[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 567-577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SELECT INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT PANEL

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 506 of 
House Resolution 6, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 35) to enhance 
intelligence oversight authority, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 35

       Resolved, That in clause 4(a) of rule X of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, add the following new paragraph at 
     the end:
       ``(5)(A) There is established a Select Intelligence 
     Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations 
     (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the `select 
     panel'). The select panel shall be composed of not more than 
     13 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed 
     by the Speaker, of whom not more than eight may be from the 
     same political party. The select panel shall include the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     its Subcommittee on Defense, six additional members of the 
     Committee on Appropriations, and three members of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
       ``(B) The Speaker shall designate one member of the select 
     panel as its chairman and one member as its ranking minority 
     member.
       ``(C) Each member on the select panel shall be treated as 
     though a member of the Committee on Appropriations for 
     purposes of the select panel.
       ``(D) The select panel shall review and study on a 
     continuing basis budget requests for and execution of 
     intelligence activities; make recommendations to relevant 
     subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations; and, on an 
     annual basis, prepare a report to the Defense Subcommittee of 
     the Committee on Appropriations containing budgetary and 
     oversight observations and recommendations for use by such 
     subcommittee in preparation of the classified annex to the 
     bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense.
       ``(E) Rule XI shall apply to the select panel in the same 
     manner as a subcommittee (except for clause 2(m)(1)(B) of 
     that rule).
       ``(F) A subpoena of the Committee on Appropriations or its 
     Subcommittee on Defense may specify terms of return to the 
     select panel.''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). State your 
inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Under what authority are we considering this resolution, 
Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 6 provides for its 
consideration.
  Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Did the 
order of the House which is allowing for consideration of this 
resolution specify a specific resolution by number in that order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It described the resolution by title.
  Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Are there other 
resolutions that have been introduced with the title ``To enhance 
intelligence oversight authority''?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not have cognizance of that.
  Mr. DREIER. I am sorry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of that.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. I, 
with authority, can say that there in fact is a resolution that has 
been introduced, House Resolution 38, that has the exact same title, 
which is, ``to enhance intelligence oversight authority.''
  And my question that I would propound to the Chair is whether or not 
the Chair would have been able to recognize me if I had, in fact, based 
on the structure of this order of the House, H. Res. 6, I had called up 
House Resolution 38.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's question is hypothetical, as 
the gentleman from Florida has already called up the resolution, so the 
Chair will not speculate whether anybody else could have been 
recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The only thing that I 
would say, if I could just engage in a further parliamentary inquiry, 
is would there in fact have been an opportunity for those of us in the 
minority had we been recognized by the Chair to call up the resolution 
other than the one that is called up.
  And I know we are going through a transition period, and I want to do 
everything I possibly can to help the majority to pursue their goals 
here and try to move this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to let those members of the majority 
know that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 506 of House Resolution 
6, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the final report of the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9/11 
Commission, made several recommendations on steps that the government 
could take in order to prevent and prepare for future terrorist 
attacks.

                              {time}  1630

  In particular, the Commission said, and I quote, ``Congressional 
oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional. 
Congress should address this problem. We have considered various 
alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee 
on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee, in each House of Congress, 
combining authorizing and appropriating authorities is another.'' End 
of quote.
  Subsequent to the report, commissioners also suggested creating a new 
appropriations subcommittee dealing

[[Page 568]]

only with intelligence matters. It is my pleasure today to see the 
House implement this recommendation from the 9/11 Commission.
  This House rules change, by creating a Select Intelligence Oversight 
Panel within the House Appropriations Committee, responds to the 
commission's recommendation by creating a new panel that is made up of 
members of both the Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence 
Committee.
  The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight 
process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding 
and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities 
from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence 
committees. The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will be primarily 
responsible for reviewing and studying, including through the hearings 
process, the President's budget submission for intelligence and the 
execution of intelligence activities.
  The committee will also be tasked with making recommendations to the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and to other Appropriations 
subcommittees on intelligence programs, projects, and activities. 
Moreover, this new panel will, on an annual basis, prepare a report to 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee containing budgetary and 
oversight observations and recommendations for use by the subcommittee 
in preparation of the classified annex to the Defense Appropriations 
Bill.
  I see that the Republican members of the Rules Committee, in a letter 
to the chair lady of that committee, are complaining that we are not 
allowing the committee process to work its will, and that it is unfair 
to the Republican side. I would say, to paraphrase Shakespeare, ``They 
do protest too much, methinks.''
  The 9/11 Commission report was published more than 2\1/2\ years ago. 
Aside from sitting on their collective thumbs, what did the Republicans 
do on this specific recommendation? Nothing, much like what they did on 
the rest of the 9/11 report.
  Okay. Fine. The President now claims the right to open every 
citizen's mail without judicial approval. The President says he can 
listen to every citizen's phone calls without judicial approval. Oh, 
and read everyone's e-mails too, without judicial approval. But I don't 
remember those being recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Madam Speaker, we are doing this for the security of our Nation and 
our people. As I said at the outset, this was in large part a 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  Now, I see my friend from California, and he is my friend, about 
ready to speak. And I would simply say to the ranking member, maybe you 
should ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they think Congress 
should spend another 2 years debating action and then taking none, or 
whether we should take action and move forward on behalf of the 
families affected by those terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the rest of 
the country that is looking for results, not rancor.
  No more rancor, Madam Speaker. No rhetoric, Madam Speaker. Results. 
That is what the American people have asked for, and that is what we 
will deliver.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Let me begin by saying that I really am somewhat surprised at the 
remarks of my very good friend. First of all, if you look at the fact 
that we focused very enthusiastically on the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission and implemented 39 of the 41, we had a challenge in 
dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. And I have got to say, Madam 
Speaker, that if you look at the question of jurisdiction and making 
very important changes in jurisdiction, it is one of the single most 
difficult things that is to be done.
  And I will tell you, I see my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) here, 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; 13 years 
ago, he and I had the opportunity to serve on what was known as the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. And we had a tough 
time looking at the issue of jurisdiction.
  And you know what, Madam Speaker? After the work of that commission, 
and unfortunately, when the new majority was in power back then, none 
of the recommendations of that commission were put into place. None of 
the brilliant ideas that Mr. Obey propounded were put into place at 
that time.
  But when we came to majority in 1994, Madam Speaker, I still have 
scars on my back to show how difficult it was to bring about major 
jurisdictional reform. And I have to say that it is a very, very 
difficult thing to do, but essential. At that time, we consolidated, 
basically eliminated three standing committees. I had Members on both 
sides of the aisle at that time come to me and say that the future of 
the Republic was jeopardized if we did not keep the Post Office and 
Civil Service Committee, the District of Columbia Committee, and the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries committee. My God, if we didn't keep that 
in the place, we as a Nation were going right down the tubes.
  But guess what? We eliminated those committees. We reduced by 20 
percent the number of subcommittees, and it was very tough. We were 
going through a transition, as we had Members who were looking forward 
to taking on the gavels.
  And then something that was equally difficult was dealing with the 
post-9/11 situation, the Department of Homeland Security. We had to put 
into place a committee structure here that allowed us to establish this 
committee on Homeland Security that we have today, taking jurisdiction 
from other committees.
  Similarly, we had a very tough time when it came to the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and what was then called the Banking Committee, 
trying to bring that together. It is very tough work. And it saddens me 
that this great opportunity that is here, like the one we faced in 
1994, is slipping away with the measure that we are considering right 
here.
  For that reason, Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. 
Res. 35, this resolution that provides for simply a new oversight 
committee for national intelligence.
  Madam Speaker, as we all know, the five most important words in the 
middle of the preamble of U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the 
common defense.'' Part and parcel of that responsibility is effective 
oversight of the Intelligence community, both to ensure its success and 
to protect our liberties.
  Now, the 9/11 Commission correctly identified significant 
deficiencies in our national intelligence apparatus and, yes, our 
oversight of those agencies. The 9/11 Commission, as I said, made 41 
separate recommendations. Through enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the 
Homeland Security Act, the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act, and 
I was proud to serve as a conferee in that effort, our majority took 
affirmative steps to implement nearly all of the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  Is there more that remains to be done? Of course there is. We all 
acknowledge that. As long as America has enemies, Madam Speaker, we 
will need to re-evaluate and improve our Nation's defenses.
  Does the resolution before us do that? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, 
it doesn't.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended two options for intelligence 
oversight. First, a joint committee based on the model of the old Joint 
Committee on Atomic Energy, and second, a single committee in each 
House of Congress combining authorizing and appropriating authorities. 
The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that 
were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely 
the opposite direction, Madam Speaker. Rather than consolidating 
oversight authority into a single committee that has both authorizing 
and appropriating authority, it just creates a new committee that has 
neither, doesn't have either of those powers. So while the 9/11 
Commission recommended one committee, we will

[[Page 569]]

have three committees dealing with this very important issue.
  Further, I am unsure as to what authority this committee actually 
will have. Having been in the midst of jurisdictional struggles, as I 
said, for the last decade and a half, I know what it means. As far as I 
can tell the only authority that this committee has is to write a 
report to the same people who serve on the committee. They could write 
a report and give it to themselves.
  And the 9/11 Commission was very specific about who should serve on 
the committee. And I quote from the 9/11 Commission report, Madam 
Speaker, they said, ``Four of the Members appointed to this committee 
or committees should be a Member who also serves on each of the 
following additional committees, the Armed Services Committee, the 
Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, where are the members of the Armed Services 
Committee, Judiciary Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee?
  Apparently, those aspects of our intelligence activities weren't 
important enough for the promised improved oversight.
  Now, did the Republicans enact, as I said, every 9/11 Commission 
recommendation exactly as they wrote it? No, we didn't. But, we didn't 
promise to, and I quote from Speaker Pelosi, ``to make our Nation safer 
by implementing all of the recommendations of the independent 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, Republicans made sure that there was good 
communication between the administration, our authorizing committees 
and Appropriations Committee on intelligence matters. That has made a 
difference over the last few years. We all know that very, very well. 
The fact that we haven't had an attack on our soil is, to me, evidence 
of the success of this administration and the role that this Congress 
played.
  I don't believe that creating committees with both authorizing and 
appropriating authority, and we have the distinguished former chairman, 
my always chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from 
California (Mr. Lewis), here, and I know he would share my concern 
about this merger. But it is something that is worth considering.
  Frankly, that notion concentrates a lot of power and erodes some of 
the very important checks and balances that exist in the committee 
system. But, frankly, it is very important to note that this resolution 
does away with even the pretense of bipartisanship.
  I applauded enthusiastically when Speaker Pelosi talked about her 
quest for civility and bipartisanship. And it has been said time and 
time again, unlike our resolution in the 109th Congress establishing 
the bipartisan Katrina panel, I remember very well when we put that 
together, established it, and it did great work. Unfortunately, this 
resolution, the resolution on Katrina gave the minority the right to 
appoint its members. This resolution authorizes the Speaker, the 
Democratic Speaker, to appoint the Republican members of the committee, 
without any consultation with the Republicans at all.
  The tradition in this House is that each party caucus is responsible 
for its own appointments. And this resolution, for the first time ever, 
does away with that precedent.
  Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I never got a chance to make those 
arguments where I should have made those arguments, with my very good 
friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings) where? Right upstairs in the 
Rules Committee.
  As I argued here at the end of last week when we had this measure 
before us, we had, for the first time in the history of this 
institution, the first time ever, five closed rules brought up in the 
opening day rules package of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules 
Committee has been thrown completely out the window when it comes to 
this.
  And last week, when we debated this, we had a total of 5 minutes to 
debate the opening day rules package and five closed rules, without 
bills being introduced, without committee hearings, without the process 
whatsoever and without even giving us, the struggling minority, 
upstairs in the Rules Committee the opportunity to have our amendments 
denied. We didn't even have the chance to have our amendments denied 
upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  All I am saying, listen, I am loving my role here in the minority, 
Madam Speaker. It is really a great opportunity to be able to represent 
the people of California here. But I will tell you, Democrats and 
Republicans alike all across this country have been treated very poorly 
in an unprecedented way.
  Now, I believe that many of the Commission's recommendations were 
right. That is why we implemented so many of them. But this resolution 
that we have before us is wrong when it comes to this opportunity that 
we unfortunately are allowing to slip through our fingers. We are not 
being given the chance to put into place the very, very important 
jurisdictional reforms that are needed to deal with this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind my good friend 
from San Dimas that you had 2\1/2\ years to introduce these measures, 
and you did nothing.
  The Members of the 9/11 Commission support this change. I saw one of 
them this morning, Lee Hamilton; and all of them are on board with the 
change that they recommended.
  But perhaps since we have had so much rhetoric, and we need some 
guidance for results, we can ask the author of the legislation if he 
would give us information on this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I very much thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I observed that the minority is complaining about the 
fact that this approach has not been sufficiently bipartisan. As I 
recall, during the 10 years that the Democrats were in the minority, or 
more, I asked the Rules Committee almost 100 times to make specific 
proposals in order. The last time I checked, the record demonstrated 
that they had made them in order exactly two times.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point? At least it was 
not when I was upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I didn't hear what you said, but I don't have the time to 
yield anyway, I am sorry.
  The fact is that the 9/11 Commission recognized two problems that in 
their words rendered congressional oversight of intelligence 
``dysfunctional''. The first was that the intelligence authorizing 
committee was routinely ignored by the administration and the 
intelligence community because they didn't provide the money. In this 
town, people follow the money.
  Secondly, the Appropriations Committee, frankly, was negligent in its 
responsibilities for oversight. Example: When Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld established an independent intelligence operation outside of 
the purview of his own agency's intelligence shop, I tried to find out 
what was going on. I requested that the Appropriations Committee do a 
thorough Surveys And Investigations study of what was going on. My 
efforts were blocked by that same committee.
  The third problem we faced is that there was grossly insufficient 
staff on the part of the Appropriations Committee to have decent 
congressional oversight. Example: The Democratic minority had exactly 
one staffer to deal not only with all intelligence issues but also with 
the entire defense budget. How much do you think you can get done with 
one person?
  The other problem was that there was not sufficient emphasis on 
intelligence matters by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee because 
they had a lot of other things to do dealing

[[Page 570]]

with ``little'' problems like the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
  So the 9/11 Commission suggested one way to correct that problem. 
They suggested that we merge the authorizers with the appropriators, 
and that the authorizing committee, in fact, do the appropriating.
  We concluded that there was a better way to accomplish the same goal. 
We felt that the problem with the initial recommendation was that it 
doesn't make much sense to consider intelligence funding requests 
standing alone, because in the real world those requests have to 
compete with other national security imperatives, again, funding the 
Army, the Air Force, and the other agencies.
  Instead, we chose to follow a different model, that of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation. That committee conducts an annual review of the 
strategic plans and the budget of the IRS.
  This bill follows, with some variation, that pattern. It creates a 
hybrid committee composed of members from the Intelligence Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee. They are all appointed by the Speaker 
because, in technical terms, whenever task forces are created around 
here, it is the Speaker who does the appointing. Speaker Pelosi has 
already made crystal clear that she intends to appoint whatever 
Republicans are suggested by the minority leader.
  But there was another reason that the Speaker is listed as appointing 
all of these people, because we want to make clear to the intelligence 
community that if they try to ignore what this task force is trying to 
do, that they are not just messing around with individual Members of 
Congress; they are messing around with the leader of an independent 
branch of government who has the authority to inflict consequences if 
they don't provide information the Congress is entitled to have.
  This task force will be given the obligation to prepare an annual 
assessment of all intelligence activities and to make budget 
recommendations, which will serve as the basis for the preparation of 
the intelligence budget, the classified annex to the defense 
appropriation bill.
  The reason the subcommittee needs to have at least the ability in 
theory to change some of those recommendations is because it has a job 
which that panel doesn't have. It has the job of measuring the needs of 
intelligence against other national security needs, and it needs to 
have that flexibility.
  But this bill would also lead to a beefed-up staff for this task 
force, and that task force will be buttressed by the subpoena power of 
the Appropriations Committee.
  That means that at long last we will have at least one panel which 
the intelligence community cannot ignore. We will have one panel which 
even the Republican members of the commission, like John Lehman, have 
indicated is a great step forward. I would just suggest that if the 
gentleman had preferred a different approach, it would have been nice 
if he had produced one in the 2\1/2\ years he had the chance.
  I urge support for this proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member, our former chairman and future chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Highland, California 
(Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be with 
you. On this occasion, we are addressing one more time a recommendation 
of the 9/11 Commission. I must say that while it is very important that 
we get the House to seriously review those matters and see what next 
steps we should be taking, I feel pretty strongly that it is important 
that the two sides of the aisle work very closely together regarding 
this. This resolution would create a new panel of the Appropriations 
Committee that would, in part, duplicate work already performed by the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Unfortunately, this substantive change in committee jurisdiction is 
being proposed without benefit of the kind of bipartisan input that I 
personally appreciate and think causes the place to work an awful lot 
better. The present structure in intelligence oversight was developed 
following the recommendations of the Pike and Church committees in the 
1970s. It took years to develop and execute a quality congressional 
restructure for intelligence oversight.
  Something of this importance and sensitivity requires more than just 
an hour's consideration on the floor. It deserves a thorough review by 
the committees of the House and all of us who are concerned, from 
various jurisdictions, about these matters.
  I recognize that this is an oversight bill; and with tongue in cheek, 
I congratulate the new majority for that kind of oversight, drafting 
legislation without any input from the Republicans of the House.
  While I am grateful to Mr. Obey for his efforts to reach out to me 
personally, I am deeply concerned that no substantive consultation 
occurred between the majority and the minority, particularly at a 
leadership level.
  Further, I am very concerned that we not jettison the oversight 
regime that is in place without knowing for certain that we are going 
to replace it with something that goes beyond just simply getting in 
the way of the oversight process. I am afraid that what we are doing 
here is talking about oversight. Instead, on the other hand, we are 
defusing effective oversight.
  It is important that we recognize that one more time we are putting 
out press releases and producing very little in terms of substantive 
results.
  Madam Speaker, as I said, it is a delight to be with you, and I 
appreciate the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will bridge 
the current divide between the oversight and the funding of our 
Nation's intelligence community, and it will make a significant long-
term contribution to the safety of the American people.
  The robust and lawful collection, analysis, and integration of 
intelligence on our enemy's activities is one of the most powerful 
tools in the battle against terrorism. But over the last several years, 
this Congress has been reluctant to ensure that this powerful tool is, 
in fact, used to its fullest capability.
  It is time for Congress to fulfill its oversight responsibility by 
undertaking hard-nosed assessments of the intelligence community's 
operations. This oversight panel will be in the position to make these 
tough and needed assessments, and based on these conclusions, to make 
recommendations that will enable the intelligence community to deliver 
the highest level of performance. For example, our human intelligence 
assets must be able to infiltrate developing global terrorist networks. 
The exodus of long-serving professional agents from the intelligence 
community must be reversed, and a new generation of analysts must be 
recruited.
  The Inspector General within the Directorate of National Intelligence 
must be empowered to identify waste, fraud, and abuse whenever it 
occurs throughout the intelligence community.
  Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi's proposed panel will, in fact, improve 
the operations of the Nation's intelligence community and, in so doing, 
will advance the security of the American people. That is why this 
proposal should be passed overwhelmingly by the Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished and hardworking former chairman of the committee from 
Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Every single argument that I heard from Mr. Obey, Madam Speaker, was, 
in fact, in support of the argument from the House Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, the conduct of oversight of our Nation's 
intelligence community is one of the most sensitive and complex duties 
that we have as a Congress. Our committee and other committees took a

[[Page 571]]

very close look at recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. We 
implemented many of them. Some of them we did not implement.
  We recognized the need to coordinate the strategies of the 
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee. We recognized 
the need for additional oversight. As a matter of fact, in the last 
Congress we created subcommittees specifically focused on oversight and 
increased the number of committee staff that were dedicated to the work 
of oversight.
  We also recognized the importance of coordinating between authorizers 
and appropriators. In the last Congress, the appropriations bill 
closely mirrored the authorization bill that this House passed. We 
worked hand-in-glove because we recognized the importance of putting 
that together and recognized the importance of what the 9/11 Commission 
recommended.
  This resolution today goes in exactly the wrong direction. The 
objective of the 9/11 Commission that was identified was to give the 
authorizing committee greater, if not sole, influence and control over 
appropriations, authorizations, and oversight.
  This resolution creates an additional committee between the 
authorizers and the appropriators that will add confusion. One of the 
things that we hear so often from the homeland security folks, from the 
intelligence folks, is we report to all of these different committees 
on the Hill, and there is a lack of clarity. It is exactly what is 
going to happen now. We are adding more confusion to the process, 
rather than adding and keeping clarity in this process.
  If you go back to when the committee was first established under the 
Church committee, there was one issue that was very important: there 
had to be clarity as to what committee was going to conduct oversight.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
tell each side how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17 minutes; 
the gentleman from California has 16 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this 
time to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the 
chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend 
Silvestre Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  A few weeks ago I had a conversation with my good friend and 
colleague, the former chairman, who is now our ranking member. At the 
time, he was supportive of this panel. I recognize we all have the 
right to change our minds, but part of this process is starting to 
build a bridge that gives us an opportunity on the authorizing side to 
be able to do a better job for this country.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 35, which 
would implement a core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  Madam Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, five 
Democrats and five Republicans, unanimously made 45 recommendations to 
prevent another attack on United States soil. Tragically, the President 
and previous Congress earned dismal grades for failing to enact these 
recommendations. One of these recommendations, indeed the one the 
commission called the most difficult and the most important, was to 
reform the way Congress oversees the intelligence activities of the 
United States.
  Intelligence is the tip of the spear in the war against violent 
extremists and in the efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction. 
Yet despite the importance of this mission, congressional oversight of 
intelligence has largely been dysfunctional.
  Most significantly, the committee responsible for overseeing the 
intelligence community, the House Intelligence Committee, has had 
little role in deciding how the Nation's intelligence budget is spent. 
H. Res. 35 is a critical starting point for fixing our broken oversight 
system. Today, we are creating a special panel within the 
Appropriations Committee to recommend funding levels for intelligence 
activities. This panel will be comprised of appropriators and 
authorizers, both Democrats and Republicans, with its own dedicated 
staff to review intelligence community activities.
  As the chairman of the authorizing committee, the House Intelligence 
Committee, I welcome this change because it gives authorizers, those of 
us who review the intelligence programs and set overall funding levels, 
a real seat at the table in deciding how the money is being spent. In 
the past, our committee has had no real voice in the appropriations 
process. Today, with the passage of H. Res. 35, those who control the 
policy and those who control the purse will become unified.
  Oversight promotes greater accountability; and accountability results 
in better intelligence, greater diversity among intelligence officers 
to penetrate the hardest targets, more sophisticated analysts, and a 
deeper understanding of the longer term threats that are facing this 
country. One need only look at the situation in Iraq to understand the 
perils of faulty intelligence. The best way for Congress to ensure that 
those days are over is to enact a meaningful reform of the way we 
oversee the intelligence budget.
  Madam Speaker, the threats facing our country are real. We have some 
of the best and brightest on the front lines, often undercover and 
frequently under fire, trying to gather the intelligence to keep 
America safe. We owe it to them and to their families to provide the 
strongest intelligence community that we can support and we can field. 
H. Res. 35 is an important start to achieving that goal, so today I 
proudly urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am very proud at this time to yield 3 
minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Intelligence, the 
gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I have some sympathy with 
those on the Democrat side of the aisle tonight because you made a 
promise. You said you were going to implement the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, and now you have to at least appear to make good on 
that promise even if it doesn't make any sense. So you have come up 
with a way to do so that really doesn't implement or address the real 
concerns of the 9/11 Commission, but is actually going to make things a 
whole lot worse around here in terms of intelligence oversight.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended streamlining and combining oversight 
functions and budgeting functions and giving a single committee the 
power of the purse and the power to oversee our intelligence community.
  Now, the 9/11 Commission, in my view, had some good ideas and we 
implemented them, particularly in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Protection Act of 2005, which was the most comprehensive reorganization 
of the intelligence community since the creation of the CIA in 1948.
  But they also came up with some ideas, as commissions do, that 
weren't such great ideas. They recommended putting the Director of 
National Intelligence inside the political ring of the White House. I 
think that is a terrible idea for independence of intelligence and 
keeping intelligence from being influenced by political considerations. 
They recommended that we reveal the size of the intelligence budget, 
which has always been secret. Both of those were bad ideas.
  I think there is also a danger in eliminating the checks and balances 
that are inherent in the fact that we separate appropriations from 
authorizing, particularly in a realm where almost everything is done in 
secret. The existence of those checks and balances within this 
institution is actually healthy with respect to oversight of the 
intelligence community.
  But they came up with a solution in this resolution that doesn't even 
do what the 9/11 Commission decided was the real problem. We have two 
boxes on the chart overseeing the intelligence community, so the 
resolution creates three. How does that streamline anything? And by 
adding these, when we add these boxes to the organization chart, we 
don't even in this resolution clarify who is responsible for what. So

[[Page 572]]

if you are interested in a particular program, its challenges, its 
prospects, its importance, who do I go to? The chairman of the intel 
community? The chairman of defense approps? The chairman of this new 
community that doesn't seem to have much authority at all?
  We have now divided it and made it even more confusing and messed up 
than the 9/11 Commission said it was in the first place. At least my 
colleague from Wisconsin was honest enough to admit this isn't what the 
9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, they are probably rolling their 
eyes as we speak.
  We have tied the intelligence oversight in knots with this proposal; 
and I would urge my colleagues if they can't stomach rejecting it now, 
at least fix it later when nobody else is looking.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, before yielding to the next 
speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Res. 35.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, before yielding again, I 
would just remind my colleagues my good friend from New Mexico says 
that we shouldn't merge this committee. My good friend from San Dimas, 
California, says that we should merge this committee, which kind of 
demonstrates that the Republicans are capable of falling off the same 
horse from both sides, all things considered.
  Mr. DREIER. I never said that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Committee on 
Intelligence, my good friend, Rush Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am pleased we are considering this bill today because it moves us 
closer to dealing with an issue identified by the 9/11 Commission as a 
problem. Not that we needed the commission to tell us this; we know it 
is a problem. I think we would all agree that congressional oversight 
of intelligence programs should be improved. This bill would do that by 
creating a standing body in which both the authorizing committee and 
the relevant Appropriations Committee come together to examine the 
requests and performance of the intelligence community's many agencies. 
This has never been done before, and I certainly believe it is a 
significant step in the right direction.
  The panel is charged to look at whether the current programs that we 
support make sense in the world we live in today, how they perform, how 
they spend money, and whether they make us safer. The 9/11 Commission 
stated on page 420 that any congressional reform in this area should 
produce an entity that allows ``a relatively small group of Members of 
Congress, given time and reason to master the subject and the agencies, 
to conduct oversight of the intelligence establishment and be clearly 
accountable for their work.'' This bill does that.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico said the 9/11 commissioners surely 
don't approve. Well, Commissioner Roemer, a former member of this body 
who understands how things work here, said yesterday: ``They,'' meaning 
these recommendations, ``do one of the most important things for 
congressional reform, that is, strengthen the oversight process.'' He 
goes on to say: ``Empowering both committees will significantly improve 
our oversight.'' He strongly endorses this, as do the other members of 
the 9/11 Commission.
  Money spent in inappropriate collection systems, questionable covert 
activities, or dubious intelligence community reorganization schemes is 
money wasted; and it shortchanges our ability to protect our troops and 
our people here at home.
  Those who will serve on this panel truly will have their work cut out 
for them. Many intelligence programs have not received the type of 
scrutiny that they should have, and the success of this new panel is 
not guaranteed. But I can assure you, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, 
that we need for this committee, this panel to succeed. I applaud the 
leadership of the House for moving this bill, and I look forward to 
voting for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say in 
response to my good friends, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Reyes, that I never 
in my prepared remarks at the outset said that I was supportive of this 
notion of merging the authorizing and the appropriating process. I 
simply said that that was the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, 
and I stated that I was concerned about that prospect.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Savannah, 
Georgia, a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Kingston.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise one premise that no 
one has talked about, and that is this blind belief in everything the 
9/11 committee says, and apparently individual Members as well.
  The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group of good people, some who 
served in the House. They are intelligent people who have been involved 
in public policy, but I am not aware that they were top-notch CIA or 
FBI or intelligence community members. I don't know of them having 
risen up through the ranks of the intelligence circles or the 
antiterrorism circles that makes them absolutely experts on everything 
on what is now a 2\1/2\-year-old report.
  I wanted to bring that up because I think it is important when you 
consider that when the 9/11 Commission came out, this Congress on a 
bipartisan basis implemented 39 out of the 41 recommendations. We did 
not implement all the recommendations, but we had hearings on them and 
they were bipartisan and there was a lot of discussion, unlike what we 
have here today. What we have here today is a recommendation, a 
recommendation not made by the 9/11 Commission but, from what I am 
hearing, one Member wandering around the Hall said, Yeah, this is a 
good idea. Now, that is hardly the way to make a major step in the way 
we approach intelligence in the House. It doesn't make sense at all.
  This bill today has not had a hearing. The Rules Committee did not 
hear of any amendments that could or would be offered or debated. I 
think, frankly, the thing that is ironic, and I have got to say as I 
see over there many of my very good friends, many institutionalists, 
people who have great respect for the institution, you know that on 
intelligence we have generally been bipartisan here in the Capitol. 
Certainly there are times when intelligence like everything else 
devolves into partisanship, but generally speaking we have conducted 
this body in the wake of 9/11 itself in a bipartisan manner, and yet 
today we don't have that. We do not have those amendments which people 
could come together on.
  So I just wanted to raise that because, as I sit as an Appropriations 
Committee member on the Defense Subcommittee, and I sit there and I 
listen to so many people like Mr. Obey, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. 
Young, the folks I would consider the sage folks in the back room who 
at the end of the day do the pragmatic thing and put the best interests 
of the Nation forward, in this particular case that has not been 
allowed to happen. So I find myself a little perplexed by this because 
it has not been thoroughly vetted, and I am going to vote ``no'' on it 
because of the process itself.
  Now, there are a lot of other issues that are important, and it is 
important to me that the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
Homeland Security, of the Rules Committee, of the Intelligence 
Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Judiciary 
Committee are all resoundingly against this.
  Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I 
have read and reviewed, and I submit for inclusion into the Record that 
has been written by them, and I think the points that they have raised 
are very, very important.

[[Page 573]]

                                                    110th Congress


                                         of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2007.
       Dear Republican Colleague: Today the House is scheduled to 
     consider House Resolution 35, a resolution purporting to 
     enhance intelligence oversight authority. We are writing to 
     you to outline our strong concerns with the current version 
     of the resolution and to ask you to join us in opposing this 
     resolution.
       As a response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation to 
     streamline intelligence oversight, Speaker Pelosi proposed 
     the select panel on Intelligence oversight within the 
     Appropriations Committee to consolidate intelligence 
     oversight. Unfortunately, we believe this proposal is wholly 
     inconsistent with any notion of a more streamlined and 
     rigorous intelligence oversight process. In fact, we believe 
     the proposal will make oversight more complex and less 
     effective.
       The 9/11 Commission recommended creating a single committee 
     with both authorizing and appropriating authority. The House 
     of Representatives did not agree with this recommendation, 
     and instead worked to ensure proper oversight by creating a 
     new oversight subcommittee within the House Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence and by improving coordination and 
     cooperation between the authorization committees and the 
     House Appropriation Committee. The new proposal undermines 
     these efforts by adding a duplicative and seemingly powerless 
     panel to the process. Instead of consolidating our oversight 
     responsibilities, we will be diffusing them, making three 
     entities within the House for oversight of the intelligence 
     community instead of the current two.
       It is also apparent that the oversight parameters and 
     responsibilities are not clearly defined. If this panel is 
     supposed to be conducting oversight, it is unclear whether 
     the panel will get into intelligence operations. We have 
     worked hard to limit the unauthorized dissemination of highly 
     classified and sensitive programs, and we are concerned about 
     the practical implementation of the panel.
       Finally, if the proposed oversight panel is charged with 
     reviewing and studying the entire intelligence community, why 
     are the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, 
     and Judiciary Committees not represented on the panel? The 9/
     11 Commission specifically recommended members from the Armed 
     Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees also 
     serve on the joint authorization appropriations committee. 
     The purpose of the recommendation is to ensure adequate input 
     and review by the appropriate authorization committees. If 
     the purpose of the panel is too afford more aggressive 
     oversight, why were these equities and jurisdictions 
     overlooked?
       If this proposal had gone through the normal committee 
     process, which House Rules Ranking Member Dreier requested, 
     we would have had an opportunity to address these serious 
     concerns through regular order.
       Given these serious concerns, we do not agree this would be 
     a responsible revision of the current intelligence oversight 
     structure. We respectfully request you join us in voting 
     ``no'' on H. Res, 35.
           Sincerely,
         Rep. Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, Appropriations 
           Committee; Rep. Duncan Hunter, Ranking Member, Armed 
           Services Committee; Rep. Peter King, Ranking Member, 
           Homeland Security Committee; Rep. David Dreier, Ranking 
           Member, Rules Committee; Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking 
           Member, Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ileana Ros-
           Lehtinen, Ranking Member, Foreign Affairs Committee; 
           Rep. Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1715

  But I have to say, this is just not the right step in terms of 
addressing the national security needs of our Nation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds 
before yielding to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York.
  My colleague, the ranking member, just said he did not say he 
supported combining these functions, and yet here is his signature on 
his legislation that does just that. That is what I was talking about 
when I said that is disingenuous.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and classmate.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The 9/11 Commission report identified the failure in the intelligence 
system of this country as a major cause of 9/11. They called for many 
reforms, some of which we have implemented. And as co-chair of the 9/11 
Commission Caucus, I am extremely pleased today with the formation of 
this new Select Intelligence Oversight panel, which mirrors the 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It is supported by many of the 
members of the 9/11 Commission. It is supported by the 9/11 families 
that have tracked the provisions to make this country safer probably 
closer and harder than Members of this Congress, and they are in the 
gallery today. And this new oversight panel will strengthen the 
oversight process by combining the perspectives and expertise of both 
the Appropriations and Intelligence Committees and the insights of the 
authorizers likewise. And this new panel, we can be assured that these 
experts from both of these areas will be included in the oversight and 
funding decisions for our intelligence community.
  I congratulate the leadership of this Congress, the new Democratic 
leadership, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey, for including in the 
first 100 hours this major reform, that they have repeatedly said in 
all of their hearings and they continue to speak out on it, they gave 
this Congress an ``F'' in intelligence oversight. Today we are getting 
an ``A'' by creating a committee with experts to oversee it. And with a 
focus on the security and the intelligence, it will make this country 
safer. I applaud our leadership, the new Democratic leadership.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this 
time to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and very good friend, a member 
of the Select Committee on Intelligence that I have served with, my 
good friend from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague. And, 
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair.
  I rise in support of H. Res. 35. And I believe that for all of us on 
both sides of the aisle that this is a moment of high responsibility.
  If there is anything that we became painfully aware of, it was that 
we did not have a seamless operation, intelligence operation, to help 
protect our country. So what we are debating and discussing here are 
not a handful of sentences. What we are doing is we are blending, for a 
very important reason, the power of the purse and the power of the 
policy. They can no longer stand as independent smokestacks, number 
one.
  Number two, I ask all of my colleagues of the House, could the abuse 
and corruption that was done unto the budget survive the scrutiny of 
what we are proposing here, where a member of the Intelligence 
Committee committed those crimes?
  So this is a moment of really high responsibility. I welcome ideas 
from both sides of the aisle. They are always important. But I think 
the overriding principles here are really what have been stated by so 
many, including the comments that I am making. As a member of the House 
Intelligence Committee, I welcome, I welcome more oversight. The 
problem with intelligence relative to the Congress is there has been 
undersight or no sight, and that is dangerous for our country.
  So I support these reforms. I think that they are very important. It 
is a moment of high responsibility for the Congress, and I salute the 
Speaker as well as the chairman of the committees of jurisdiction for 
bringing this much-needed legislation before the House, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to our very hardworking colleague from Wilmington, Delaware 
(Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 35, a resolution to 
create a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel to advise the House 
Appropriations Committee.
  As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I 
strongly believe that we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's 
intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own 
congressional committees.
  In its final report, outlining steps Congress should take to combat 
the problems which plagued our Nation in

[[Page 574]]

the lead up to September 11, the 9/11 Commission stated that ``Congress 
should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence, defending 
the broad allocation of how these tens of billions of dollars have been 
assigned among the varieties of intelligence work.''
  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress acted quickly 
to enact a large majority of the commission's recommendations. Today 
the House will likely pass some of the remaining recommendations, 
impacting various agencies and levels of government. However, as it 
turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the 
tangled rules of procedures here in the United States Congress, which 
have been left unfinished.
  Specifically, I am disappointed that the resolution before us today 
fails to implement the 9/11 Commission's very specific recommendation 
that Congress enact a separate appropriations bill for our intelligence 
community. Currently, intelligence funding is concealed in the 
classified section of the Pentagon's budget and thus is subject to very 
little accountability. As currently drafted, I have serious concerns 
that the proposed Intelligence Oversight Panel will have very little 
control over the actual funding decisions and will only succeed in 
confusing the process and adding to its complex bureaucracy.
  As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, I believe 
strongly in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. For that reason, I 
will introduce legislation immediately to create an empowered and 
independent intelligence appropriations subcommittee to oversee the 
intelligence community funding and to keep our Nation safe from those 
seeking to destroy our way of life.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Ruppersberger), with whom I have served on the Select Committee on 
Intelligence as well.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 
35.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that we change the way Congress 
oversees the intelligence activities. I am very familiar with those 
activities as a member of the Committee on Intelligence and also 
representing constituents who work for the National Security Agency. 
NSA is in my district.
  At a time when we have reformed our intelligence agencies and 
required them to communicate and cooperate and unified their management 
through the new Director of National Intelligence, it is only right 
that we unify our oversight of the intelligence community.
  H. Res. 35 does just that. It will allow us to make more informed and 
more effective funding decisions. It will enhance the ongoing work of 
the Intelligence and Appropriations Committees.
  Our job on national security should be to do what is best to put the 
safety and the security of our Nation first, above all. We can't get 
bogged down with our own individual complaints about jurisdiction and 
power. We have to do what is best for America.
  I will be proud to vote for H. Res. 35.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Dreier for yielding to me.
  I find it a little puzzling that the author of this legislation has 
continued to refer to it during his remarks as a ``task force.'' I see 
no language in the legislation that was authored by the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee that calls for a task force.
  I think it is also puzzling, too, that that term has been entered 
into the Record, which can be found nowhere in the legislation. I also 
think it is peculiar that the gentleman from Florida, who has served 
with me now for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, would be willing 
to create more bureaucracy.
  The gentleman knows full well we need no more bureaucracy to bog down 
the intelligence community. We have sat there time after time and 
listened to people from the intelligence community come to our 
committee. We need no more bureaucracy.
  And you know as well as I do, it takes 4 to 5 years for people on the 
committee to understand the terms and the agencies. And now you are 
going to create another level that has to educate all of these people 
to get up to speed? Come on, Mr. Hastings. You know better. And to have 
this committee or task force, I don't know which, appointed by only the 
Speaker of the House is unprecedented. It means that our leader has no 
say in who is appointed to this task force or committee. Unprecedented. 
You would never stand for that. Mr. Obey and Mr. Hastings, you would be 
up here screaming bloody murder if we tried to pull that stunt on you.
  This is not fair. It is not right. Our side should have our say. This 
is an insult to the gentleman sitting on that side of the Chamber, Mr. 
Murtha, and the gentleman sitting on that side of the Chamber, Mr. 
Young, who have overseen as representatives as the once chairman and 
now chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. You don't have 
faith in them? You don't think they can look over the intelligence 
budget? I do not know about you, Mr. Murtha, but I suspect you have 
some doubts. I know Mr. Young does. This is an insult to both of you 
and to the Appropriations Committee and to the Defense Subcommittee. Do 
these gentlemen need oversight? No, they don't.
  Vote against this lousy bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). The Chair 
would ask Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois, my good 
friend, wants to hyperventilate over the fact that I simply verbally 
referred to this as a ``task force'' rather than a ``panel,'' be my 
guest. I guess his threshold of excitement has been considerably 
lowered these days.
  Let me simply say, the gentleman says this is an insult to Mr. Murtha 
and to Mr. Young. No, it is not. He asked, does the Defense 
Appropriations Committee need oversight? It certainly did the last 
year, and let me tell you why.
  When Mr. Rumsfeld set up his separate stovepiping operation for 
intelligence, I went to Mr. Murtha, asked him to sign a letter 
instituting a surveys and investigations study because, under our 
rules, under our practices, we needed the support of the full chairman, 
the full ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and the 
subcommittee ranking member. I went to Mr. Murtha. He signed on to the 
letter calling for the investigation. I went to Mr. Young. He signed on 
to the letter calling for the investigation. But I was blocked by the 
full committee chairman.
  So if you are asking me, does the Appropriations Committee, based on 
its record of the last 2 years, need some additional oversight on this 
issue? You bet it does, because as a result of that refusal to proceed, 
we never did learn what Rumsfeld was doing until we read it in the 
press. That is not the way it is supposed to work.
  This is the first time that we have created any kind of a panel that 
will force the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee 
to work together like adults rather than worrying about dunghill 
jurisdictional issues. And the security of this country is a whole lot 
more important than the feelings of any one committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me at the outset say to my good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. 
Hastings), one of my staff members encouraged me to have his words 
taken down when he accused me just a few minutes ago of being 
disingenuous when it came to the introduction of House Resolution 38. 
That resolution, as the gentleman knows from the parliamentary inquiry 
that I engaged in, was designed to simply point to the

[[Page 575]]

flaws and the way this measure was crafted. Now, that resolution in no 
way called for the merging of the authorizing and the appropriating 
process. I simply said at that point that that was a recommendation of 
the 9/11 Commission.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend if he can, in fact, point to 
me where in the resolution I introduced, House Resolution 38, it states 
that there should be a merging of both the authorizing and the 
appropriating process. And I am very happy to yield to my good friend 
from Fort Lauderdale.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Do you support the legislation that you 
filed?
  Mr. DREIER. I introduced the H. Resolution 38, and I support it much 
more so than I do the resolution that we have here. The reason being 
that I believe very much that there should, in fact, be consultation in 
a bipartisan way rather than having unilateral decisions made by the 
Speaker of the House over the minority in this Chamber, as Mr. LaHood 
said so well, an unprecedented action that has been taken. And my point 
is, there is nothing in the resolution that I introduced that does what 
led the gentleman to call me disingenuous. I, in the spirit of comity 
as set forth by Speaker Pelosi in her opening remarks, am not going to 
have the words of my friend taken down. I do not engage in name calling 
on the floor of this House, and even if people want to continue that 
towards me, I refuse to respond.
  Madam Speaker, let me close by making a couple of remarks about what 
it is that is before us here. About 6 months ago in July, my very 
distinguished colleague, the new chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee of Appropriations, and he also will be serving as the 
chairman of the very important House Democracy Assistance Commission, 
and I am looking forward to serving now as the co-chairman, the ranking 
Republican on that committee; last July we went on our mission to help 
build democracies, build the parliaments in these fledgling democracies 
around the world. And I am very proud, Madam Speaker, that we have been 
able to do this in 12 countries. Last July, we were in Nairobi, Kenya, 
meeting with members of the parliament. When we were there, we had an 
opportunity to go and visit the site of one of the greatest tragedies 
to take place in our Nation's history, and that was before September 
11, 2001. In 1998, our colleagues will recall that the embassies of 
both Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were brutally 
attacked by al Qaeda. We all know that that happened, and we know there 
was a response at that time. We finally got the news last night that we 
have been able to see, with regional support, support of the 
Ethiopians, support of the Kenyans, who very courageously have stepped 
up to the plate; we launched an air strike in southern Somalia against 
al Qaeda that was successful, successful in making sure that we make 
another blow against those who inflicted the worst attack in modern 
history against the United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I argue that that kind of success was not an accident. 
That kind of success in launching that strike against those who 
attacked the United States of America, both here on our soil and on our 
embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, was done because of our 
effective leadership in the United States of America in prosecuting 
this Global War on Terror.

                              {time}  1730

  Now, I believe that as we look at what it is that we are doing here, 
it is very admirable. We know, as Mrs. Wilson said earlier, a promise 
was made to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. We are very proud of the fact that 39 of the 41 
recommendations that were made by that commission have been put into 
place.
  What we have before us is something that is very ill founded, and it 
is an attempt to respond to that promise.
  But one of the things that I have learned, Madam Speaker, when you do 
something simply for the sake of doing something, it is probably the 
wrong thing. Madam Speaker, I do believe very fervently this is the 
wrong thing.
  Now, I have here a copy of the rules of the House, and as I look 
through the structure that put into place the committee on which Mr. 
LaHood has served so proudly, the Intelligence Committee, it calls for 
membership from the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
Services, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and it makes the Speaker and the minority leader ex-
officio members. And it in fact does call for the Speaker to make the 
appointments. It traditionally is done in with consultation with 
Members of the minority.
  Madam Speaker, it is important to note that is what the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence is all about. We have virtually the 
identical structure being put into place for little more than a feel-
good measure. That is really what it is. It is to be able to say, yes, 
we have this committee.
  I am going to say, as I did when I opened this debate, Madam Speaker, 
Mr. Obey and I worked on that joint committee on the organization of 
Congress back in 1993. We had 37 hearings, and 243 witnesses during 
that 2-year period came before us. Those numbers have stuck with me 
because that was a great opportunity I had to serve, along with our 
colleague, Lee Hamilton, interestingly enough, who was the co-chair of 
the commission on the House side, and Pete Domenici and David Boren, 
the father of our colleague, Dan Boren, co-chaired the committee on the 
other side.
  We looked at a wide range of changes, many of which I am proud to say 
we implemented. We talked about the issue of jurisdiction, but we 
didn't come up with firm recommendations. But when we took over, before 
a single Republican Member got their hands on the gavel, we saw them 
put into place recommendations.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I urge a 
vote for my motion to recommit that I will be offering forthwith.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I would first like to respond to my good friend and say to him that I 
am awfully glad you did not accept the recommendation of your staff 
member that my words be taken down with reference to the comments that 
you made. Let me repeat for you what I said. I said and I quote, ``Mr. 
Dreier just said he did not say that he supported combining these 
functions. And yet here is his signature on his legislation that does 
just that.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. DREIER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Let me read from Mr. Dreier's House 
Resolution 30. You said there is established a select intelligence 
oversight panel of the Committee on Appropriations. The select panel 
shall be composed of not more than 14 Members, delegates or the 
resident commissioner appointed by the Speaker. The select panel shall 
include the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Defense, six additional members of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
four members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  That is the exact same thing Mr. Obey is doing with the exception of 
the constitution of the number on the committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would be more than pleased to yield to my 
friend because I don't like the characterization that you put forward 
that I am being disingenuous by saying that you are disingenuous and 
that you were going to take my words down.
  I need time to respond to Mr. LaHood as well. He commented on the 
nomenclature of the intelligence committee,

[[Page 576]]

and his comment was that I know better. And he knows that I know that 
the nomenclature is difficult because he and I were on that steep 
learning curve, he before me, and I had to learn as well.
  But I can tell him that Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young know that 
nomenclature as well as you and I do, Ray, and you know that.
  If I have time at the end, I will yield.
  As I said before, this is a specific recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission. I am proud that the House Democrats can again do more in 1 
week than Republicans were able to do in the last 2\1/2\ years since 
the 9/11 Commission made their report. The gentleman that I have 
already referenced knows of what I speak.
  With that, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding. I will 
simply state once again that there is absolutely nothing in either Mr. 
Obey's resolution or the resolution that I introduced that calls for 
the 9/11 Commission's recommendation of merging the authorization and 
the appropriations process. That is why it is very clear that it has 
not called for the merging.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, nobody 
said that, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, that is what I was accused 
of having said. I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, as I said earlier to my 
friend, I enjoy our banter and I can suggest to him that being in the 
minority is going to be a very long 2 years for you.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 35, which establishes a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the 
Committee on Appropriations. Establishing a panel to oversee the 
expenditures of taxpayer monies on intelligence activities is 
imperative to ensure that our Intelligence community functions at the 
highest level to keep the citizens of this country safe and secure. 
This is a welcome, beneficial, and long overdue reform. For far too 
long there has not been any means for this body to measure the 
effectiveness of the usage of funds appropriated to ensure that the 
intelligence community is equipped to detect, detract and deter the 
many potentially detrimental and disastrous threats to the citizens of 
this country.
  Madam Speaker, one of the advantages of establishing a select 
intelligence oversight panel with the Committee on Appropriations is 
that it will enable the House to hold hearings and conduct oversight 
regarding the appropriation and expenditure of funds for intelligence-
related activities. The resulting openness in intelligence matters 
through this oversight panel enables this House to discharge its duty 
to the nation to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are the 
highest and best in the world and more than sufficient to prevent 
another 9/11. We cannot afford the costs of the tragic results of 9/11. 
In fact, the families of the victims of 9/11 as well as all of the 
citizens of this country still look to us for responsible action in the 
area of Intelligence.
  The oversight panel will also serve the important role of removing 
barriers between the House Appropriations subcommittee that approves 
funds for intelligence and the intelligence committee that oversees 
operations. Of great importance, is the fact that the establishment of 
this panel will address a central commission finding that Congressional 
oversight of intelligence matters is dysfunctional and needs to be more 
centralized. This oversight panel will give Congress a much better 
chance to correct and avoid those major concerns which were highlighted 
by the 9/11 Commission. Those problems included: permeable borders; 
inconsistency in immigration policy; limited capacities to share 
intelligence information; permeable aviation security; an unprepared 
FAA and NORAD; ineffective communication and no clear chain of command; 
no unity for emergency responders; and Congress and Executive Branch 
that was too slow in responding to threats.
  Madam Speaker, the creation of this select panel will allow the House 
to review intelligence spending requests, conduct hearings, make 
financing recommendations and assess how the money is spent. With this 
increased ability to monitor the budget as well as operations of the 
Intelligence community, we can better face and prepare for the security 
challenges confronting the United States and the international 
community as a whole.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill to establish a Select 
Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr,. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 506 of House Resolution 6, the resolution is 
considered read and the previous question is ordered.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dreier moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 35) to 
     the Committee on Rules.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adopting H. 
Res. 35.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               YEAS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett

[[Page 577]]


     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Culberson
     Gillmor
     Knollenberg
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1804

  Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, BROWN of South Carolina, ROGERS of Michigan, LATHAM, 
EHLERS, SOUDER, WELDON of Florida, and KIRK changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 188, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               AYES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Gillmor
     Hall (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1818

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________