[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9656-9663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2596, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 315

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2596) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2016 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments 
     specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-19. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of
     the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in
     the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be

[[Page 9657]]

     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on the recorded vote ordered on the question of 
     reconsideration of the vote on the question of concurring in 
     the matter comprising the remainder of title II of the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 1314 may continue to be postponed through 
     the legislative day of Thursday, July 30, 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on House Resolution 315, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
today this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. This rule provides 
for a robust amendment debate on a wide variety of issues related to 
the authorization of funds for 16 intelligence agencies.
  This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. The Rules 
Committee met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony 
from both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, in 
addition to receiving amendment testimony from multiple Members.
  This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. 
There were 29 amendments in total submitted to the Rules Committee. Of 
those 29, I am pleased that the full House will debate and vote on 16 
of those amendments, over half that were submitted.
  The majority of the amendments made in order are bipartisan, a fact 
demonstrating the unity of this body in advancing funds that will go 
directly to fighting against terrorism proliferation and weapons of 
mass destruction.
  ``To provide for the common defense'' is a common phrase to us all, 
and one that clearly sets forth the more basic responsibility of our 
government, a responsibility that the members of the Rules Committee, 
the Intelligence Committee, and, yes, I believe the entire House do not 
take lightly.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified 
programs, all Members were given the opportunity to review the 
classified annexes to the underlying legislation prior to Rules 
Committee consideration.
  Members should also be aware that section 2 of the rule provides that 
the motion to reconsider the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance, or 
title II of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1314, may continue to be 
postponed through Thursday, July 30, 2015.
  This postponement was necessary to allow House and Senate leadership, 
in addition to the President, sufficient time to consider legislative 
options related to this action on trade promotion authority and Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
  I am proud of the work undertaken by the Intelligence Committee to 
advance this vitally important legislation whose consideration is 
provided for by this rule.
  There are a few key provisions that I want to ensure Members are 
aware of because I believe they speak to the overwhelming awareness the 
Intelligence Committee possesses of the responsibility of Congress to 
protect this Nation from terrorism, and also of our unwavering fidelity 
to the United States Constitution.
  First, section 302 of the underlying legislation provides that the 
authorization of appropriations by this act shall not be deemed to 
constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity that 
is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the 
United States.
  Sections 303 and 304 require specific elements of the executive 
branch to provide Congress with timely notifying requirements on key 
intelligence activities. Congressional notification requirements 
generally remain a vitally important mechanism to ensure that Congress 
is able to conduct robust oversight.
  Notification requirements specific to the intelligence community are 
even more essential, given the classified and delicate nature of the 
situations our intelligence agencies face every day.
  The classification of documents and the decisionmaking factors that 
go into such classification have historically been an area of great 
interest and, at times, concerns by Members of this body and the 
citizens that we represent.
  In response to the valid concerns and interest by Members and the 
public at large, in the Intelligence Committee's report on H.R. 2596, 
they specifically state that the committee ``seeks to improve its 
visibility into the classification process and better understand how 
the intelligence community determines the classification level of 
especially sensitive reporting and analysis.''
  In the underlying legislation, the committee carries out this goal by 
directing the Director of National Intelligence to provide, within 60 
days of the enactment, a report to the congressional intelligence 
committees outlining each instance in the past 5 years that the Office 
of Director of National Intelligence or any other entity within the 
executive branch directed an element of the intelligence community to 
begin disseminating existing uncompartmented intelligence reporting or 
analysis through a compartment or subcompartment.
  This requirement is just one of several additional reporting 
requirements in the legislation to serve to enhance Congress' role in 
and understanding of the classification process, again, emphasizing 
Congress' oversight role. The committee has done a good job in 
clarifying that.
  The underlying legislation also directs the Central Intelligence 
Agency to provide the congressional intelligence committees with all 
intelligence reports based on the documents collected in the May 1, 
2011, raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
  We live in a dangerous world and face constant and evolving threats 
from terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and ISIS. 
These groups successfully use the Internet to anonymously build their 
resources, both human and financial.
  The United States Government must maintain and enhance their ability 
to counter extremists online. By understanding how and where terrorist 
groups operate, we can more effectively fight for freedom at home and 
abroad. I am pleased to see strong provisions in the legislation that 
will further this goal.
  These provisions that I have just spoken of are just a few examples 
of the thoughtful and difficult work the Intelligence Committee 
undertook to bring forward this legislation that authorizes critical 
national security functions while staying within the funding 
constraints of the Budget Control Act, or BCA.
  I want to thank the Intelligence Committee and their staff for their 
hard work on the authorization measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman, my friend from Georgia, for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2596, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as well as 
provides that the motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance measure may continue to be postponed until the 
end of the legislative day on July 30.

[[Page 9658]]

  First, I commend the efforts of Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member 
Schiff for their effort in crafting a bill with largely bipartisan 
support that provides our Nation's intelligence community with the 
resources they need to keep us safe. Our national security relies on 
the continued strength of our intelligence community.
  As we face ongoing security challenges both at home and abroad from 
threats such as ISIL, lone wolf attacks, the emergence of cybercrime, 
as well as the specter of unknown challenges that may be awaiting us, a 
strong intelligence apparatus is of the utmost importance.
  This legislation will do much to meet those challenges. Specifically, 
this bill supports investments in cutting-edge technology like spy 
satellites, enhances our Nation's human intelligence capabilities, 
provides resources to safeguard valuable signals intelligence 
collection, and partners with our foreign allies to maximize the reach 
of our intelligence efforts.
  This investment in our country's intelligence infrastructure comes at 
a critically important time. As you know, the Office of Personnel 
Management recently suffered a disastrous breach. Hackers were able to 
target OPM and gain access to personnel data, including employees' 
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and numerous other personal 
details.
  Perhaps most disturbing, OPM houses the applications and files 
submitted by those applying for security clearances, with data going 
back until 1985. These files were compromised as well, leading some 
experts to argue that the compromise of these files could have 
tremendous negative effects for our human intelligence gathering 
capabilities.
  These cyber attacks represent a critical threat to our national 
security. We all love the convenience that technology provides us, but 
we must also be prepared to invest in technologies that will protect us 
from those who wish to sabotage our security in the virtual world. It 
is time for the OPM to implement and abide by best practices so that we 
never face a data breach like the one we saw last week.
  To the extent that Congress will play a role in securing our virtual 
infrastructure, we should work as quickly as possible to ensure that 
our employees and our most sensitive material are not needlessly 
exposed to those who wish to do us harm.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the strong national security protections 
this authorization provides, I am extremely disappointed yet again in 
how my Republican colleagues have skirted the fiscal cuts imposed by 
sequestration in order to fund the things that they care about, while 
ignoring the effects such fool-headed cuts have on the vital domestic 
programs that they don't seem to care about. We have people hurting all 
over this Nation because of this irresponsible and senseless policy of 
sequestration.
  Republicans claim to be using this policy as an important tool to 
rein in out-of-control government spending; yet, when sequestration 
affects programs and areas of the budget they care about, they 
magically get around this dilemma by using accounting gimmicks.
  That is just what they have done here in this measure. The majority 
has yet again used the overseas contingency operations account to evade 
sequestration spending caps.
  Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans wanted to evade spending caps for 
the Department of Education so that we can get around sequestration and 
properly educate our children? Or if they could use accounting tricks 
to get around sequestration to fully fund and repair our crumbling 
infrastructure? Or if they were also inclined to use their budgetary 
magic to get around sequestration caps to properly fund critically 
important agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency so that our 
children and grandchildren can continue to have access to clean water 
and clean air?
  Alas, all we get from the majority is more of the same budgetary 
double standard, using tricks to get around spending caps on things you 
like to spend money on and then cry, ``sequester, sequester,'' on 
things you don't like to spend money on.

                              {time}  1245

  Let's stop pretending. That isn't a plan to rein in government 
spending. That is just spending taxpayer money on things you deem 
worthy of unfettered spending and ignoring programs, for political 
reasons, that you don't even like, even though such programs remain 
vital to our country's success.
  Mr. Speaker, many on my side of the aisle have taken issue with the 
detention facility in Guantanamo Bay since day one; I certainly have. 
Once again, the Republicans look to continue the operation of this 
prison, when we should be working to bring about its orderly closure.
  We are better than this prison. As a country dedicated to the rule of 
law, as a country that inspires people the world over to work for and 
even die for the establishment of democratic rule, we are better than 
this prison. This prison is an exercise in Kafkaesque justice, which 
has long worked to undermine our standing with our allies and helped 
terrorist organizations recruit more and more fighters.
  Look, I don't think that anyone is arguing that, if we close the 
prison, then the myriad terrorist groups who use it as a recruiting 
tool will no longer have people joining their ranks, but it would be 
one less arrow in their quiver.
  For that reason, we need to work together to close the prison as 
quickly as possible. In doing so, we will not jeopardize the safety of 
our country, but will act more fully to reflect our commitment to 
democracy and the rule of law.
  We know and I know, having been in the judiciary, that our justice 
system is more than capable of handling the prosecution of terrorists, 
no matter where they are, including those held in Guantanamo Bay.
  We have successfully tried Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 
Faisal Shahzad, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev--the Boston bomber--and we have 
either sentenced them to death or life imprisonment in our most secure 
prisons.
  At last night's Rules Committee meeting, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle decided to make a last-minute change to today's rule--or, 
I might add, to further pollute today's rule. That last-minute change 
allows for the postponement of the motion to reconsider TAA.
  Over the course of my tenure in Congress, I voted to support 
thousands of pieces of legislation. In the 20-plus years that I have 
served in this body, I can think of only three votes which I deeply 
regret making, and one of those was in support of NAFTA.
  In the years since, I have seen after NAFTA a decrease in American 
jobs, a rollback of critical environmental protections here and in 
Mexico, where I was promised that the environmental circumstances in 
the maquiladoras would be cleaned up and they were not and a stagnation 
of wages that has prevented the financial upward mobility of working 
class and middle class Americans and has ground poor Americans into 
poverty beyond belief.
  If we are going to create trade policy that is worthy of future 
generations, then we must ensure that that policy strengthens, not 
weakens, labor rights. It must strengthen, not weaken, environmental 
protections. It must ensure other countries' responsibility to adhere 
to basic human rights. It must expand and strengthen our middle class, 
not squeeze hard-working Americans in favor of corporate interests.
  The legislation included in this rule today is part of a trade 
package that does nothing to bolster these important priorities.
  Finally, as I have stated time and again, I take issue with the 
manner in which these important measures are being considered. 
Legislation as important as the ones at hand deserve an open and 
transparent process where Members of both parties and both Houses of 
Congress may debate and offer amendments as they please.
  This process, envisioned and designed by our Founding Fathers to 
serve as a safeguard to democracy, continues to be eroded by the 
majority's insistence

[[Page 9659]]

on grouping multiple, unrelated bills together under one rule and 
limiting the number of amendments that can be made in order, as well as 
the time available for debate.
  There were amendments offered last night. For example, Congresswoman 
Speier offered whistleblower protection, not made in order. My 
colleague Representative Schweikert from Arizona and I offered a very 
sensible measure under the intelligence provision to allow for us, as a 
sense of Congress only, to say that we will participate with Tunisia's 
intelligence operation in a more pronounced manner--totally innocuous, 
but at the very same time, helping a country that may very well make 
the bridge to democracy and certainly has been an ally in 
intelligence--and a needed one, in light of the number of people that 
come up from north Africa through Tunisia and wind up fighting in the 
Middle East.
  If we are truly to operate as the deliberative body the U.S. House of 
Representatives was created to function as, we must do more to ensure 
that our Nation's most critical pieces of legislation are afforded the 
time and consideration they rightly deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida. One of the 
things that I, coming on to the Rules Committee, have found is really 
the vigorous debates that we do have--and the gentleman from Florida, 
we have had many of those, and that is a good place for it.
  It is a good place for it also here on the floor to discuss what 
really, as was focused on very clearly, is a rule for a bill, and then 
there is a procedural issue that we are extending the TAA 
reconsideration until July 30. I am understanding what he is saying, 
but I do want to make Members clear that is what is happening.
  We are working on the majority side for a process that is open. 
Sixteen amendments are going to be made in order, and they are going to 
be debated right here on the floor of this House and voted. I think 
that is what the Republican majority is focused on.
  One of the things that came up--and I want it to be clear, Mr. 
Speaker, is the gentleman brings up a point. It is about priorities. It 
is about priorities. When we are dealing with authorizations and 
spending bills, is what we are dealing with in the majority here, we 
have made it very clear, I believe, from the Republican majority 
standpoint, although I personally and others may have discussions on 
how we use overseas contingency funds, and those have been debated on 
this floor and should be continued to be debated on this floor.
  However, one of the things that we are doing, and I believe, from our 
perspective, is we are putting priorities first--priorities for 
national defense; securing our national interest; and in light of this 
bill, making sure that our country is safe, abroad and here, from 
attacks from people who don't like us.
  I don't buy the argument--and the debate on Guantanamo is a different 
issue--but the argument that if we closed it up, it takes away one 
recruiting piece. I am sorry. Boko Haram, al Qaeda, these others do not 
hate us only because of a prison; they just hate us because we are 
free. They hate us because we have a society that is open.
  I understand the debate that we want to have, but let's make it 
crystal clear. There was no Guantanamo when they rammed planes into our 
World Trade Center. There was no Guantanamo at that time. They just 
don't like us. Let's make that very clear.
  Funding is appropriate. We will debate those entirely upon this House 
and continue to. The Republicans will still look out for jobs and those 
working in the middle class, and those that are trying to find their 
families' priorities in their own economic sphere and looking at it in 
a country that is in debt and trying to make sure we make good fiscal 
decisions.
  Our priorities are that we help businesses start, we encourage the 
creation of jobs, not a government strangulation of jobs, and that is 
what resources do.
  With this bill, it is very focused, though. This is about our 
intelligence community. This is a rule that supports an authorization 
coming from a very difficult community that does a very difficult job. 
We are supporting a rule that funds those agencies so that it keeps us 
safe and does the things that keeps America free. That is the continued 
argument that we will continue to have.
  I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the other debates that we want to have 
here, but let's be focused. This rule is about that. It is also about a 
policy decision or a procedural decision in this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance 
failed in the House of Representatives last Friday by a 3-1 margin; yet 
this rule today would extend the revote on Trade Adjustment Assistance 
through the end of July. This is one more attempt to play games with 
the future of hard-working families.
  American workers demand and they deserve respect. They deserve a 
living wage and the right not to have their jobs shipped overseas. That 
is what we are united in fighting for.
  A vote for this rule is a vote for fast track. A vote for fast track 
is a vote against jobs and against wages.
  United States trade policy has been failing American workers, failing 
American consumers and families for 20 years.
  The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has already cost up to 75,000 
jobs, and it was just passed 3 years ago. Up to 5 million jobs have 
been destroyed by currency manipulation; and a number of the 
signatories to this trade agreement, their policy is to manipulate 
their currency to have their goods sold at a lower price than American 
goods, putting American workers out of jobs and lowering their wages.
  Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, has written: 
``Inequality is not inevitable. It is a choice that we make with the 
rules that we create to structure our economy.''
  Trade policy is one of those choices. If we approve fast track, we 
throw away our ability, our constitutional authority to represent the 
people who sent us here in good faith. We throw away that ability to be 
able to fix the flaws in the trade agreement, like the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, to the detriment of millions of American families.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Friday, this House sent a strong message to the Fast-
Trackers: Not so fast.
  Forty-eight hours ago, Republican leaders were telling the world 
that, at this moment, we would be voting to approve Fast Track; but 
now, the Fast-Trackers have become backtrackers, pushing back the vote.
  The only reason that they seek this postponement in this rule of up 
to 6 weeks is that they do not have the votes to approve Fast Track 
today, and the only way they can get those votes today is to use this 
strange shenanigan of connecting it and cloaking it in a rule for the 
authorization of our intelligence agencies.
  After Friday's Fast Track vote, one official said those who ``vote 
against this Trade Adjustment Assistance are adding their names to the 
death certificate for [it].'' Well, let's play it straight for a 
change. TAA is not authorized now. It expired last year. Its future 
depends, not upon this authorization, but upon an adequate level of 
funding.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act, and many more have not been authorized for 
years, but they continue to operate perfectly well, based upon 
appropriated funds. This TAA argument is phony.

[[Page 9660]]



                              {time}  1300

  Really, it doesn't take much intelligence to see what is happening 
here. These Fast-Trackers are desperate, and this postponement vote for 
this extent, of this nature, is unprecedented in the history of this 
Congress. It has never happened before in American history that someone 
has asked to postpone a vote for up to 6 weeks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. And understand what that means. Understand that they are 
looking for the ideal time--morning, noon, or night--to muscle through 
a broken trade policy that a majority of this House and of the American 
people do not want.
  This rule provides that the Speaker at any time of day can come with 
no notice, no debate, and say, we are voting to send this bill to the 
President's desk.
  What really needs adjusting is not trade assistance but the no-
compromise, no-amendment attitude on trade that gives us broken trade 
policies.
  This vote wouldn't be so close if this process hadn't been so closed.
  Reject this rule. Vote for democracy. Don't change the precedents of 
the House. Don't let this be muscled through.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), my good 
friend.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, what 
is about to happen on this floor with this rule is a direct violation 
of the United States Constitution; for in the United States 
Constitution, it clearly says that the United States Congress shall 
have the power ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' And in 
this rule is a clear violation of that.
  We already voted it down overwhelmingly 302-126, Republicans and 
Democrats. It was the foremost bipartisan vote in this 21st century, 
the very thing that the American people are crying for.
  Now, why did Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James 
Madison all agree? Very strong, very independent minds. Alexander 
Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could hardly bear to be in the same room 
with each other, but they agreed on this because they knew that every 
State had Representatives in Congress to look out for jobs that could 
be shipped overseas. This is the primary reason, ladies and gentlemen.
  Look at every trade agreement. This country has lost over 2 million 
manufacturing jobs to China as a result of the China deal. Over 150,000 
jobs to Mexico. Yes, it created jobs--not in the United States. And 
what kind of jobs? These are jobs that impacted at the lower- and 
middle-income levels of our economy. It is the middle class that is the 
heart and the soul of America.
  Let this Congress stand up and reject this rule.
  We proved our mettle with that 302 vote. Congress, I am asking you, 
the American people are asking you: Do what Alexander Hamilton and 
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asked us to do, and let it be the 
Congress that regulates commerce with foreign nations.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, intelligence is critical to our national 
security. It should not be besmirched by a controversial and unrelated 
procedural shenanigan, unprecedented in the annals of the House of 
Representatives.
  In the words of the President of the United States, It is time to 
play it straight. TAA and TPA, that package was voted on. It was 
defeated. We are done. Play it straight.
  Write new legislation. Put together a new package. Bring it to the 
floor of the House. See if it has a majority. That is playing it 
straight.
  Instead, in an unprecedented move, a vote we took last week is being 
held in never-never land to be revoted on as late as the end of July. 
That is right. Early June votes tabulated in late July.
  If you are against unprecedented shenanigans, vote ``no'' on the 
rule. If you are for playing it straight, vote ``no'' on the rule. If 
you are against TAA, vote ``no'' on the rule. If you are against TPA, 
if you are against fast track, vote ``no'' on the rule.
  If you vote for an unprecedented procedural shenanigan, an 
unprecedented procedural mutation today, you can be sure it will be 
used against you and your district and your beliefs tomorrow. And if 
you are not against fast track, you should be because it gives an 
enormous gift to China, and we get nothing in return.
  China's number one tactic for running up the largest trade surplus 
against us in history is currency manipulation. This deal that is put 
on the fast track enshrines the view that currency manipulation is just 
fine. Go to it. A giant gift to China.
  In addition, the rules of origin provisions say that goods that the 
manufacturer admits are 50 or 60 percent made in China--which means 
actually 70 or 80 percent made in China--get fast-tracked into the 
United States.
  Vote ``no'' on this procedural mutation.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, let's focus back on the rule and the 
underlying bill and the procedural issue that has been discussed. It is 
out in the open. It was not snuck in or anything else. It has been 
there and has been discussed.
  But also, I want to get back to the fact of the rule, itself, which 
is stand alone. We are going to be voting on an intelligence bill. We 
are going to have a debate on an intelligence bill.
  And, among other things, I will give us a reminder of what this 
legislation does:
  It sustains critical capabilities to fight terrorism and counter the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is a separate bill. 
This is what we are going to be discussing. It has funds to assist our 
efforts to recover unauthorized disclosures of intelligence 
capabilities. It sustains activities in Afghanistan and Iraq to 
continue the fight against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It invests 
in the resiliency of our national security space architecture. It 
provides policy discretion on sensitive intelligence operations. It 
promotes intelligence integration and sharing through investment in 
intelligence communitywide information technology enterprises. It 
enhances investment in military intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance aircraft. It funds initiatives to thwart cyber attacks 
and insider threats. And it requires a report every 60 days on foreign 
fighters in Syria and Iraq.
  This is the bill, the underlying bill that we are discussing. And I 
just wanted to make a reminder of that. As we have discussions on 
different parts of this rule, let's be reminded also that we are 
dealing with a stand-alone bill that we will work.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield for just a question?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida for 
just a question.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, all of the things that the gentleman from 
Georgia said are in the measure are true. But does he also agree that 
it is unprecedented that we have included a measure to delay an 
already-voted-on rule? Never before has that been done.
  Or to your knowledge, has it been?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I think it is a fact that it is a part 
of this rule. The gentleman from Florida states it in whatever 
adjectival terms he wants to give. But it is in the rule. We have not 
made it secretive that it is part of this rule. And we can discuss 
either part.
  I will just simply focus on the intelligence part.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman

[[Page 9661]]

from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and 
for the astute question that he asked, which is one that I would like 
to follow up on.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is 
quite right. There are very serious and important components of the 
intelligence bill covered by this rule.
  As many of us have experienced over the last couple of days, we are 
in and out of intelligence and security briefings because that is the 
era in which we live. And in most instances, Members draw their concern 
from the responsibility they have for protecting the American people.
  I am on the Homeland Security Committee and have continued on that 
committee since the tragedy, the heinous act of 9/11, and before, when 
the select committee was in place. So I have no quarrel with some of 
the important elements of this legislation. But the gentleman from 
Georgia should recognize that this is an aberration.
  There are two or three points that I would like to make:
  First of all, we are long overdue for getting rid of the sequester. 
This joke was played on Members and the American people only because of 
the supercommittee--not because of any individual Members, but there 
was a supercommittee structure put in place, the time ran out, and they 
could not come to a budget conclusion. So this was the ultimate end. 
Members didn't vote on this. They voted on the supercommittee, and then 
this was the hatchet that fell when the supercommittee did not work. So 
sequester should be something that Speaker Boehner puts on the floor 
and immediately gets rid of.
  And the reason why I say that is because I am going to talk about the 
shenanigans dealing with the trade bill. But what I am going to say is 
that the overseas contingency fund is being used to bolster up this 
bill, the intelligence bill. But I can't get those resources to be 
utilized for infrastructure or summer jobs or fixing the education 
system that we have responsibilities for or providing opportunities for 
young people to finish their education or criminal justice reform. So 
this is being 43 percent pumped up when used by funds that are not in 
the stream.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  The funding is not in the stream of funding that other appropriators 
have to utilize. That is wrong.
  Then I might conclude on the shenanigans of the trade fix, if you 
will. I am for TAA, the Trade Adjustment Assistance. I want it to be 
voted on straight up or down, like many Members do, to provide for 
workers and not have, unfortunately, the addition that was added coming 
from the other body. So now we know that, whatever shenanigans that 
will come up, it probably won't be in the way that will help American 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should be voted down because we need an 
opportunity to work on behalf of the American workers, to get rid of 
sequester, and to find a way to move this country forward.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say to the membership of this body that 
if they vote against this rule, it doesn't mean that we would not have 
an intelligence authorization. It simply would mean that those of us--
my friend from Georgia and myself--would have to go back to the Rules 
Committee and fashion a rule that does not include an unprecedented 
matter that should not be in this Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 in the first place.
  And toward that end, among the things that were sought to be 
included, if we were going to include the TAA measure, then the ranking 
member, Ms. Slaughter, proposed on behalf of the minority that we also 
include a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, for the reason, 
one, TAA was overwhelmingly--3-1--defeated; TPP passed by a very thin 
margin.
  So if we are going to twist arms and find methodologies to employ to 
try to change the minds of Members over a 6-week period of time, then 
perhaps it would be those of us who are opposed to the measure would 
have an opportunity to try to persuade some of those people who caused 
the thin margin of it to pass on TPP. We felt that was a fairness 
measure. At least if you were going to include it, that should have 
been included as well.
  Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should learn how much time 
each side has at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 19\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am waiting for one 
additional speaker, but perhaps I can engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. You served both on the Intelligence Committee and on the 
Rules Committee. There is reason to authorize intelligence, but am I 
correct it has nothing to do with this sneak attack to put in a 
postponement that has never been done in American history, where never 
has anyone sought to delay for 6 weeks the consideration of this bill 
that we are doing today; isn't that correct?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I think you are absolutely correct, and it is 
unprecedented. At the very same time, as my friend from Georgia pointed 
out, they have done so transparently by putting it here, but that does 
not mean it would not be used at some point in the future.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Does this rule provide any notice to Members of the 
House, or can this be entirely a surprise attack? Can they come out 
here on the floor at any time, perhaps when the floor is as empty as it 
is now, and give no notice to the Members of the House that they are 
about to move to send this bill to the President's desk, have 
absolutely no debate on that rule, but then have a vote here, perhaps a 
day when some Members are out on important business in their district, 
basically picking the best time because they are so desperate to force 
through a bill that they know a majority of this House does not support 
and that the American people don't support because it will just foist 
off on us a broken, failed trade policy that does not respect the 
interests of the American people? Is that what is happening here?
  Mr. HASTINGS. That is certainly allowed. Anytime before July 30, the 
measure could be brought to the floor, and it could be brought to the 
floor without any notice to the membership because it is a motion to 
reconsider. It is a part of this particular rule sought by the Speaker 
of the House, I might add, and therefore it could be brought at any 
time under the aegis of the Speaker's authority.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Was the gentleman present in the Rules Committee when 
every single constructive improvement to this fast-track bill was 
rejected by the Rules Committee--not with your vote, of course--but a 
majority of the Rules Committee said ``no'' to telling the Members of 
this Congress as much about this deal as the Vietnamese Politburo 
already knows, saying ``no'' to at least meeting the standards on the 
environment that the Bush administration agreed to, saying ``no'' to 
putting the foreign corporations on the same level as our American 
corporations and businesses so that foreign corporations wouldn't have 
an advantage to come in and attack health, safety, and environmental 
rules that might be established by the Congress or the State of Florida 
or a city like San Antonio or Austin? Because under this fast-track 
bill, we are headed toward jeopardizing those rules, those State laws, 
and those Federal laws that deal with the needs of the American family 
and letting these

[[Page 9662]]

foreign corporations circumvent them as they did in Canada, recently, 
to demand millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a decision locally 
to just prevent the expansion of a quarry. We can't have that happen. 
But the Rules Committee would not allow us to address those problems.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Many of those measures in a 5\1/2\-hour, into-the-night 
session that the Rules Committee operated.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would urge that Members understand that we have already voted on 
this measure, and it was defeated, as I say, 3-1.
  Robust funding for our intelligence infrastructure is clearly needed 
and, indeed, welcomed, but enough is enough. It is time for Republicans 
to stop squeezing important domestic programs through their arbitrary 
implementation of sequester. We must invest in education in this 
country; we must invest in our decaying infrastructure; we must invest 
in a clean environment; and we must invest in a strong middle class.
  Republicans want to make investments in our intelligence community. 
Great. So do I. We all do. But at some point, we have to start asking: 
What is it that that community is protecting? Without investments in 
education, infrastructure, and our middle class, we risk undermining 
what makes this country so exceptional and worth protecting in the 
first place.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last little bit. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Florida. Again, although we have some 
differences--those have been evident today--the rule provides for ample 
debate on the floor and the opportunity to debate and vote on up to 16 
amendments offered by a largely bipartisan group of Members.
  I look forward to those debates. I look forward to the debate on how 
best to provide tools for our intelligence community and to combat the 
dangerous threats that we face while still respecting both the 
constitutional and budgetary restraints. Those are things that 
sometimes, I think, in the midst of discussion today, got lost in that 
this is a separate vote that we are going to be voting on our 
intelligence bill. There is a procedural issue that is part of this 
that is, again, not snuck in. It has been posted; it has been online; 
and it is there for Members to see.
  When we look at priorities, again, I think, for us, it goes back to, 
again, in the overall budgetary and authorization process, the 
Republican majority stands for protecting our national interests, 
protecting and empowering the voters who actually send us here, not for 
growing and empowering an ever-encroaching Federal Government. This is 
what the budgets reflect. This is what the authorizations reflect. 
These are the priorities of the American people, and these are the 
priorities of the Republican majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 315 will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 189, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               YEAS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page 9663]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barton
     Byrne
     Chaffetz
     Kelly (MS)
     King (NY)
     Reed
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sewell (AL)

                              {time}  1356

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, Mses. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas, and SINEMA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ASHFORD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________