[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[House]
[Pages 34117-34119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2082, 
          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 859

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for the purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.
  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, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to submit my full statement for the Record 
and abbreviate it. I, however, wish to commend Chairman Reyes for the 
leadership on this bill. Under his leadership, and that of many others, 
consideration of this intelligence bill has been one of the most open 
intelligence authorization bills that we've seen. There may be some who 
will disagree with some of the report's content, but there should be 
none who disagree with the openness of the process.
  Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CIA's destruction 
of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the 
importance of congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
  For far too long, Congress has been silent as a partner in the 
unchecked actions of this administration. In neglecting to do our jobs, 
we were failing the people of America.
  With this new majority Congress, we are again conducting the 
necessary oversight of the executive branch. With this bill, we are 
fulfilling our responsibility to give the intelligence community the 
tools it needs to succeed.
  One thing that I think Members will be particularly interested in is 
that interrogation techniques put forth in this measure are limited to 
those of the Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or 
aggressive interrogation techniques are prohibited.
  I participated in the conference myself, Madam Speaker, and I saw the 
development of this report that we have here. I would like to take a 
moment of personal privilege to say that I took the liberty of leaving 
the Select Committee on Intelligence with the hope of returning in the 
successive year. It is my great hope that all of the Members of that 
committee and the tremendous staff that work under awesome pressure 
know how much I and others in Congress appreciate their work.
  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act conference report under the standard 
rule for conference reports. As the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee noted here on the floor yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members 
wishing to view the classified portions of the conference report can do 
so in H-405 of the Capitol.
  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act

[[Page 34118]]

Conference report under the standard rule for conference reports.
  As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee noted here on the floor 
yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members wishing to view the classified 
portions of the Conference Report can do so in H-405 of the Capitol.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today in strong 
support of the underlying Intelligence Authorization Conference Report 
for Fiscal Year 2008.
  As a member of the Conference and a signatory of its Report, I take 
great pride in being a part of a Majority which has successfully 
completed its work on the Intelligence Authorization bill after the 
previous Majority failed to do so for the last 3 years.
  I commend Chairman Reyes for his leadership on this bill. Under the 
Chairman's leadership, and that of many others, consideration of this 
intelligence bill has been one of the most open intelligence 
authorization bills that we've seen.
  There may be some who will disagree with some of the Report's 
content. But there should be none who disagree with the openness of the 
process.
  During the original consideration of this bill by the House in May, 
the House adopted multiple bipartisan amendments.
  For example, the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Rogers and I 
offered an amendment which took aggressive steps to limit the growth of 
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
  The two of us share concerns that the Director of National 
Intelligence has grown without constraint and is adding an additional 
level of bureaucracy without providing the coordination that we hoped 
to see when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act.
  This Conference Report addresses our concerns in a positive manner. 
Most importantly, so has the Committee, as it has held multiple 
hearings on the subject since May.
  There were also amendments offered and adopted by the conferees that 
are included in the conference agreement. Indeed, every amendment 
adopted by the conferees, including the one offered by Ranking Member 
Hoekstra, enjoyed bipartisan support.
  Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CPA's destruction 
of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the 
importance of Congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
  For far too long, Congress was a silent partner in the un-checked 
actions of this Administration. In neglecting to do our jobs, we were 
failing the American people.
  With this new Majority, Congress is again conducting the necessary 
oversight of the Executive Branch. With this bill, we are fulfilling 
our responsibility to give the intelligence community the tools it 
needs to succeed.
  In response to growing concerns here in Congress and throughout the 
public, this bill takes significant steps to address interrogation and 
detention programs. It limits interrogation techniques to those in the 
Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or aggressive 
interrogation techniques are prohibited.
  It requires that the intelligence community report to Congress on 
compliance with the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment 
Act.
  The American people should know that we have asked the Administration 
to provide us with all Department of Justice legal opinions about 
interrogation and detention programs--opinions which are sorely needed 
given the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes of interrogations.
  This Conference Report also increases Congressional oversight ability 
by strengthening the inspectors general of the intelligence community.
  The Report requires the CIA Inspector General to audit all covert 
action programs every three years. And it also requires the DNI to 
provide Congress a comprehensive listing of all special access 
programs.
  Members of the Intelligence Committee are concerned, with good cause, 
that the intelligence community has not been keeping us fully informed 
of all their activities.
  With this new Majority, the critical oversight which has been lacking 
for the last six years is finally being conducted. And unlike in the 
past, it is being done in an inclusive and bipartisan manner.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying Conference Report provides the 
necessary reforms and funding to ensure that America's intelligence 
community continues to pave the way in effective counter surveillance, 
human intelligence collection, and analysis.
  I urge my colleagues support for the rule and the underlying 
Conference Report.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, authorizing the necessary resources for our Nation's 
intelligence community is one of the most important responsibilities of 
Congress. The attacks of September 11, 2001, showed us that we must be 
vigilant against the threat of terrorism, and our intelligence 
community is a critical part of protecting America from its enemies 
abroad.
  I have strong concerns about what appears to be an unfortunate and 
utter lack of bipartisan work on the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008.
  In addition to failing to incorporate Intelligence Committee 
Republicans in the development of this bill, the bill also fails to 
consider the input of Armed Services Committee Republicans.
  Serious concerns exist about the bill's mandate that all 16 U.S. 
intelligence agencies be governed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on 
interrogation designed to cover combatants picked up in the 
battlefield. The Army manual was never designed to cover America's most 
dangerous enemies, such as Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 
At a minimum, we deserve to know, Madam Speaker, how these new 
standards would impact intelligence operations and, ultimately, U.S. 
national security before rushing to attach them to this legislation.
  Proponents of this new requirement view this as a simple application 
of one organization's set of rules onto every other entity engaged in 
the activity. Madam Speaker, this isn't simple; I believe it's 
simplistic. And it could have dire consequences on our national 
security.
  To illustrate the logic at work here, why not require the NBA and 
Major League Baseball to play by the NFL rule book and use a football 
in their games? They all use a ball, after all, and if a football is 
good enough for the NFL, it should work for the NBA and for Major 
League Baseball. We all know that that would be a disaster, Madam 
Speaker, and before we require all Federal agencies to adhere to the 
Army manual, we should be certain it won't create a disaster for 
protecting our country in the war on terror.
  This bill also includes provisions that are questionable as to 
whether or not they will help improve America's security. Specifically, 
the House Democrats included language to fund and pursue research into 
an intelligence assessment of global warming. At a time when our Nation 
is engaged in a global war on terrorism, our intelligence community 
should not be required to focus on reports about climate change.
  I am also concerned that, despite bipartisan passage of a motion to 
instruct conferees that earmarks should not be included, this 
conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence 
earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security, 
not potential special interests.
  Instead of funding global warming studies, earmarks, and mandating 
Army Field Manual provisions, House Democrats should be taking steps 
needed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor 
foreign terrorists overseas.
  House Democrats have stalled the passage of a permanent update on the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The bipartisan Protect 
America Act expires in less than 2 months, and the American people 
deserve a permanent bill as soon as possible.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of 
the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker 
for our side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I inform my good friend 
from Florida that I have no requests for speakers; and if he's prepared 
to close, I will close on my side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will reserve my time until the gentleman 
has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

[[Page 34119]]



                              {time}  1030

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Madam Speaker, on December 4, Mr. Hoekstra offered a motion to 
instruct conferees that earmarks should be eliminated from a final 
conference report. This motion passed by a bipartisan vote of 249-160. 
However, despite bipartisan agreement that earmarks should not be 
included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth 
of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on 
national security, not on special interests.
  I am concerned with the level of earmark funding in this 
authorization conference report, and I am concerned that the House 
rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks. House 
Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House 
floor, and for the last several months we have made repeated attempts 
to close loopholes in the House rules as they relate to earmarks.
  So, Madam Speaker, today I will again be asking my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow 
the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by 
Republican Leader Boehner that would improve the House rules and allow 
the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of 
earmarks contained in all bills.
  We must defeat the previous question so that American taxpayers are 
no longer left wondering what hidden earmarks are contained in bills 
before the House and this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
previous question and the rule, and with that I yield back my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, if we have learned anything 
from the failures of the war in Iraq, it is that reliable intelligence 
is critical to ensuring America's national security. The terrorist 
attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threats fueled by 
extremism, radicalism, hopelessness and poverty underscore the 
importance of this legislation.
  The new Democratic majority is working every day to ensure that we 
congratulate our intelligence community for its successes but also hold 
it accountable for its failures. This report is a strong step in the 
right direction, and it enjoys bipartisan support. I am proud of our 
product and hope that my colleagues will agree. I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on the rule and the underlying conference report.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 859 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall he considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________