[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15420-H15422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2082,
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 859
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for the purposes of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and insert extraneous material 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am going to submit my full statement for the Record
and abbreviate it. I, however, wish to commend Chairman Reyes for the
leadership on this bill. Under his leadership, and that of many others,
consideration of this intelligence bill has been one of the most open
intelligence authorization bills that we've seen. There may be some who
will disagree with some of the report's content, but there should be
none who disagree with the openness of the process.
Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CIA's destruction
of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the
importance of congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
For far too long, Congress has been silent as a partner in the
unchecked actions of this administration. In neglecting to do our jobs,
we were failing the people of America.
With this new majority Congress, we are again conducting the
necessary oversight of the executive branch. With this bill, we are
fulfilling our responsibility to give the intelligence community the
tools it needs to succeed.
One thing that I think Members will be particularly interested in is
that interrogation techniques put forth in this measure are limited to
those of the Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or
aggressive interrogation techniques are prohibited.
I participated in the conference myself, Madam Speaker, and I saw the
development of this report that we have here. I would like to take a
moment of personal privilege to say that I took the liberty of leaving
the Select Committee on Intelligence with the hope of returning in the
successive year. It is my great hope that all of the Members of that
committee and the tremendous staff that work under awesome pressure
know how much I and others in Congress appreciate their work.
Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the
Intelligence Authorization Act conference report under the standard
rule for conference reports. As the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee noted here on the floor yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members
wishing to view the classified portions of the conference report can do
so in H-405 of the Capitol.
Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the
Intelligence Authorization Act Conference report under the standard
rule for conference reports.
As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee noted here on the floor
yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members wishing to view the classified
portions of the Conference Report can do so in H-405 of the Capitol.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today in strong
support of the underlying Intelligence Authorization Conference Report
for Fiscal Year 2008.
As a member of the Conference and a signatory of its Report, I take
great pride in being a part of a Majority which has successfully
completed its work on the Intelligence Authorization bill after the
previous Majority failed to do so for the last 3 years.
I commend Chairman Reyes for his leadership on this bill. Under the
Chairman's leadership, and that of many others, consideration of this
intelligence bill has been one of the most open intelligence
authorization bills that we've seen.
There may be some who will disagree with some of the Report's
content. But there should be none who disagree with the openness of the
process.
During the original consideration of this bill by the House in May,
the House adopted multiple bipartisan amendments.
For example, the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Rogers and I
offered an amendment which took aggressive steps to limit the growth of
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The two of us share concerns that the Director of National
Intelligence has grown without constraint and is adding an additional
level of bureaucracy without providing the coordination that we hoped
to see when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act.
This Conference Report addresses our concerns in a positive manner.
Most importantly, so has the Committee, as it has held multiple
hearings on the subject since May.
There were also amendments offered and adopted by the conferees that
are included in the conference agreement. Indeed, every amendment
adopted by the conferees, including the one offered by Ranking Member
Hoekstra, enjoyed bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CPA's destruction
of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the
importance of Congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
For far too long, Congress was a silent partner in the un-checked
actions of this Administration. In neglecting to do our jobs, we were
failing the American people.
With this new Majority, Congress is again conducting the necessary
oversight of the Executive Branch. With this bill, we are fulfilling
our responsibility to give the intelligence community the tools it
needs to succeed.
In response to growing concerns here in Congress and throughout the
public, this bill takes significant steps to address interrogation and
detention programs. It limits interrogation techniques to those in the
Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or aggressive
interrogation techniques are prohibited.
It requires that the intelligence community report to Congress on
compliance with the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment
Act.
The American people should know that we have asked the Administration
to provide us with all Department of Justice legal opinions about
interrogation and detention programs--opinions which are sorely needed
given the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes of interrogations.
This Conference Report also increases Congressional oversight ability
by strengthening the inspectors general of the intelligence community.
The Report requires the CIA Inspector General to audit all covert
action programs every three years. And it also requires the DNI to
provide Congress a comprehensive listing of all special access
programs.
[[Page H15421]]
Members of the Intelligence Committee are concerned, with good cause,
that the intelligence community has not been keeping us fully informed
of all their activities.
With this new Majority, the critical oversight which has been lacking
for the last six years is finally being conducted. And unlike in the
past, it is being done in an inclusive and bipartisan manner.
Madam Speaker, the underlying Conference Report provides the
necessary reforms and funding to ensure that America's intelligence
community continues to pave the way in effective counter surveillance,
human intelligence collection, and analysis.
I urge my colleagues support for the rule and the underlying
Conference Report.
Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake, 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. Madam Speaker, authorizing the necessary
resources for our Nation's intelligence community is one of the most
important responsibilities of Congress. The attacks of September 11,
2001, showed us that we must be vigilant against the threat of
terrorism, and our intelligence community is a critical part of
protecting America from its enemies abroad.
I have strong concerns about what appears to be an unfortunate and
utter lack of bipartisan work on the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008.
In addition to failing to incorporate Intelligence Committee
Republicans in the development of this bill, the bill also fails to
consider the input of Armed Services Committee Republicans.
Serious concerns exist about the bill's mandate that all 16 U.S.
intelligence agencies be governed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on
interrogation designed to cover combatants picked up in the
battlefield. The Army manual was never designed to cover America's most
dangerous enemies, such as Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
At a minimum, we deserve to know, Madam Speaker, how these new
standards would impact intelligence operations and, ultimately, U.S.
national security before rushing to attach them to this legislation.
Proponents of this new requirement view this as a simple application
of one organization's set of rules onto every other entity engaged in
the activity. Madam Speaker, this isn't simple; I believe it's
simplistic. And it could have dire consequences on our national
security.
To illustrate the logic at work here, why not require the NBA and
Major League Baseball to play by the NFL rule book and use a football
in their games? They all use a ball, after all, and if a football is
good enough for the NFL, it should work for the NBA and for Major
League Baseball. We all know that that would be a disaster, Madam
Speaker, and before we require all Federal agencies to adhere to the
Army manual, we should be certain it won't create a disaster for
protecting our country in the war on terror.
This bill also includes provisions that are questionable as to
whether or not they will help improve America's security. Specifically,
the House Democrats included language to fund and pursue research into
an intelligence assessment of global warming. At a time when our Nation
is engaged in a global war on terrorism, our intelligence community
should not be required to focus on reports about climate change.
I am also concerned that, despite bipartisan passage of a motion to
instruct conferees that earmarks should not be included, this
conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence
earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security,
not potential special interests.
Instead of funding global warming studies, earmarks, and mandating
Army Field Manual provisions, House Democrats should be taking steps
needed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor
foreign terrorists overseas.
House Democrats have stalled the passage of a permanent update on the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The bipartisan Protect
America Act expires in less than 2 months, and the American people
deserve a permanent bill as soon as possible.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of
the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker
for our side.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I inform my good friend
from Florida that I have no requests for speakers; and if he's prepared
to close, I will close on my side.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will reserve my time until the gentleman
has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.
{time} 1030
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Madam Speaker, on December 4, Mr. Hoekstra offered a motion to
instruct conferees that earmarks should be eliminated from a final
conference report. This motion passed by a bipartisan vote of 249-160.
However, despite bipartisan agreement that earmarks should not be
included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth
of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on
national security, not on special interests.
I am concerned with the level of earmark funding in this
authorization conference report, and I am concerned that the House
rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks. House
Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House
floor, and for the last several months we have made repeated attempts
to close loopholes in the House rules as they relate to earmarks.
So, Madam Speaker, today I will again be asking my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow
the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by
Republican Leader Boehner that would improve the House rules and allow
the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of
earmarks contained in all bills.
We must defeat the previous question so that American taxpayers are
no longer left wondering what hidden earmarks are contained in bills
before the House and this Congress.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
previous question and the rule, and with that I yield back my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, 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. The terrorist
attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threats fueled by
extremism, radicalism, hopelessness and poverty underscore the
importance of this legislation.
The new Democratic majority is working every day to ensure that we
congratulate our intelligence community for its successes but also hold
it accountable for its failures. This report is a strong step in the
right direction, and it enjoys bipartisan support. I am proud of our
product and hope that my colleagues will agree. I urge a ``yes'' vote
on the rule and the underlying conference report.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 859 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall he considered as ordered on
the resolution to final
[[Page H15422]]
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________