[Congressional Record: July 16, 2008 (House)]
[Page H6582-H6587]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5959, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1343 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1343
Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 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 except
those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman 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. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee 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 except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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 committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 5959
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
[[Page H6583]]
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1343 provides for consideration of H.R.
5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and makes in order seven
amendments.
Three amendments are to be offered by my colleagues in the minority,
including one by the Republican whip and one by the ranking Republican
of the Intelligence Committee. Three are to be offered by Democrats,
and the last one by two bipartisan sponsors. This is a fair rule, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, today, more than ever, strengthening our intelligence
apparatus and giving it the flexibility it needs to meet continuing
threats should be one of this body's highest priorities. The resurgence
of al Qaeda and increasing global threats underscore the importance of
the authorization bill before us today.
The Intelligence Authorization Act authorizes funding for 16 United
States intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government for fiscal year 2009.
Due to the classified nature of this bill, I wish to point out that
Members can view the classified portions of the bill by making an
appointment with the Intelligence Committee in H-405 of the Capitol.
Despite the House's best efforts, for the past 3 years an
intelligence authorization bill has not become law. Therefore, I am
very pleased today with this well-balanced, bipartisan bill. I am
hopeful that this great work will continue, concluding with the
President's signature of the underlying legislation into law.
This year's intelligence authorization bill adds crucial funding to
enhance human intelligence collection, as well as for other enduring
and emerging global security challenges we face in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. The bill also provides funding to address the impact of
climate change on our national and energy security.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have seen the devastating costs that
flawed intelligence and a misinformed Congress can have on national
security. This bill enhances accountability and transparency through
long overdue oversight and monitoring.
The underlying bill increases reporting requirements to the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees on the nuclear capabilities of North
Korea, Iran, and Syria.
The bill also amends the National Security Act to require the
executive branch to provide Congress with the necessary information
about our intelligence operations to ensure proper oversight.
As someone who sat through countless hours of Intelligence Committee
hearings and briefings, I have been appalled by the unwillingness and
outright stonewalling of the Bush administration when Members have
asked even the most basic of questions about our intelligence community
policies and practices.
Additionally, the underlying legislation helps restore our Nation's
global credibility by ensuring that we meet our international
obligations. The reporting requirements on compliance with the Detainee
Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act regarding detentions and
interrogations bring credibility and security to our Nation for future
generations.
The bill also furthers our commitment to improving the intelligence
community's security and clearance process. It increases pay for
intelligence officers--and I would underscore much-needed increases--
and enhances oversight and accountability through the creation of an
intelligence community Inspector General.
Moreover, the underlying legislation includes a provision that would
require reporting on plans to enhance diversity within the intelligence
community, and a lot of effort has gone into this particular measure,
beginning with our former colleague, Louis Stokes, and our departed
colleague, Julian Dixon, and the work of my colleague, Sanford Bishop,
and myself, as well as the Chair and countless members of the committee
in trying to ensure that we have appropriate diversity in the
intelligence community.
The diversity of our Nation should be directly reflected in our
intelligence community's workforce. We cannot, and will not,
appropriately meet our security challenges without ensuring this. I
appreciate and support these efforts, as the issue, as I expressed, was
one of my top concerns when I served on the Intelligence Committee.
Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Reyes for including in his
amendment a provision written by my colleague on the Rules Committee,
Representative Peter Welch, that addresses the employment needs of
resettled Iraqi and Afghani interpreters.
Our government has a moral responsibility to provide proper resources
for these allies who risked their lives to assist our efforts to fight
global terrorist threats. This measure will help fill gaps in our
intelligence-gathering activities and is a start toward fulfilling our
obligations to our Iraqi and Afghani allies.
Mr. Speaker, the threats posed to our Nation are only intensifying.
To keep pace, America's intelligence community requires the most robust
and modern tools to identify and disrupt such attacks. This
Intelligence Authorization Act does just that.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying intelligence
authorization bill that this rule makes in order generally has
bipartisan support in this House. This support comes in part from a
number of Republican amendments that were adopted during the
Intelligence Committee markup.
Among the adopted amendments was one offered by Ranking Member
Hoekstra to eliminate all earmarks from the bill and to strike the
provision transferring $39 billion to the Department of Justice for an
entity known as the National Drug Intelligence Center.
This appropriateness of earmarking intelligence funds, and
controversy surrounding this earmark in particular, was a serious issue
during last year's consideration of this bill.
By adopting the Republican ban on earmarks in committee, such
controversies are diminished, but Mr. Speaker, the larger need for
earmark reform across Congress still remains.
Mr. Speaker, I support a 1-year earmark moratorium for all Members to
allow for reforms to take place. Key among these reforms should be a
definition of what is an appropriate allocation of Federal funds and
what is an abuse of taxpayer dollars that assumes no essential or
relevant Federal Government need.
{time} 1045
Republican efforts to institute a 1-year ban on earmarks and to allow
for a reform have been stymied by opposition from Speaker Pelosi and
the other liberal leaders of the House.
While it is a small sign of success that earmarks have been stricken
from this bill, a great deal more needs to be done to restore the
American people's faith on how Congress spends taxpayers' money.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the rule itself, I would like to make two
points. First, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive and only makes in
order half of the 20 amendments filed with the Rules Committee; just 10
amendments will be debated on this bill. There were other relevant
amendments that were offered by Representatives on both sides of the
aisle that were blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the best that can be said about this
unfair rule is that it at least treats both Republicans and Democrats
unfairly by
[[Page H6584]]
blocking an almost equal number of amendments from Representatives of
each party. However, Mr. Speaker, restricting debate on both sides of
the aisle is not what the American people were promised by those who
now control this House. They promised an historic level of bipartisan
openness, not the record-setting shutdown of debate on the House floor
that they've been practicing for the past year and a half.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule waives the PAYGO rule written and
passed by the liberal Democrat majority in January of 2007. Now my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle may rush to say that they had
to waive PAYGO rules because this is an intelligence bill and there is
a classified section that isn't public, so it can't be read to make a
parliamentary ruling on whether PAYGO has been violated. That's what
the argument will probably be. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is a false
excuse.
The fault here rests not with the need to keep secret the classified
information in the bill, it's that the Democrat majority chose to write
the new House rules--initially--behind closed doors without consulting
with the whole House or with Republicans. In doing so, they have made
error after embarrassing error. On multiple occasions, this House has
had to go back and fix mistakes in the rules that Democrat leaders made
by refusing to work or even consult with Republicans. They had to do it
on charitable fund raising, plane travel, and banning Members from
flying their own airplanes.
And when it comes to PAYGO, not only was the rule written poorly to
apply to classified parts of the bill, but it's a rule that Democrat
leaders have decided to ignore for politically expedient reasons.
There is a great deal of talk from the liberal majority on their
allegiance to PAYGO, yet they've just ignored it time after time when
it suits their purposes; for example, on the farm bill, on unemployment
insurance extensions, and on fixing the alternative minimum tax.
Mr. Speaker, it's inconsistent to use PAYGO as an excuse to block
proposals and amendments you oppose and then ignore PAYGO on a bill
that you really want to pass. PAYGO is simply a smokescreen, Mr.
Speaker, that this Democrat Congress is trying to use to cover for the
largest proposed tax increase in American history and tens of billions
of dollars in higher government spending.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5
minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I
serve on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. And I want to take my
time to also rise in support of the Blunt amendment on Colombia.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot describe the joy and the excitement that I felt
on July 2 when I knew the rescue operation had been successful and that
Mark Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, Ingrid Betancourt and 11
Colombians were finally free after years of torment and brutality
suffered at the hands of the FARC.
I immediately wrote President Uribe congratulating him on the
successful rescue. I also told President Uribe and members of the
Colombian families that I remain committed to working for the release
of the rest of the hostages. I would like to enter a copy of that
letter into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I
want to see an end to the conflict in Colombia. I want to see the
dismantling of all paramilitary, FARC, ELN, and other armed groups in
Colombia. Clearly, this is in the best interests of the Colombian
people as well as the United States.
I want to see the Colombian military and security forces finally
break their ties to armed groups, drug lords and criminals, and to
fully respect the rights of all Colombian citizens.
The Blunt amendment notes how intelligence and other cooperation by
the United States contributed to weakening all of Colombia's illegal
armed actors--the paramilitaries, the FARC and the ELN. It states that
such assistance should continue to capitalize on recent successes. Mr.
Speaker, I couldn't agree more. According to an analysis by the Center
for International Policy, what is most interesting about the hostage
rescue operation and other recent successes is how different it is from
what has failed in the past, namely, massive and expensive military
offenses, fumigation, and racking up civilian body counts. The rescue
highlights what has worked--the intelligence and cooperation that the
gentleman from Missouri encourages us to continue:
A greater intelligence focus aimed at the top leadership of the FARC
and the captors of the hostages;
A public relations campaign making it clear to the guerrilla rank-
and-file that those who desert and who surrender to the government will
not be tortured or disappear as in the past, but instead will get job
training, a stipend, and the promise of a new life;
And an increased presence by security forces in population centers
and on main roads aimed at protecting civilians rather than treating
them as suspects.
Mr. Speaker, most interesting about these strategies is that, with
the exception of the cost of increased manpower and protective
presence, they are relatively inexpensive. These efforts, which have
proven so effective, make up only a sliver of Colombia's defense budget
and only a sliver of U.S. assistance. Planners of future aid packages
to Colombia should take note.
Intelligence and encouragement of desertion work--these relatively
cheap but vastly improved capabilities made the bloodless rescue
mission possible. It is hard to imagine the Colombian military of even
just 2 years ago pulling off an operation like this, but today we
celebrate the freedom of 15 Colombians and Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter sent by
Senator Richard Lugar to President Uribe urging him to seize this
moment and open up negotiations with the FARC and the ELN to end the
conflict and release the hundreds of Colombians who remain in
captivity. Thus, indeed, will Colombia finally defeat the guerrillas
and hopefully reunite the remaining hostages with their families and
loved ones. I remain committed to this cause, and every Member of this
Chamber should remain committed to this cause.
Mr. Speaker, I have many, many deep concerns about the human rights
situation in Colombia and some of the aid we send. But the Blunt
amendment is not an endorsement of the ``same old, same old.'' It is a
recognition of something that has worked.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Blunt amendment, and I urge
passage of this rule.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 2, 2008.
Hon. Alvaro Uribe Velez,
President, Republic of Colombia, Casa de Narino Bogota,
Colombia.
Dear President Uribe, I just want to express my deepest
appreciation and gratitude for the successful operation that
freed 15 of the hostages--eleven Colombians, Ingrid
Betancourt, and the three Americans.
No doubt like everyone watching the breaking news
throughout this afternoon, I simply have no words to express
what I'm feeling.
I can only say thank you to you and to everyone who was
involved in this very successful and intelligent ruse that
resulted in freeing so many without a single shot fired or
anyone injured.
As always, I remain committed to working with you and with
my counterparts in the international community to secure the
freedom of the remaining Colombian captives.
Sincerely,
James P. McGovern,
Member of Congress.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 8, 2008.
His Excellency, Alvaro Uribe,
President of the Republic of Colombia,
Bogota, Colombia.
Dear Mr. President: I write to congratulate you on the
Colombian military's daring operation to rescue hostages held
by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC),
including three American military contractors, Ingrid
Betancourt, and several members of the Colombian military. I
believe this operation marks a turning point in Colombia's
struggle against the violent and decades-long conflict and
will be viewed as an example of the progress that the United
States and our Latin American friends can realize when acting
in partnership.
It will not go unnoticed that this historic success against
violent guerillas was most distinguished by cooperation and
execution of a non-violent nature. I remain hopeful that this
event opens a new chapter in Latin American history, one in
which ideological
[[Page H6585]]
and territorial disputes may be resolved through persuasion
rather than coercion.
With the FARC on its heels for the moment, I encourage you
to press for its disarmament and its renunciation of drug
trafficking and extortion in exchange for a seat at the
negotiating table. In this regard, I applaud Colombia's
decision to seek direct talks with FARC rebels to explore
further hostage releases; these steps could lay the
groundwork for broader gains in the interest of peace for the
people of Colombia. In addition, I would urge you to consider
including the National Liberation Army (ELN) as part of
future talks to end the violence. Lastly and more generally,
I would encourage you to consider Brazil, a country with a
record of bridging ideological divisions and displaying an
awareness of regional sensitivities, as a possible mediator
for any discussions. These, of course, are decisions for your
government to make, but your many friends want to be as
helpful and supportive as possible.
For the United States, Colombia's achievement should be
taken as a sign of the tangible results that patient,
committed and consistent policies of cooperation and
assistance can yield. These latest blows against the FARC
demonstrate how U.S. funding can be spent constructively for
the cause of peace in our region, and I am hopeful that the
U.S. Congress will deepen support for you and your country's
quest for peace.
Once again, I applaud your leadership, the Colombian
military's impressive action against the FARC, and the
steadfastness of the Colombian people.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar,
United States Senator.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of
the fiscal year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act.
As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I
strongly believe we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's
intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own
congressional committees.
In its final report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that, ``Of all our
recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the
most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by the
current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American
people will not get the security they want and need.''
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission report and the subsequent 9/11 Public
Disclosure Project recommended three alternatives for reforming
congressional oversight of intelligence. These options include:
One, establishing a joint committee on intelligence modeled after the
old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy;
Two, establishing House and Senate committees on intelligence with
authorizing and appropriating authority; or
Three, establishing a new appropriations subcommittee on
intelligence.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress enacted a
large majority of the commission's recommendations. However, as it
turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the
tangled rules and procedures here in the United States Congress which
have been left unfinished.
Last year, Congress applied a Band-Aid to this problem by creating a
powerless Intelligence Oversight Panel that has very little control
over actual funding decisions. Despite what I am certain are sincere
efforts on the part of members of this panel, this is clearly not what
the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, its report plainly states
that ``tinkering with the existing committee structure is not
sufficient.''
As a result, experts on the 9/11 Commission, including a leading
Democrat from the commission who I happened to speak with this morning,
are concerned that intelligence agencies can dodge effective oversight
by going around the authorizing committees that scrutinize them most
closely. For example, last year, the ranking member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee described what he called a ``consistent
pattern'' in which the authorizing committee held in-depth hearings and
then made specific funding recommendations for several secret programs
only to have appropriators go in a dramatically different direction.
Yesterday, Congressman Shays and I appeared before the Rules
Committee and offered a simple amendment to the bill before us calling
for a sense of Congress that this House should act at the start of next
year to implement these crucial 9/11 recommendations. Unfortunately,
despite vocal support from both Democrats and Republicans on the Rules
Committee last night, this amendment was denied under today's rule.
I have no doubt that implementing this proposal will be a challenge,
yet we cannot continue to just sweep this vital 9/11 Commission
recommendation under the rug while at the same time calling for other
government agencies to make reforms. A former 9/11 Commission member,
Tim Roemer, noted recently, ``Out of all the many recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission, the congressional reform one might be the hardest,
but it may be the single most important.''
Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all
of these important recommendations, even those that are difficult. We
will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an
effective committee structure capable of giving our national
intelligence agencies the oversight, support and leadership they need.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, but
recognize that three Republican amendments were made in order and three
Democratic amendments.
But what troubles me is that this House, over so many years,
continues to avoid meaningful debate. I was at the NAACP Convention in
Cincinnati this week. Before Barack Obama spoke that night, they had a
debate between college students from Stockton, California and Detroit,
Michigan, about health care. They had three speakers for the pro
position and three speakers for the con. It was a fascinating
experience. It was electric.
We were witnessing a debate on an issue with 10,000 people listening.
And I thought, I haven't experienced this in years. I haven't heard
such a meaningful debate in years. And yet I serve in Congress, and we
haven't had that kind of debate. And we're not going to have a
meaningful debate on the authorization bill on intelligence today.
The amendment Mr. Castle talks about deserves to be debated. It was a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. My Democratic colleagues won
this House in part by saying we need to implement the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission, but they won't allow a debate on something so
fundamental.
Why shouldn't there be a Joint House and Senate Committee on
Intelligence, or, why shouldn't we establish a House and Senate
Committee on Intelligence with authorization and appropriation powers;
or, at least have a separate Appropriations Committee on Intelligence
because now the defense subcommittee of appropriations decides what
goes in the intelligence bill.
Why shouldn't we have a debate about that? Why shouldn't we educate
ourselves about the pros and the cons of it? Why shouldn't the American
people be allowed to hear such a debate?
Why is Congress failing to live by the recommendations--or at least
debate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle professed to want to do before the
election? Not to even have a debate is hard to understand.
{time} 1100
There was a second amendment that was not allowed in order. This one
was to declassify the bottom line of the budget on Intelligence. In
other words, we would know what it is. The remarkable thing is our
adversaries know. I won't talk about recent numbers, but I will tell
you this: Ten years ago, when you read about the numbers in the New
York Times, we couldn't say the number was accurate, but it was the
number. The Times was right 10 years ago, 11 years ago and 12 years ago
and 13 years ago and 14 years ago. The New York Times knew, but the
American people are not allowed to know. Our adversaries knew. The
Soviet Union knew. Who didn't know? The American people.
It's not just that. Another problem is we have to hide tens of
billions of dollars in our budget that are going to the Intelligence
Committee.
[[Page H6586]]
So there are things throughout the budget that really aren't going to
the things we say they are. They're not going there. They're going to
the Intelligence Committee. So we have to distort our budget by tens
and tens and tens of billions of dollars and tell people the money is
going there when it isn't.
We even have Members come on the House floor who want to take out
money from those appropriations, and they don't know that they're not
taking it out of what that says it's going to go to, because it's going
to go to the Intelligence Committee.
So let's just step back a second and think. Our adversaries know what
the bottom line of our budget is and the American people don't, but
when my constituents look at expenditures and say ``why are you
spending money here or there?'' I can't tell them we're not. I can't
tell them it's really going to the Intelligence budget, but we don't
want you to know the bottom line in the Intelligence budget.
All we would have to do is just say, ``X'' billion of dollars is
going to Intelligence. Then we wouldn't have to fit in ``X'' billion of
dollars throughout the budget and hide it. We would just give the
bottom line, and then the other parts of the budget would be honest.
Now, some members may not be concerned with this, but the sad thing
is we're not going to have a debate on it because this amendment was
not allowed by the Rules Committee. I don't know if it's ever going to
happen.
When I ran for Congress, I thought we would have a debate about real
things. We're not having that and we haven't for a long time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I understand there was
an amendment adopted in committee that struck all of the earmarks in
the bill. I applaud this. It's a great day when we decide that the
Intelligence Authorization Bill is not the place to put secretive
earmarks. So that was, indeed, a good thing.
I should also mention that the committee also prohibited $39 million
from going from the National Drug Intelligence Center. This is a center
that has been in need of closing down for years. The administration
says that the NDIC has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned
mission. Yet it still receives money every year, not because it's
effective, not because it does anything that the other drug centers
do--there are some 19 of them, I believe, that are already in
existence, and it simply duplicates some of those efforts--but because
there is a powerful appropriator who continues to make sure that that
center is funded.
What I wanted to do was to have an amendment here where we could make
certain that the NDIC was not funded in any portion of this bill, not
just the earmarks in the unclassified version, but to make sure that
funding did not go again to the NDIC. That amendment was not allowed.
We really need to tighten this up, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned. This
is a center that the administration has said for years needs to be
closed. We know it. The administration knows it. Yet we have a powerful
appropriator who ensures that money continues to flow, not because the
Nation needs it but simply because we can do it, and that's not a good
enough reason.
So I would urge us to reject the rule and to come back with a rule
that allows meaningful amendments to be debated here.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend
from Massachusetts, who is substituting for my namesake, I gather, if
he has any more speakers on his side.
Mr. McGOVERN. I'm the last speaker, and I'm waiting with great
anticipation for your close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that then, Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself the balance of my time.
This rule provides for the consideration of the Intelligence
Authorization Bill for the next fiscal year. This legislation is
important to our national security, and it deserves the attention of
this House. However, this Congress also needs to address the issue of
skyrocketing gas prices that affect both our economic and our national
security.
For months now, Democratic leaders have blocked debate and votes on
legislation that would produce more American-made energy, which would
open parts of Alaska, Federal lands and offshore to oil and gas
drilling. As a result, in the long run, it would lower the price of
gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting and Congress needs to act.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so that I can amend the rule to allow for much needed energy
legislation to be considered on this House floor.
By defeating the previous question, the House can finally vote on
this vital economic and national security issue.
Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that this House can get serious about
rising gas prices and so that we can start producing American-made
gasoline.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is a
good rule, and it deserves to be supported. I would urge a ``yes'' vote
on the previous question and on the rule.
I would say to my colleagues that what the gentleman from Washington
just proposed on energy is yet another smoke screen by the Republicans
in their effort to try to cover up their horrendous record on energy.
They have been in control of this Congress. They were in control of the
White House for years, and what we have seen are skyrocketing gas
prices. They have done nothing to make us more energy independent.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not.
They have frustrated efforts by the Democratic majority to try to
support alternative renewable, clean sources of energy from solar, to
wind, to fuel cell technology, to you name it, and they have been
against it. The President has refused to heed the appeal by Democrats
and by the Speaker of the House to tap into the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to provide the American people with immediate relief from these
high gas prices.
What we have gotten is the same old, same old. We have two oilmen in
the White House, and we have policies being proposed by the other side
of the aisle which is the same old same old. Give the oil companies
whatever they want. You know what? The oil companies are wrong, and
they're gouging the American taxpayer, and it's about time we had a
Congress that stood up to them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1343 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2493) to amend the Clean
Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique
fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an
amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by
Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which
shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable
for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent;
[[Page H6587]]
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
____
(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 from 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. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 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. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
[Congressional Record: July 16, 2008 (House)]
[Page H6596-H6597]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5959, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1343, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 495]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Barton (TX)
Bean
Boswell
Buyer
Cubin
Delahunt
Engel
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Green, Al
Lucas
Musgrave
Perlmutter
Platts
Rush
{time} 1242
Mr. BOEHNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 193, not voting 15, as follows:
[[Page H6597]]
[Roll No. 496]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Berman
Boswell
Buyer
Cubin
Delahunt
Engel
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Green, Al
Hooley
Lucas
Perlmutter
Platts
Rush
Shays
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1251
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on July 16, 2008, I missed one recorded vote
because I was participating in a Committee hearing.
I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote No. 496.
____________________
[Congressional Record: July 16, 2008 (House)]
[Page H6599-H6621]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1343 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5959.
{time} 1313
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 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 Mr. Salazar in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Hoekstra) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, intelligence is critical to every decision affecting
America's national security. Whether the challenge is learning the
intentions of our Nation's adversaries or detecting the location of the
next roadside IED in Iraq, America needs a well-resourced and well-
managed intelligence community.
{time} 1315
This committee's primary responsibilities are to authorize funds for
the intelligence agencies, to conduct vigorous oversight over their
operations and to ensure that those operations are effective, legal and
an appropriate use of taxpayer money.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to thank my colleague, Mr.
Hoekstra, the gentleman from Michigan, for working with me in a
bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to
thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle for the great work that
they have done to bring this bill to the floor today.
This year, as in years past, I have gone to the front lines to see
our courageous intelligence professionals perform their jobs. They do
this quietly, often without recognition or praise. Many spend time away
from their families, often in very dangerous situations and under very
dangerous conditions. This bill is the tangible sign of our support for
the women and men of our America's intelligence agencies.
We're providing robust funding for our most important priorities
including HUMINT, language capabilities and technical capabilities.
Our principal concern continues to be that al Qaeda is stronger today
than at any time since September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden and his key
deputies remain at large. But al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group
that has gained strength. Over the past 7 years, Hezbollah and Hamas
have become more capable and even more determined. Dangerous states,
including Syria, are pursuing nuclear capabilities. There is the
possibility that one of these states, or even a rogue scientist, could
transfer fissile material to a terrorist group. This must remain our
foremost priority and our top concern.
This bill invests in people, our most precious resource. It adds
funding to enhance human intelligence collection, not only for
counterterrorism, but also for enduring and emerging global security
issues, such as challenges that we face in Asia, Africa and Latin
America, to name a few. This bill also contains a number of provisions
that promote greater accountability, including the creation of a new
Inspector General for the intelligence community.
Our bill will improve language capabilities in the intelligence
community by adding funding for speakers of critical languages and
requiring reports to
[[Page H6600]]
Congress to evaluate progress in this perennial problem area. The bill
also mandates implementation of security clearance reform to make it
easier for first and second generation Americans, many of whom have
critical language skills, to serve in the intelligence community with
proper clearances.
I mentioned earlier that one of the responsibilities of this
committee is oversight. Yet this administration has repeatedly failed
to comply with the National Security Act of 1947, which mandates that
our committee be ``fully and currently informed'' of all the
intelligence activities from the administration. This bill enhances
congressional oversight by ensuring that the committee receives the
information that it needs to perform its inherent oversight function.
Working on a bipartisan basis, our committee adopted two provisions
to enhance reporting on intelligence activities to the full membership
of the congressional intelligence committees. One provision would
restrict 75 percent of all covert action funds until the full
membership of the intelligence committees is briefed on all covert
actions in effect as of April 24, 2008. A second provision would
restrict the administration's attempts to brief only the chairman and
ranking member and clarifies which information must be reported to our
full committee.
This legislation also authorizes much of the requests for the
foundational activities of the cybersecurity initiative, but it also
expresses the committee's serious concerns about potential policy,
implementation and governance issues. Our committee is also concerned
that Congress does not have a comprehensive understanding of the
magnitude of human and fiscal intelligence resources that have been
devoted to Iraq, possibly at the expense of fighting the war on terror.
H.R. 5959 requires a detailed report to our committee on this very
topic.
The bill also addresses a number of long-term technical challenges in
the intelligence community. It does so by adding significant resources
to modernize signals intelligence capabilities and integrate them into
the global enterprise.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, despite the size of the budget request, the
administration did not include funds adequate to keep the U.S.
intelligence community competitive in advanced technologies. Research
and development funding is our Nation's investment in maintaining our
edge in state of the art technologies. Our bill adds funds to four
agencies specifically for that purpose. And the committee urges the
executive branch to sustain, if not increase, this level of funding in
future budgets.
In our markup, Mr. Chairman, the committee adopted a number of
amendments offered by both the majority and minority members. One of
those important amendments, crafted with bipartisan cooperation, will
prevent CIA contractors from engaging in interrogations unless the
Director of National Intelligence provides a waiver.
Our goal is to put this committee back in the authorization business
by getting a bill to the President's desk that he can sign. To do that,
we can't tackle every single important issue in this one bill. But if
we fail to pass this bill, we risk eroding Congress' ability to
strengthen and oversee intelligence operations that are vital to
American national security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself as much time
as I shall consume.
Mr. Chairman, the annual Intelligence Authorization Act is one of the
most important bills that the House passes each year. It provides and
allocates resources critical to national security programs that are the
front lines of America's defense and foreign policies and, most
critically, work to detect, prevent and disrupt potential terrorist
attacks against the American people. The bill is also essential to
ensure close and effective congressional oversight of the intelligence
community.
There are issues that remain to be worked out as the legislative
process continues. But I appreciate the work that Chairman Reyes has
done to avoid many of the contentious items that have recently
prevented the enactment of an intelligence authorization bill. And I
appreciate that the bill reflects areas of consensus on critical
national security issues.
I believe that this bill is strong in two areas. First, it was
significantly improved by seven Republican amendments that were adopted
on a bipartisan basis to address what I believe are important issues in
priorities facing the intelligence community. Among these, the
committee adopted my amendment to remove all earmarks from the bill, a
significant step forward. Our intelligence program should be based on
only one primary consideration, what best ensures that the intelligence
community is able to do its job in the interest of the national
security of the United States.
The committee adopted an amendment offered by my colleague from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) to limit the size and unintended bureaucratic
growth of the Office of the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence.
The bill also includes another amendment by Congressman Rogers to
require a high-level strategic evaluation of the FBI's progress in
transforming its FBI's intelligence capabilities. This process may not
be moving forward fast enough to accomplish the needed changes and
needs close attention.
The bill is also strengthened by significant provisions to improve
congressional oversight of the intelligence community and the executive
branch which addressed issues I have repeatedly raised since serving as
chairman of the committee. These include provisions to clarify that
each member of the Intelligence Committee must be fully and currently
briefed on current activities. Again, I'm pleased that we're able to
take and improve this oversight on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and
Democrats on the committee both believe that we need this information
to be able to effectively do our job. Some work remains to be done to
smooth this out. But we have taken the right steps to move this
forward. I appreciate the chairman's work to develop this framework for
this important reform.
I understand and he understands that the executive branch may not
like enhanced oversight and that they have expressed their concern
about the provisions of the bill that strengthen the oversight process,
including congressional notification, increased reporting and auditing.
But there is no single current issue on which there is stronger
bipartisan consensus on the committee than our concern that the
administration is not fulfilling its statutory duty to keep each member
of the committee fully and currently informed with respect to certain
intelligence matters.
In the past year alone, I joined with Chairman Reyes to call on the
President to brief the members of the committee with respect to
intelligence regarding the al Kibar facility in Syria. The full
committee was not briefed until the day the information was
subsequently disclosed to the public. The committee was briefed months
too late, and we received the information after the media did. On
another matter, the administration has refused to brief all members of
the committee even though it has briefed five members of the committee
staff. It is clear that reforms are necessary.
In addition to these legislative provisions, I believe that the
classified annex adequately supports our needs in important areas such
as human intelligence collection and contains additional provisions to
enhance oversight. While I may not agree with each of the specific
authorizations, on balance the classified portion of the bill generally
reflects consensus on the programmatic requirements needed to protect
our national security.
Despite these areas of consensus, I must point out that I have
concerns with parts of the bill and the action of the Rules Committee
not to make certain important amendments in order. I'm disappointed
with certain provisions relating to national intelligence space
systems. Certain levels of funding fall short, and the bill fails to
stimulate a sense of urgency in overhead architecture and shortfalls.
In certain areas, it mandates technical solutions without a complete
analysis.
I also have concern with what I believe is an unnecessarily complex
and unwieldy provision to create a new Inspector General of the
intelligence
[[Page H6601]]
community. While I support the enhancement of oversight for community-
wide issues, this provision would significantly duplicate existing
efforts and further grow the size of the DNI bureaucracy. I hope that
we can continue to improve the bill as it moves through the process. I
also hope that we can work to address concerns that have been raised by
the intelligence community with respect to section 425 of the bill
concerning the use of contractors.
Finally, I need to express my strong concern that the Rules Committee
did not make in order an amendment I submitted that would prevent funds
authorizing the bill from being used to transfer Guantanamo detainees
to the United States. This provision should not be necessary. I believe
that the public consensus that trained terrorists should not be brought
into the American cities should be clear and overwhelming. However,
there is a significant possibility that lawyers may try to argue that
trained terrorist detainees should be released on American streets.
This would be judicial activism at its worst, unsupported by either
clear legal precedent or statutory authority. Congress must send a
clear message immediately on this critical issue. We may have the
opportunity to do that later today.
On balance, this bill is a workable bill. It needs to be improved.
And I look forward to seeing exactly how the amendments process moves
forward through the day.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who serves as chairman of our
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. May I add, Mr. Chairman,
that on a personal note, I'm privileged and proud to have served with
Mr. Cramer on the Intelligence Committee for about 8 years. This is his
last authorization bill. He will be retiring at the end of this
Congress. So I just wanted to thank the gentleman for his service and
for his work. He has never stopped working up to the very end here in
his last term.
Thank you, Mr. Cramer, for your great work.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for those kind words.
I, too, have enjoyed almost every minute of service on this
Intelligence Committee. I say to Mr. Hoekstra, as well, the years that
we put in together trying to steer through post 9/11, the struggles of
holding the agencies' feet to the fire but at the same time forcing
them to change, to do things differently to protect this country in a
more unified way, it has been extremely rewarding to see both sides
come together.
{time} 1330
I wanted to use my time today to say that I stand in strong support
of H.R. 5959 because I think this edition of the intelligence
authorization bill does the same thing, and that is it forces the
agencies to be more efficient, it forces them to work together, and at
the same time it is providing our men and women around this world the
resources that they need to do an even better job of protecting us.
I am particularly concerned about our access to space. It is in the
national interest of the United States to have domestic capability for
assured access to space. So as this bill proceeds forward, I hope we
will make sure that while we are performing oversight and we are
forcing the agencies to become more efficient, to consolidate what they
do, that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I know my colleague from Alabama, Terry Everett, who is going to
speak in a few minutes as well, has been particularly concerned about
the access to space issue. My colleague, the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Everett) is leaving the committee as well, so Alabama loses one on
each side after this Congress.
Mr. Everett, I want to say that the people of Alabama and the people
of this country are proud of your career here in the United States
Congress. We are proud in north Alabama of our partnership with you.
And as I have watched you through the committee process bring the
access to space issues to the forefront, this country is a better place
because of your service here.
I also want to thank my colleagues. We work hard in cramped,
windowless rooms to make sure that the agencies answer the questions
that we want our constituents to have answered. They come sometimes to
the committee kicking and screaming, but I am proud of the work you do.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my congratulations
to Mr. Cramer on his retirement. We are going to miss you in the
committee, Mr. Cramer. Alabama is going to lose two great Members of
Congress, two members who have helped make the Intelligence Committee a
better committee, who have studied the issues. We will miss you and
wish you well, but I am sure we will see you again. Thank you for the
work and effort you have put on the committee.
My colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) is also going
to be leaving. I am not sure what the folks in Alabama have put in the
water this year, but they are drinking the same thing and have decided
to retire. Again, Mr. Everett has also contributed a tremendous amount
of time, energy and effort in learning the issues of the Intelligence
Committee and making sure that the work we do on the committee is a
bipartisan effort, coordinated with the efforts in the Armed Services
Committee to make sure that the Intelligence Committee and the Armed
Services Committee are moving in the same direction and doing the
things that are necessary to keep America safe.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Cramer. I can
assure the American people that knowing the members on both sides of
the aisle who serve on the Intelligence Committee and the staff who
supports them, even though two Alabamians are leaving, the Nation will
still be safe and in good hands.
I do rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence
Authorization Act. The process for this year's bill was much improved
over last year; so for that, I thank my friend and chairman, Silvestre
Reyes, and our ranking member, Mr. Hoekstra. It has been 3 years since
we have had an intelligence authorization bill, and that has created a
void in many important policy areas and in programmatic guidance for
the intelligence community.
It is critical that we get a bill passed through the House and Senate
that can be signed by the President, and I hope that can be
accomplished before we adjourn this year.
I have a number of concerns about the bill, some of which have been
detailed in the minority views of the committee report, but I would
like to focus on a few of the joint programs that have military
application as well.
With regard to the national security space systems, the bill falls
short of fully addressing problems in our overhead architecture. As the
report notes, ``National security space systems have been and will
continue to be a cornerstone of the Nation's intelligence collection
capability.''
As Mr. Hoekstra pointed out, critical national security space systems
are not properly funded in conjunction with a complete programmatic
analysis that shows a way forward. This can be addressed and hopefully
will be addressed in conference with the Senate.
As I wind down my career in Congress, this will be my last
intelligence authorization work. The work we do here is fascinating and
important to our national security, and I am pleased to have been a
part of this for the past 6 years. As one of the crossover members from
the House Armed Services Committee, I want to reiterate----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield my colleague an additional minute.
Mr. EVERETT. I want to reiterate the importance of having members
serve simultaneously on both committees. It is especially important to
have a member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee serve on HPSCI in
order to maintain a clear understanding of how the shared military and
intelligence overhead programs operate so that the right hand, Mr.
Chairman, knows what the left hand is doing.
I say again I appreciate having served over the years with the
members of the committee. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It
is not
[[Page H6602]]
perfect, but it is a very good bill and it needs passing.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, before recognizing a very senior and valued
member of our committee, I wanted to wish my good friend and former
chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Armed Forces well on
his retirement. I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Everett
since I have been in Congress on Armed Services and also on
Intelligence. I know how much he cares about the issues that affect our
national security, and so I want to wish him well in his retirement as
well.
Good luck, Terry.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo), a senior member of our committee, who serves as the
chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the chairman of our
committee for his superb leadership and caring so much about not only
the issues of intelligence but everyone that is a part of the
intelligence community. I want to thank all of the marvelous staff on
the majority and minority side, and I salute the ranking member of the
committee as well.
This is a tough committee to serve on. People don't know what we are
talking about. We do it in secret. We really can't talk to our
colleagues very much about it. And yet we make some of the weightiest
decisions that any Members of Congress would make because we deal with
what is the most important issue, and that is our national security,
the protection of the American people and giving the intelligence
community, making the choices to give the intelligence community all
the tools it needs in order to function and protect the American people
and that we weigh and balance and always know that we are working under
the Constitution of the United States of America. So this is really
where the rubber meets the road.
I support the bill. Just like all of the other bills we deal with,
there are pluses and minuses. I am very pleased that there are no
earmarks in this bill. That is the first time since I came onto the
committee that that is the case. I am very glad that 75 percent of the
dollars for covert action have been fenced. In other words, no
notification from the administration and from the intelligence
community, no money. And that's the way it should be because the
American people expect us to verify. They expect us to know and then we
can take action. We have to do oversight.
For the first time in the history of our country, we have brought
together a National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change
and the effect it will have on national security. I am very proud of
the work we have been able to do on that.
For the first time there will be an inspector general in the
intelligence community; and the administration, believe it or not, is
still fighting that. Imagine having an inspector general, independent
oversight of the intelligence community. I think that's a darn good
idea and I hope it will prevail and that the President changes his mind
on this.
We still have a lot of work to do to have more human intelligence in
countries where we need them. We have a lot of work to do on black
prison sites, the operation of them by the CIA and renditions. But with
that, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend especially Congressman Bud Cramer
for the magnificent, honest work he has done on the Intelligence
Committee and here in the Congress and wish him well, and Mr. Everett,
too.
I ask my colleagues to support the bill. It has good things and it
has some other things that are missing. But overall, I think it is a
bill worth supporting.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the
committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the intelligence authorization bill that I
would have written exactly, but I think it is important to start out by
thanking the chairman and the ranking member for taking some risk to
have a bipartisan bill that can have support from both sides of the
aisle. That is unfortunately fairly rare in this Chamber to be able to
work together on something that is important, especially in national
security, and yet that has happened here.
Intelligence is very important for our country's security. In many
ways it is the first line of defense. Certainly all our other national
security efforts depend upon intelligence. And so working together in a
bipartisan way, even being willing to take some risks to have a bill
with bipartisan support, means we can't have everything we want, but we
will work together in order to move this bill forward.
Secondly, I think it is important to acknowledge the enormous
influence of three retiring Members, three Members retiring from
Congress after this Congress: the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.
Wilson) whose personal military background, intelligence, and nature of
her district has made her a leader on many issues, especially in the
area of technical collection; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett)
with whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and we have worked
on many issues, but no one is as knowledgeable and passionate about the
issue of space and space policy as the gentleman from Alabama; and then
the other gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), he and I were partners
in the last Congress when for the first time this Congress stood up an
oversight subcommittee just also as we were beginning to implement the
Intelligence Reform Act. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) is one
of those fairly rare Members who always asks what is in the best
interest of the country first, and it will be a significant loss to
this Congress and to the country upon his retirement.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of commonsense reforms in this bill
that may not make headlines. One of the issues Mr. Cramer and I have
worked on, for example, in the past is how can we measure improvement
in intelligence, for example, in foreign language capability. There are
some specific provisions in this bill which do help us have specific
measurements so we can tell whether we are increasing our capability,
not just as far as numbers of people but in their fluency in specific
languages. That is absolutely critical for the purpose of intelligence.
And yet even for something like that, it is hard for any of us to
measure whether we are making the improvements that need to be made.
Making sure that any administration gives this committee the
information we deserve to do our job is a challenge. This bill deserves
support.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) who serves as the
chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and
who proudly represents NSA which is in his district.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 5959. I
would first like to thank Chairman Reyes and Ranking Member Hoekstra
for their leadership in helping us put together a good bipartisan bill.
I also am going to miss Bud Cramer, Terry Everett, and Heather Wilson.
We have all worked well together on this committee. You will be missed.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill because it supports the men
and women who work within the intelligence community. The National
Security Agency, the NSA, is headquartered in my district. I personally
know that NSA's employees work very hard to ensure our Nation's
security.
{time} 1345
We must continue to invest in the people and resources necessary to
make our intelligence community effective. Intelligence is the best
defense against terrorism.
This bill advances the Cybersecurity Initiative to protect our
computer networks, a very important issue that we will be dealing with
in the future, cybersecurity attacks. We know now that certain
countries are attacking the United States of America through the
Internet.
Two, it increases research and development so that we can maintain
our technical advantage; and, three, invests in both satellite and
airborne collection and in the systems needed to
[[Page H6603]]
process, exploit and distribute this data.
The intelligence community faces enduring technical challenges, but
this bill provides our people, who are our most important asset, with
the tools they need to do their jobs well. In order to protect our
country from threats from countries such as China and Russia, we must
continue to invest heavily in science and technology.
This bill lays the foundation for the future and communicates areas
of concern to current intelligence leaders and the next Presidential
administration.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the important work of
the intelligence community.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to my colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who was
successful in the committee in passing two important amendments to
improve this bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for working in such a
bipartisan way. I often think after some of our most spirited meetings
in the Intelligence Committee, where we have passionate, civil debates,
how proud, really, America would be that all of us on both sides of the
aisle give all of ourselves to the right outcome on these bills. I want
to thank you for allowing that debate to happen in committee.
To Mr. Thompson, I have enjoyed working with you on the committee,
and I think we have done some great things in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those bills that while I think both
sides probably would have had a few things different, but because we
committed ourselves to put the country first and bipartisanship as our
final goal and what works for America, you have a package here that I
think sends a great message to the most important group that this bill
will impact, and that's the men and women who risk their lives every
single day trying to make sure we have the best intelligence to our war
fighters, to our police officers, and to keep this country safe. For
all of that, to the staffs on both sides, thank you very much.
I want to bring your attention to two particular issues. There are a
lot of great things in here to think about.
One is the FBI policy. Thank you again for working with us on what I
think is a growing problem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and this, I think, was the first signal we need to get a handle on it.
The FBI implemented an ``up or out'' policy for its supervisors that
was supposed to allow new people in and promote the supervisory special
agents, people who had over years developed a Rolodex where they could
call the local police chiefs, work with the local community, get to
know and understand and gain the trust of these local communities.
We have hustled them out after 5 years. They may be the best
performing supervisory agents the Bureau has ever had, but when the
clock runs out, you're done.
In that policy, we have lost half. Almost 290 supervisory special
agents have left management in the FBI, retired, stepped down, quit,
whatever they have decided to do that wasn't in their interest or their
family's interest, because of this policy.
I can think of no policy that discriminates against half of your
management that we would call successful at a time where we need
experience to guide these new agents, which are about half of them, by
the way, are fairly new, I think under 5 years or 7 years, something
like that. We have tried to work with the Director and say this is the
wrong approach, this is a punishment approach. You have great men and
women committing themselves to these careers, dedicating themselves to
these supervisory positions. We need to reward them, not punish them.
We have tried to set up a housing policy to entice them. Three years,
longer than 3 years, even after the agreement from the Director, we
have been working on this to no avail. It has gone nowhere. Instead,
they continue to say this is a policy that works.
They are separating themselves from the field, and it's dangerous.
Over the last 2 weeks I bet I have talked to a dozen agents, some in
supervisory roles, others who are not, who are impacted by their
supervisors either leaving or new ones being hired, 12 agents, 100
percent unanimity. This is a bad and dangerous plan for the future of
the FBI.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield an additional minute to my colleague.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I think that this is an issue that we have to
even pay more attention to. This is an important step to regain the
confidence of the FBI and its leadership. It has to happen. Thanks for
your leadership on it.
Lastly, I just want to talk about the DNI, the Director of National
Intelligence. I have worked with Mr. Thompson on this. We have spent a
lot of time understanding this. Our concerns are real, and the
intelligence community concerns are real.
We created this new organization. Its job was to coordinate, not be
operational. We have found that it goes well beyond mission creep, and
it is in mission grasp. It is bloated, it's too big, and it became an
agency not that supported the decision and calculations of the field,
but became supported by the field.
It's a dangerous development in intelligence. I appreciate working
with you. I know we have a lot more work to do. Congratulations to all
on a bill that will, I think and believe, keep America safer.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the
Terrorism, Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I want to thank both Chairman Reyes and
Ranking Member Hoekstra for their leadership and making sure we had a
good bipartisan bill that benefits the people of this great country,
the staff that worked so hard to make this happen on both sides of the
aisle, and, in particular, the ranking member of my subcommittee, Mr.
Rogers, for working together to make this a good bill.
Human intelligence, or HUMINT, is one of the most difficult but
effective means of understanding our adversaries' plans and intentions.
This bill adds funds improve HUMINT collection on counterterrorism and
other critical national security challenges. It also adds HUMINT
resources for global challenges, such as the political and humanitarian
crisis in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The events unfolding in those
regions demonstrate that we must always have the resources to
understand these threats.
The information we collect, however, is only useful if analysts
translate it into actionable intelligence for policymakers and law
enforcement. For that reason, this bill provides resources to improve
intelligence analysis across the entire intelligence community. It also
authorizes additional personnel to support State and local law
enforcement so they can better address the challenges of border
security, counterterrorism and infrastructure protection.
And the bill also calls for fiscal restraint. As Mr. Rogers
mentioned, since its creation in 2004, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence has grown into a bloated bureaucracy that
hinders, rather than facilitates, intelligence complexes and analysis.
This bill adds an amendment that Mr. Rogers and I introduced in
committee that prevents further growth in the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides critical
intelligence resources for our troops and strengthens oversight of
intelligence support to the military. Many of us have visited our
troops in Iraq, and we have seen firsthand that good intelligence saves
American lives on the battlefield.
This bill will greatly improve our intelligence capabilities and
enhance our national security. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
In closing, I too want to add my name to those who are very
appreciative and thankful for our friends, Mr. Everett and Mr. Cramer,
who did a great job on the committee. They were a pleasure to work for,
they are fine Americans, and we are going to miss them.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to another member of the committee, Mr. McHugh from New York.
[[Page H6604]]
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have heard, I would say to my colleagues repeatedly today, this is
not a perfect bill. We also should hear that shouldn't be a surprise.
Rarely on the House floor here have perfect bills been delivered.
Rather, as I think the Founding Fathers would have intended, we see a
work in progress.
This is a bill that started off at a certain place, that came through
the committee process, and although I may be somewhat prejudiced, I
firmly believe has been far improved from that starting point through
that committee process. There have been some seven amendments that I
think have upgraded it and have put us on the right path.
I want to say Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect, enormous
affection for both the distinguished chairman from the great State of
Texas, my good friend, Silvestre Reyes, as well as the gentleman from
Michigan, the distinguished ranking member, who have gone so far in
working together to make such a difference. There are far, far fewer
bills that reach this House floor that are more important in this day
and age for the safety and for the security of the American people.
I have to tell you I share the distinguished ranking member's
concerns about the failures of this administration to adequately
inform, to adequately brief all the Members on both sides of the aisle,
not just so-called leadership, but all the Members, as to the ongoing
activities with respect to our intelligence systems throughout this
world.
I think that the American people need to be assured that as we go
forward in these very dangerous and uncertain times that there are
certain individuals in this House that have, as the law intends, the
opportunity to be fully informed and make sound judgments about what is
appropriate and what is not.
Frankly, as a member of this committee, I am somewhat frustrated by
the lack of total input, the lack of total briefing that has occurred
from the administration side, and I look forward to a better day.
I think tomorrow can help us to further improve this bill. We have
the opportunity now, through the conference process, to continue to
improve upon it, to continue to make sure that the end product that we
send to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to the President, is a
good bill, a bill that in these very challenging moments of our lives
ensures the American people have the best possible, the most well-
resourced, and the most responsible intelligence activities we can
possibly have.
This is a very appropriate start. It deserves our support, and I urge
all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey, my colleague, Mr. Rush Holt, who also serves as the
chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair, and I rise in support of the bill.
The work in the Intelligence Committee is some of the most difficult
work that goes on here in the House, behind closed doors, necessarily
with little public input, but we are blessed with a good staff and a
good chairman. We never forget that our work is about people, about the
safety of the American people and about the hardworking, brave people
of the intelligence community.
H.R. 5959 contains some useful provisions that are designed to
strengthen congressional oversight. Among these is a fence of 75
percent of covert action funds, fenced until each member of the House
and Senate intelligence committees has been fully briefed.
I think it would be sufficient to say that this administration has
taken a cavalier attitude toward its legal obligations to keep the
committees fully and currently informed.
This bill would require the CIA Inspector General to conduct audits
of all covert action programs regularly. It would increase critical
research and development activities and improve foreign language
capabilities. It would prohibit the use of contractors for CIA detainee
interrogations.
It would clarify what ``fully and currently informed'' in the law
means for briefing Congress so that all information necessary for
Congress would be provided, and it explicitly requires that all
committee members be notified in general, not just selected members.
It requires guidelines for the implementation of a multilevel
security clearance to increase linguistic and cultural expertise. It
would require reports on the use of contractors, on workforce
diversity, on foreign language proficiency, on the protection of
intelligence officers' identities.
There are a number of good features. This is a good bill that
strengthens our oversight of the intelligence community. We do have a
long way to go to provide the kind of oversight needed after many years
when the intelligence community got almost every wish, billions of
dollars with insufficient justification.
I do support the bill and urge that my colleagues do as well.
{time} 1400
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, I have no other
speakers so I shall reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, as you know, bringing accountability
and transparency to contracting has been a priority of mine, and I have
worked to ensure that companies that we award contracts to are held
responsible for any abuses. I believe we must make certain that the
intelligence community is not using U.S. taxpayer dollars to enter into
or renew contracts with companies that may be engaging in serious
abuses of law and violence toward civilians and whose actions go
unpunished.
Around the world our country is contracting with private companies
that employ individuals who do not wear the badge of the United States
but whose behavior has, on numerous occasions, severely damaged the
credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship
with other governments. Perhaps the most egregious example came on
September 16, 2007, when private security contractors employed by
Blackwater Worldwide killed 17 civilians and wounded many more in
downtown Baghdad. No one has been held accountable for this.
At a minimum, we need a more transparent process to hold private
contractors accountable and more information in order to understand
their impact on our Intelligence Community, our armed forces and our
larger objectives.
I thank the chairman for including language prohibiting the use of
contractors for interrogation, as well as a provision requiring a
comprehensive report on the use of contractors in the intelligence
community.
If I may ask the chairman in a brief colloquy if the chairman will
work with me to include additional language in the conference report
calling for a report that examines the extent of criminal activity
among intelligence community contractors and assesses the effects of
hiring contracting companies that are responsible for serious legal
violations.
Mr. REYES. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes.
Mr. REYES. The answer is yes. I will be happy to work with you in
conference.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am happy to
support this legislation.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I would like to continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes, and the
gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes.
Mr. REYES. And can I inquire of my colleague if he has any additional
speakers.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I am probably the only speaker left. I will close at
the appropriate time.
Mr. REYES. Then I will be pleased to recognize a hardworking member
of our committee, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for 2
minutes.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H6605]]
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to
commend the chairman and the ranking member on their hard work on this
bill, particularly staff, who also has worked hard on this legislation.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5959, the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
While the bill contains a number of important provisions to
strengthen our intelligence community and enhance national security
that many of my colleagues have already been speaking about, I am
particularly pleased that it represents a reasonable and measured
response to the administration's cybersecurity initiative.
Now, this bill, the cybersecurity initiative, is the administration's
response to the cybersecurity threats facing the Nation. And although
the administration has been slow in recognizing this threat, I believe
the cyber initiative is a move in the right direction, but requires
careful scrutiny.
Now, this bill reduces funding in selected areas where it is not
adequately justified. However, recognizing that cybersecurity is a real
and growing threat that the Federal Government has been slow in
addressing, the Intelligence Committee has authorized more than 90
percent of the administration's requests.
At the same time, the bill clearly demonstrates that the committee
does not intend to write the administration a blank check for the
cybersecurity initiative, which is a multi-year, multi-billion dollar
project.
Now, we need a thorough assessment of the technical feasibility and
scalability of the initiative and a careful balance between
cybersecurity and privacy protections. Thus, the bill envisions an
advisory panel of senior representatives of Congress, the Executive
Branch and industry who can tackle these issues.
I was co-chair of the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th
Presidency, basically a commission that will present a blueprint on
cybersecurity for the next President. I have been deeply involved in
developing recommendations for a national cybersecurity plan that
protects, among other things, our critical infrastructure assets and
infrastructure itself, as well as Federal networks and also the private
sector.
Furthermore, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and as
chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats,
Cybersecurity and Science Technology, I will continue to ensure and
exercise rigorous congressional oversight over this issue as it
evolves.
The measure before us is an important first step in addressing our
cybersecurity threats and closing that vulnerability and it is,
obviously, a critical national security issue. And I urge my colleagues
to support passage of this bill.
Again, I commend Chairman Reyes for his leadership, and also thank
staff for the great work they have done on this bill today.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I continue to reserve.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman for yielding, and rise in support of
H.R. 5959.
I want to congratulate our chairman, Mr. Reyes and his staff for
putting the bill together. In particular, I am proud that this bill
authorizes the funding that our intelligence community needs to help
prevent terrorists from attacking the United States with a nuclear
device.
A nuclear terrorist attack on the United States or on our troops in
the field is the greatest national security threat facing our country.
While part of this fight occurs at our borders, the intelligence
community is the tip of the spear, at the forefront of our efforts to
prevent a nuclear terror attack. The many analysts and officers of the
intelligence community ensure that we know as much as possible, not
only about the terrorists who would attack us with a nuclear device or
a radiological disease, but also about those who may sell fissile
material that they seek. This bill supports our men and women in the
intelligence community as they attempt to ensure that nuclear material
stays out of the wrong hands.
It is much easier to prevent terrorists from getting a hold of
nuclear material than prevent them from getting nuclear material or a
nuclear device into the country. Our country is large, our borders are
porous, and we have to stop the access of people who mean us ill from
gaining nuclear material.
The bill protects Americans against nuclear terrorism by funding the
Nuclear Materials Information Program as well, a Department of Energy-
led effort to understand how much nuclear material is stored worldwide,
what the security is at these sites, the signatures of this material,
also a key ingredient of our nuclear forensics efforts.
But there is more that we still must do. H.R. 1, signed into law by
the President almost a year ago created the position of the United
States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Proliferation and Terrorism. We must have an individual, a single
person who can marshal all the resources and expertise to prevent the
most horrific attack imaginable. However, no one has been appointed to
this post. It remains vacant. I urge the President to fill this
position as soon as possible.
Nuclear terrorism is the preeminent threat of our time, and all
efforts have to be made to mitigate that threat. What we need to do is
imagine what a post-nuclear 9/11 Commission report would look like,
what would its recommendations be? And we have to implement those
recommendations now; not wait until there is a calamity.
I am proud that this legislation addresses the threat by authorizing
the resources our intelligence community needs to meet that threat.
And again, I want to thank you, Chairman Reyes, for your leadership,
and urge all of the Members to support the bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just inquire of the
chairman of the committee, you are prepared to close as well?
Mr. REYES. That was our last speaker. I am prepared to close.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you. I will yield myself the balance of our time.
I am looking forward to, and I am glad that we have had such a
collegial discussion about the bill, the process that we have gone
through in the committee, to get to the point that we are.
Obviously, we are going to go through a process of trying to improve
this bill while we are here on the floor today. I can look forward to
going through that process. I look forward to hopefully passing an
improved bill out of the floor, and then look forward to going to
conference and hope that we can continue this same kind of partnership
in trying to get, not only a bill through the House, but getting it
through a conference process and getting a bill to the President that
the President will sign.
It is important that the Intelligence Committees, that the House and
the Senate, put their imprint on the intelligence community. We haven't
been able to do that for 3 years. It is important that we do it and
that we do it at this time. The intelligence community needs the kind
of direction and the parameters that we have established in this bill,
to ensure that Congress can do its work, but also that the intelligence
community can do its work within a framework that has been established
by the Congress.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself the remainder of our
time.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say how much I appreciate the
cooperation and the work that the ranking member has done to bring this
bill to the floor. I want to thank staffs on both sides in particular.
I want to thank my Staff Director, Mike Delaney, my Deputy Staff
Director and General Counsel, Wyndee Parker, and Chief Counsel, Jeremy
Bash, for the great work that they have done.
And I also want to thank our Vice Chair of the committee, Congressman
Leonard Boswell, who, unfortunately, was unable to accompany us here
today because he is recuperating in the hospital. All of us wish him
well and we want to see him back as soon as possible. He is a hard
worker and contributes a lot to our committee.
And I also want to say that this is a good, solid bill. This is the
kind of effort that our men and women in the intelligence community
serving us proudly throughout the world deserve.
[[Page H6606]]
Each and every one of them gives their best effort, and they deserve
the respect and the support of every Member of this body and everyone
in this country. We thank them for the effort that they put forward,
and we appreciate the commitment, the dedication and their
professionalism, as well as the sacrifices that their families provide
for our great country.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it has been a privilege
to lead this committee. We have great Members on both sides that care
very much about our national security and work very hard on all the
issues that are important to our country and our national security.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of those who serve
our country through the gathering of intelligence for the protection of
the American people. I appreciate their dedication and their attention
to the gathering facts for deliberations related to our national
security.
Regrettably, the current administration has destroyed the credibility
of the Intelligence Community through the fabrication of intelligence.
The Bush administration continues a relentless pursuit of a self-
serving agenda rather than an agenda that serves the best interests of
the American people.
No single example can more clearly illustrate this point than the
administration's falsification and cherry-picking of intelligence to
build a phony case for the war in Iraq. Through the manipulation of
intelligence, the administration sold a war to the American public
based on false statements that included a connection between Iraq and
al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, as well as false claims that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction and intentions to attack the U.S.
As long as President Bush remains in office the intelligence budget
will continue to be at risk for being used to support subversive
intelligence and provide license to the administration to engage in
criminal activity by shaping intelligence to fit corrupt policies.
Under the Bush administration there have emerged several high-profile
classified leaks to the media that have reemphasized the need for
reform within our intelligence agencies. From these media leaks, we not
only became aware of the efforts to manipulate intelligence and to
falsify a cause for war against Iraq but we also became aware of the
illegal NSA domestic wiretapping program without a court order. We
became aware of the rumored CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe,
and the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, used to transport
suspects to other nations with less restrictive torture policies. It is
regrettable that intelligence is often reshaped to fit doctrine instead
of doctrine being reshaped in the face of the facts of intelligence.
Furthermore, this bill will not stop unilateral covert U.S.
intelligence operations aimed at bringing about regime change in Iran.
As reported in a recent article in The New Yorker, the Bush
administration is already engaged in collecting covert intelligence on
Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program instead of engaging Iran in
high-level diplomatic negotiations without preconditions. The
administration has made clear their thirst for a war with Iran. The
opportunity for unscrupulous tactics by this administration with
respect to Iran clearly exists as long as this body stands idly by.
I strongly oppose this bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
5959, the Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act, and the
important measures to strengthen oversight and accountability of
contractors that the bill includes.
I want to first thank Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestro Reyes
for his leadership in crafting this bill. Chairman Reyes very
graciously worked with me to include in this bill major portions of
legislation I recently introduced along with Representative Jan
Schakowsky, H.R. 5973, the Transparency and Accountability in
Intelligence Contracting Act.
For the last several years, I have been working to correct a serious
lack of attention to the management and oversight of contractors in the
Intelligence Community. Press reports indicate that roughly half of the
Intelligence Community's budget is now contracted out, yet there is
little understanding of where the money goes, what kinds of activities
contractors are performing, whether this contracting saves taxpayer
money, and whether the contracted activities are appropriate for
private corporations to perform. Additionally, accountability for
misconduct by contractors has been seriously deficient.
This rush to outsource sensitive government functions has placed
private contractors at the center of some of the most significant
national controversies in recent years. Contractors have been accused
of torturing or abusing foreign detainees, including the practice of
waterboarding high-level suspects. Contractors have participated in
warrantless electronic surveillance and data-mining programs targeting
U.S. citizens. Contractors have been deeply involved in the analysis of
critical intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda, including, reportedly, the
preparation of the President's Daily Brief on intelligence matters.
Contractors may very well have a place in the Intelligence Community,
but their role must be carefully considered, thoroughly managed, and
strenuously overseen. A national conversation about the appropriate use
of contractors in our national security apparatus is long overdue. This
is a conversation the Administration skipped over as it was
implementing this major shift in the way we conduct intelligence
operations, but for the sake of the integrity of our national defense,
we must collectively scrutinize this practice and set clear boundaries.
H.R. 5959 begins to put Intelligence Community contracting back on a
rational and stable footing. It incorporates a number of provisions for
which I have advocated. Let me highlight just a few examples.
First, the legislation would explicitly prohibit the use of
contractors for the performance of interrogations. Interrogations
should be carried out by individuals who are well-trained, fall within
a clear chain of command, and have a sworn loyalty to the United
States--not by corporate, for-profit contractors. Given how delicate
such interrogations are, and how critical the intelligence they obtain
might be, I believe that drawing this red line is a commonsense step
with which all members should agree.
The House passed a similar restriction on Defense Department
contractors as part of the Defense Authorization bill in May. This bill
would appropriately extend that limit to intelligence contractors
outside the DoD.
Second, the bill would require an assessment of the number and cost
of contractors employed by the intelligence community, the types of
activities being performed by contractors, an analysis of cost savings,
and a description of mechanisms available for ensuring oversight and
accountability. This assessment will give Congress the data we need to
ascertain whether the use of contractors for certain activities is
beneficial and what reforms may be needed.
Third, the bill would require the Director of National Intelligence
to assess the appropriateness of using contractors for especially
sensitive activities, including intelligence collection, intelligence
analysis, interrogation, detention, and rendition. It will also require
information on how many contractors are currently employed in the
performance of these activities. Giving the head of the intelligence
community the chance to explain the reasoning behind this widespread
contracting will allow the Congress to carefully weigh the appropriate
limits for intelligence outsourcing.
These provisions are not overly prescriptive or restrictive. We fully
recognize that the intelligence community needs flexibility and agility
to be able to obtain and deliver to decision-makers accurate and timely
intelligence about matters involving extremely high stakes. Rather,
this bill gives us the tools we need to initiate a conversation about
how we can better organize, manage, and oversee contractors. It is a
first step toward ending the abuses of the past.
Again, I thank Chairman Reyes and his colleagues on the Intelligence
Committee for recognizing the importance of addressing contractor
issues in the intelligence community. I look forward to continuing to
work with him on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Democratic
majority has taken a thoughtful and bipartisan approach to this year's
Intelligence Authorization bill. I have expressed my concerns about the
health of our intelligence community and appreciate the work that has
been done to strengthen the Inspector General, increase contractor
oversight, and invest in the training of our operatives.
However, I am deeply troubled that this bill does not contain a
prohibition on torture, which I believe is absolutely critical. Torture
violates not only the laws and values of our country, but all standards
of decent human conduct. I have consistently spoken out against the
stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this administration's
``interrogation'' of detainees. I find it appalling that it has fallen
solely to the legislative and judicial branches to set interrogation
and detention standards worthy of our Nation.
Yet I remain hopeful that the abuses of this administration will be
checked by wise and thoughtful policy. I applauded the recent
``Boumediene v. Bush'' Supreme Court ruling that guarantees Guantanamo
Bay detainees the right of habeas corpus. Further, I believe that
extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to U.S. intelligence
personnel sends a clear signal that we have broken with and are rolling
back the abuses of this administration.
I support a great deal of what this bill includes, yet my greatest
concern is with what this bill omits. It is my hope that Congress will
[[Page H6607]]
come together in conference to send a message to this administration
and the world at large that Americans do not approve of, and will not
stand for, torture.
Mr. REYES. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:
H.R. 5959
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--BUDGET AND PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified Schedule of Authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Intelligence Community Management Account.
Sec. 105. Limitation on the use of covert action funds.
Sec. 106. Prohibition on use of funds to implement ``5 and out''
program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Technical modification to mandatory retirement provision of
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act.
TITLE III--GENERAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MATTERS
Subtitle A--Personnel Matters
Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by
law.
Sec. 302. Enhanced flexibility in nonreimbursable details to elements
of the intelligence community.
Sec. 303. Multi-level security clearances.
Sec. 304. Delegation of authority for travel on common carriers for
intelligence collection personnel.
Sec. 305. Annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence
community.
Sec. 306. Comprehensive report on intelligence community contractors.
Sec. 307. Report on proposed pay for performance intelligence community
personnel management system.
Sec. 308. Report on plans to increase diversity within the intelligence
community.
Sec. 309. Report on security clearance determinations.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Sec. 311. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 312. Clarification of definition of intelligence community under
the National Security Act of 1947.
Sec. 313. Modification of availability of funds for different
intelligence activities.
Sec. 314. Protection of certain national security information.
Sec. 315. Extension of authority to delete information about receipt
and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations.
Sec. 316. Report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
and related provisions of the Military Commissions Act of
2006.
Sec. 317. Incorporation of reporting requirements.
Sec. 318. Repeal of certain reporting requirements.
Sec. 319. Enhancement of critical skills training program.
Sec. 320. Comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative advisory
panel.
TITLE IV--MATTERS RELATING TO ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Subtitle A--Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Sec. 401. Clarification of limitation on colocation of the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence.
Sec. 402. Membership of the Director of National Intelligence on the
Transportation Security Oversight Board.
Sec. 403. Additional duties of the Director of Science and Technology.
Sec. 404. Leadership and location of certain offices and officials.
Sec. 405. Plan to implement recommendations of the data center energy
efficiency reports.
Sec. 406. Semiannual reports on nuclear programs of Iran, Syria, and
North Korea.
Sec. 407. Title of Chief Information Officer of the Intelligence
Community.
Sec. 408. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
Sec. 409. Annual report on foreign language proficiency in the
intelligence community.
Sec. 410. Repeal of certain authorities relating to the Office of the
National Counterintelligence Executive.
Sec. 411. National intelligence estimate on weapons of mass destruction
in Syria.
Sec. 412. Report on intelligence resources dedicated to Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Sec. 413. Ombudsman for intelligence community security clearances.
Sec. 414. Security clearance reciprocity.
Sec. 415. Report on international traffic in arms regulations.
Sec. 416. Report on nuclear trafficking.
Sec. 417. Study on revoking pensions of persons who commit unauthorized
disclosures of classified information.
Subtitle B--Central Intelligence Agency
Sec. 421. Review of covert action programs by Inspector General of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 422. Inapplicability to Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency of requirement for annual report on progress in
auditable financial statements.
Sec. 423. Technical amendments relating to titles of certain Central
Intelligence Agency positions.
Sec. 424. Clarifying amendments relating to section 105 of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
Sec. 425. Prohibition on the use of private contractors for
interrogations involving persons in the custody or
control of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence Components
Sec. 431. Integration of the Counterintelligence Field Activity into
the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Subtitle D--Other Elements
Sec. 441. Clarification of inclusion of Coast Guard and Drug
Enforcement Administration as elements of the
intelligence community.
Sec. 442. Report on transformation of the intelligence capabilities of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
TITLE V--OTHER MATTERS
Subtitle A--General Intelligence Matters
Sec. 501. Extension of National Commission for the Review of the
Research and Development Programs of the United States
Intelligence Community.
Sec. 502. Amendments to the National Security Act of 1947.
Sec. 503. Report on financial intelligence on terrorist assets.
Sec. 504. Notice of intelligence regarding North Korea and China.
Sec. 505. Sense of Congress regarding use of intelligence resources.
Subtitle B--Technical Amendments
Sec. 511. Technical amendment to the Central Intelligence Agency Act of
1949.
Sec. 512. Technical amendments relating to the multiyear National
Intelligence Program.
Sec. 513. Technical clarification of certain references to Joint
Military Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence
and Related Activities.
Sec. 514. Technical amendments to the National Security Act of 1947.
Sec. 515. Technical amendments to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004.
Sec. 516. Technical amendments to the Executive Schedule.
Sec. 517. Technical amendments relating to the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Congressional intel
