Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a gentleman and a gentle man, Bob Matsui.

I will sorely miss my good friend and colleague Bob Matsui. California and America have lost a champion for justice, Social Security, fair trade and opportunity for all.

Bob's courage was remarkable. Imprisoned in an internment camp as a young child, he worked to give freedom and dignity to others.

Serving more than 25 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as a Senior Member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, and Ranking Member of its Social Security Subcommittee, as well as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Bob was an unfailing gentleman and a loyal friend.

I met him early in his House career. Long before I thought of running for Congress I consulted him, and he offered his support.

Shortly thereafter, my key advisor and law firm colleague Vic Raiser died in a plane crash. Bob knew our relationship and called me. He said, ``I cannot take Vic's place, but I'll sure try.'' He made my race his top priority and personally contacted his donor base on my behalf. His efforts were critical to my victory and I referred to him thereafter as my ``mother.''

At this time of sadness, my thoughts and prayers are with Bob's extraordinary wife, Doris, son Brian and beautiful granddaughter, Anna. Bob leaves a huge void in this nation and a big hole in my heart.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the rules package includes a provision that will make the Homeland Security Committee a permanent committee. More importantly, we will be giving the committee real oversight and legislative jurisdiction. But I am disappointed that the majority has only given shared jurisdiction to the Homeland Security Committee in some areas. This creates the potential for ongoing turf battles that the 9/11 Commission warned against.

I am also discouraged that the majority has decided to add a third day of suspension bills to the legislative calendar each week. An increasing amount of legislation is being passed by the House under a suspension of the Rules. This is unnecessary and keeps us from doing the real business of the House--budgeting, appropriations and oversight.

A perfect example of this is the massive omnibus appropriations bill passed for fiscal year 2005 just a few weeks ago. This bill was rushed to the floor, ignoring the House rule requiring a 3-day review period before voting on conference reports. Only after the House voted on the bill, careful scrutiny of the language uncovered a provision allowing certain Members and staff access to any American's tax return.

Not only was this an embarrassing episode for the House leadership, it continued a troubling trend. In 4 out of the last 5 years, the majority has made a massive omnibus bill the only option to fund the government. This take-it-or-leave-it approach is not acceptable and is fiscally irresponsible.

Congress has also been asleep at the switch when it comes to funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism. This administration continues to fund the war on terrorism by supplemental appropriations. This is not a temporary war. Congress needs to stand up to this White House, stand up for honest budgeting, and require that funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism be made on-budget, and through the regular appropriations process.

By appropriating through omnibus bills and budgeting by supplemental, Congress is surrendering its constitutional duties. The results of this practice are ballooning deficits--the CBO confirmed that the 2004 deficit is the largest in history, $413 billion--a lack of follow- through to determine how appropriated funds are being spent.

Without proper oversight as a backstop, problems in the executive branch can spin out of control. Members are learning about problems for the first time through the newspapers, not as a result of tough oversight hearings. This kind of lax or nonexistent oversight contributes to situations like we saw in Abu Ghraib prison. Now we have learned about secret, permanent detention facilities in the United States where possible terrorists are held indefinitely, without any legal status.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take a hard look at our priorities and get back to doing the business of the House. We should be moving forward with a tough, focused oversight agenda, and a schedule that devotes more time to priority, must-pass legislation and less time to suspension bills. Instead, it appears that we are adopting a rules package today that will bring us more of the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and commend her service on the Committee on Rules. I rise to make clear that I will not object to this rule waiving any points of order which might lie against the conference report, a report that I strongly support.

I will be speaking about the content of the bill once we move to consideration of the conference report, where I will be managing the time on our side, but I did want to rise to comment on some of the claims that have been made in the debate so far, especially the claims just made by the powerful and passionate chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

I would point out to our colleagues that the conference report, which was the product of 3 months of intense negotiation, does contain immigration reforms. All of the conferees, to my knowledge, believe that immigration reform is necessary; and all of the conferees, and I hope all of our colleagues, understand that our goal here is to make certain that our immigration system does not enable terrorists to get on airplanes or otherwise to harm our citizens. That is why in this bill many of the suggestions made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and many of the provisions in the House bill were accepted.

For example, the bill provides for 10,000 more border guards over 5 years. Ten thousand. It provides 4,000 more border inspectors over 5 years. It provides for 40,000 more detention beds over 5 years. These are beds that will be used by those who might be deported.

So our point is that we want the immigration laws to work better. We want to make sure that we know who is coming into our country, not just at our southern border but also at our northern border. Most of us are well aware that attempts to harm our country have come to us across our northern border as well as our southern border. Indeed, one such attempt was foiled just before the millennium, when a man trying to get to Washington State from Canada was, fortunately, intercepted by an adroit Customs agent. He was driving a rental car full of bomb material intending to bomb LAX, a major international airport surrounded by my congressional district.

So, Mr. Speaker, I get this. Our borders are porous, and we need to make them more secure. This bill does that.

In addition to that, this bill adds to our law enforcement tools, addressing other issues with which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) was concerned. We toughen the penalties for terrorist hoaxes. We create a new set of penalties for those who would use shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down airplanes. We toughen the penalties for material support of terrorists, and we add a provision which enables us to punish the ``lone wolf'' terrorist, someone acting alone, as Timothy McVeigh did, to harm our citizens.

The bottom line here is this carefully structured, bipartisan, bicameral conference report does deal with these issues, as well as the chain of command, which many of us felt was adequately protected in current law, but which we addressed again to make sure everyone understood we were dealing with it. The point I want to make is we took these issues on, we came to the best resolution we could. This rule permits us to vote finally on what I think is the best possible conference report we could have developed under all of the circumstances. It deals with the valid concerns of the families who lost loved ones on 9-11, and it honors those they lost. I urge support of this rule. I will rise later and urge support of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the new chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), for his nice comments and for his enormous efforts at restoring bipartisanship to our committee. He, Senators Collins and Lieberman, House conferees on our side, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), have contributed a great deal, an enormous amount, to the legislation we are debating today. It is a good product, it is the right product, and I urge all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support it.

Mr. Speaker, this day, December 7, is a date which will live in infamy. So was September 11, 2001. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were the two most tragic hours since America became a Nation.

President Roosevelt launched a clear-eyed investigation of the intelligence lapses leading to Pearl Harbor, and since 9/11 we have worked hard to understand why critical intelligence about the plans, capabilities and whereabouts of the 9/11 hijackers fell through the cracks.

Our intelligence system is broken. We have 15 intelligence agencies with different rules, cultures and databases. Our Intelligence Community operates on a 1947 business model designed to defeat the Soviet Union, which was defeated in 1989. Fifteen years later, the enemy is digital, but our organizational structure remains analog.

This long-overdue legislation will modernize our capabilities, integrate our intelligence collection and analysis efforts, unify our counterterrorist efforts and promote intelligence sharing. It will promote the same jointness in

intelligence that has been the hallmark of our military's success since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much time, so I will forego describing the bill. But in addition to thanking our conferees and the so-called ``big four,'' I want to thank others who made this possible. They are the 9/ 11 families who were the moral force beneath our wings. I want to say to the families that your loved ones are holding a special spot in heaven for you and for all that you did for the safety of our country.

I also want to thank another group of people who are not here. They are the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies and who wear the uniform, many of whom are on the front lines at this hour risking their lives for our freedom. This legislation is designed to give them the capabilities they deserve and need to win the war on terrorism. They have our praise, our admiration and our full support. Good people need better tools. We are going to provide those tools today.

Mr. Speaker, December 7 will always remind us of the vulnerability of our homeland, but once we pass this bill, it will also stand for something else. It will stand for our resolve to make our Nation safer. And, I might add, it is a fitting birthday tribute to Senator Susan Collins, who worked so hard to make this effort possible.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to clarify two issues that are not stated explicitly in this legislation but that were very much on the minds of its drafters.

The first issue deals with the consolidation of power within the DNI to protect intelligence sources and methods. Members of the public have expressed concern that the increased authority of the Director of National Intelligence could be abused to constrict the free flow of information that is critical to our duties in the Congress and that the authorities under this bill might be used, or abused, to unduly limit the flow of information to the State and local governments and to the public.

The sources of this concern are past uses of government secrecy--not to protect classified information--but to limit, and occasionally to intimidate, current and even former government employees from speaking out. These measures have included over-classification and requirements that government employees take polygraphs and sign unduly and overly broad secrecy and non-disclosure agreements as a condition of access to information.

The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the dissemination of information within government. There is no intention on the part of the Congress to impair the appropriate and desirable flow of information. This bill does not contain any authority for the DNI or the President to establish a regime of undue government secrecy. The bill vests the DNI with the authority to protect intelligence sources and methods, just as the Director of Central Intelligence has exercised that authority. There is no new authority to criminalize or suppress the lawful and appropriate sharing of information within the government or to alter or waive any existing protections of government employees who wish to disclose information to Congress or through other lawful channels.

Further, it should be Congress's duty to assure through oversight that this information sharing environment is appropriate and complete. Congress will track the implementation of the various responsibilities assigned under this bill. The creation of the Information Sharing Environment and the establishment of the National Intelligence Center and the Information Sharing Council provide some of the many opportunities for congressional oversight.

A second issue deals with the creation of national standards for driver's licenses. This legislation creates strong minimum Federal standards for the issuance of State driver's licenses. We delegate to the Department of Homeland Security the task of devising these standards, but we make clear that these standards must at least require that licenses contain a person's full name, date of birth, gender, driver's license number, digital photograph, address, and signature. We also stipulate that the regulations shall include procedures to protect the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver's licenses. I want to make clear that we also intended to ensure that these regulations protect the civil and due process rights of those individuals as well.

This legislation requires that driver's license standards be established with a negotiated rulemaking. This rulemaking shall include State officials who issue driver's licenses, State elected officials, DHS, and interested parties. The words ``interested parties'' are not defined, but it is our intent that such parties should include organizations with technological and operational expertise in document security and organizations that represent the interests of applicants for such licenses or identification cards.

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

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support for this bill from the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I would like our colleagues to know as one conferee, we all support the chain of command.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a conferee, and the ranking member on the House Committee on Armed Services, a wonderful committee on which I served for 6 years.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who heads our Democratic Caucus, a wonderful and valued colleague on this issue, and a third of our Democratic conferees.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, clearly many in this House feel strongly. I hope most of us will vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, my predecessor as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and someone who knows these issues extremely well.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my classmate, a member of our committee and the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to applaud the comments of the last Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), another of our committee members and an increasingly valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and an extremely conscientious Member of this House.

(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not all agree on the best direction in which to go. It is clear from this debate that Members on our side and Members on the other side of the aisle have some strong feelings against the carefully crafted compromise. But carefully crafted it was. I can assure Members that 10 weeks and thousands of hours by Members and staff went into the language of this conference report.

There were fights about almost every issue. We worked it out as best we could. We worked it out on a bipartisan basis, and as I said at the beginning of this debate, I cannot thank enough Senators Collins and Lieberman and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their collaboration, talent, dedication and true grit. This would not have happened without them.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation about the House bill and what was left out of the conference report. I would point out to colleagues that the vote in the House was an extremely close vote. To remind, there was an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The vote on that amendment in the nature of a substitute was 203-213; 194 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and 1 Independent supported the Menendez substitute, which was essentially the Senate version of the bill. That means that 96 Members of the other body, all but 2 who voted, and 203 Members of this body, 300 Members, supported essentially the Senate version of the bill. We could look at that as an overwhelming vote for the Senate language. I certainly look at it that way, and the 9/11 Commission said and the White House said in many respects that the Senate language was much closer to what they intended.

My point in bringing this up is in reaching the compromise that we are voting on now, we need to understand how much was given up on both sides. Clearly the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and those who support his position think a lot was given up on his side. Some of the language that passed in H.R. 10, very controversial language, was given up, to be sure. But a lot of the language in the Senate version of the bill was also given up: such as the declassified top line; such as a number of the powers that have been talked about for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; such as full control over reprogramming of personnel and budget. A lot of those issues were given up in the effort to reach a carefully balanced, bipartisan, bicameral compromise.

That is what we are voting on today. I would just tell all Members that I believe it is not only the best we could do, but it is very good. Just to remind, we do address immigration, we do increase border protection, we do include Federal standards for State-issued drivers' licenses, and we do do something which has not been mentioned, which is direct TSA to develop within 6 months new standards for ID documents for boarding airplanes. TSA is directed in this bill to handle what we all agree is a problem. We do not want terrorists to use fraudulent documents or documents based on expired visas to board airplanes, and we correct that problem in this bill.

We also address the chain of command, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has pointed out. We did not address the border fence issue, but I am hopeful that without waiving environmental protections, those of us who care about it in California will figure out a right and fair solution.

Finally, let me point out, as many Members have, that this bill is supported by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the 9/11 Commission, most of the 9/11 families, most of the conferees, and overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis in each House. I urge its adoption. It is the right thing to do. It honors the 9/11 families, and it makes a point about the 63rd anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attacks. We know how to fix these problems. We will do it tonight. I urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not presently intend to object, I ask the gentleman to explain his unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would point out to the gentleman and to this body that I signed the conference report, but that I think it would be worthwhile to make several points, although the time is late, including the fact that it gives the director of CIA flexible authority to pay employees under non-Federal cover, which is more and more important in targeting the post-9/11 security threats of terrorism and the spread of WMD. It establishes a chief information technology manager to oversee enterprise, architecture, procurement and research and development. It requires the DCI to submit an assessment on countries or regions that are terrorist sanctuaries.

It contains a number of good language provisions. But it does not contain something that many of us feel is absolutely critical and that we hope will be forwarded by this administration for the 2006 budget, and that is full funding of counterterrorism in the base budget.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss three subjects, the first of which is this amendment. Although I listened carefully to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I think many of the points he makes are valid, and I agree with him that we should not be coddling terrorists, but I think this amendment is ill timed and needs further consideration by this House.

The gentleman has said that he is not participating in an effort to expand the PATRIOT Act, but these ideas have been circulated in a package called PATRIOT Act II. My view of the PATRIOT Act, which I supported, is that next year is the right time to consider how to expand or contract it.

I am a cosponsor of the SAFE Act, which would delete some provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are egregious, but I have an open mind in looking at some features of the PATRIOT Act which might be fine-tuned to work more effectively. So for that reason, I oppose this amendment.

I also will oppose the Hostettler amendment, which will be offered in a few minutes. I think it replaces the worst features of H.R. 10 with some other bad features. Certainly, the outsourcing of terrorists, as some of us have called it, which some Members of the majority including the gentleman

from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), agree would violate U.S. law and the International Convention on Torture, is a terrible idea.

But there are other features of the Hostettler amendment that make asylum much harder to get, and in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with finding and prosecuting terrorists, punish innocent immigrants. That is not the purpose of the debate today.

Finally, I want to comment on the en bloc amendment which was just offered and agreed to. I think it is a very good amendment, and the features of it I want to talk about are the Barton amendment, and the Fossella amendment, both of which have to do with interoperable communications.

We have done almost nothing since 9/11 effectively to deal with the failure to have communications equipment and adequate bandwidth with which to communicate, which was a major problem in New York and a major problem at the Pentagon. This administration is not even funding initiatives in this fiscal year for interoperable communications, claiming there is enough money in the pipeline.

The right answer is to free up some dedicated bandwidth for emergency communications. There is a pending bill called the HERO Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me, which has been sadly withering on the vine for a year and a half, opposed by the broadcasters. These two amendments will help with multiyear funding, which we need for ports as well as interoperable communications, and will help convey the sense of the Congress that makes it clear we have to free up this bandwidth so that our first responders have the tools that they need.

So as we proceed this morning, Mr. Chairman, I hope we are all paying close attention to amendments. Some are good, some are less good. I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), however, that I think he is an extremely careful legislator and a very good lawyer, and I hope that next year we can work together to craft PATRIOT Act amendments both to eliminate provisions that do not work and to enhance provisions that do work that will keep America safe, find the bad guys, and protect our civil liberties and our constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time to say how proud New Yorkers, two of whom are my children, are of her leadership and her service to New York City.

This has been a long and difficult debate. Last night, in my view, was not our finest hour in this House, and the re-vote on the Smith amendment just moments ago was an unnecessary rebuke to a bipartisan group who tried to make this bill better.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit, not to polarize us, but to unite us. The goal is to make us safer; and to do so, we need to change the way our intelligence community is organized.

Good people who try their best to protect us need better tools. A good organization cannot assure success, but a bad organization makes success much more difficult. Every Republican Senator voted for this bill, and eight Republicans voted for it in the House last night. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, instead of passing one strong bill to make our country safer, the House bill has two divergent parts: the first part is the core bill, which includes a watered-down version of the intelligence reform provisions in the 9/11 Commission report. The second part is a campaign bill, which has some useful features, but also contains partisan controversial provisions, such as expanded deportation, unlimited detention, unnecessary environmental waivers, and unchecked databases designed to paint Democrats as weak on terrorism in the weeks before an election.

Several of these egregious provisions were eliminated on the House floor, but the re-vote on the Smith amendment persuaded me that the bill's sponsors were not seeking common ground, but were making 30- second attack ads. I voted in committee to report the bill in order to move the process forward, and I will work my heart out in conference to strengthen the intelligence reform provisions and conform the other provisions to what the 9/11 Commission recommended.

Let me focus on what strengthening the intelligence provisions means. Our first priority in the conference report should be to strengthen the National Intelligence Director, called the NID. I agree with the statement of administration policy on H.R. 10 that ``H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the intelligence community effectively.''

H.R. 10's budget authorities are weaker than S. 2845; and, stunningly, they are weaker than current statutes and executive orders which allow for the transfer and reprogramming of funds by the Director of Central Intelligence. Under H.R. 10, money is simply passed through the NID to the various intelligence agencies. Unless the NID has the power to manage and control the budgets of these agencies, he or she will not be able to integrate our intelligence capabilities effectively.

Moreover, the President is not the NID's only customer. We must ensure that the NID addresses the needs of the Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and the war fighters when budgets are built and executed. Our efforts must not lead to the dismemberment of the National Foreign Intelligence Program, the NFIP, or we will end up with less integration than we presently have.

To be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, neither bill, let me underscore this, neither bill includes the budgets for tactical intelligence. And no one is recommending that they be included. To repeat: no one has recommended that the budgets of our tactical intelligence agencies be included in the structure we are building under this legislation.

The NID also needs greater personnel management authorities. S. 2845 provides this authority, but H.R. 10 does not. The leaders of the intelligence community must believe they work for the NID in addition to their Department Secretaries. Consultation on appointments, which is what H.R. 10 includes, is insufficient. The NID must at least have the power to concur in key appointments. To enable the NID to create a joint culture, he or she must also be able to transfer people to centers and other multidisciplinary teams.

Congress solved the problem of a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 20 years ago by mandating joint assignments for promotion and creating a joint career track. The same must be done for the NID. After all, the NID is our attempt to create Goldwater-Nichols jointness for the intelligence community, just as we have done for the military.

Third, the director of the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, must have significant stature. Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of the NCTC director is critical to give that post the stature and accountability that it requires. The President and the Senate overwhelmingly support this.

Fourth, the conference report should include the provision of S. 2845 to create a trusted information-sharing network so government agencies can connect the dots about the terrorists. Simply declaring the need, as H.R. 10 does, is woefully insufficient.

And finally, it is imperative to develop mechanisms to ensure that actions of the NID and NCTC do not encroach upon our civil liberties. We must create an independent privacy and civil liberties board, which was supported on a bipartisan basis in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and then stripped in the Committee on Rules, recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in S. 2845. These intelligence provisions began here in the House with H.R. 4104, but they stalled here because our leadership pursued a partisan path and because the President's endorsement of S. 2845 was not followed up with constructive effort in the House.

We know how to do this right, Mr. Speaker, and we must. We can never replace the loved ones we lost on September 11, but we can honor them and the bravery of those who came to their rescue by uniting in this conference in the next several weeks to enact real reform. I pledge to do my part.

Mr. Speaker, this rule does accommodate the request of the minority leadership to make in order the Menendez amendment. It allows 60 minutes in order for debate on that amendment. However, the text of H.R. 10, which we will consider under the rule, undercuts bipartisan efforts to strengthen the intelligence portions of the bill which were adopted in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

My amendment offered in committee to establish an independent privacy and civil liberties board passed our committee by a vote of 16 to 3. A second amendment offered by a member of the majority, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), to give the National Intelligence director stronger authority to transfer and reprogram money passed in our committee by a vote of 12 to 7.

A third offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to prevent the executive branch from reorganizing the intelligence community without Congress's input passed by voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is as if these amendments were written in disappearing ink. Not one of them made it into the bill that was considered and reported by the Committee on Rules. Not one.

Our new Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), is trying to restore our committee's long-standing bipartisan tradition which had come apart in recent months. He supported two of these amendments, but his leadership prevented them from becoming part of the base bill. Why?

Fortunately, our amendments are included in S. 2845, the Collins- Lieberman-McCain bill which is the substance of the Menendez amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is one of the reasons I strongly support the Menendez amendment which we will discuss later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, this rule should have accommodated bipartisan efforts by the committee of primary jurisdiction in this House. The actions by the Speaker and the Committee on Rules to strip bipartisan provisions of H.R. 10 are a sorry way to start this historic debate. I will vote ``no'' on the rule.

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,

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a excellent senior member of our committee.

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. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a member of our committee.

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.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, a number of speakers have commented on the courage and sacrifice of intelligence community personnel who work in the shadows in austere lands. As we debate this bill, their lives are at risk and we owe them and their families our heartfelt thanks and total support.

We also owe them better tools, including an organization that equips them to meet 21st-century threats. We are using a 1947 business model designed to defeat an enemy that no longer exists.

It is time, Mr. Chairman, way past time for change. And this debate needs to focus on what change will truly help our intelligence community transition to the capabilities necessary to meet 21st-century threats.

When you think about that, and you compare H.R. 10 to the Menendez substitute, a substitute which is battle-tested, which passed the other body 96 to 2 just last night with every single Republican voting for it, there is absolutely no contest. The Menendez substitute is much stronger, much better, and much more bipartisan than H.R. 10.

The accusations made against the Menendez substitute can all be rebutted, and we will do that tonight. It does a better job of controlling our borders. It does a better job of protecting the civil liberties of Americans. It does a better job of targeting terrorists while protecting the rights of innocent immigrants.

I urge strong support for the Menendez substitute and would hope that H.R. 10 will be viewed as the partisan offering that it sadly is.

Mr. Chairman, in response to two of the claims just made, number one, the defense communications budget and the defense information security budget are not part of the National Foreign Intelligence program. Only the NFIB will be managed by the NID, as it is today by the DCI. So those budgets will not be covered.

Secondly, the Menendez substitute does not address the reorganization of Congress. It does not collapse the appropriations authority into the authorizing committee. That does not happen under this substitute.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has raised concerns about providing information to the enemy by declassifying the top line of the budget. In the 9/11 Commission report it says, ``When even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden, it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability. The top line figure by itself provides little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods.'' It was passed in the other body 55 to 37, overwhelmingly supported by Republican Senators.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to control the time on the amendment.

I am not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment's sponsor knows a lot about intelligence, having served as staff director for the Intelligence Committee in the other body under the late great Senator Goldwater, author of Goldwater- Nichols, the law that prescribes jointness in the military just like the approach some of us want to take to the intelligence community.

The gentleman is rightly a supporter of greater use of open sources, and I would agree with him that our entire intelligence community could benefit by greater use of open sources. I would just point out that some of the photos he showed us were very interesting, and to my mind, reveal a lot more information than the top line of the intelligence budget. But be that as it may, his amendment, I think, is a sensible idea, if only to draw more attention to the importance that open sources can provide.

This is a sense of the Congress, so for those who think that centers should only be mission oriented, it is only a sense of the Congress that we should pay more attention to open sources.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would comment further only this, that I regret the tone of the debate on the last amendment. It troubles me a lot. I think everyone sitting here really cares that we get it right about intelligence reorganization.

Many of us have studied it for years. I wish the House had taken the lead on the subject months and months ago, because we had very good information on the problems and very good legislation drafted. But we stalled out, and the other body filled the vacuum and we are where we are.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee,

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for the purpose of making unanimous consent request.

(Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said and our other speaker said, this is a good amendment. This is a bipartisan issue. I think everybody here cares about better intelligence, and it is interesting to note how little attention open sources have gotten over the years and how much we have lost because we have not paid attention to them. So in that sense I think this amendment is extremely inspired to make a point that we must focus on this.

I would, however, like to make sure that the record of some of the conversation under the Menendez amendment is accurate, and in that connection, I am holding a press release issued by the Central Intelligence Agency dated 15 October, 1997, which says at the bottom the aggregate amount appropriated for intelligence and intelligence- related activities for fiscal year 1997 is $26.6 billion. A press release was also issued for 1998.

I would also like to say I do stand corrected. I have looked at the language of the Collins bill and what it provides is an alternative. That is what the 9/11 Commission also said in terms of organization of Congress. ``One alternative is a joint Senate-House authorizing committee. The other alternative is a committee in each Chamber with combined authorization and appropriations authority.'' The legislation does not make a decision between the two.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, September 13 was an important date for Congress. It marked the expiration of the decade-old Assault Weapons Ban. Police Chiefs across the country strongly encouraged the extension of this ban. President Bush even announced he would sign an extension if Congress presented him with the opportunity. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not deem the ban fit for a vote.

Instead, Congress squanders valuable time voting on matters that either have no bearing on the real work at hand or are designed as divisive wedge issues.

Just yesterday the House voted to repeal the District of Columbia's 28-year-old assault weapons ban and to prohibit the DC Government from enacting such laws in the future.

That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today, the House, in another profile in courage, will devote valuable time to one of the most divisive of wedge issues--a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Are these the most pressing issues of the day for Congress? For the American people? Of course not. Al Qaeda will not stop at the borders of Washington, DC, in fear of our newly armed city, but tourists and other visitors might. And DC residents, Members of Congress and their families will be at greater risk.

Nor will our ports, railways, airports, and other critical infrastructure be more secure because we waste time on what is certain to be a failed Federal effort to ban gay marriage.

States have long regulated marriage and I do not believe that America has suffered from this practice. I believe State legislatures and courts are the proper arbiters of questions of community values. On this issue there is bipartisan agreement. Indeed, four of the featured speakers at the recent Republican convention oppose this amendment, including Vice President Cheney and California Governor Schwarzenegger.

We have traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader range of rights to Americans. Why, in the 21st century, are we breaking from this 200-year-old tradition? In my view, the Constitution should be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of codifying or expanding rights and liberties. This proposed amendment fails to meet that test, is divisive, and distracts from more urgent priorities.

If America is hit by terrorists again, I fear that history will look back at us with a scathing and sorrowful eye. There will be anger at our misplaced priorities, and sadness that we fell victim to the passions of those whose vision for America's future is clouded by fear and intolerance.

I oppose H.J. Res. 106 and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose it. We need to put this shameful vote behind us and focus on problems that all Americans agree need to be addressed, such as jobs, health care and, most of all, national security.

Mr. Speaker, have we become unhinged in this House? The business that most of us are engaged in all day today and the business that we will be engaged in all next week is trying to pass responsible reforms to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations intended to make us safer. While we do this, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, we are debating today a wedge issue designed to make the people who live in the District of Columbia, the Members of Congress, and our families less safe.

Let us understand what we are talking about here. I am reading from the description of this bill. We are repealing the ban on semiautomatic weapons, we are eliminating criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm, and we are amending Federal law to eliminate criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded.

This is incredible, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that this House would even spend 2 seconds on this issue. Maybe this is good rhetoric in somebody's campaign, but it is bad policy for the United States of America. Shame on this House for wasting time on this bill. I strongly oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the federal court system.

The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that would take away the rights of some Americans.

There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA.

Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we are considering today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the mother of all unconstitutional legislation.

The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress.

Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a specific group of Americans--same-sex couples and their children--from having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right to seek justice through our federal court system.

Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or the marriage preservation argument. This measure reveals the clear intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment under the law.

I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely, and likely unconstitutional bill.

Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the federal court system.

The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that would take away the rights of some Americans.

There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA.

Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we are considering today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the mother of all unconstitutional legislation.

The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress.

Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a specific group of Americans--same sex couples and their children--from having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right to seek justice through our federal court system.

Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or the marriage preservation arguments. This measure reveals the clear intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment under the law.

I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely, and likely unconstitutional bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. You know it's sad that we're even having this debate. However we are being forced to. Marriage and the American family are under attack by activist groups and they're using wayward judges to chip away at this sacred institution. For the sake of our country, Congress must respond.

This bill would prevent federal courts from forcing states like Texas to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in another state.

Well in Texas, the people have spoken. We have a Defense of Marriage Act on the books. The lone star state only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of what other states might do.

However, in light of recent events in Massachusetts and elsewhere, it has become necessary to ensure that the will of the people of Texas isn't circumvented by some unelected judge. And one of the remedies to abuses by federal judges lies in Congress' authority to limit federal court jurisdiction.

Congress shouldn't be afraid to properly exercise checks and balances provided for in the Constitution. It is our responsibility to prevent overreaching by the courts. We've got to reign in these zealous judges who think they can legislate.

Back home we have a popular slogan, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well I've got one for this debate, ``Don't mess with marriage!''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to celebrate today the 100th anniversary of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce.

Wilmington is known, thanks to our local chamber, as the ``Heart of the Harbor,'' and is our nation's gateway to the Pacific and beyond. The business members of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce serve one of our country's most vital economic engines, the Port of Los Angeles. The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce enhances the local business environment and helps to improve the quality of life in our community.

The chamber's work builds on a long and auspicious history for the local community. When Phineas Banning founded Wilmington in 1858, he could hardly have imagined the impact that this small community would eventually come to have on the rest of the world. The second post office in Los Angeles County was opened here, and Wilmington was the lifeline to 215 army posts scattered throughout Arizona and New Mexico during the Civil War. Wilmington was no less important during the Second World War, when Navy ships were built on Terminal Island and contributed to winning the war in the Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce on 100 years of remarkable service to the Wilmington community and the nation. I wish the Wilmington business community many more years of success.

Mr. Chairman, although I have expressed serious concerns about our government's ability to search library and book store records, I do not believe that the Sanders amendment is the proper vehicle for addressing this concern. I will reluctantly oppose it.

The PATRIOT Act is a flawed law. It was passed just 7 weeks after September 11, 2001, without meaningful debate about how its new, wide- ranging powers would impact civil liberties. The Act contains some important provisions, such as modernizing law enforcement tools. But it also contains some highly problematic provisions, such as those that potentially give law enforcement officials a license to go on fishing expeditions for personal information unrelated to terrorism.

I believe we must carefully review the PATRIOT Act when it comes up for reauthorization next year. Congress should decide which provisions are necessary to win the war on terrorism, and which are unnecessarily harmful to civil liberties. This process should not be done ``on the fly'' in the middle of an election year, before we have an opportunity to understand the Act's full ramifications.

That is why I also oppose any effort to make permanent the PATRIOT Act. We adopted this bill in a rush. We wisely included sunset provisions that kick-in after sufficient time has passed to allow us to carefully assess the effectiveness of the provisions and their impact on civil liberties. Let's not rush to make permanent any of the provisions without the careful review we initially envisioned.

The responsible course of action is to revise the PATRIOT Act after we understand how best to improve it.