[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 32061-32063]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 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, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoekstra moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2082 be 
     instructed, to the maximum extent possible within the scope 
     of the conference, to--
       (1) eliminate any House or Senate provisions providing for 
     earmarks as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) insist on provisions authorizing the maximum level of 
     funding permissible for human intelligence collection 
     activities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct is about priorities. America 
continues to face threats. We are engaged in a global struggle against 
radical jihadists. For a time of war, for a time of threats like this, 
the priorities of portions of this intelligence bill are completely 
misplaced in critical areas.
  The motion to instruct would make our priorities clearer by 
eliminating provisions providing for earmarks and by ensuring the 
maximum level of funding for increasing human intelligence collection.
  Our intelligence programs should be based on only one primary 
consideration: what best ensures that the intelligence community is 
able to do its job in the best interest of the national security of the 
United States.
  This motion would ensure that we are appropriating and authorizing 
funding on a bipartisan basis to critical human intelligence programs 
based on the merit of these programs and the intelligence we learn from 
them.
  The unclassified National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments 
released publicly just yesterday illustrate how important intelligence 
gathering is to our national security. As we take a look at where we 
want to put our priorities, it is clear from what we have learned and 
what we understand in this committee the importance of putting 
resources, the necessary resources on human intelligence, and to remove 
them from earmarks, Members' pet projects, which don't necessarily 
always go through the rigorous process necessary to ensure that the 
funding for these projects and these programs is appropriate.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct to make 
sure that we put the resources where they will make maximum benefit to 
the intelligence community.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this motion is not about policy. It is not even about 
priorities; it is about politics. This bill that we passed, this bill 
that passed the House, the bill we are talking about tonight, is 
legislation that sets unprecedented levels of commitment for our 
intelligence community, to the professionals who are charged with 
keeping this country safe. It sets the priorities for human 
intelligence. It sets record levels and expenditures from the House so 
that those professionals that are charged with keeping us safe, keeping 
this Nation secure, have the necessary resources to do that job.
  This legislation also prioritizes the issue of diversifying the 
intelligence workforce. This legislation protects this country. This 
legislation prioritizes those issues that are vitally important that we 
pass here tonight.
  So for those reasons and because for the first time in history we 
have had care and process with this legislation, setting record levels 
of expenditures

[[Page 32062]]

for our intelligence community, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the motion.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is about priorities. It is about priorities in 
terms of allocating dollars to those programs which the intelligence 
community and the committee itself has taken a look at and thoroughly 
debated and thoroughly gone through and said this is where the money 
needs to be spent versus putting money into Members' projects.
  This is not about a project for a school back home or things that we 
see in some of the other appropriations bills. These are national 
security, intelligence priority projects; and putting earmarks into 
this bill is something that we think is inappropriate, especially as we 
have gone through that process, at least for one of these, where the 
committee didn't go through a process where it went through the 
committee and wasn't identified as an earmark and we get to the floor 
and it is an earmark and it is for a significant amount of money and it 
is for programs that people have taken a look at and said: this is not 
a necessary program; and as a matter of fact, this is duplicative of 
other things that are already being done in the community or being done 
in the Federal Government. It is saying, no, we are not doing these 
earmarks, especially for those types of redundant and wasteful 
government spending.
  It is important that as we focus on the intelligence community, that 
we spend the dollars where it makes the most sense. As we take a look 
at some of the earmarks in this bill, it is clear it is not the most 
effective way to spend taxpayer money in an area that is critical to 
the safety and the security of the American people.
  It is why we have put into this motion to instruct to take earmarks 
out. We are going to go to conference, and we are encouraging that on 
the House and Senate side both that we bring a bill that is free of 
earmarks to the House and the Senate floor when this conference report 
comes out of a conference committee. We think that that sets an 
important principle and an important precedent for the intelligence 
bill to have a bill that is free from earmarks.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I agree with the chairman, there are 
many good things in this bill. This motion to instruct raises two 
issues. One is that human intelligence is very important, and the 
motion to instruct would insist on the provisions authorizing the 
maximum level of funding permissible for human intelligence collection 
activities.
  Madam Speaker, gathering intelligence through human collection is in 
many ways classic intelligence work, but it is more important than ever 
in an age of terrorism where a very small number of individuals can get 
together and can do great damage.
  So to find out about such a group, much less to find out what their 
intentions and capabilities may be, we require human intelligence. 
Technical collection is very, very important, and we have lots of 
debates on this floor about one particular aspect of that. But the rest 
of the story is war threats are moving underground and in places where 
technical collection is difficult. And so human intelligence which 
doesn't just spring overnight, which takes months, if not years, to 
develop, is absolutely crucial today in the fight against radical 
Islamic terrorists and tomorrow against all sorts of threats.
  This motion to instruct says we have to insist on the maximum funding 
level today so the country will be better prepared tomorrow.
  But the second thing that this motion to instruct does is it tries to 
strengthen, I would say, the integrity and the credibility of what this 
committee and this Congress do.
  Intelligence is really the only part of government that operates 
outside of the scrutiny and oversight from the press and other people 
and institutions outside of the government. So that puts more 
responsibility on our shoulders, on this institution, on the Committee 
on Intelligence, and on the products we produce.
  So if a bill that this committee or this Congress produces has 
specific earmarks for specific projects in specific Members' districts, 
when you don't have that outside scrutiny, I think it calls our 
credibility into question.

                              {time}  1745

  And it clearly does so because we have had a history, unfortunately, 
in this institution of a problem in that area.
  So this year, the motion to instruct conferees says the better course 
is to remove all of those earmarks, to have a bill clean of earmarks. 
We have funding for individual programs and individual initiatives, 
most of which cannot be discussed on this floor. But the better course 
is to fund those things, many of the good things the chairman talked 
about, but take away the earmarks, the specific funding for specific 
programs in specific Members' districts that call our credibility into 
question. That is why I think this motion to instruct emphasizes the 
important good things in this bill, but it makes it stronger by 
increasing its integrity and credibility, and I hope Members will 
support it.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise and yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, unfortunately this motion is not about policy, it is not about 
priorities, it is not even about earmarks; it is about politics. Using 
politics, I think, at a time when our intelligence professionals depend 
on us to provide them the means and the tools and the funds with which 
to keep us safe is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this motion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  My colleague, the chairman, is exactly right, that it is important 
that we give our resources to the intelligence community for the 
activities they believe are most important, not perhaps what an 
individual Member of Congress may believe is important for them. It is 
why we are asking in this motion to instruct for a clean bill.
  As my colleague from Texas on this side of the aisle talked about 
earlier, there have been unfortunate cases, not only on this committee 
but on other committees, about Members abusing the privilege and 
responsibility of putting in earmarks. This takes away that 
responsibility. This takes away that opportunity for Members to direct 
funding outside of the normal course of business of the committee.
  What it does is it says, let's make sure that we fully fund human 
intelligence capabilities. Our dedication is to provide the resources 
to those people who are involved in human intelligence. That is, we 
take a look at the various groups that have taken a look at the 
intelligence community since 9/11 and determined that one of the 
critical weaknesses we had was in human intelligence, in many different 
facets: that we don't have enough of those resources, we don't have the 
resources with the right capabilities and the right places, and those 
types of things. And as we take a look at where we are today, not only 
is that the analysis of where we were shortly after 9/11, it is also a 
clear indication of, in many cases, where I believe that we still are 
today: that we are woefully inadequate in terms of having a balanced 
approach, in terms of technical collection and human intelligence, and 
these types of things. And the weak leg, the short leg on a three-
legged stool continues to be human intelligence. And what we are saying 
is move the money from earmarks to making sure that we fully fund this 
extremely important capability in the intelligence community that for 
far too long has been neglected, in some cases neglected by

[[Page 32063]]

this Congress and in other cases neglected by the community.
  One of, I think, the strong parts of the intel community is that on a 
bipartisan basis we have been putting pressure in trying to get the 
intel community to respond and to put in place the resources, the 
capabilities, and the focus on building a very effective system of 
human intelligence. And this is just one more step to send a clear 
signal to the intelligence community that says we, as policymakers, 
believe that you still have not done enough to build up our human 
intelligence capabilities, and we are taking these additional steps in 
this bill to make sure that these capabilities are enhanced and to send 
a clear signal to you that we want you and the community to do more. We 
want you to do more, we want you to do it sooner, we want you to do it 
quicker, and we need to you to do it better, because it continues to be 
an area that we have significant concern about.
  And as we do this, what we are doing is we are taking money, again, 
as I identified, from programs, various sources in the media where some 
of these earmarks have been public and where various other government 
auditing agencies have taken a look at these programs and said: Wait a 
minute. This is duplicative, it is not effective, and it maybe doesn't 
even add anything to the intelligence capabilities of the United States 
of America.
  So you have people in the intelligence community wondering and 
saying, if this is so important, if HUMINT is so important, then why 
are we funding these other types of programs, these Member requests?
  This motion to instruct sends a very, very clear signal that says 
Member priorities are no longer Member priorities. As a matter of fact, 
the priority of this committee, the priority of this Congress, is to 
put the money where it needs to be and to put it in places that fills 
the gaps that we have identified in the intelligence community. And the 
biggest gap and the biggest area of weakness that we have today is 
human intelligence.
  This sends a clear signal to the intelligence community that we have 
our priorities right; that it is about them and it is not about this 
House or individual Members or individual Members' districts; that it 
is about the bigger objective of getting things done in the 
intelligence community at a time when this country continues to be at 
risk, whether it is the nonstate actors, people like al Qaeda, other 
radical jihadist groups and those types of threats, or whether it is 
the threats that come from state actors, whether it is North Korea, 
whether it is Iran, whether it is Russia, whether it is Venezuela, or 
whatever emerging threat that is out here, it sends a very, very clear 
and distinct message that says those are our priorities, that is where 
we want to put our money, that is where the threats come from. And, as 
a signal of being aligned with the intelligence community, we as a 
committee and we as a Congress are willing, and not only willing, we 
are mandating, we are instructing the conferees to give up their 
earmarks, to give up their Member projects, to make sure that we get 
maximum effect for the dollars that we are spending in this area.
  That is what this motion to instruct is about. It is about getting 
maximum effectiveness for the dollars that we allocate into the 
community. We spend a lot of money in this area, but we all know that 
some of the results that we get have not been the kind of leading edge 
or providing us with the insights into the threats that we would like 
to have. This motion to instruct says, clearly, it is not going to be 
about us taking money from the intelligence community and putting them 
into Member projects; it is going in the other direction, to make sure 
that if the intelligence community comes up short, but we really 
believe that it won't come up short, that we will be providing it with 
the resources that will enable it to do the job that we need it to do.
  That is why this is an important motion to instruct. That is why we 
are asking our colleagues to support this motion to instruct, to make 
sure that we have got alignment between the Congress, and that we have 
got alignment between Congress and the intel community, and making sure 
that we put the dollars where they make the most difference and where 
they will be most effective. That is why I ask my colleagues to vote 
for this motion to instruct, to send a clear signal to the conferees as 
to where they want to go and where they need to go and what we want to 
see coming back from the conferees in a conference report: A bill that 
focuses resources on what will build this community and not what may 
build things within a Members' district.
  Let's put the resources where they need to be. Let's put the 
resources addressing some of the weaknesses that this committee has 
identified through its oversight process over the last 12 months. Vote 
for this motion to instruct.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________