[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4389-H4395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2596, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 315
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. 2596) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 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 section 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. 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 114-19. 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. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in
[[Page H4390]]
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. 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. 2. Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on the recorded vote ordered on the question of
reconsideration of the vote on the question of concurring in
the matter comprising the remainder of title II of the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1314 may continue to be postponed through
the legislative day of Thursday, July 30, 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on House Resolution 315, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
today this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. This rule provides
for a robust amendment debate on a wide variety of issues related to
the authorization of funds for 16 intelligence agencies.
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. The Rules
Committee met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony
from both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, in
addition to receiving amendment testimony from multiple Members.
This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule.
There were 29 amendments in total submitted to the Rules Committee. Of
those 29, I am pleased that the full House will debate and vote on 16
of those amendments, over half that were submitted.
The majority of the amendments made in order are bipartisan, a fact
demonstrating the unity of this body in advancing funds that will go
directly to fighting against terrorism proliferation and weapons of
mass destruction.
``To provide for the common defense'' is a common phrase to us all,
and one that clearly sets forth the more basic responsibility of our
government, a responsibility that the members of the Rules Committee,
the Intelligence Committee, and, yes, I believe the entire House do not
take lightly.
This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified
programs, all Members were given the opportunity to review the
classified annexes to the underlying legislation prior to Rules
Committee consideration.
Members should also be aware that section 2 of the rule provides that
the motion to reconsider the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance, or
title II of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1314, may continue to be
postponed through Thursday, July 30, 2015.
This postponement was necessary to allow House and Senate leadership,
in addition to the President, sufficient time to consider legislative
options related to this action on trade promotion authority and Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
I am proud of the work undertaken by the Intelligence Committee to
advance this vitally important legislation whose consideration is
provided for by this rule.
There are a few key provisions that I want to ensure Members are
aware of because I believe they speak to the overwhelming awareness the
Intelligence Committee possesses of the responsibility of Congress to
protect this Nation from terrorism, and also of our unwavering fidelity
to the United States Constitution.
First, section 302 of the underlying legislation provides that the
authorization of appropriations by this act shall not be deemed to
constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity that
is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the
United States.
Sections 303 and 304 require specific elements of the executive
branch to provide Congress with timely notifying requirements on key
intelligence activities. Congressional notification requirements
generally remain a vitally important mechanism to ensure that Congress
is able to conduct robust oversight.
Notification requirements specific to the intelligence community are
even more essential, given the classified and delicate nature of the
situations our intelligence agencies face every day.
The classification of documents and the decisionmaking factors that
go into such classification have historically been an area of great
interest and, at times, concerns by Members of this body and the
citizens that we represent.
In response to the valid concerns and interest by Members and the
public at large, in the Intelligence Committee's report on H.R. 2596,
they specifically state that the committee ``seeks to improve its
visibility into the classification process and better understand how
the intelligence community determines the classification level of
especially sensitive reporting and analysis.''
In the underlying legislation, the committee carries out this goal by
directing the Director of National Intelligence to provide, within 60
days of the enactment, a report to the congressional intelligence
committees outlining each instance in the past 5 years that the Office
of Director of National Intelligence or any other entity within the
executive branch directed an element of the intelligence community to
begin disseminating existing uncompartmented intelligence reporting or
analysis through a compartment or subcompartment.
This requirement is just one of several additional reporting
requirements in the legislation to serve to enhance Congress' role in
and understanding of the classification process, again, emphasizing
Congress' oversight role. The committee has done a good job in
clarifying that.
The underlying legislation also directs the Central Intelligence
Agency to provide the congressional intelligence committees with all
intelligence reports based on the documents collected in the May 1,
2011, raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
We live in a dangerous world and face constant and evolving threats
from terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and ISIS.
These groups successfully use the Internet to anonymously build their
resources, both human and financial.
The United States Government must maintain and enhance their ability
to counter extremists online. By understanding how and where terrorist
groups operate, we can more effectively fight for freedom at home and
abroad. I am pleased to see strong provisions in the legislation that
will further this goal.
These provisions that I have just spoken of are just a few examples
of the thoughtful and difficult work the Intelligence Committee
undertook to bring forward this legislation that authorizes critical
national security functions while staying within the funding
constraints of the Budget Control Act, or BCA.
I want to thank the Intelligence Committee and their staff for their
hard work on the authorization measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman, my friend from Georgia, for yielding the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2596, the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as well as
provides that the
[[Page H4391]]
motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance measure may continue to be postponed until the end of the
legislative day on July 30.
First, I commend the efforts of Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member
Schiff for their effort in crafting a bill with largely bipartisan
support that provides our Nation's intelligence community with the
resources they need to keep us safe. Our national security relies on
the continued strength of our intelligence community.
As we face ongoing security challenges both at home and abroad from
threats such as ISIL, lone wolf attacks, the emergence of cybercrime,
as well as the specter of unknown challenges that may be awaiting us, a
strong intelligence apparatus is of the utmost importance.
This legislation will do much to meet those challenges. Specifically,
this bill supports investments in cutting-edge technology like spy
satellites, enhances our Nation's human intelligence capabilities,
provides resources to safeguard valuable signals intelligence
collection, and partners with our foreign allies to maximize the reach
of our intelligence efforts.
This investment in our country's intelligence infrastructure comes at
a critically important time. As you know, the Office of Personnel
Management recently suffered a disastrous breach. Hackers were able to
target OPM and gain access to personnel data, including employees'
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and numerous other personal
details.
Perhaps most disturbing, OPM houses the applications and files
submitted by those applying for security clearances, with data going
back until 1985. These files were compromised as well, leading some
experts to argue that the compromise of these files could have
tremendous negative effects for our human intelligence gathering
capabilities.
These cyber attacks represent a critical threat to our national
security. We all love the convenience that technology provides us, but
we must also be prepared to invest in technologies that will protect us
from those who wish to sabotage our security in the virtual world. It
is time for the OPM to implement and abide by best practices so that we
never face a data breach like the one we saw last week.
To the extent that Congress will play a role in securing our virtual
infrastructure, we should work as quickly as possible to ensure that
our employees and our most sensitive material are not needlessly
exposed to those who wish to do us harm.
Mr. Speaker, while I support the strong national security protections
this authorization provides, I am extremely disappointed yet again in
how my Republican colleagues have skirted the fiscal cuts imposed by
sequestration in order to fund the things that they care about, while
ignoring the effects such fool-headed cuts have on the vital domestic
programs that they don't seem to care about. We have people hurting all
over this Nation because of this irresponsible and senseless policy of
sequestration.
Republicans claim to be using this policy as an important tool to
rein in out-of-control government spending; yet, when sequestration
affects programs and areas of the budget they care about, they
magically get around this dilemma by using accounting gimmicks.
That is just what they have done here in this measure. The majority
has yet again used the overseas contingency operations account to evade
sequestration spending caps.
Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans wanted to evade spending caps for
the Department of Education so that we can get around sequestration and
properly educate our children? Or if they could use accounting tricks
to get around sequestration to fully fund and repair our crumbling
infrastructure? Or if they were also inclined to use their budgetary
magic to get around sequestration caps to properly fund critically
important agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency so that our
children and grandchildren can continue to have access to clean water
and clean air?
Alas, all we get from the majority is more of the same budgetary
double standard, using tricks to get around spending caps on things you
like to spend money on and then cry, ``sequester, sequester,'' on
things you don't like to spend money on.
{time} 1245
Let's stop pretending. That isn't a plan to rein in government
spending. That is just spending taxpayer money on things you deem
worthy of unfettered spending and ignoring programs, for political
reasons, that you don't even like, even though such programs remain
vital to our country's success.
Mr. Speaker, many on my side of the aisle have taken issue with the
detention facility in Guantanamo Bay since day one; I certainly have.
Once again, the Republicans look to continue the operation of this
prison, when we should be working to bring about its orderly closure.
We are better than this prison. As a country dedicated to the rule of
law, as a country that inspires people the world over to work for and
even die for the establishment of democratic rule, we are better than
this prison. This prison is an exercise in Kafkaesque justice, which
has long worked to undermine our standing with our allies and helped
terrorist organizations recruit more and more fighters.
Look, I don't think that anyone is arguing that, if we close the
prison, then the myriad terrorist groups who use it as a recruiting
tool will no longer have people joining their ranks, but it would be
one less arrow in their quiver.
For that reason, we need to work together to close the prison as
quickly as possible. In doing so, we will not jeopardize the safety of
our country, but will act more fully to reflect our commitment to
democracy and the rule of law.
We know and I know, having been in the judiciary, that our justice
system is more than capable of handling the prosecution of terrorists,
no matter where they are, including those held in Guantanamo Bay.
We have successfully tried Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Faisal Shahzad, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev--the Boston bomber--and we have
either sentenced them to death or life imprisonment in our most secure
prisons.
At last night's Rules Committee meeting, my friends on the other side
of the aisle decided to make a last-minute change to today's rule--or,
I might add, to further pollute today's rule. That last-minute change
allows for the postponement of the motion to reconsider TAA.
Over the course of my tenure in Congress, I voted to support
thousands of pieces of legislation. In the 20-plus years that I have
served in this body, I can think of only three votes which I deeply
regret making, and one of those was in support of NAFTA.
In the years since, I have seen after NAFTA a decrease in American
jobs, a rollback of critical environmental protections here and in
Mexico, where I was promised that the environmental circumstances in
the maquiladoras would be cleaned up and they were not and a stagnation
of wages that has prevented the financial upward mobility of working
class and middle class Americans and has ground poor Americans into
poverty beyond belief.
If we are going to create trade policy that is worthy of future
generations, then we must ensure that that policy strengthens, not
weakens, labor rights. It must strengthen, not weaken, environmental
protections. It must ensure other countries' responsibility to adhere
to basic human rights. It must expand and strengthen our middle class,
not squeeze hard-working Americans in favor of corporate interests.
The legislation included in this rule today is part of a trade
package that does nothing to bolster these important priorities.
Finally, as I have stated time and again, I take issue with the
manner in which these important measures are being considered.
Legislation as important as the ones at hand deserve an open and
transparent process where Members of both parties and both Houses of
Congress may debate and offer amendments as they please.
This process, envisioned and designed by our Founding Fathers to
serve as a safeguard to democracy, continues to be eroded by the
majority's insistence on grouping multiple, unrelated bills together
under one rule and limiting the number of amendments that can be made
in order, as well as the time available for debate.
[[Page H4392]]
There were amendments offered last night. For example, Congresswoman
Speier offered whistleblower protection, not made in order. My
colleague Representative Schweikert from Arizona and I offered a very
sensible measure under the intelligence provision to allow for us, as a
sense of Congress only, to say that we will participate with Tunisia's
intelligence operation in a more pronounced manner--totally innocuous,
but at the very same time, helping a country that may very well make
the bridge to democracy and certainly has been an ally in
intelligence--and a needed one, in light of the number of people that
come up from north Africa through Tunisia and wind up fighting in the
Middle East.
If we are truly to operate as the deliberative body the U.S. House of
Representatives was created to function as, we must do more to ensure
that our Nation's most critical pieces of legislation are afforded the
time and consideration they rightly deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida. One of the
things that I, coming on to the Rules Committee, have found is really
the vigorous debates that we do have--and the gentleman from Florida,
we have had many of those, and that is a good place for it.
It is a good place for it also here on the floor to discuss what
really, as was focused on very clearly, is a rule for a bill, and then
there is a procedural issue that we are extending the TAA
reconsideration until July 30. I am understanding what he is saying,
but I do want to make Members clear that is what is happening.
We are working on the majority side for a process that is open.
Sixteen amendments are going to be made in order, and they are going to
be debated right here on the floor of this House and voted. I think
that is what the Republican majority is focused on.
One of the things that came up--and I want it to be clear, Mr.
Speaker, is the gentleman brings up a point. It is about priorities. It
is about priorities. When we are dealing with authorizations and
spending bills, is what we are dealing with in the majority here, we
have made it very clear, I believe, from the Republican majority
standpoint, although I personally and others may have discussions on
how we use overseas contingency funds, and those have been debated on
this floor and should be continued to be debated on this floor.
However, one of the things that we are doing, and I believe, from our
perspective, is we are putting priorities first--priorities for
national defense; securing our national interest; and in light of this
bill, making sure that our country is safe, abroad and here, from
attacks from people who don't like us.
I don't buy the argument--and the debate on Guantanamo is a different
issue--but the argument that if we closed it up, it takes away one
recruiting piece. I am sorry. Boko Haram, al Qaeda, these others do not
hate us only because of a prison; they just hate us because we are
free. They hate us because we have a society that is open.
I understand the debate that we want to have, but let's make it
crystal clear. There was no Guantanamo when they rammed planes into our
World Trade Center. There was no Guantanamo at that time. They just
don't like us. Let's make that very clear.
Funding is appropriate. We will debate those entirely upon this House
and continue to. The Republicans will still look out for jobs and those
working in the middle class, and those that are trying to find their
families' priorities in their own economic sphere and looking at it in
a country that is in debt and trying to make sure we make good fiscal
decisions.
Our priorities are that we help businesses start, we encourage the
creation of jobs, not a government strangulation of jobs, and that is
what resources do.
With this bill, it is very focused, though. This is about our
intelligence community. This is a rule that supports an authorization
coming from a very difficult community that does a very difficult job.
We are supporting a rule that funds those agencies so that it keeps us
safe and does the things that keeps America free. That is the continued
argument that we will continue to have.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the other debates that we want to have
here, but let's be focused. This rule is about that. It is also about a
policy decision or a procedural decision in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance
failed in the House of Representatives last Friday by a 3-1 margin; yet
this rule today would extend the revote on Trade Adjustment Assistance
through the end of July. This is one more attempt to play games with
the future of hard-working families.
American workers demand and they deserve respect. They deserve a
living wage and the right not to have their jobs shipped overseas. That
is what we are united in fighting for.
A vote for this rule is a vote for fast track. A vote for fast track
is a vote against jobs and against wages.
United States trade policy has been failing American workers, failing
American consumers and families for 20 years.
The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has already cost up to 75,000
jobs, and it was just passed 3 years ago. Up to 5 million jobs have
been destroyed by currency manipulation; and a number of the
signatories to this trade agreement, their policy is to manipulate
their currency to have their goods sold at a lower price than American
goods, putting American workers out of jobs and lowering their wages.
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, has written:
``Inequality is not inevitable. It is a choice that we make with the
rules that we create to structure our economy.''
Trade policy is one of those choices. If we approve fast track, we
throw away our ability, our constitutional authority to represent the
people who sent us here in good faith. We throw away that ability to be
able to fix the flaws in the trade agreement, like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, to the detriment of millions of American families.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Friday, this House sent a strong message to the Fast-
Trackers: Not so fast.
Forty-eight hours ago, Republican leaders were telling the world
that, at this moment, we would be voting to approve Fast Track; but
now, the Fast-Trackers have become backtrackers, pushing back the vote.
The only reason that they seek this postponement in this rule of up
to 6 weeks is that they do not have the votes to approve Fast Track
today, and the only way they can get those votes today is to use this
strange shenanigan of connecting it and cloaking it in a rule for the
authorization of our intelligence agencies.
After Friday's Fast Track vote, one official said those who ``vote
against this Trade Adjustment Assistance are adding their names to the
death certificate for [it].'' Well, let's play it straight for a
change. TAA is not authorized now. It expired last year. Its future
depends, not upon this authorization, but upon an adequate level of
funding.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, and many more have not been authorized for
years, but they continue to operate perfectly well, based upon
appropriated funds. This TAA argument is phony.
{time} 1300
Really, it doesn't take much intelligence to see what is happening
here. These Fast-Trackers are desperate, and this postponement vote for
this extent, of this nature, is unprecedented in the history of this
Congress. It has never happened before in American history that someone
has asked to postpone a vote for up to 6 weeks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
[[Page H4393]]
Mr. DOGGETT. And understand what that means. Understand that they are
looking for the ideal time--morning, noon, or night--to muscle through
a broken trade policy that a majority of this House and of the American
people do not want.
This rule provides that the Speaker at any time of day can come with
no notice, no debate, and say, we are voting to send this bill to the
President's desk.
What really needs adjusting is not trade assistance but the no-
compromise, no-amendment attitude on trade that gives us broken trade
policies.
This vote wouldn't be so close if this process hadn't been so closed.
Reject this rule. Vote for democracy. Don't change the precedents of
the House. Don't let this be muscled through.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), my good
friend.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, what
is about to happen on this floor with this rule is a direct violation
of the United States Constitution; for in the United States
Constitution, it clearly says that the United States Congress shall
have the power ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' And in
this rule is a clear violation of that.
We already voted it down overwhelmingly 302-126, Republicans and
Democrats. It was the foremost bipartisan vote in this 21st century,
the very thing that the American people are crying for.
Now, why did Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison all agree? Very strong, very independent minds. Alexander
Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could hardly bear to be in the same room
with each other, but they agreed on this because they knew that every
State had Representatives in Congress to look out for jobs that could
be shipped overseas. This is the primary reason, ladies and gentlemen.
Look at every trade agreement. This country has lost over 2 million
manufacturing jobs to China as a result of the China deal. Over 150,000
jobs to Mexico. Yes, it created jobs--not in the United States. And
what kind of jobs? These are jobs that impacted at the lower- and
middle-income levels of our economy. It is the middle class that is the
heart and the soul of America.
Let this Congress stand up and reject this rule.
We proved our mettle with that 302 vote. Congress, I am asking you,
the American people are asking you: Do what Alexander Hamilton and
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asked us to do, and let it be the
Congress that regulates commerce with foreign nations.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, intelligence is critical to our national
security. It should not be besmirched by a controversial and unrelated
procedural shenanigan, unprecedented in the annals of the House of
Representatives.
In the words of the President of the United States, It is time to
play it straight. TAA and TPA, that package was voted on. It was
defeated. We are done. Play it straight.
Write new legislation. Put together a new package. Bring it to the
floor of the House. See if it has a majority. That is playing it
straight.
Instead, in an unprecedented move, a vote we took last week is being
held in never-never land to be revoted on as late as the end of July.
That is right. Early June votes tabulated in late July.
If you are against unprecedented shenanigans, vote ``no'' on the
rule. If you are for playing it straight, vote ``no'' on the rule. If
you are against TAA, vote ``no'' on the rule. If you are against TPA,
if you are against fast track, vote ``no'' on the rule.
If you vote for an unprecedented procedural shenanigan, an
unprecedented procedural mutation today, you can be sure it will be
used against you and your district and your beliefs tomorrow. And if
you are not against fast track, you should be because it gives an
enormous gift to China, and we get nothing in return.
China's number one tactic for running up the largest trade surplus
against us in history is currency manipulation. This deal that is put
on the fast track enshrines the view that currency manipulation is just
fine. Go to it. A giant gift to China.
In addition, the rules of origin provisions say that goods that the
manufacturer admits are 50 or 60 percent made in China--which means
actually 70 or 80 percent made in China--get fast-tracked into the
United States.
Vote ``no'' on this procedural mutation.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, let's focus back on the rule and the
underlying bill and the procedural issue that has been discussed. It is
out in the open. It was not snuck in or anything else. It has been
there and has been discussed.
But also, I want to get back to the fact of the rule, itself, which
is stand alone. We are going to be voting on an intelligence bill. We
are going to have a debate on an intelligence bill.
And, among other things, I will give us a reminder of what this
legislation does:
It sustains critical capabilities to fight terrorism and counter the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is a separate bill.
This is what we are going to be discussing. It has funds to assist our
efforts to recover unauthorized disclosures of intelligence
capabilities. It sustains activities in Afghanistan and Iraq to
continue the fight against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It invests
in the resiliency of our national security space architecture. It
provides policy discretion on sensitive intelligence operations. It
promotes intelligence integration and sharing through investment in
intelligence communitywide information technology enterprises. It
enhances investment in military intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance aircraft. It funds initiatives to thwart cyber attacks
and insider threats. And it requires a report every 60 days on foreign
fighters in Syria and Iraq.
This is the bill, the underlying bill that we are discussing. And I
just wanted to make a reminder of that. As we have discussions on
different parts of this rule, let's be reminded also that we are
dealing with a stand-alone bill that we will work.
Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield for just a question?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida for
just a question.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, all of the things that the gentleman from
Georgia said are in the measure are true. But does he also agree that
it is unprecedented that we have included a measure to delay an
already-voted-on rule? Never before has that been done.
Or to your knowledge, has it been?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I think it is a fact that it is a part
of this rule. The gentleman from Florida states it in whatever
adjectival terms he wants to give. But it is in the rule. We have not
made it secretive that it is part of this rule. And we can discuss
either part.
I will just simply focus on the intelligence part.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee),
my good friend.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and
for the astute question that he asked, which is one that I would like
to follow up on.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is
quite right. There are very serious and important components of the
intelligence bill covered by this rule.
As many of us have experienced over the last couple of days, we are
in and out of intelligence and security briefings because that is the
era in which we live. And in most instances, Members draw their concern
from the responsibility they have for protecting the American people.
I am on the Homeland Security Committee and have continued on that
committee since the tragedy, the heinous act of 9/11, and before, when
the
[[Page H4394]]
select committee was in place. So I have no quarrel with some of the
important elements of this legislation. But the gentleman from Georgia
should recognize that this is an aberration.
There are two or three points that I would like to make:
First of all, we are long overdue for getting rid of the sequester.
This joke was played on Members and the American people only because of
the supercommittee--not because of any individual Members, but there
was a supercommittee structure put in place, the time ran out, and they
could not come to a budget conclusion. So this was the ultimate end.
Members didn't vote on this. They voted on the supercommittee, and then
this was the hatchet that fell when the supercommittee did not work. So
sequester should be something that Speaker Boehner puts on the floor
and immediately gets rid of.
And the reason why I say that is because I am going to talk about the
shenanigans dealing with the trade bill. But what I am going to say is
that the overseas contingency fund is being used to bolster up this
bill, the intelligence bill. But I can't get those resources to be
utilized for infrastructure or summer jobs or fixing the education
system that we have responsibilities for or providing opportunities for
young people to finish their education or criminal justice reform. So
this is being 43 percent pumped up when used by funds that are not in
the stream.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
The funding is not in the stream of funding that other appropriators
have to utilize. That is wrong.
Then I might conclude on the shenanigans of the trade fix, if you
will. I am for TAA, the Trade Adjustment Assistance. I want it to be
voted on straight up or down, like many Members do, to provide for
workers and not have, unfortunately, the addition that was added coming
from the other body. So now we know that, whatever shenanigans that
will come up, it probably won't be in the way that will help American
workers.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should be voted down because we need an
opportunity to work on behalf of the American workers, to get rid of
sequester, and to find a way to move this country forward.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say to the membership of this body that
if they vote against this rule, it doesn't mean that we would not have
an intelligence authorization. It simply would mean that those of us--
my friend from Georgia and myself--would have to go back to the Rules
Committee and fashion a rule that does not include an unprecedented
matter that should not be in this Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 in the first place.
And toward that end, among the things that were sought to be
included, if we were going to include the TAA measure, then the ranking
member, Ms. Slaughter, proposed on behalf of the minority that we also
include a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, for the reason,
one, TAA was overwhelmingly--3-1--defeated; TPP passed by a very thin
margin.
So if we are going to twist arms and find methodologies to employ to
try to change the minds of Members over a 6-week period of time, then
perhaps it would be those of us who are opposed to the measure would
have an opportunity to try to persuade some of those people who caused
the thin margin of it to pass on TPP. We felt that was a fairness
measure. At least if you were going to include it, that should have
been included as well.
Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should learn how much time
each side has at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 19\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
{time} 1315
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am waiting for one
additional speaker, but perhaps I can engage in a colloquy with my
colleague from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. You served both on the Intelligence Committee and on the
Rules Committee. There is reason to authorize intelligence, but am I
correct it has nothing to do with this sneak attack to put in a
postponement that has never been done in American history, where never
has anyone sought to delay for 6 weeks the consideration of this bill
that we are doing today; isn't that correct?
Mr. HASTINGS. I think you are absolutely correct, and it is
unprecedented. At the very same time, as my friend from Georgia pointed
out, they have done so transparently by putting it here, but that does
not mean it would not be used at some point in the future.
Mr. DOGGETT. Does this rule provide any notice to Members of the
House, or can this be entirely a surprise attack? Can they come out
here on the floor at any time, perhaps when the floor is as empty as it
is now, and give no notice to the Members of the House that they are
about to move to send this bill to the President's desk, have
absolutely no debate on that rule, but then have a vote here, perhaps a
day when some Members are out on important business in their district,
basically picking the best time because they are so desperate to force
through a bill that they know a majority of this House does not support
and that the American people don't support because it will just foist
off on us a broken, failed trade policy that does not respect the
interests of the American people? Is that what is happening here?
Mr. HASTINGS. That is certainly allowed. Anytime before July 30, the
measure could be brought to the floor, and it could be brought to the
floor without any notice to the membership because it is a motion to
reconsider. It is a part of this particular rule sought by the Speaker
of the House, I might add, and therefore it could be brought at any
time under the aegis of the Speaker's authority.
Mr. DOGGETT. Was the gentleman present in the Rules Committee when
every single constructive improvement to this fast-track bill was
rejected by the Rules Committee--not with your vote, of course--but a
majority of the Rules Committee said ``no'' to telling the Members of
this Congress as much about this deal as the Vietnamese Politburo
already knows, saying ``no'' to at least meeting the standards on the
environment that the Bush administration agreed to, saying ``no'' to
putting the foreign corporations on the same level as our American
corporations and businesses so that foreign corporations wouldn't have
an advantage to come in and attack health, safety, and environmental
rules that might be established by the Congress or the State of Florida
or a city like San Antonio or Austin? Because under this fast-track
bill, we are headed toward jeopardizing those rules, those State laws,
and those Federal laws that deal with the needs of the American family
and letting these foreign corporations circumvent them as they did in
Canada, recently, to demand millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a
decision locally to just prevent the expansion of a quarry. We can't
have that happen. But the Rules Committee would not allow us to address
those problems.
Mr. HASTINGS. Many of those measures in a 5\1/2\-hour, into-the-night
session that the Rules Committee operated.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would urge that Members understand that we have already voted on
this measure, and it was defeated, as I say, 3-1.
Robust funding for our intelligence infrastructure is clearly needed
and, indeed, welcomed, but enough is enough. It is time for Republicans
to stop squeezing important domestic programs through their arbitrary
implementation of sequester. We must invest in education in this
country; we must invest in our decaying infrastructure; we must invest
in a clean environment; and we must invest in a strong middle class.
Republicans want to make investments in our intelligence community.
[[Page H4395]]
Great. So do I. We all do. But at some point, we have to start asking:
What is it that that community is protecting? Without investments in
education, infrastructure, and our middle class, we risk undermining
what makes this country so exceptional and worth protecting in the
first place.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last little bit. I
appreciate the gentleman from Florida. Again, although we have some
differences--those have been evident today--the rule provides for ample
debate on the floor and the opportunity to debate and vote on up to 16
amendments offered by a largely bipartisan group of Members.
I look forward to those debates. I look forward to the debate on how
best to provide tools for our intelligence community and to combat the
dangerous threats that we face while still respecting both the
constitutional and budgetary restraints. Those are things that
sometimes, I think, in the midst of discussion today, got lost in that
this is a separate vote that we are going to be voting on our
intelligence bill. There is a procedural issue that is part of this
that is, again, not snuck in. It has been posted; it has been online;
and it is there for Members to see.
When we look at priorities, again, I think, for us, it goes back to,
again, in the overall budgetary and authorization process, the
Republican majority stands for protecting our national interests,
protecting and empowering the voters who actually send us here, not for
growing and empowering an ever-encroaching Federal Government. This is
what the budgets reflect. This is what the authorizations reflect.
These are the priorities of the American people, and these are the
priorities of the Republican majority.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 315 will be followed by a
5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 189, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
YEAS--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gohmert
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Barton
Byrne
Chaffetz
Kelly (MS)
King (NY)
Reed
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
{time} 1356
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, Mses. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of
Texas, and SINEMA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ASHFORD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________