[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 83 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5029-H5034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4745, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 
   URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4681, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
       ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014 AND 2015; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 604 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 604

       Resolved, That at any time after 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. 4745) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2015, 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. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, 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.  (a) At any time after 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. 4681) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2014 
     and 2015 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. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in 
     this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair 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.
        (b) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-45. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived.
       (c) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described 
     in subsection (f).
       (d) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered 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.
       (e) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in subsection (f) are waived.
       (f) It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this subsection shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence or their designees, 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.
       (g) 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. 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. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     2, 2014, through June 6, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.
       Sec. 6.  House Resolution 567 is amended by adding the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 7. TRAVEL.

       ``Clauses 8(a), (b), and (c) of rule X of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives shall apply to the Select 
     Committee.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Utah 
is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H5030]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be with you here 
today. It seems as if only a few hours ago we were all here together--
because it was only a few hours ago.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us today provides a structured 
rule for consideration of H.R. 4681, the Intelligence Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015, and it makes in order a number of 
amendments for consideration. In addition, this combined resolution 
provides for an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4745, the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2015.
  This resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate on each of 
these bills equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.
  The intention of the Rules Committee was to provide ample opportunity 
to debate issues related to our intelligence community. The 
intelligence community has done very good bipartisan work on this bill, 
which is being brought forward under regular order. And while the 
committee was able to work with some Members to modify their amendments 
so they would comply with House rules and be made in order, some 
amendments were still subject to a point of order or were already 
debated and voted on last week during the USA FREEDOM Act. Some 
amendments were simply not possible to debate on the floor in open 
session due to the national security implications.
  The net result is that this rule makes in order a total of 11 
amendments to the intelligence bill, four Republican, six Democrat, and 
one bipartisan amendment. So the process is inclusive, the rule is 
fair, and will provide a wide ranging debate on a topic of interest to 
all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for Utah for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, we are considering a rule that 
combines two bills together under one single rule. That rule provides 
an open rule for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill, or T-HUD, and a structured rule for the Fiscal 
Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act.
  T-HUD is an appropriate acronym, Mr. Speaker, because that is how we 
can describe this House's action on the bill last year. The 
Appropriations Committee tried to come up with a bill that funds our 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs, but it was so 
woefully inadequate that it never made it to the House floor.
  Although the T-HUD bill may be $1.2 billion above last year's enacted 
levels, due to a reduction in offsets caused by a decline in Federal 
Housing Administration receipts, the program level in this bill is 
actually $1.8 billion below last year's level.
  On the transportation side, this bill provides no funding for high-
speed rail, and it cuts $200 million from Amtrak's capital funding. And 
if that weren't bad enough, I want to highlight one particularly 
egregious rider in the T-HUD bill, a rider that would exempt Wisconsin, 
Mississippi, and Idaho from Federal truck weight limits on their 
interstates.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been no reviews by highway safety experts or 
cost-benefit analysis on the effect of increased size and weight limits 
on these roads and bridges, yet the majority decided to go forward with 
these extraneous riders anyway.
  I would remind my colleagues that in the last surface transportation 
reauthorization bill, Congressman Lou Barletta offered an amendment 
that required DOT to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of 
increasing truck size and weight on road safety and infrastructure 
costs. It passed with strong bipartisan support, and the Department of 
Transportation is currently in the process of completing the study, 
which should be finished by the fall of this year.
  Mr. Barletta sent a letter to the Rules Committee before last night's 
meeting requesting that a point of order against this rider be made 
available. I support Mr. Barletta's request, and I wish the Rules 
Committee would not have protected this provision. We should not be 
raising truck size and weights in a State-by-State patchwork approach 
before DOT even has a chance to finish its study, especially when the 
highway trust fund is expected to run out of money this summer and our 
roads and our bridges are already in horrible disrepair.
  I will insert letters from AAA, the Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association, law enforcement officers, first responders, and 
road safety groups all opposing this rider.

                                                          American


                                       Automobile Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2014.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chair, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nita Lowey,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: AAA opposes 
     Section 125 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015 
     that would increase the current federal truck size and weight 
     limits. This section carves out special interest exemptions 
     from federal truck size and weight regulations for Idaho, 
     Mississippi and Wisconsin. We urge you to remove Section 125 
     from the bill.
       Study after study has shown that increasing truck size or 
     weight increases wear and tear on roads and dramatically 
     impacts bridges. At a time when the federal Highway Trust 
     Fund and many state budgets across the country are nearly 
     tapped out, we cannot afford to allow bigger trucks to run up 
     the cost of maintaining infrastructure.
       We also are concerned with the safety impact of allowing 
     heavier trucks on the nation's roadways. According to NHTSA, 
     fatalities in crashes involving large trucks increased four 
     percent from 3,781 in 2011 to 3,921 in 2012. Of these 
     fatalities in 2012, 73 percent were occupants of other 
     vehicles, 10 percent were non-occupants, and 18 percent were 
     occupants of large trucks.
       Congress has recognized the importance of a stronger 
     national freight program and work is underway to establish a 
     robust national freight strategy. Considering changes to 
     truck size and weight limits outside the context of this 
     national discussion, and the two-year truck size and weight 
     study required by MAP-21, is premature.
       Thank you for consideration of AAA's views on this 
     important safety issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Avery Ash,
     Director, Federal Relations.
                                  ____

                                                    Owner-Operator


                              Independent Drivers Association,

                                                     May 20, 2014.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nita M. Lowey,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: On behalf of 
     our nation's small business trucking professionals, the 
     Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) writes 
     in opposition to language in the FY2015 Transportation and 
     Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill that allows 
     trucks weighing up to 129,000 pounds on Interstate Highways 
     in Idaho.
       Not only is the expansion of existing weight limits on 
     these roads outside of the highway reauthorization process, 
     but this provision comes as the Department of Transportation 
     is conducting a Congressionally-mandated study on truck size 
     and weight provisions nationally. This study should be 
     allowed to continue without Congress passing legislation, 
     such as the Idaho provision, which would put heavier trucks 
     on Interstate Highway System miles where they currently are 
     not permitted.
       Current federal Interstate System weight limits were put in 
     place to halt an ``arms race'' between states attempting to 
     garner favor with major shippers as a way to attract 
     business. Today's generally uniform limits focus attention on 
     the national nature of our

[[Page H5031]]

     Interstate System. The Idaho provision, a state-wide 
     allowance of trucks on currently designated Interstate 
     Highway miles above the existing Interstate weight cap, would 
     be a step backwards from this sensible approach.
       While proponents of this provision argue that Idaho is at a 
     disadvantage compared to neighboring states with higher 
     weight limits on Interstate highways, it is critical to 
     remember that those states operated these heavier-weight 
     vehicles on their Interstate system prior to the passage of 
     federal legislation in 1991 that froze maximum weights on 
     longer-combination vehicles. Idaho's state government could 
     have enacted legislation prior to the 1991 freeze setting an 
     Interstate weight allowance equal to its neighboring states, 
     but it did not. Additionally, neighboring states also have 
     strict permitting requirements for these heavier weight 
     loads, requirements that are absent from the provision 
     included in the THUD bill.
       While Idaho conducted a pilot study regarding use of 
     heavier weight trucks, it is important to note that none of 
     those trucks in the study operated on Idaho Interstate System 
     roads. Federal studies that have examined operations of 
     heavier vehicles on Interstate System roads, including the 
     initial work completed for the on-going MAP-21 truck size and 
     weight study, show significant infrastructure and safety 
     concerns with bigger and heavier trucks. These are facts that 
     OOIDA members and other small business truckers know full 
     well given that the highway is their workplace.
       Further, while proponents of bigger and heavier trucks 
     argue that the entire trucking industry is supportive of a 
     weight increase, the overwhelming majority of drivers and 
     motor carriers do not see a benefit from increasing truck 
     size and weights. Heavier weights may lead to cost savings 
     for shippers and receivers; however, for the small business 
     truckers that make up more than 90 percent of the trucking 
     industry, heavier trucks only mean higher fuel, repair, and 
     equipment costs.
       Bearing in mind that that MAP-21 study has yet to be 
     completed, we urge the Appropriations Committee to remove 
     this language from the FY2015 Transportation Appropriations 
     Bill. Should you have any questions, please contact Ryan 
     Bowley in our Washington Office.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Todd Spencer,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

         National Troopers Coalition, NAEMT, and National 
           Sheriffs' Association.
                                                     May 29, 2014.
       Dear Members of Congress, We are writing on behalf of the 
     nation's law enforcement officers and first responders to 
     express our opposition to any truck size or weight increases. 
     We understand that proposals to allow heavier trucks and thaw 
     the freeze on longer combination vehicles are being 
     considered as part of annual appropriations legislation. We 
     urge you to reject these proposals.
       Bigger trucks would add new dangers to our roads. Allowing 
     heavier or longer trucks would threaten the safety of 
     motorists as well as law enforcement officers and first 
     responders because heavier and longer trucks would be more 
     difficult to control, take longer to stop, and increase crash 
     severity. Studies conducted by the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation have found that trucks with multiple trailers 
     and trucks that are heavier are associated with higher crash 
     rates. (2000 US DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight 
     Study; 2013 US DOT ``Desk Scan'')
       Bigger trucks also would impose a huge economic cost in 
     terms of further damage to our already deteriorating highway 
     infrastructure, the additional strain to our aging and 
     deficient bridges and the costs associated with cleaning up 
     crashes. These are additional costs that would be borne by 
     all levels of government and ultimately by the taxpayers.
       The current proposals to allow bigger trucks have not been 
     the subject of congressional hearings. We question the 
     appropriateness of making changes such as these that affect 
     public safety in a funding bill without full and open public 
     debate.
       Representing law enforcement and first responders across 
     the country, we are united in opposing bigger trucks. Not 
     only do these trucks endanger the traveling public, but they 
     also put at risk law enforcement officers and first 
     responders. Please oppose any provisions that would increase 
     the size or weight of trucks.
           Thank you,
     Mat Hodapp,
       Chairman, National Troopers Coalition.
     Don Lundy, BS,
     NREMT-P,
       President, National Association of Emergency Management 
     Technicians.
     Aaron D. Kennard,
       Executive Director, National Sheriffs' Association.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule, as I noted earlier, also covers 
debate on H.R. 4681, the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence 
Authorization Act.
  The intelligence authorization bill is one of the many important 
pieces of legislation that comes before the House every year--or nearly 
every year. Last year, for fiscal year 2014, the bill was marked up in 
committee, but the majority never seemed to be able to find the time to 
bring it to the House floor, which is why today we are dealing with a 
2-year authorization for both the current fiscal year, FY 2014, and the 
coming fiscal year, FY 2015.
  Now, a great deal has happened since the fiscal year 2013 
intelligence bill was approved in December of 2012--everything from 
Edward Snowden to the sequester, from extreme weather events to drone 
strikes that also killed innocent civilians, from new technologies and 
cyber sabotage to protecting our human assets on the ground in 
dangerous regions. While the underlying bill attempts to deal with 
these and other issues in a bipartisan manner, some of the choices it 
makes weaken rather than strengthen our ability to accurately assess 
potential and real threats to our security.
  One particularly troubling example is the bill's failure to 
strengthen the intelligence community's ability to analyze and assess 
how climate change affects our national security. Over a decade ago, 
the National Intelligence Estimate--or NIE--noted with grave concern 
how extreme weather and environmental changes were adversely affecting 
global food security, as well as increased refugee and IDP populations 
due to droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events.

                              {time}  0930

  The NIE described how such events contribute or can even drive social 
and political instability, which might threaten our national security 
interests. Given the acceleration of extreme weather and climate change 
over the last decade or so, I would think that we would want to 
encourage our intelligence agencies to analyze the national security 
implications of climate change, whether that is how storm surges and 
rising sea levels and temperatures might affect our Navy, or how 
competition over resources might affect the opening of the Arctic or 
water wars in the Middle East and northern Africa--but no.
  Instead, this bill continues the Republican foolishness of pretending 
that climate change does not exist. Some of my Republicans colleagues 
would rather stick their heads in the stand. That is not the way to run 
a government, Mr. Speaker.
  Over 30 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for 
consideration, and I wish that all of them were made in order under 
this rule. It doesn't take long to debate 30-something amendments. I 
believe that the House is fully capable of handling such a debate.
  After all, we should be pretty rested after a 5\1/2\-day break at the 
beginning of this week and a 9-day recess starting tomorrow. Surely, we 
could use the 2\1/2\ days when we are in Washington to actually debate 
the intelligence bill.
  Several of these amendments dealt with highly controversial aspects 
of drone strikes, many of which have killed or wounded innocent 
civilians. I was glad to see that the U.S. did not carry out any drone 
strikes for the past month in Pakistan, where our use of drones has 
contributed to tensions between our two nations.
  Our colleague and a member of the Intelligence Committee, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), submitted an amendment to 
ban so-called signature strikes against unknown targets.
  Her amendment modestly calls for the U.S. Government to know, with 
near-certainty, that at least one individual who is a known target will 
be present before the strike is launched. I am outraged that her 
amendment was not made in order under this rule.
  Other amendments, including bipartisan amendments, dealt with 
increasing the transparency of decisionmaking and reporting from drone 
strikes; others would have simply banned their use.
  The U.S. is increasingly dependent on the use of unmanned weaponized 
aerial vehicles to deliver deadly force against individuals and groups 
residing or operating in other countries.
  As we wind down the war in Afghanistan, we need to take a hard look 
at how we should pursue the so-called global war on terror, especially 
the use of drone strikes and operations outside the boundaries of 
international law enforcement.

[[Page H5032]]

  I regret that all of the amendments brought before the Rules 
Committee dealing with drone strikes were not made in order, as each 
dealt with a different facet of the policy and each deserved to be 
debated by this House.
  I would also like to say a word about the McCollum amendment, which 
was also denied by the Rules Committee. Our intelligence agencies 
should never ever use humanitarian work or workers as a cover for 
covert operations or a means to gather intelligence.
  Whether we are talking about a vaccination campaign to protect 
children from polio or the delivery of food to desperate refugees, 
leave such plots and machinations to the movies. Keep them out of U.S. 
policy and covert operations.
  They endanger all humanitarian workers and place obstacles in the way 
of carrying out urgent and essential global health and humanitarian 
work in places where too many dangers already exist.
  Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I also want to point out that 
this rule contains a provision which makes a change in the procedures 
for the special Select Committee on Benghazi, which was established by 
the House just a few weeks ago. The new provision allows the chairman 
of the new select committee to authorize foreign travel as part of the 
investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has already conducted seven investigations 
of the Benghazi matter--seven. Many of us have argued that an 
additional eighth inquiry is not necessary, but since the House insists 
on proceeding, we would like to make sure that some of the partisan 
abuses that marked the previous inquiries will not be repeated by the 
new select committee, particularly with regard to foreign travel.
  Mr. Cummings has often protested the partisan abuses of foreign 
travel at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I 
insert in the Record a letter from Mr. Cummings to Mr. Issa, asking him 
to delay a Republican-only delegation to Libya, so that Democrats could 
join the delegation as well.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2013.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that you 
     immediately postpone your upcoming delegation to Libya and 
     several other countries until you come into compliance with 
     your own Committee directives, stop your partisan efforts to 
     deliberately exclude Democrats from this trip, and provide 
     adequate notice to allow Democratic Members to join this 
     delegation at a later date.
       On April 6, 2011, upon becoming Chairman of the Committee, 
     you issued a memorandum to all Committee Members entitled 
     ``Rules for Committee-Authorized Foreign Travel.'' According 
     to that memorandum, ``All delegations must be bipartisan.''
       Earlier today, however, I obtained a copy of an itinerary 
     for a trip you apparently have been planning to Libya and 
     several other countries next week, presumably as part of the 
     Committee's ongoing investigation into the attack in Benghazi 
     in 2012. The only congressional travelers on this itinerary 
     are you and your Republican staffer. No Democratic Members 
     are listed on the itinerary, and you have not contacted me or 
     my staff about this trip. According to this itinerary, you 
     are planning to leave this Sunday, which means Democratic 
     participation at this late date is impossible.
       Your 2011 memo also says that the ``purpose must be very 
     specific for each country.'' Yet, your itinerary states only 
     that the Libya portion of the trip is ``TBD,'' although it 
     may include a ``visit'' to the embassy and a ``working 
     lunch.'' Your itinerary does not identify a single U.S. 
     government official, Libyan official, or other individual the 
     Committee plans to interview or speak with during this 
     delegation.
       Your 2011 memo also says that the only exception to 
     conducting bipartisan international delegations is ``in rare 
     circumstances and at the sole discretion of the Chairman.'' 
     However, you have not identified any such circumstances in 
     this case that would justify excluding Democratic Members. 
     Moreover, I have obtained other documents showing that you 
     have been planning this delegation for more than a week, so 
     there are no exigencies that would have prohibited you from 
     consulting with Democrats.
       Although you claim that your investigation of the Benghazi 
     attacks is bipartisan, your efforts to secretly plan an 
     official trip to Libya--and then deliberately exclude 
     Democrats from joining--is part of an unfortunate pattern of 
     partisanship that undermines the credibility of this 
     investigation.
       Last October, Rep. Jason Chaffetz undertook exactly the 
     same partisan maneuver when he traveled to Libya--at your 
     direction--and excluded Democratic Members from that trip. At 
     that time, my staff obtained a last-minute copy of his 
     itinerary that listed the Committee activity in Libya as 
     ``TBD'' and failed to identify any officials to be 
     interviewed. We now know that Rep. Chaffetz met personally 
     with General Carter Ham, the Commander of AFRICOM, as well as 
     Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission, who was then 
     called before the Committee to testify.
       The problem with these actions is that they effectively 
     deny Democratic Members the ability to effectively 
     investigate this incident. Since your secret delegation 
     appears to violate your own directive to the Committee, I 
     request that you postpone it until such time as Democratic 
     Members are given an adequate opportunity to join.
           Sincerely,
                                               Elijah E. Cummings,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. McGOVERN. In October of 2012, Oversight Committee Republicans 
went on a delegation to Libya, but they did not inform Democratic 
members until 24 hours before they departed.
  In September 2013, Oversight Committee Republicans planned a second 
delegation to Libya without contacting Democratic members at all. 
Ranking Member Cummings requested that the trip be postponed to allow 
Democrats to join, but his request was denied.
  This is no way to conduct a serious investigation, and this is one of 
the reasons why so many people on our side of the aisle have called 
foul over the way the House Republican leadership is dealing with this 
important issue.
  So before the House grants any new authorities to the select 
committee, I would be grateful for some assurance from my chairman that 
this new authority will not be misused in the highly partisan manner 
demonstrated by Chairman Issa at the Oversight Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
for yielding to me, and I appreciate him bringing this issue up, as he 
did in the Rules Committee at the time of the hearing.
  I want to assure the gentleman and each of the Members of this body 
that the gentleman who will be the new chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), has every intent to make 
sure that his work, the assignments that will be given as they move 
forward, including travel, will be done on a fair basis.
  Mr. Gowdy is aware of and knows the sensitive nature of not only the 
investigation, but also how this will be handled; and Mr. Gowdy, I 
assure you, is very prepared to match and to meet the Members that Ms. 
Pelosi has put on the committee, and I think that you will see that the 
Members who will serve as a result of the Speaker appointing them will 
serve with honor and distinction and will work well and fairly 
together.
  I thank the gentleman for asking the question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his answer and for his 
reassurances, and we will certainly be watching. In our opinion, 
fairness means consultation with the Democrats and not leaving us out 
of the loop.
  Again, I would point out to my colleagues that the inquiries into the 
Benghazi situation thus far have been highly partisan, and the 
Oversight Committee, in particular, I think, has been run in an 
inappropriate manner.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's assurances, and we will watch and 
hope that what the gentleman just said will actually occur.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this rule that allows for consideration of H.R. 4681, the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015.
  I am troubled that just 11 amendments were allowed under the rule and 
many solid amendments that would enhance oversight and transparency 
were blocked, particularly an amendment by

[[Page H5033]]

Representative Gabbard to expand the authority and oversight of the 
intelligence community by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
Board.
  With respect to the underlying bill, I would like to discuss a number 
of provisions that deserve to be highlighted.
  The bill sets the stage for potentially significant reforms to 
government contract employees' ability to access classified information 
that warrant thoughtful consideration by the House and further 
clarification.
  Specifically, H.R. 4681 directs the Director of National Intelligence 
to ensure that elements of the intelligence community engage in 
continuous evaluation of its employees to detect behaviors that may 
result in unauthorized disclosures.
  The bill also directs a cost-benefit analysis of replacing the 
standard periodic reinvestigation process with automated continuous 
evaluation programs. While I agree that there are weaknesses in the 
current security clearance process that warrant reform, it is important 
that, before wholesale changes are made, Congress expresses its 
expectations about the scope of such programs, establishes metrics for 
evaluating their efficacy, and ensures that due process protections for 
impacted individuals are available.
  We have an obligation to 5.2 million Americans whose livelihoods 
depend on maintaining their security clearances to ensure that agencies 
that establish these programs do so in a manner that guards against 
abuses, including targeting and retaliation by supervisors, as well as 
improper or excessive invasions of privacy.
  The urge to adopt continuous evaluation in response to high-profile 
incidents involving individuals with access to classified information 
who violated the terms of their oath is understandable. However, the 
adoption of continuous evaluation does not absolve the intelligence 
community of its obligations to bolster the protection of its 
classified holdings.
  Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4681 may send the wrong message to 
agencies, as it does not include language to direct agencies to raise 
the bar on access controls, thereby giving the impression that our 
concern is principally about employees' actions and behaviors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about the bill's view of the 
future of security clearance investigations and adjudications and the 
degree to which it sets the stage for computers and algorithms to 
replace humans in the process.
  Specifically, it direct the DNI to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on 
reducing or eliminating the manual process for security clearance 
investigations and adjudications.
  The guiding principle in the adjudication process is the concept of 
the whole person, where information is brought to bear to give a 
picture of an individual. The prospect that we would empower a computer 
to render judgment of a person's integrity, character, and loyalty to 
our Nation is troubling.
  In the coming weeks, I will be introducing a comprehensive security 
clearance reform bill that, among other things, addresses known 
weaknesses in the current system, establishes expectations for 
continuous evaluation programs, and demands proper performance from 
investigative service providers.
  It also would greatly expand the resources and responsibilities of 
the Public Interest Declassification Board. A well-resourced and robust 
board is essential to increasing accountability of the intelligence 
community. I am pleased that the underlying bill will renew the 
authorization of the board.
  Before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I would note that, while I am 
pleased that the bill authorizes intelligence operations within DHS, I 
am disturbed that, in advance of today's vote, members of the Homeland 
Security Committee staff were not granted access to the classified 
annex of this legislation, as it is relevant to the committee's 
oversight jurisdiction.

  I would hope that, as this bill moves through the legislative 
process, the stovepipes that exist within this Chamber that hinder 
critical information-sharing and oversight can be overcome for the 
benefit of the American people.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman if he has any additional 
speakers?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am ready to close whenever you are.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for all of the reasons I 
stated earlier, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to close with one final 
thought: this intelligence bill includes several provisions regarding 
the use of contractors, security clearance reform, strengthening 
investigations by the inspector general, and so on.
  We need to recognize that these reforms were not initiated by us. 
They are a result of the massive release of leaked information that 
brought very serious matters about actual and potential abuses by our 
intelligence agencies on how they monitor and maintain data on ordinary 
law-abiding citizens.
  This leaked information caused alarm throughout our society, by our 
constituents, by our press, and by Members of Congress--and rightfully 
so. It caused alarm among some of our closest international allies--and 
rightfully so.
  So while we may hold different views about the individual who 
confiscated and leaked the information, let us all recognize that none 
of the NSA and FISA reforms recently passed by this House--and none of 
the reforms included in this bill--would have happened if that 
information had not been leaked because we would not have known about 
the abuses being carried on in our name by various intelligence 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect those men and women who serve our Nation in 
our intelligence agencies, but I don't respect a culture that 
intentionally keeps the American people and the Congress in the dark 
about the extent and nature of our intelligence operations.
  More reforms are still needed; more transparency is still needed. I 
believe we can be safe and protect the American people without 
sacrificing the liberties that we all treasure.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of 
this rule as well as the underlying pieces of the legislation, H.R. 
4681 about intelligence and H.R. 4745 called the T-HUD bill.
  From the testimony that we received in the Rules Committee on these 
measures, it appears that both of these measures have enjoyed 
bipartisan cooperation in their formation and from their respective 
committee processes.
  One of the toughest responsibilities that a Member of the Congress 
has is to help prioritize the Federal expenditures of resources that we 
take from the American people. Sometimes, worthy projects and programs 
have to be trimmed to meet budget requirements and prioritization. 
While there are some spending choices--which I disagree--contained in 
H.R. 4745, overall, it is still a balanced measure which will provide 
for American infrastructure so essential for the economic growth and 
jobs, and maintains discipline by adhering to the top-line funding 
levels arrived at through that 2-year budget agreement that was passed 
by Congress. The $52 billion for transportation provided in these 
agencies is $7.8 billion below the President's request and still 
actually $1.8 billion less than the 2014 enacted level.
  Members have a chance, under the open rule of this resolution 
provided, to argue for changes in the prioritization. I am pleased that 
one of the things this bill recognizes is that States are different. 
Those of us who live in the wide-open West have been able to use 
transportation to help the desert blossom. We should not try to 
restrict every State to the same standards with a one-size-fits-all 
approach. The committee was very wise in what they actually did.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would ask occupants of the gallery to cease audible 
conversation.

[[Page H5034]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, switching gears to the intelligence 
reauthorization measure, every Member of the House takes seriously our 
responsibility to preserve individual liberty and freedoms under the 
Constitution.
  We also have a constitutional obligation to provide for the common 
defense, because without a strong national defense, which includes the 
indispensable work of the defense intelligence agencies, personal 
freedoms are also at risk. The question is achieving and maintaining a 
balance in deciding how to best preserve inalienable constitutional 
rights against possible incursions by technologists, whether 
inadvertent or intentional, as our Nation deals with the very real 
threats both at home and abroad.
  Technology gives us wonderful tools, but it can also be a fertile 
ground for abuse of privacy. We have a responsibility as Members of 
Congress to exercise oversight in U.S. intelligence agencies, and that 
can be difficult since much cannot be debated in open forums with any 
degree of specificity without bringing great harm to the national 
security. That is why we have the expertise of standing committees. Not 
only do they understand these issues, it saves time by allocating the 
proper amount of time to the discussion of these issues in advance. And 
from the testimony received in the Rules Committee, I believe that 
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger have demonstrated a 
strong bipartisan commitment on this issue.
  Provisions of this bill are aimed at bolstering personal and 
individual privacy. Passage of H.R. 4681, when you combine it with the 
passage last week of the U.S. FREEDOM Act, is a good step towards 
enhancing our U.S. intelligence capability as well as congressional 
oversight on these issues.
  It is a good bill. It is a fair rule. I urge its adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule for H.R. 
4681, the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014,'' and 
H.R. 4745, the ``Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015.
  H.R. 4681 is a bill authorizing appropriations for our nation's 
intelligence agencies for Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal Year 2015. 
The bill provides funds for the conduct of intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities.
  H.R. 4745 makes appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2015.
  Our nation is long past due for a Transportation and Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations bill. This bill is about jobs--jobs--
jobs.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4745's $17.1. billion in discretionary 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal year 
2015, is $727.3 million below the funding for fiscal year 2014.
  Included in the legislation is $15.7 billion in total budgetary 
resources for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is $7.3 
million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $446 million above 
the request.
  This will provide full funding for all air traffic control personnel, 
including 14,800 air traffic controllers, 7,300 safety inspectors, and 
operational support personnel.
  The bill also fully funds the FAA's Next Generation Air 
Transportation Systems (NextGen) at $852.4 million, and funds Contract 
Towers at $140 million.
  These investments will help ease future congestion and help reduce 
delays for travelers in U.S. airspace.
  The Bush Intercontinental Airport and William P. Hobby Airport will 
benefit from funding provided under this bill: nearly 40 million 
passengers traveled through Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and an 
additional 10 million traveled through William P. Hobby (HOU); more 
than 650 daily departures occur at IAH; IAH is the 11th busiest airport 
in the U.S. for total passenger traffic; IAH has 12 all-cargo airlines 
handles more than 419,205 metric tons of cargo in 2012.
  The funds being sent back to states will repair critical 
transportation infrastructure that is vital to local, state and the 
national economy.
  Further the bill provides for funding for our Nation's housing and 
urban development programs that fund block grants, special housing 
programs that serve our Nation's elderly, young, disabled, and 
veterans.
  The legislation includes a total of $40.3 billion for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, a decrease of $769 million below the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $2 billion below the 
Administration's request.
  The bill does not contain funding for any new, unauthorized 
``sustainable,'' ``livable,'' or ``green'' community development 
programs.
  Affordable safe housing is vital to the well-being of elderly, low-
wage workers, the unemployed, under-employed, disabled persons and our 
Nation's veterans.
  In 2012, Texas ranked second among the 50 states among states with 
workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage.
  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 6.1 million 
workers paid hourly rates in Texas in 2012, 282,000 earned exactly the 
prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, while 170,000 earned 
less.
  In the State of Texas the percentage of persons living in poverty 
makes the funds provided for housing and mass transit systems including 
light rail critical: 34% of children live in poverty; 21% of adults 
(19-64) live in poverty; and 17% of elderly live in poverty.
  The funds provided will make it possible for low wage workers to have 
affordable options for travel as well as support access to affordable 
housing.


                      SECTION 8 AND PUBLIC HOUSING

  Included in the bill is $26.3 billion for Public and Indian Housing. 
This is an increase of $6.2 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level and $1.2 billion below the requested level. This funding will 
provide for continued assistance to all families and individuals 
currently served by this program. The bill also fully funds the 
President's request for veterans' housing vouchers at $75 million.


                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

  The bill contains $6.2 billion for Community Planning and Development 
programs--a reduction of $383 million below the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level.
  The Community Development Block Grant formula program is funded at $3 
billion--effectively equal to last year's level.
  HOME Investment Partnerships Program is funded at $700 million, a 
reduction of $300 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
  Homeless assistance grants are funded at $2.1 billion--the same as 
the previous year's level--which is sufficient for all current grants 
to be continued.
  My thanks to the House Rules Committee for making my amendment in 
order under the rule for H.R. 4681, the Intelligence Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and one that the majority of the 
House can support.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment requires the Director of the Office of 
National Intelligence to conduct an assessment of the reliance of 
intelligence activities on contractors to support Government 
activities, including an assessment of contractors performing 
intelligence activities, which would include intelligence analysis.
  I want to thank the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 
including my amendment in an en bloc for consideration during the 
debate on amendments, which will take place later.
  I will speak more on the Jackson Lee Amendment when it comes before 
the House for consideration under an en bloc amendment to H.R. 4681.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________