[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.
____________________