your 
Social Security number can literally steal your identity.
  Victims can have their credit ruined, be harassed by bill collectors, 
be denied loans or even be mistakenly arrested because of the identity 
thief's crimes. And the number of victims is growing. In 2002 almost 
five percent of Americans were identity theft victims.
  Worse yet, we have head repeated testimony on how terrorists use 
identity theft or fraudulently obtained SSNs to gain employment, engage 
in financial transactions and assimilate into our society. Preventing 
identity thieves from obtaining SSNs will help to protect Americans and 
our Nation from this threat.
  For these reasons I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2971, the 
``Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 
2004.'' This legislation would restrict the sale and public display of 
SSNs, tighten procedures for issuing new SSNs, and establish penalties 
for violations.
  This bill was unanimously approved by the Commission on Ways and 
Means on July 21, 2004. In addition, because of its far reaching 
impact, the bill was also referred to the Committees on Financial 
Services, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary, whose thorough 
deliberations are necessary and important. Based on consultation with 
these committees, several provisions to ensure the privacy and 
integrity of SSNs have been included in the ``9/11 Recommendations 
Implementation Act.''
  One provision would prohibit States from placing a person's full or 
partial SSN on a driver's license or ID card. While many States have 
done this voluntarily, it is only an option in other States. Enacting 
this provision will help prevent identity theft if a wallet is stolen 
or lost and help prevent rogue employees from accessing the SSN when a 
driver's license is presented for ID.

  Two provisions would tighten the standards for issuing an SSN by 
preventing fraud in the process of assigning SSNs to newborns and 
requiring the Social Security Administration to verify birth 
certificates' authenticity. The Government Accountability Office's 
investigators showed how easy it would be for identity thieves or 
terrorists to get an official SSN by submitting a fraudulent birth 
certificate for a baby, and the Social Security Administration's 
Inspector General reported on lack of checks and balances and other 
weaknesses in the process parents use to sign up their newborns for an 
SSN while still in the hospital.
  Another provision would limit the number of SSN replacement cards a 
person may receive to 3 per year and 10 per lifetime. Both the GAO and 
the SSA Inspector General recommended limiting SSN replacement cards to 
prevent their misuse by individuals working illegally in the United 
States or seeking to hide their identities.
  Finally, two provisions would mandate studies on requiring photo ID 
when applying for Social Security benefits or an SSN card and on 
modifying the SSN to help employers identify individuals who are 
potentially not authorized to work in the United States.
  Some of my colleagues may believe these provisions don't go far 
enough, and they're right. Providing for uses of SSNs that benefit the 
public while protecting these numbers from being used by criminals, or 
even terrorists, is a complex balancing act. There are powerful 
consumer and commerce benefits from business use of SSNs as a common 
identifier. It takes time to achieve legislation that is responsible, 
and balances privacy concerns with concerns over efficiency, but we are 
making progress.
  Others would like see the Social Security card become an 
identification card, adding a photo or other biometric information 
encoded electronically in the card. Such proposals represent a new 
purpose for the Social Security card and a new role for the Social 
Security Administration. We must carefully consider the ramifications 
of such change, which the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social 
Security will explore in hearings early next year.
  The Social Security number measures in H.R. 10 are important steps in 
our fight to prevent terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I oppose H.R. 10. But I 
have to give the Financial Services Committee this: They didn't add 
anything affirmatively harmful to this bill. Indeed, several of these 
provisions are things that this body has passed before and I support, 
such as providing the SEC with increased emergency authority, or 
authorizing Treasury to produce secure currency for other countries.
  Indeed, one provision of the bill builds on recent legislation I 
cosponsored. I worked with Rep. Kelly to pass an appropriation of $25 
million in funding for FinCEN to make key technological improvements in 
FinCEN systems. This bill authorizes no-year funding for that purpose, 
and that is commendable.
  Other provisions are unobjectionable, such as making technical 
corrections to money laundering statutes, or requiring Treasury to 
prepare an annual Money Laundering Strategy. These are things we should 
have done some time ago.
  My bigger concern in this Committee is with what we have not done as 
we come to the end of this session. There is financial services 
legislation we should be passing--but the majority has failed to give 
this body a chance to vote on it.
  The Financial Services Committee voted out legislation extending the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act--but the leadership has failed to bring 
this to the floor. This is critical to the district I represent. We 
were attacked on 9/11 and we cannot rebuild and remake our commercial 
district without terrorism insurance. Together with many of my 
colleagues I have signed a letter asking that TRIA be brought to the 
floor and I hope that can still happen.

  Similarly, the Financial Services Committee voted out legislation 
revising the bankruptcy laws to provide an orderly unwinding of 
financial contracts. This legislation is strongly supported by the 
Treasury Department. But again, it's missing in action.
  We must set better priorities. We should pass TRIA and netting in 
this Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
deep concerns about H.R. 10, the Republican Leadership's intelligence 
reorganization bill. There are many problems with this bill.
  As the Ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism 
and Homeland Security, I have been engaged in the debate on 
intelligence reorganization ever since 9/11. I was privileged to join 8 
of my colleagues in April to introduce H.R. 4104, the Intelligence 
Transformation Act, which helped to inform the 9/11 Commission and was 
a precursor to the great debate we have had on intelligence reform over 
the last two months.
  The bill the House is now being asked to consider does not come close 
to reflecting the legislation that I and others introduced this April, 
and its flaws are many.
  The provisions contained in Title I are intended to strengthen 
intelligence, but they are far too weak. Where is the strong budget 
authority for the National Intelligence Director? Where is the strong 
hiring and firing authority for the National Intelligence Director? 
Where are the detailed provisions necessary for improving 
counterterrorism information sharing? Where is the National 
Counterterrorism Center's real power to coordinate counterterrorism 
operations? They are not in the Republican Leadership bill.
  Senators Collins and Lieberman have led a remarkable, bipartisan 
effort in the other body. They consulted with the 9/11 Commission and 
the 9/11 families. Their bill is a battle-tested product.
  If the House of Representatives is going to undertake a serious 
effort to improve our response to terrorism, we must do so seriously. 
We must improve this seriously-flawed bill.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the terrorist attacks on our homeland that 
occurred on September 11th, 2001 changed the world forever for all 
Americans. The collective national loss we felt on that day is no less 
painful today, and ranks as one of the darkest moments in our national 
history. In that solemn hour, our President was rightly resolved to 
take the fight to the terrorists and not to stop until justice 
prevailed and the threat was mitigated.
  Today, three years later, we are still very much engaged in the war 
on terror. Since the release of the 9/11 Commission report in July, the 
national media and many politicians have called for the immediate 
adoption of all the report's 41 recommendations, which is the tact 
being taken by the other body. Mr. Chairman I fear that we are moving 
too fast to implement a solution that does not match the problem. 
Moreover, election year politics are driving us to address the 
shortfalls between foreign and domestic intelligence by unwisely 
tinkering with the military. This could prove to have grave and 
unintended consequences to our troops currently in battle and our 
future military operations.
  Long before the 9/11 Commission report hit bookstores and the 
commissioners launched their book tours, this Republican-led Congress 
and the Bush Administration took many measures designed to enhance our 
nation's homeland security. I feel it is important to highlight these 
accomplishments that clearly illustrates Congress' dedication to keep 
our nation safe. At an August hearing held by the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, Vice-Chairman of the Commission, Lee 
Hamilton admitted that a lot of progress has been made in many areas, 
including hurting Al

[[Page H8703]]

Qaeda and inhibiting their ability to respond, while also beefing up 
security here at home. In fact, it has been disclosed that our security 
efforts have since prevented several post 9/11 terrorist incidents.
  Furthermore, we have already taken action through Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom to eliminate safe havens for terrorists in 
foreign lands--including Al Qaeda's top sanctuary, Afghanistan. 
Additionally, we have made progress in blocking sources of weapons of 
mass destruction from terrorists, including the elimination of the A.Q. 
Khan nuclear proliferation network and Libya's WMD and long-range 
missile programs.
  On a more positive note, this legislation does encompass many of the 
recommendations adopted by the Committees on Armed Services and 
Intelligence to improve intelligence operations. This measure reforms 
the intelligence community consistent with the framework established by 
the 9/11 Commission by creating a National Intelligence Director (NID) 
with substantial budget and personnel authority as well as a National 
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

  Specifically, the NID will have expanded statutory, budgetary, and 
personnel powers over the National Intelligence Program (NIP). The NIP 
is composed of CIA, parts of the National Security Agency (NSA), the 
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Geospatial Agency 
(NGA), FBI, State and Homeland Security. This excludes the Pentagon's 
joint military and tactical intelligence programs, which allows the 
Secretary of Defense to continue to directly support the joint and 
tactical requirements of military intelligence. The budget authorities 
given to the NID were carefully crafted to preserve the ability of the 
Secretary of Defense to rely on these agencies to the best military 
intelligence directly to combatant commanders, which in my view makes 
it superior to the other proposal adopted by the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the 9/11 Commission did 
not suggest that DoD management of intelligence agencies contributed to 
9/11. In fact, when testifying before the House Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Hamilton suggested that the military intelligence 
support is not broken. As such, it is imperative that we preserve the 
intelligence lifeline to our troops by ensuring that more bureaucracy, 
distance and unnecessary obstacles do not come between our troops and 
strategic and tactical intelligence; an increasingly critical tool in 
today's battlefield. Specifically, Mr. Hamilton said, ``I think the 
committee has helped us in understanding the importance of tactical 
military intelligence. And I think some of our recommendations can be 
refined.'' He also added, ``I think the questions that are being asked 
here are helpful to us and causes me to think that we need to refine 
some of our thinking in this very important area, and we will try to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 158,000 troops currently in theater and their 
combatant commanders need to know they can count on the military chain 
of command to quickly access critical intelligence resources. As has 
been said before, first do no harm. The balance maintained in this bill 
can be literally a matter of life and death for these brave men and 
women serving overseas. My support of this legislation is predicated 
upon my strong reservations about the measure adopted by the other body 
and with the hope that the provisions of H.R. 10 that I outlined will 
prevail in conference.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10. 
This bill represents the hard work and coordination of many Committees' 
of jurisdiction. The level of cooperation and collaboration that went 
into creating this bill demonstrates our commitment to bringing about 
real Intelligence Reform. This bill responds in a very serious way to 
the 9/11 Commission report.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee I have seen ``first-hand'' 
the needs facing the Intelligence Community. The intelligence reforms 
proposed by H.R. 10 go to the heart of these issues--and provide the 
remedies to correct many of the organizational problems that 
contributed to the tragedy of September 11th.
  H.R. 10 addresses the major findings of the 9/11 Commission, in 
particular: It creates a strong and empowered National Intelligence 
Director; it enhances budget and management authorities of the national 
director; it improves information sharing by giving the director the 
mandate and authority to establish community-wide standards; it 
sharpens intelligence tools, particularly analytic capabilities; and it 
improves our ability to detect and deter terrorist threats.

  Taken together--the new organization, these capabilities, and 
enhanced authorities--provide the foundation necessary to empower the 
National Intelligence Director to effect real transformation throughout 
the Intelligence Community.
  While providing these new authorities, H.R. 10 carefully balances the 
authorities required to empower the National Intelligence Director to 
conduct the nation's intelligence analysis and collection operations, 
with the authorities of the Department heads who have to administer the 
intelligence elements that conduct and execute those operations.
  Those checks and balances ensure that the equities of the various 
departments are not unintentionally harmed--and I will point out that, 
unlike other legislation that we will consider here today, H.R. 10 
carefully and rightfully ensures unfettered intelligence support to our 
armed forces deployed around the world.
  H.R. 10 also eliminates the creation of unnecessary new 
bureaucracies, unlike two substitute amendments that we will debate. 
The other major proposals being considered add layers of management 
between the Intelligence Community agencies and the National 
Intelligence Director. These layers create duplicative auditing 
agencies and burden intelligence operations with unnecessary review 
boards and councils. These layers will hamper the process of change not 
enhance it, and may even serve to prevent the dramatic changes that are 
needed.

  Finally, H.R. 10 creates an Information Sharing Environment which 
will handle the sharing of all intelligence data, not just that which 
deals with terrorism.
  The other proposals being considered limit the scope of technological 
change to simply one set of intelligence data. I can tell you 
firsthand--my experience on the Intelligence Committee has demonstrated 
to me that technological reform will come from the fusion and sharing 
of all intelligence data. Only H.R. 10 proposes to do this.
  It is a very good bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support H.R. 10.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
substitute amendment to bring the House bill in line with the 
bipartisan recommendations of the September 11th Commission.
  All Members of Congress should reflect on the events that have 
brought us here. We lost over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. 30 families from 
my district lost loved ones on that day.
  Our government failed us on 9/11. It failed John Ogonowski, the 
Captain of American Airlines Flight 11, a constituent of mine who lived 
in Dracut, Massachusetts. Captain Ogonowski was an Air Force pilot and 
a Vietnam Veteran. But because of the massive failure of intelligence, 
and our failure to stop the terrorists and secure the cockpit door, 
Captain Ogonowski became a ``sitting duck'' in the words of his wife 
Peg.
  There are thousands of families we failed on 9/11. And many of them 
have turned their grief into resolve--they are demanding action so that 
no family suffers a similar tragedy because the failures of this 
government.
  Some of those families are here in Washington today. On 9/11, Sally 
and Don Goodrich lost their son Peter, who lived with his wife Rachel 
in Sudbury, MA. Both Sally and Don are in Washington today urging that 
Congress move forward on the Commission's recommendations on a 
bipartisan basis as soon as possible.
  Last week I met with Carrie Lemack of Framingham, MA, who along with 
Don Goodrich helped to found ``Families of September 11.'' Carrie and 
her sister, Danielle, lost their mom, Judy. Carrie came to Washington 
to attend the committee markups. She is urging Congress to put aside 
partisanship for once and do what we have to do to make America safer.
  Loretta Filipov of Concord, MA, lost her husband Al on 9/11. Three 
years later, she believes the world is no safer. But as she says, ``I 
refuse to live in fear.'' She's been writing and calling members of 
Congress urging us to work together to make the belated changes that 
will make us safer.
  After 9/11, all of us recognized the need to improve our 
intelligence--but it was the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 who 
demanded action. The 9/11 families are the reason we had a bipartisan 
9/11 Commission in the first place.
  In July, the September 1th Commission gave Congress a blueprint for 
action. Its report included 43 very specific recommendations to fix the 
problems in our intelligence community and improve our homeland 
defense. All of the recommendations were bipartisan and unanimous.
  The Senate is working on a bipartisan basis to follow the 
recommendations. Unfortunately, the House is taking a different 
approach. The Republican leadership in the House has decided to play 
politics with our homeland security. H.R. 10 was introduced without 
consulting the minority and rushed through committees days later, 
giving members little opportunity to look over the bill. Yesterday, the 
Rules Committee met in an emergency session to hear testimony on 
amendments without informing the rest of us.
  But even more important than the process is what's in the bill, and 
what's not in the bill. Simply stated, H.R. 10 fails to follow the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It ignores many of the 
important things we need to

[[Page H8704]]

do to keep our homeland safe. And at the same time, this partisan 
Republican bill also goes far beyond what the Commissioners recommended 
in curbing the civil liberties of American citizens in ways that won't 
make us any safer.
  For example, one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 
Commissioners was to establish a National Intelligence Director with 
full budgetary authority over our national intelligence agencies. The 
Senate bill upholds this recommendation. The House bill fails to give 
the NID the authority to establish national priorities and force 
bureaucracies to work together.
  The September 11th Commissioners also recommended that we establish a 
Cabinet-level National Counterterrorism Center. The Senate bill does 
that. But again, the House bill doesn't give the new Center the 
authority to coordinate the war on terror.
  The September 11th Commission recommend strengthening the programs 
that help us secure loose nuclear materials in Russia and around the 
world. The Senate bill does this--the House bill just calls for a study 
of the issue. Last week, I joined with Congresswoman Tauscher and 
Congressman Spratt in introducing a bill that would meet the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations for developing a long-term 
nonproliferation strategy. Unfortunately, when the legislation was 
offered as an amendment in the Armed Services Committee last week, we 
were told that it wasn't germane.
  The September 11th Commission called for doing more to exchange 
information on terrorists with trusted allies. The House bill is silent 
on this matter.
  The September 11th Commission also urged Congress to improve aviation 
security--specifically, that we screen people for explosives and also 
put cargo in hardened containers. Again, the Senate accomplishes this 
while the House fails.
  Finally, the September 11th Commission calls for a Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board. This provision is in the Senate bill but not the House 
bill. In fact, the House bill goes overboard in undermining civil 
liberties. Instead of reexamining the Patriot Act to see what is 
working and what goes too far, the Republican leadership has included 
new powers for law enforcement without even holding a hearing on them.
  The Republicans knew that these provisions would prevent Congress 
from finding consensus, moving forward, and passing a bill before the 
elections. I would have hoped that, for once, the Republican leadership 
wouldn't have let politics get in the way of needed steps to improve 
our national security. Regrettably, it has. But the 9/11 families have 
waited three years for action, and it's not too late to follow the 
example and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and move forward 
in a bipartisan way.
  This Congress created the September 11th Commission for a reason--to 
conduct an independent investigation into the terrorist attacks and 
recommend policy changes to ensure that they never occur again. The 
Senate bill takes these recommendations seriously. The House bill does 
not. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute 
amendment and adopt the language in the Senate version of the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10. This bill 
is nothing more than a cynical sham masquerading as reform. It purports 
to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but it 
actually implements only 11 of the Commission's 41 recommendations. 
What was left off the table? The bill on the House Floor today: Fails 
to strengthen our efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons; 
fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority 
over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies; and fails 
to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate screening systems.
  H.R. 10 has numerous additional flaws: There is no requirement to 
screen all cargo being placed on airplanes to ensure they do not 
contain explosives. There are NO whistleblower protections for TSA 
baggage screeners or employees of the FBI and the CIA who are 
retaliated against for disclosing security problems to their 
supervisors. Any reorganization of the intelligence community is 
rendered meaningless by the failure to protect modern day Paul Reveres 
like Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds when they blow the whistle. An 
amendment offered by Mr. Nadler to increase the security of nuclear 
facilities and shipments of extremely hazardous materials that was 
actually ACCEPTED during the Judiciary Committee markup was 
inexplicably removed by the Rules Committee.
  What was added to the bill? Dozens of pages of extraneous material 
that have nothing to do with anything that the 9/11 Commission 
recommended. The underlying bill actually contains a provision that 
would authorize the outsourcing of torture and limit any judicial 
review of this process! That's right--in this bill--H.R. 10--the House 
Republican leadership would actually make it easier for certain foreign 
persons to be sent to countries where they would be tortured in 
interrogations. I call this the Abu Ghraib-by-Proxy provision.
  It's outrageous that these provisions have been snuck into the 9/11 
bill behind closed doors when the 9/11 Commission specifically called 
for the United States to ``offer an example of moral leadership in the 
world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the law. . .'' 
Nothing could be farther from the 
9/11 Commission's intent when it issued this recommendation.
  Where does the Bush Administration stand on this Abu Ghraib? The 
White House's Legal Counsel sent a letter to the Washington Post saying 
that the Administration does not support these provisions in this bill.
  Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4674, a bill that would 
explicitly bar the U.S. from deporting, extraditing, or otherwise 
rendering persons to foreign nations known to engage in the practice of 
torture. If we really want to implement the 9/11 commission 
recommendations, we would be including this type of proposal in the 
bill before us today. I asked the Rules Committee to approve an open 
Rule that would allow me to do this, but they refused.

  What the Rules Committee did approve was a Rule that makes in order 
an amendment by the Gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). What does 
the Hostettler amendment do? It would rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' 
that detainees would not be tortured. We should not be trusting 
``diplomatic assurances'' from torturers that they won't engage in 
torture.
  Both H.R. 10 and the proposed Hostettler amendment would legitimize 
the practice of sending suspected terrorists to other countries to be 
tortured. That is wrong.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 10, and a NO vote on the Hostettler 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) 
to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism 
prevention and prosecution, border security, and international 
cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________