[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6582-H6587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5959, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1343 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1343

       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. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2009 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. 
     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. 5959 
     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 (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.

[[Page H6583]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1343 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and makes in order seven 
amendments.
  Three amendments are to be offered by my colleagues in the minority, 
including one by the Republican whip and one by the ranking Republican 
of the Intelligence Committee. Three are to be offered by Democrats, 
and the last one by two bipartisan sponsors. This is a fair rule, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, today, more than ever, strengthening our intelligence 
apparatus and giving it the flexibility it needs to meet continuing 
threats should be one of this body's highest priorities. The resurgence 
of al Qaeda and increasing global threats underscore the importance of 
the authorization bill before us today.
  The Intelligence Authorization Act authorizes funding for 16 United 
States intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the 
United States Government for fiscal year 2009.
  Due to the classified nature of this bill, I wish to point out that 
Members can view the classified portions of the bill by making an 
appointment with the Intelligence Committee in H-405 of the Capitol.
  Despite the House's best efforts, for the past 3 years an 
intelligence authorization bill has not become law. Therefore, I am 
very pleased today with this well-balanced, bipartisan bill. I am 
hopeful that this great work will continue, concluding with the 
President's signature of the underlying legislation into law.
  This year's intelligence authorization bill adds crucial funding to 
enhance human intelligence collection, as well as for other enduring 
and emerging global security challenges we face in Asia, Africa, and 
Latin America. The bill also provides funding to address the impact of 
climate change on our national and energy security.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have seen the devastating costs that 
flawed intelligence and a misinformed Congress can have on national 
security. This bill enhances accountability and transparency through 
long overdue oversight and monitoring.
  The underlying bill increases reporting requirements to the House and 
Senate Intelligence Committees on the nuclear capabilities of North 
Korea, Iran, and Syria.
  The bill also amends the National Security Act to require the 
executive branch to provide Congress with the necessary information 
about our intelligence operations to ensure proper oversight.
  As someone who sat through countless hours of Intelligence Committee 
hearings and briefings, I have been appalled by the unwillingness and 
outright stonewalling of the Bush administration when Members have 
asked even the most basic of questions about our intelligence community 
policies and practices.
  Additionally, the underlying legislation helps restore our Nation's 
global credibility by ensuring that we meet our international 
obligations. The reporting requirements on compliance with the Detainee 
Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act regarding detentions and 
interrogations bring credibility and security to our Nation for future 
generations.
  The bill also furthers our commitment to improving the intelligence 
community's security and clearance process. It increases pay for 
intelligence officers--and I would underscore much-needed increases--
and enhances oversight and accountability through the creation of an 
intelligence community Inspector General.
  Moreover, the underlying legislation includes a provision that would 
require reporting on plans to enhance diversity within the intelligence 
community, and a lot of effort has gone into this particular measure, 
beginning with our former colleague, Louis Stokes, and our departed 
colleague, Julian Dixon, and the work of my colleague, Sanford Bishop, 
and myself, as well as the Chair and countless members of the committee 
in trying to ensure that we have appropriate diversity in the 
intelligence community.
  The diversity of our Nation should be directly reflected in our 
intelligence community's workforce. We cannot, and will not, 
appropriately meet our security challenges without ensuring this. I 
appreciate and support these efforts, as the issue, as I expressed, was 
one of my top concerns when I served on the Intelligence Committee.
  Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Reyes for including in his 
amendment a provision written by my colleague on the Rules Committee, 
Representative Peter Welch, that addresses the employment needs of 
resettled Iraqi and Afghani interpreters.
  Our government has a moral responsibility to provide proper resources 
for these allies who risked their lives to assist our efforts to fight 
global terrorist threats. This measure will help fill gaps in our 
intelligence-gathering activities and is a start toward fulfilling our 
obligations to our Iraqi and Afghani allies.
  Mr. Speaker, the threats posed to our Nation are only intensifying. 
To keep pace, America's intelligence community requires the most robust 
and modern tools to identify and disrupt such attacks. This 
Intelligence Authorization Act does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and namesake from Florida 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, the underlying intelligence 
authorization bill that this rule makes in order generally has 
bipartisan support in this House. This support comes in part from a 
number of Republican amendments that were adopted during the 
Intelligence Committee markup.
  Among the adopted amendments was one offered by Ranking Member 
Hoekstra to eliminate all earmarks from the bill and to strike the 
provision transferring $39 billion to the Department of Justice for an 
entity known as the National Drug Intelligence Center.
  This appropriateness of earmarking intelligence funds, and 
controversy surrounding this earmark in particular, was a serious issue 
during last year's consideration of this bill.
  By adopting the Republican ban on earmarks in committee, such 
controversies are diminished, but Mr. Speaker, the larger need for 
earmark reform across Congress still remains.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a 1-year earmark moratorium for all Members to 
allow for reforms to take place. Key among these reforms should be a 
definition of what is an appropriate allocation of Federal funds and 
what is an abuse of taxpayer dollars that assumes no essential or 
relevant Federal Government need.

                              {time}  1045

  Republican efforts to institute a 1-year ban on earmarks and to allow 
for a reform have been stymied by opposition from Speaker Pelosi and 
the other liberal leaders of the House.
  While it is a small sign of success that earmarks have been stricken 
from this bill, a great deal more needs to be done to restore the 
American people's faith on how Congress spends taxpayers' money.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, on the rule itself, I would like to make two 
points. First, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive and only makes in 
order half of the 20 amendments filed with the Rules Committee; just 10 
amendments will be debated on this bill. There were other relevant 
amendments that were offered by Representatives on both sides of the 
aisle that were blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee.
  In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the best that can be said about this 
unfair rule is that it at least treats both Republicans and Democrats 
unfairly by

[[Page H6584]]

blocking an almost equal number of amendments from Representatives of 
each party. However, Mr. Speaker, restricting debate on both sides of 
the aisle is not what the American people were promised by those who 
now control this House. They promised an historic level of bipartisan 
openness, not the record-setting shutdown of debate on the House floor 
that they've been practicing for the past year and a half.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule waives the PAYGO rule written and 
passed by the liberal Democrat majority in January of 2007. Now my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle may rush to say that they had 
to waive PAYGO rules because this is an intelligence bill and there is 
a classified section that isn't public, so it can't be read to make a 
parliamentary ruling on whether PAYGO has been violated. That's what 
the argument will probably be. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is a false 
excuse.
  The fault here rests not with the need to keep secret the classified 
information in the bill, it's that the Democrat majority chose to write 
the new House rules--initially--behind closed doors without consulting 
with the whole House or with Republicans. In doing so, they have made 
error after embarrassing error. On multiple occasions, this House has 
had to go back and fix mistakes in the rules that Democrat leaders made 
by refusing to work or even consult with Republicans. They had to do it 
on charitable fund raising, plane travel, and banning Members from 
flying their own airplanes.
  And when it comes to PAYGO, not only was the rule written poorly to 
apply to classified parts of the bill, but it's a rule that Democrat 
leaders have decided to ignore for politically expedient reasons.
  There is a great deal of talk from the liberal majority on their 
allegiance to PAYGO, yet they've just ignored it time after time when 
it suits their purposes; for example, on the farm bill, on unemployment 
insurance extensions, and on fixing the alternative minimum tax.
  Mr. Speaker, it's inconsistent to use PAYGO as an excuse to block 
proposals and amendments you oppose and then ignore PAYGO on a bill 
that you really want to pass. PAYGO is simply a smokescreen, Mr. 
Speaker, that this Democrat Congress is trying to use to cover for the 
largest proposed tax increase in American history and tens of billions 
of dollars in higher government spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I 
serve on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. And I want to take my 
time to also rise in support of the Blunt amendment on Colombia.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot describe the joy and the excitement that I felt 
on July 2 when I knew the rescue operation had been successful and that 
Mark Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, Ingrid Betancourt and 11 
Colombians were finally free after years of torment and brutality 
suffered at the hands of the FARC.
  I immediately wrote President Uribe congratulating him on the 
successful rescue. I also told President Uribe and members of the 
Colombian families that I remain committed to working for the release 
of the rest of the hostages. I would like to enter a copy of that 
letter into the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I 
want to see an end to the conflict in Colombia. I want to see the 
dismantling of all paramilitary, FARC, ELN, and other armed groups in 
Colombia. Clearly, this is in the best interests of the Colombian 
people as well as the United States.
  I want to see the Colombian military and security forces finally 
break their ties to armed groups, drug lords and criminals, and to 
fully respect the rights of all Colombian citizens.
  The Blunt amendment notes how intelligence and other cooperation by 
the United States contributed to weakening all of Colombia's illegal 
armed actors--the paramilitaries, the FARC and the ELN. It states that 
such assistance should continue to capitalize on recent successes. Mr. 
Speaker, I couldn't agree more. According to an analysis by the Center 
for International Policy, what is most interesting about the hostage 
rescue operation and other recent successes is how different it is from 
what has failed in the past, namely, massive and expensive military 
offenses, fumigation, and racking up civilian body counts. The rescue 
highlights what has worked--the intelligence and cooperation that the 
gentleman from Missouri encourages us to continue:
  A greater intelligence focus aimed at the top leadership of the FARC 
and the captors of the hostages;
  A public relations campaign making it clear to the guerrilla rank-
and-file that those who desert and who surrender to the government will 
not be tortured or disappear as in the past, but instead will get job 
training, a stipend, and the promise of a new life;
  And an increased presence by security forces in population centers 
and on main roads aimed at protecting civilians rather than treating 
them as suspects.
  Mr. Speaker, most interesting about these strategies is that, with 
the exception of the cost of increased manpower and protective 
presence, they are relatively inexpensive. These efforts, which have 
proven so effective, make up only a sliver of Colombia's defense budget 
and only a sliver of U.S. assistance. Planners of future aid packages 
to Colombia should take note.
  Intelligence and encouragement of desertion work--these relatively 
cheap but vastly improved capabilities made the bloodless rescue 
mission possible. It is hard to imagine the Colombian military of even 
just 2 years ago pulling off an operation like this, but today we 
celebrate the freedom of 15 Colombians and Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter sent by 
Senator Richard Lugar to President Uribe urging him to seize this 
moment and open up negotiations with the FARC and the ELN to end the 
conflict and release the hundreds of Colombians who remain in 
captivity. Thus, indeed, will Colombia finally defeat the guerrillas 
and hopefully reunite the remaining hostages with their families and 
loved ones. I remain committed to this cause, and every Member of this 
Chamber should remain committed to this cause.
  Mr. Speaker, I have many, many deep concerns about the human rights 
situation in Colombia and some of the aid we send. But the Blunt 
amendment is not an endorsement of the ``same old, same old.'' It is a 
recognition of something that has worked.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Blunt amendment, and I urge 
passage of this rule.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, July 2, 2008.
     Hon. Alvaro Uribe Velez,
     President, Republic of Colombia, Casa de Narino Bogota, 
         Colombia.
       Dear President Uribe, I just want to express my deepest 
     appreciation and gratitude for the successful operation that 
     freed 15 of the hostages--eleven Colombians, Ingrid 
     Betancourt, and the three Americans.
       No doubt like everyone watching the breaking news 
     throughout this afternoon, I simply have no words to express 
     what I'm feeling.
       I can only say thank you to you and to everyone who was 
     involved in this very successful and intelligent ruse that 
     resulted in freeing so many without a single shot fired or 
     anyone injured.
       As always, I remain committed to working with you and with 
     my counterparts in the international community to secure the 
     freedom of the remaining Colombian captives.
           Sincerely,
                                                James P. McGovern,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2008.
     His Excellency, Alvaro Uribe,
     President of the Republic of Colombia,
     Bogota, Colombia.
       Dear Mr. President: I write to congratulate you on the 
     Colombian military's daring operation to rescue hostages held 
     by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 
     including three American military contractors, Ingrid 
     Betancourt, and several members of the Colombian military. I 
     believe this operation marks a turning point in Colombia's 
     struggle against the violent and decades-long conflict and 
     will be viewed as an example of the progress that the United 
     States and our Latin American friends can realize when acting 
     in partnership.
       It will not go unnoticed that this historic success against 
     violent guerillas was most distinguished by cooperation and 
     execution of a non-violent nature. I remain hopeful that this 
     event opens a new chapter in Latin American history, one in 
     which ideological

[[Page H6585]]

     and territorial disputes may be resolved through persuasion 
     rather than coercion.
       With the FARC on its heels for the moment, I encourage you 
     to press for its disarmament and its renunciation of drug 
     trafficking and extortion in exchange for a seat at the 
     negotiating table. In this regard, I applaud Colombia's 
     decision to seek direct talks with FARC rebels to explore 
     further hostage releases; these steps could lay the 
     groundwork for broader gains in the interest of peace for the 
     people of Colombia. In addition, I would urge you to consider 
     including the National Liberation Army (ELN) as part of 
     future talks to end the violence. Lastly and more generally, 
     I would encourage you to consider Brazil, a country with a 
     record of bridging ideological divisions and displaying an 
     awareness of regional sensitivities, as a possible mediator 
     for any discussions. These, of course, are decisions for your 
     government to make, but your many friends want to be as 
     helpful and supportive as possible.
       For the United States, Colombia's achievement should be 
     taken as a sign of the tangible results that patient, 
     committed and consistent policies of cooperation and 
     assistance can yield. These latest blows against the FARC 
     demonstrate how U.S. funding can be spent constructively for 
     the cause of peace in our region, and I am hopeful that the 
     U.S. Congress will deepen support for you and your country's 
     quest for peace.
       Once again, I applaud your leadership, the Colombian 
     military's impressive action against the FARC, and the 
     steadfastness of the Colombian people.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard G. Lugar,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of 
the fiscal year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act.
  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, establishing a new appropriations subcommittee on 
intelligence.
  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 which 
have been left unfinished.
  Last year, Congress applied a Band-Aid to this problem by creating a 
powerless Intelligence Oversight Panel that has very little control 
over actual funding decisions. Despite what I am certain are sincere 
efforts on the part of members of this panel, 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.''
  As a result, experts on the 9/11 Commission, including a leading 
Democrat from the commission who I happened to speak with this morning, 
are concerned that intelligence agencies can dodge effective oversight 
by going around the authorizing committees that scrutinize them most 
closely. For example, last year, the ranking member of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee described what he called a ``consistent 
pattern'' in which the authorizing committee held in-depth hearings and 
then made specific funding recommendations for several secret programs 
only to have appropriators go in a dramatically different direction.
  Yesterday, Congressman Shays and I appeared before the Rules 
Committee and offered a simple amendment to the bill before us calling 
for a sense of Congress that this House should act at the start of next 
year to implement these crucial 9/11 recommendations. Unfortunately, 
despite vocal support from both Democrats and Republicans on the Rules 
Committee last night, this amendment was denied under today's rule.
  I have no doubt that implementing this proposal will be a challenge, 
yet we cannot continue to just sweep this vital 9/11 Commission 
recommendation under the rug while at the same time calling for other 
government agencies to make reforms. A former 9/11 Commission member, 
Tim Roemer, noted recently, ``Out of all the many recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission, the congressional reform one might be the hardest, 
but it may be the single most important.''
  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, but 
recognize that three Republican amendments were made in order and three 
Democratic amendments.
  But what troubles me is that this House, over so many years, 
continues to avoid meaningful debate. I was at the NAACP Convention in 
Cincinnati this week. Before Barack Obama spoke that night, they had a 
debate between college students from Stockton, California and Detroit, 
Michigan, about health care. They had three speakers for the pro 
position and three speakers for the con. It was a fascinating 
experience. It was electric.
  We were witnessing a debate on an issue with 10,000 people listening. 
And I thought, I haven't experienced this in years. I haven't heard 
such a meaningful debate in years. And yet I serve in Congress, and we 
haven't had that kind of debate. And we're not going to have a 
meaningful debate on the authorization bill on intelligence today.
  The amendment Mr. Castle talks about deserves to be debated. It was a 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. My Democratic colleagues won 
this House in part by saying we need to implement the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission, but they won't allow a debate on something so 
fundamental.
  Why shouldn't there be a Joint House and Senate Committee on 
Intelligence, or, why shouldn't we establish a House and Senate 
Committee on Intelligence with authorization and appropriation powers; 
or, at least have a separate Appropriations Committee on Intelligence 
because now the defense subcommittee of appropriations decides what 
goes in the intelligence bill.
  Why shouldn't we have a debate about that? Why shouldn't we educate 
ourselves about the pros and the cons of it? Why shouldn't the American 
people be allowed to hear such a debate?
  Why is Congress failing to live by the recommendations--or at least 
debate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle professed to want to do before the 
election? Not to even have a debate is hard to understand.

                              {time}  1100

  There was a second amendment that was not allowed in order. This one 
was to declassify the bottom line of the budget on Intelligence. In 
other words, we would know what it is. The remarkable thing is our 
adversaries know. I won't talk about recent numbers, but I will tell 
you this: Ten years ago, when you read about the numbers in the New 
York Times, we couldn't say the number was accurate, but it was the 
number. The Times was right 10 years ago, 11 years ago and 12 years ago 
and 13 years ago and 14 years ago. The New York Times knew, but the 
American people are not allowed to know. Our adversaries knew. The 
Soviet Union knew. Who didn't know? The American people.
  It's not just that. Another problem is we have to hide tens of 
billions of dollars in our budget that are going to the Intelligence 
Committee.

[[Page H6586]]

  So there are things throughout the budget that really aren't going to 
the things we say they are. They're not going there. They're going to 
the Intelligence Committee. So we have to distort our budget by tens 
and tens and tens of billions of dollars and tell people the money is 
going there when it isn't.
  We even have Members come on the House floor who want to take out 
money from those appropriations, and they don't know that they're not 
taking it out of what that says it's going to go to, because it's going 
to go to the Intelligence Committee.
  So let's just step back a second and think. Our adversaries know what 
the bottom line of our budget is and the American people don't, but 
when my constituents look at expenditures and say ``why are you 
spending money here or there?'' I can't tell them we're not. I can't 
tell them it's really going to the Intelligence budget, but we don't 
want you to know the bottom line in the Intelligence budget.
  All we would have to do is just say, ``X'' billion of dollars is 
going to Intelligence. Then we wouldn't have to fit in ``X'' billion of 
dollars throughout the budget and hide it. We would just give the 
bottom line, and then the other parts of the budget would be honest.
  Now, some members may not be concerned with this, but the sad thing 
is we're not going to have a debate on it because this amendment was 
not allowed by the Rules Committee. I don't know if it's ever going to 
happen.
  When I ran for Congress, I thought we would have a debate about real 
things. We're not having that and we haven't for a long time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I understand there was 
an amendment adopted in committee that struck all of the earmarks in 
the bill. I applaud this. It's a great day when we decide that the 
Intelligence Authorization Bill is not the place to put secretive 
earmarks. So that was, indeed, a good thing.
  I should also mention that the committee also prohibited $39 million 
from going from the National Drug Intelligence Center. This is a center 
that has been in need of closing down for years. The administration 
says that the NDIC has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned 
mission. Yet it still receives money every year, not because it's 
effective, not because it does anything that the other drug centers 
do--there are some 19 of them, I believe, that are already in 
existence, and it simply duplicates some of those efforts--but because 
there is a powerful appropriator who continues to make sure that that 
center is funded.
  What I wanted to do was to have an amendment here where we could make 
certain that the NDIC was not funded in any portion of this bill, not 
just the earmarks in the unclassified version, but to make sure that 
funding did not go again to the NDIC. That amendment was not allowed.
  We really need to tighten this up, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned. This 
is a center that the administration has said for years needs to be 
closed. We know it. The administration knows it. Yet we have a powerful 
appropriator who ensures that money continues to flow, not because the 
Nation needs it but simply because we can do it, and that's not a good 
enough reason.
  So I would urge us to reject the rule and to come back with a rule 
that allows meaningful amendments to be debated here.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend 
from Massachusetts, who is substituting for my namesake, I gather, if 
he has any more speakers on his side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm the last speaker, and I'm waiting with great 
anticipation for your close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that then, Mr. Speaker, I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  This rule provides for the consideration of the Intelligence 
Authorization Bill for the next fiscal year. This legislation is 
important to our national security, and it deserves the attention of 
this House. However, this Congress also needs to address the issue of 
skyrocketing gas prices that affect both our economic and our national 
security.
  For months now, Democratic leaders have blocked debate and votes on 
legislation that would produce more American-made energy, which would 
open parts of Alaska, Federal lands and offshore to oil and gas 
drilling. As a result, in the long run, it would lower the price of 
gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting and Congress needs to act. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so that I can amend the rule to allow for much needed energy 
legislation to be considered on this House floor.
  By defeating the previous question, the House can finally vote on 
this vital economic and national security issue.
  Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that this House can get serious about 
rising gas prices and so that we can start producing American-made 
gasoline.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is a 
good rule, and it deserves to be supported. I would urge a ``yes'' vote 
on the previous question and on the rule.
  I would say to my colleagues that what the gentleman from Washington 
just proposed on energy is yet another smoke screen by the Republicans 
in their effort to try to cover up their horrendous record on energy. 
They have been in control of this Congress. They were in control of the 
White House for years, and what we have seen are skyrocketing gas 
prices. They have done nothing to make us more energy independent.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not.
  They have frustrated efforts by the Democratic majority to try to 
support alternative renewable, clean sources of energy from solar, to 
wind, to fuel cell technology, to you name it, and they have been 
against it. The President has refused to heed the appeal by Democrats 
and by the Speaker of the House to tap into the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to provide the American people with immediate relief from these 
high gas prices.
  What we have gotten is the same old, same old. We have two oilmen in 
the White House, and we have policies being proposed by the other side 
of the aisle which is the same old same old. Give the oil companies 
whatever they want. You know what? The oil companies are wrong, and 
they're gouging the American taxpayer, and it's about time we had a 
Congress that stood up to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1343 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2493) to amend the Clean 
     Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique 
     fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by 
     Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable 
     for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent;

[[Page H6587]]

     and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
                                  ____

       (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 from 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. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 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. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________