[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4779-H4786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 388 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 388

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2082 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.

[[Page H4780]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, House Resolution 388 provides 
for consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 under a structured rule.
  The rule makes in order a total of ten amendments, almost half of 
which will be offered by Members of the minority, including one which 
will be offered by the ranking member of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, Representative Hoekstra.
  The rule also makes in order an amendment that I offered, along with 
my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Rogers of 
Michigan, and our bipartisan amendment is a commonsense solution to 
holding the Office of National Director of intelligence accountable for 
its actions.
  The House will have a chance to debate our amendment later today, and 
I hope my colleagues will support it.
  I would like to point out that Members who wish to do so, as the 
Chair of the Intelligence Committee has pointed out previously, can go 
to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the classified schedule 
of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence 
and intelligence-related activities of the national and military 
intelligence programs.
  The importance of the intelligence community touches all Americans as 
our Nation's first line of defense against increasing world threats. 
Effective intelligence is the first method to protect our citizens and 
prevent debacles like the war in Iraq.
  The underlying legislation authorizes funding for all United States 
intelligence agencies, including the national and military intelligence 
programs. It is the largest intelligence authorization bill ever 
considered by the House and takes significant steps to eliminate 
duplication and ineffectiveness in our intelligence agencies.
  The bill increases funding to improve human intelligence, training 
and send additional intelligence analysts overseas to maximize their 
abilities. It also requires additional intelligence reports on North 
Korea and Iranian efforts to become nuclear capable. We also take 
significant steps to improve the collecting, deciphering and 
understanding of intelligence.
  The effectiveness of our intelligence community is significantly 
jeopardized when the diversity of the intelligence community does not 
reflect the diverse world in which we live. Women and minorities 
continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in the senior ranks 
and the core mission areas of analysis, human intelligence collection, 
and science and technology.
  Simply put, we still do not have an intelligence community that looks 
like our country or the world. Minorities make up 37 percent of the 
American population, yet only 21 percent of the intelligence community, 
and the numbers for African-Americans and Latinos is woefully below 
that number. This is a problem that is addressed in the underlying 
bill, which requires the development of a strategic plan to increase 
diversity within the intelligence community and mandates increased 
diversity among the rank and file of the community.
  I am fond of saying in the Intelligence Committee hearings that it 
doesn't take more degrees than the thermometer to be a spy, but 
somebody back there decided that that must have been the case.
  Another significant concern exacerbated by this lack of diversity is 
a deficiency of linguist abilities in the intelligence community. There 
are countless stories of intelligence tapes that had piled up in the 
months leading up to September 11 when the terrorist attacks occurred 
here. That was done because we didn't have anyone to translate them.
  Experts and administrators lament the fact that we don't have enough 
Arabic, Farsi, Urdu or Dari speakers, and we always go in that 
direction, but we don't have enough Asian language speakers, either, in 
the intelligence community and the military.
  How can we expect to completely correct that course without 
thoroughly modernizing the recruitment, selection and security 
clearance processes to quickly bring on board people with these 
critical skills? The underlying bill provides for the commonsense 
modernization of our security clearance procedures to address this 
growing problem, requiring that the system make more efficient use of 
those who are proficient in foreign languages or with cultural, 
linguistic or other subject matter expertise that is critical to 
national security. We must make these necessary modernizations to adapt 
to the ever-changing threats around us.
  Finally, following the recommendations of 11 three- and four-star 
generals, the bill requests that the National Intelligence Council 
produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security 
impact of global climate change. Some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have expressed discontent with this provision, 
because they believe that enough research is currently under way about 
climate change. In doing so, in my judgment, they failed to recognize 
that climate change is impacting global security.
  Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among 
those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential 
to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of 
terrorist cells. If we can't even agree on the implications of climate 
change, it is obvious that more research is necessary, especially 
observing the impact of climate change on the movement of people and 
resources, and how that connects to terrorism.
  Footnote right there, I pointed out in the Rules Committee that Iraq 
would be the classic example of what I am talking about. There are 2 
million refugees, and it is almost like it is kind of hidden, that are 
displaced from their homes in Iraq. There are 400,000 to 500,000 
internally displaced in Iraq. Yet, what we find is they are being 
pushed into Syria, Jordan and Egypt where there are already significant 
water resource problems. Someone tell me how that doesn't equate to an 
environment where terrorists will be produced.
  If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have 
significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense 
University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response 
to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training 
simulations. As scientists explore the connection between such 
disasters and climate change, it is imperative that the national 
security implications of such events be thoroughly understood.
  I am glad that our committee addresses this issue in the bill. If we 
have learned anything from the failures of the war in Iraq, it is that 
reliable intelligence is critical to ensuring America's national 
security.
  I am pleased to support this rule and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to this restrictive rule.
  The Intelligence Authorization Act generally receives strong 
bipartisan support. But let me be clear that the underlying bill does 
contain bipartisan provisions that are important to protecting our 
national security, make no bones about that.
  However, the bill also contains a number of provisions that are of 
concern and could weaken our national security and intelligence 
capabilities by providing less than adequate resources and placing 
restrictions on our intelligence operations.
  I am concerned that the Democratic leadership chose to include 
section 407 in the underlying bill. My friend from Florida talked at 
length about that provision, which would require our Nation's 
intelligence community to direct

[[Page H4781]]

its limited resources to a National Intelligence Estimate on global 
climate change.
  I have to ask, what message are we sending to our allies and our 
enemies when Congress instructs our intelligence experts to stop what 
they are doing on issues that threaten American lives and, instead, 
focus on theoretical risks from global warming.
  Furthermore, earlier this year, this House created a new Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to focus on the 
risks of global warming. This is in addition to several Federal 
agencies that are already analyzing climate change. Congress should let 
this panel that was created, and existing Federal agencies, focus on 
climate change so that our intelligence analysts can focus on materials 
of classified information and work to prevent threats against American 
lives.
  But I am pleased, I have to say, with the Rules Committee last night 
because they made in order an amendment to be offered by the ranking 
member, Mr. Hoekstra, of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, that will strike section 407 and allow our spies to be 
spies. I think we can have a very good debate on that. I think we ought 
to have that debate. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made that 
amendment in order.
  However, the Democratic leadership did deny several thoughtful 
amendments offered by Mr. Castle, Mr. Flake, Mr. Rogers of Michigan and 
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, which only 
allows 10 out of 433 Members of the House to offer their ideas on how 
to better strengthen our intelligence community.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from 
Florida for yielding me time on this very important rule.
  I rise in support of this rule. The terrorist plot that was recently 
uncovered in New Jersey this past week shows that we cannot let our 
guard down in the effort to learn the plans and intentions of people 
who would do us grave harm.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 2082, provides funding for the brave women 
and men of our intelligence community. I have visited with them in 
every corner of the world, and I am constantly amazed by their 
patriotism, their dedication to mission, and their commitment to doing 
our Nation's most sensitive and dangerous business, often without 
public acknowledgement or recognition.
  Today, the United States faces a dynamic set of threats, challenges, 
and opportunities. We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We face a 
growing terrorist threat. Countries like Iran and North Korea are 
working towards a nuclear bomb. And we face a number of other key 
challenges in Africa, Latin America, and from rising powers like Russia 
and China. These major challenges require a major effort by our 
government to collect, to analyze, and to disseminate intelligence, and 
to do so within the legal bounds of our Constitution and our national 
values.
  This bill invests in human intelligence. It invests in analysis and 
analysts. It funds key counterterrorism operations and sensitive 
collection programs. And it improves critical oversight in key areas 
such as the overuse of contractors and the lack of qualified linguists 
in the intelligence business.
  This bill was developed on a bipartisan basis. And although there may 
not be agreement on every single point, there is agreement on all the 
major points. This rule will allow a full debate on many of the key 
issues before us, and I, along with my colleagues, should welcome this 
debate. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, a member of the Intelligence 
Committee, Mrs. Wilson.
  (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I am here to urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the previous question on 
the rule for the Intelligence authorization bill today.
  I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that was similar to one 
that I offered in the Intelligence Committee that would modernize our 
foreign intelligence surveillance laws so that we can listen to the 
terrorists trying to kill us, while protecting Americans' civil 
liberties.
  Every member of the House Intelligence Committee knows that the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not working, and so does the 
Speaker of the House. In fact, she has been briefed on this earlier 
than any of us have, since shortly after 9/11.
  Last week, in unclassified session in front of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of 
National Intelligence, urged the Congress to modernize our intelligence 
surveillance laws. He told us and the world, ``We are actually missing 
a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' We are missing a 
significant portion of what we should be getting.
  In January of this year, the Attorney General of the United States 
wrote to the Congress and said there were new Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court orders that were innovative, that would put the 
President's terrorist surveillance program underneath the auspices of a 
judge in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They are 
innovative, because the court is stretching the law like a twin sheet 
over a king-sized bed. And every member of the Intelligence Committee 
knows just how fragile the legal framework is in this arrangement. Yet, 
a single judge in a nonadversarial secret setting has said it is okay 
to go forward on this basis because it is important to the country, and 
the Congress has failed to act. Will the next judge go along?
  Every one of us knows there is a problem. Here is the problem:
  In 1978, almost all local calls were on wire and almost all long 
distance calls were transmitted by microwave over the air. The FISA law 
distinguishes between collection over a wire and collection over the 
air. You don't need a FISA warrant to collect signals over the air. And 
that is where long-haul communications were in 1978.
  Now, in 21st-century communications, the situation is completely 
reversed. Most long-haul communications are on wire and most local 
calls are over the air. 230 million Americans have cell phones, but the 
FISA law we operate under is stuck in the 1970s, while we are trying to 
protect this country from terrorists who are exploiting the 21st-
century technology that was invented by this great country. We are 
tying the hands of our intelligence agencies while our enemies are 
using these communication systems to plot to kill Americans.
  But the rule is even worse than that. The committee has ruled in 
order an amendment by Mr. Flake and Mr. Schiff that insists, insists 
that our intelligence agencies must use this outdated 1978 law. What do 
you think the FISA judges are going to think when they see that pass 
the House of Representatives?
  We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be 
getting. What did we miss today? What are the terrorists plotting 
today? What are they talking about that is flowing over the wires that 
America built today? Who is going to die tomorrow because you won't let 
our Intelligence Committees listen to the foreign communications on a 
wire and you will not allow a debate on this floor on this very 
important issue?
  I pray to God that we don't need another 9/11 Commission to look at 
what our failures were in intelligence. Because if we have to look at 
failures, if we have to look at whether we should have done something 
when we had a chance, then mark this vote on this day in history, when 
the Democrat majority in this House chose to tie our hands in the face 
of a determined enemy.
  If we defeat the previous question on this rule, we will offer the 
amendment to modernize our intelligence surveillance laws to update 
them for 21st-century technology. A vote in favor of the

[[Page H4782]]

previous question on this rule is a vote to keep the FISA law frozen in 
time in 1978, while our enemies use 21st-century communications to plot 
to kill Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Rule for debate and 
the previous question on the Intelligence Authorization Bill today.
  This vote is more important than most procedural things we do around 
here.
  I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would modernize 
our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Laws so that we can listen to the 
terrorists trying to kill us and protect the civil liberties of 
Americans.
  Every member of the House Intelligence Committee knows that the FISA 
law is not working, and so does the Speaker of the House. She has been 
briefed on these matters since shortly after 9/11--long before any of 
us were.
  Last week, in unclassified session in front of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of 
National Intelligence urged the Congress to modernize this law. He told 
us and the world, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of 
what we should be getting.''
  In classified session, the details of the problems are even worse.
  On January 17, 2007 the Attorney General told the Congress that there 
were new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders that are 
``innovative''.
  They are ``innovative'' because the court is stretching the law like 
a twin sized sheet to cover a king sized bed.
  And every member of the Intelligence Committee knows just how fragile 
this legal arrangement is.
  Yet, a single judge in a non-adversarial secret session allowed it is 
important to the security of the country and because the Congress has 
failed to act.
  Will the next judge continue to stretch the law?


                              The Problem

  In 1978 almost all local calls were on wire and almost all long-haul 
calls were over the air.
  The FISA law distinguishes between collection on a wire and 
collection out of the air.
  You don't need a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence over 
the air.
  Now, in 21st century communications, the situation is completely 
reverse.
  Most long-haul communications are on a wire and local calls are in 
the air.
  But the calls we want, for foreign intelligence information, are on 
the wires and fiber optic cables.
  The FISA law we operate under is stuck in the 1970s while we are 
trying to protect this country from enemies that use 21st century 
communications.
  We're tying the hands of our intelligence agencies while our enemies 
are using the communications systems we built to plot to kill us.


                           But It Gets Worse

  But the rule is even worse than that.
  The committee has ruled in order an amendment by Mr. Flake and Mr. 
Schiff that says our agencies must use this outdated 1978 law.
  The Democrat leadership will insist that we turn our backs on 21st 
century terrorists, using 21st century communications and pretend we 
can be frozen in a 1978 world.
  ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be 
getting,'' said our Director of National Intelligence.
  What did we miss today?
  What are the terrorists plotting today?
  Who is going to die tomorrow because you won't let our intelligence 
agencies listen to foreign communications on a wire?
  I pray to God we never need another ``9/11 Commission'' that looks at 
how we failed to protect ourselves when we could have done something.
  If we do, mark this vote, this day in history, when the Democrat 
majority in this House chose to tie our hands in the face of a 
determined enemy.
  A vote in favor of the previous question on this rule is a vote to 
keep the FISA law frozen in time in 1978 while our enemies use 21st 
century communications to plot to kill Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend Ms. 
Harman, who is the previous ranking member of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and is a member of the newly appointed Special 
Intelligence Oversight Panel.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding to me and 
commend him for his continued service both on the Intelligence 
Committee and on the Rules Committee.
  As you heard, I served the past 8 years on the Intelligence 
Committee, the last 4 as ranking member. I loved that opportunity, and 
I remain passionate about the issues. I believe that there is nothing 
more central to our roles in Congress than to keep our country safe. 
And that committee has crucial jurisdiction.
  I would respectfully disagree with the comments of the last speaker, 
Mrs. Wilson. I have been briefed longer than she has on how the so-
called NSA program operates. I believed then and I believe now that it 
can and must fully comply with FISA, a law that has been modernized 12 
times since 9/11 through changes we have made which I supported in the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of H.R. 2082. In my 
current role as Chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Information 
Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee, I continue to 
review intelligence reports and to talk to our key security 
professionals. And, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. We have surged our 
intelligence resources into Iraq, where they are necessarily focused on 
the tactical needs of warfighters. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has gained 
strength and is inspiring new cells worldwide. We have taken our eye 
off the ball. That ball is al Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, we should all be worried that terrorist cells are here 
in the United States, right now, waiting for the right moment to 
strike. We have yet to develop a truly effective system for sharing 
time-sensitive intelligence about terror plots with first responders, 
whom I would like to believe could be first preventers.
  Even at the Federal level, a variety of data bases, classifications, 
and pseudo-classification systems could still, 5\1/2\ years after 9/11, 
prevent us from connecting the dots. We have yet to develop an adequate 
strategy to counter radicalization in our prisons and in our 
communities. The events at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, earlier this week 
are the latest example. And we have not yet broken into the inner 
circle of the senior al Qaeda leadership even though we have been at 
this for more than 5 years. These problems are urgent as we could be 
attacked at any time.
  I recently reviewed the classified annex to this bill and continue to 
pay special attention to our technical satellite programs. Changes to 
these programs cannot be discussed in an unclassified setting such as 
this; but I want to reiterate my long-held view that the women and men 
who build these systems constitute a major strategic asset of the 
United States. Rocket scientists do not grow on trees, and we must keep 
them highly trained and highly motivated. Without their help, we could 
literally lose our ability to see, hear, and communicate.
  Finally, I strongly support the effort to develop a National 
Intelligence Estimate on climate change. Changes in our climate will 
affect critical resources such as water, food, and arable land, as we 
are seeing now in Darfur and in many parts of Africa. Droughts affect 
the stability of governments, and the stability of governments is one 
of the key things we need to know about through our intelligence. This 
isn't bugs and bunnies, or even Bugs Bunny. It is survival or 
destruction. And if we make responsible moves now, our grandchildren 
will benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, by supporting this legislation, the Congress stands with 
the extraordinary women and men of our intelligence community who often 
serve in austere locations on unaccompanied assignments. I am one of 
the few here who know these people and know where they serve. I say to 
them, our Nation owes you our gratitude; hopefully, this bill provides 
the support and tools you need as well as honors your sacrifice.
  I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the underlying 
legislation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 388, the rule for 
consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.

[[Page H4783]]

  As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I 
strongly believe we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's 
intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own 
congressional committees.
  In its final report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that: ``Of all our 
recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the 
most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by the 
current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American 
people will not get the security they want and need.''
  The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and the subsequent 9/11 Public 
Disclosure Project recommended three alternatives for reforming 
congressional oversight of intelligence. These options include: one, 
establishing a Joint Committee on Intelligence modeled after the old 
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; two, establishing House and Senate 
Committees on Intelligence with authorizing and appropriating 
authority; or, three, establishes a new Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Intelligence.

                              {time}  1400

  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress enacted a 
large majority of the Commission's recommendations. However, as it 
turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the 
tangled rules and procedures here in the United States Congress that 
have been left unfinished.
  Earlier this year the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a 
Band-Aid to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence Oversight 
Panel that has very little control over actual funding decisions. This 
is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, its 
report plainly states that, ``tinkering with the existing committee 
structure is not sufficient.''
  This week I offered a simple amendment to the bill before us, calling 
for a sense of Congress that this House should act to implement these 
crucial 9/11 recommendations, but it was denied under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all 
of these important recommendations, even those that are difficult. We 
will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an 
effective committee structure capable of giving our national 
intelligence agencies the oversight, support and leadership they need.
  I urge the defeat of the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
inform each side of the remaining amount of time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Washington has 19 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, with whom I serve 
on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and he is the Chair of the 
Special Intelligence Oversight Panel, Mr. Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida. 
It is indeed a pleasure and an education to serve with him on the 
Intelligence Committee.
  And I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. 
Although this bill is not the full reform that I think is needed, it 
does contain many features that, if enacted, will improve the operation 
and oversight of the intelligence community.
  I'd like to address one amendment that has been made in order, and I 
thank the Rules Committee for accepting for consideration an amendment 
that I offer that seeks to address an issue that's been one of the 
highest concerns for both this committee and the Congress, and that is, 
protecting the security and the cover of intelligence officers.
  This grows out, in part, of the well publicized outing of a former 
CIA officer. For nearly 4 years, I have led the effort within the 
committee and in this body to determine the facts surrounding this 
case, as well as its consequences for the security of our Nation.
  In previous Congresses, on eight separate occasions, in committee and 
on this floor, the then majority voted down every effort to obtain 
information on the matter. As I repeatedly noted at the time, Mr. 
Fitzgerald's criminal inquiry could never address some of the key 
questions that we sought to have answers for.
  For example, how and why did Ms. Plame's cover status become known to 
those with no legitimate need to know?
  How much damage was done to our intelligence collection efforts as a 
result of the outing of Ms. Plame?
  What measures has the CIA and has the now Director of National 
Intelligence taken to prevent similar compromises in the future?
  We still need answers to these and other questions. The amendment I 
am offering today that I will offer, would require the President, 
through the Director of National Intelligence, to report annually to 
the Congress on the need for any modification to the Intelligence 
Identities Protection Act to improve the legal protections for covert 
agents. This report, along with other oversight that the committee will 
undertake, and that I hope to undertake through the Select Intelligence 
Oversight Panel, will help us establish exactly what measures need to 
be taken to minimize the chances of such compromises of the identities 
of covert operatives in the future.
  These men and women take enormous risks on our behalf. We owe it to 
them to ensure their identities are protected from the exposure, both 
from hostile intelligence services but even from those within our own 
government who would seek to retaliate against them for speaking truth 
to power.
  This reporting requirement would be an amended version of what the 
President is already required to do, but has failed to do every year. 
We seek to have the President show more diligence in protecting the 
cover of these employees.
  Let me reiterate that this amendment represents only one step in the 
process. The chairman of the committee has assured me that there will 
be oversight and legislative action on this issue in addition to that 
which we are taking today.
  I would also like to comment that it is astonishing in the debates 
leading up to this in committee and here on the floor today that there 
would be so much attention being paid to the request for a national 
intelligence estimate on climate change. A preliminary assessment is 
already in the works. We should want the intelligence community to be 
considering everything that affects our national security, be it 
demographics or climate or droughts. I am astonished that there would 
be any resistance to having such a national intelligence estimate. So I 
am pleased that the committee has put that in this bill, and I look 
forward to its passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise to commend the majority for including, under the rule, the 
amendment that will be offered later by Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking 
minority member, former chairman of the committee, to strike section 
407 of the bill. This is the section of the bill that so many people 
have commented on so far today that will now task our national 
intelligence resources to start looking at the issue of climate change.
  To me there is a great irony in this happening here today because for 
many years we have heard criticism from Democrats over and over again 
on the so-called inefficiencies, inadequacies of our national 
intelligence capabilities, specially as it related to WMD in Iraq and 
their failure to get an accurate picture of that. And now we see today 
an expansion of their duties and responsibilities.
  I believe most Americans look for our intelligence agencies not to be 
engaged on the issue of climate change but more directly to be involved 
in the business of protecting American safety and security, protecting 
our national assets, protecting the American people.
  Furthermore, one of the other things that strikes me as greatly 
ironic about this is, we have an extensive array of Federal agencies 
currently studying this issue. We have NOAA, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, which has a wide array of satellites and 
scientists that are constantly studying both short-term and

[[Page H4784]]

long-term implications of climate change.
  We have, additionally, NASA engaged on this issue, with three major 
Earth-observing satellites on orbit studying the issue of the Earth's 
climate.
  And as well, there are multiple programs run by the National Science 
Foundation; they have the Geosciences Directorate (GEO), the Office of 
Polar Programs (OPP), the Atmospheric Science Subactivity, the ATM. 
And, ladies and gentlemen, I haven't even touched on the EPA and all 
the work that they are doing on this issue.
  To me, this issue is controversial. There is a sizeable number of 
Americans who feel that the severity of the problem of climate change 
does not justify some of the extreme actions that many people in the 
radical environmental community are trying to propose today, and I just 
can't help but feel this is a political issue to try to hijack our 
intelligence assets to get them on the global warming bandwagon so we 
could have draconian changes in American policy that could adversely 
affect our economy and our Nation.
  So I thank the majority for putting the Hoekstra amendment in order. 
Mr. Hoekstra, the former chairman, now ranking member, is very 
knowledgeable on intelligence policy.
  I intend on supporting the Hoekstra amendment. I encourage all my 
colleagues to listen carefully to that debate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in extending 
time.
  I, too, am perplexed by the debate that is being advanced in terms of 
being able to focus on the national security implications of the threat 
of global warming. I sat on the committee, the Special Committee on 
Global Warming and Energy Independence, as we listened to three and 
four star admirals and generals, as we listened to the former head of 
the CIA talking about the defense implications for the United States of 
Global Warming.
  These men were not radical environmentalists. These are respected 
experts who have led a lifetime of service to protecting the integrity, 
the defense, the security of the United States. They are deeply 
concerned that our dependence on foreign oil from unstable areas of the 
world. The overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change, 
global warming is a reality, led them to argue in the most strong terms 
that we need to be serious about it. Item after item, about the 
strategic implications, about what happens to defenses of the United 
States, to instability around the world of water-stressed areas, to new 
disease patterns, these are not arcane, philosophical issues. This 
isn't environmental fringe. This is the nuts, and bolts of the future, 
of our country.
  It has already been made clear that we already have a great deal of 
work that is underway. What this would require is assembling it under 
the guise and guidance of people who are experts in national security 
to put it in the national security context.
  Other major countries around the world are grappling with this. I 
think the Rules Committee was entirely appropriate to put what I think 
is a misguided amendment on the floor because I think it is time for 
people who care about the future of the country, who are looking at the 
evidence, to have an honest and thoughtful debate.
  But to somehow dismiss this as the province of radical 
environmentalism or a detraction from the hard work of planning for 
America's security future is, I think, sadly misplaced.
  I appreciate what the Rules Committee has done. I support the rule 
and look forward to the debate later.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we have a process here with regard to 
legislation and how it moves through the Congress. In particular, the 
rules were changed in January, some very welcome changes to the rules 
with regard to earmarks.
  We said that if you are going to have an earmark in a bill, or in a 
report, that you need to state that you do not have a financial 
interest in that earmark, and then you need to submit that earmark, or 
it has to be submitted with the report so that Members can actually see 
that and see that there is no financial interest, see if it has merit 
or warrant.
  This process is not being followed here. We were told initially that 
there were no earmarks in the bill, and then those of us who went up to 
view the classified annex did not see a list. There was no list 
available there. We were told later that it was with the Clerk's 
Office. Then with the Parliamentarians.
  It turned out that we finally did get the list, and here it is, 26 
earmarks in the bill. But the list was not made public. It was not 
given to us until 5 hours after the deadline that the Rules Committee 
had established to submit your amendments.
  So somebody who wanted to amend the bill or actually challenge or to 
highlight or to discuss the earmarks that are mentioned here and listed 
here did not have an opportunity to craft an amendment.
  Again, this list was received, it was made public 5 hours after the 
Rules Committee already shut down the amendment process. This rule 
cannot go forward like this. We cannot continue to do business like 
this.

                              {time}  1415

  We all know the problems that we have had with the appropriations 
process with the earmarking, the scandals that have gone on. The 
earmarking process is secretive enough, it seems, in the Congress 
without adding the layer of the Intelligence Committee. Then there are 
things that you can't even discuss on the floor, that we can't discuss 
openly; so it makes it even more difficult.
  Members need not be reminded that Duke Cunningham now sits in prison 
because of earmarks he largely got in the intelligence process, in the 
Intelligence Committee. We cannot allow that to happen again. We have 
to have a process that makes sure that that cannot happen. And that 
process is not happening right now, when you don't get lists until long 
after the process, when you can't challenge them on the floor. And then 
we have the problem here in open session where you can't even challenge 
the earmark and talk about what the earmark is actually about because 
you are in open session and you might be talking about classified 
things.
  So for that reason I am announcing now that I will offer a motion to 
move into secret session after these votes are concluded.
  Let me just remind the Members, if you want a process where you know 
what is going on, we have to move into secret session. If you vote 
against the motion to go into secret session, you are, in essence, 
saying let's just let it go; I don't care what is in there.
  I would challenge those who want to see what is going on to go up and 
view the classified annex. You may or may not be able to find out what 
these earmarks are about. But with this process, the way it is, we will 
never know, and we can't continue this.
  I applauded the majority's move to new earmark rules in January. They 
were, I felt, stronger than what we did when we were in the majority. I 
think they should have been stronger, but they were better than what we 
did, and I said so. But we aren't following those rules.
  We have already highlighted a few times that if the majority submits 
a list of earmarks, incomplete or complete, or simply states there are 
no earmarks in a bill, there is no parliamentary recourse for the 
minority or for anyone on the floor. We have to accept at face value 
that there are no earmarks or that the list is complete. That is wrong. 
That is something that has to change.
  But when we are dealing with the Intelligence Committee on something 
this important, we can't let this process go forward without adopting 
some of the reforms that we have said that we are going to adopt.
  So for that reason I will offer a motion for a secret session at the 
appropriate time, and I would urge a vote against this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I say through the Chair to my 
friend from Washington that I thought that we were having our last 
speakers

[[Page H4785]]

but I didn't know the nature and substance of his last speaker's 
remarks toward that end.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes now to the distinguished Chair of the 
Select Committee on Intelligence, who has comments regarding Mr. 
Flake's comments.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to assure my friend and colleague from Arizona that, 
being sensitive to the issues that he mentioned about one of our former 
colleagues that, regrettably, now sits in prison, the Intelligence 
Committee worked very closely with the Parliamentarians, the Committee 
on Standards and Official Conduct, and other committees of the House on 
earmark disclosures.
  I am at a loss as to who informed the gentleman that there would be 
no earmarks, but I think the gentleman now knows that the Government 
Printing Office made an error in omitting the earmarks and that is why 
the delay in putting them up on their Web site.
  Be that as it may, this committee followed the requirements of the 
House for each Member receiving an earmark to certify that neither he 
or she nor his or her spouse would benefit financially from any kind of 
action. We complied with all the requirements, all the rules, and all 
the regulations.
  As I said, we did this in a very transparent and bipartisan way 
because we did not want to leave any impressions that things were not 
done according to the rules that had been set out. Everything that we 
did with this process followed the rules and the process. Where the 
glitch came was where the printing was done. There was an error 
committed by the Government Printing Office, and that is why there was 
a delay in posting the earmarks.
  Again, I am at a loss as to who informed the gentleman that there 
were no earmarks, because it certainly wasn't anyone from the committee 
that I am aware of.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYES. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I believe the requirement in the House rules 
is that the report be filed 72 hours before it is brought up. Actually, 
those of us who went up to view the classified annex, I asked for the 
list, if there was a list of earmarks, and I was told there was none.
  Mr. REYES. Reclaiming my time just to explain to you that our process 
in the committee is that you would be provided support from the 
Republican staff.
  If they misinformed the gentleman about the issue of earmarks, I 
don't know why they would do that because clearly staff on both sides 
knew that there were earmarks.
  I will continue to yield.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, I reviewed and asked during that time if there were. I would say 
if it is the case that a computer glitch led to no printing of the 
list, then you would think that the Rules Committee would say, okay, 
maybe we should move the process back and allow Members to offer 
amendments on specific earmarks.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that the gentleman was offered an opportunity to do that and rejected 
it.
  Mr. FLAKE. An unspecified opportunity. If the gentleman will continue 
to yield, Mr. Speaker, I actually offered an amendment that was 
rejected by the Rules Committee just encompassing all earmarks that 
might be in the bill because I wasn't given a list. I had no idea if 
there were any earmarks. And that was rejected.
  The problem we have here in open session and the reason I will be 
calling to move into secret session is that in open session it is 
difficult to actually discuss what the earmark might be about.
  Mr. REYES. I am being again reassured by staff, reclaiming my time, 
Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman was offered, less than an hour ago, 
unanimous consent to allow him to have an amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, what I was offered about 30 minutes ago was 
an opportunity to offer perhaps a few amendments with regard to 
specific earmarks. It was never clear how many amendments I would be 
allowed to offer or on which of these earmarks. Until that is 
clarified, there is no reason to move forward.
  And, also, let me point out again unless you are in secret session, 
you can't discuss exactly what the earmark might be about; so you might 
run afoul of any statements that you have signed or any confidentiality 
agreements that we are under in terms of classified information. And 
when I actually went up with the list to look at the classified annex 
again and pointed at certain earmarks, I was told that we are not sure 
what that was about. That was requested by a Member who is not on the 
committee. We don't know. And until we can have that Member actually 
stand up and be able to say what that earmark is about, whether it goes 
to a private company, whether it goes to an agency, we just don't know.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, let me again reassure the gentleman that 
every single earmark here followed the House rules. Every Member that 
has an earmark certified, like every Member is required to in the 
House, that they had no specific interest, that the spouse had no 
specific interest with the company or companies where the money was 
going.
  Mr. FLAKE. I don't sit on the Intelligence Committee; so there may be 
some disagreement there about whether the ranking member was informed 
or not, and I think that will probably come to light later.
  But in this case, if we had followed the rules, we would have had the 
list before the Rules Committee shut down the amendment process because 
you need to be able to offer amendments on specific earmarks. And in 
this case, unless a Member can go up and view the classified annex and 
come away with an assurance or some kind of comfort level that the 
earmark under question is for the intended purpose or it should be in 
the intelligence bill, then we are at a loss when we come to vote. I 
think our constituents expect us to be informed, and when we can't even 
go up and view the classified annex and be informed, then there is a 
problem.
  Mr. REYES. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. REYES. Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my good friend 
and colleague from Arizona that the report, along with all the listing 
of earmarks, was filed appropriately, timely with the Rules Committee. 
Where the glitch occurred was in the printing.
  But be that as it may, I want to tell you again, reassure you, that 
we did not handle the process in the Intelligence Committee any 
different than any other committee in the House, and I would hope the 
gentleman would understand that.
  Mr. FLAKE. My office has a timeline, actually, if anyone is 
interested, and when we requested the list of earmarks, when we finally 
got it, what we were told by which office, and I can tell you this is 
no way to run a process, particularly given the recent history of 
problems that we have had in this regard. And that is why I am 
concerned, and that is why I feel we can't do that in an open session 
like this. We have to go to secret session.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have now an 
amendment prepared that he is ready to offer?
  Perhaps it would be that we could ask unanimous consent that your 
amendment be allowed to go forward.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I would not, given that I cannot 
discuss some of what I need to discuss in open session, given what has 
transpired. I don't think that we can. That is why we need a closed 
session.
  I will offer the motion, and if you don't feel that we need to go 
into closed session, then you can vote against it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so

[[Page H4786]]

that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment 
offered by Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico and provide the 
appropriate waivers for that amendment.
  The Wilson amendment would modernize the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act to enhance the ability of our Nation to protect itself 
in times of war and elevated national security threats. And I think 
that point was made very, very eloquently by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and rejected on a party-line vote 
the Wilson amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my friend from Florida that I just got 
a request for time here, and that is being discussed right now, that I 
was not aware of.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.