[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.