Congressional Record: January 9, 2007 (House)
Page H199-H209


                  SELECT INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT PANEL

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

                               H. Res. 35

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). State your
inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Under what authority are we considering this resolution,
Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 6 provides for its
consideration.
  Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Did the
order of the House which is allowing for consideration of this
resolution specify a specific resolution by number in that order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It described the resolution by title.
  Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Are there other
resolutions

[[Page H200]]

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

                              {time}  1630

  In particular, the Commission said, and I quote, ``Congressional
oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional.
Congress should address this problem. We have considered various
alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee, in each House of Congress,
combining authorizing and appropriating authorities is another.'' End
of quote.
  Subsequent to the report, commissioners also suggested creating a new
appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters. It
is my pleasure today to see the House implement this recommendation
from the 9/11 Commission.
  This House rules change, by creating a Select Intelligence Oversight
Panel within the House Appropriations Committee, responds to the
commission's recommendation by creating a new panel that is made up of
members of both the Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence
Committee.
  The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight
process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding
and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities
from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence
committees. The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will be primarily
responsible for reviewing and studying, including through the hearings
process, the President's budget submission for intelligence and the
execution of intelligence activities.
  The committee will also be tasked with making recommendations to the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and to other Appropriations
subcommittees on intelligence programs, projects, and activities.
Moreover, this new panel will, on an annual basis, prepare a report to
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee containing budgetary and
oversight observations and recommendations for use by the subcommittee
in preparation of the classified annex to the Defense Appropriations
Bill.
  I see that the Republican members of the Rules Committee, in a letter
to the chair lady of that committee, are complaining that we are not
allowing the committee process to work its will, and that it is unfair
to the Republican side. I would say, to paraphrase Shakespeare, ``They
do protest too much, methinks.''
  The 9/11 Commission report was published more than 2\1/2\ years ago.
Aside from sitting on their collective thumbs, what did the Republicans
do on this specific recommendation? Nothing, much like what they did on
the rest of the 9/11 report.
  Okay. Fine. The President now claims the right to open every
citizen's mail without judicial approval. The President says he can
listen to every citizen's phone calls without judicial approval. Oh,
and read everyone's e-mails too, without judicial approval. But I don't
remember those being recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Madam Speaker, we are doing this for the security of our Nation and
our people. As I said at the outset, this was in large part a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  Now, I see my friend from California, and he is my friend, about
ready to speak. And I would simply say to the ranking member, maybe you
should ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they think Congress
should spend another 2 years debating action and then taking none, or
whether we should take action and move forward on behalf of the
families affected by those terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the rest of
the country that is looking for results, not rancor.
  No more rancor, Madam Speaker. No rhetoric, Madam Speaker. Results.
That is what the American people have asked for, and that is what we
will deliver.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
  Let me begin by saying that I really am somewhat surprised at the
remarks of my very good friend. First of all, if you look at the fact
that we focused very enthusiastically on the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission and implemented 39 of the 41, we had a challenge in
dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. And I have got to say, Madam
Speaker, that if you look at the question of jurisdiction and making
very important changes in jurisdiction, it is one of the single most
difficult things that is to be done.
  And I will tell you, I see my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) here,
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; 13 years
ago, he and I had the opportunity to serve on what was known as the
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. And we had a tough
time looking at the issue of jurisdiction.
  And you know what, Madam Speaker? After the work of that commission,
and unfortunately, when the new majority was in power back then, none
of the recommendations of that commission were put into place. None of
the brilliant ideas that Mr. Obey propounded were put into place at
that time.
  But when we came to majority in 1994, Madam Speaker, I still have
scars on my back to show how difficult it was to bring about major
jurisdictional reform. And I have to say that it is a very, very
difficult thing to do, but essential. At that time, we consolidated,
basically eliminated three standing committees. I had Members on both
sides of the aisle at that time come to me and say that the future of
the Republic was jeopardized if we did not keep the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee, the District of Columbia Committee, and the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries committee. My God, if we didn't keep that
in the place, we as a Nation were going right down the tubes.
  But guess what? We eliminated those committee. We reduced by 20
percent the number of subcommittees, and it was very tough. We were
going through a transition, as we had Members who

[[Page H201]]

were looking forward to taking on the gavels.
  And then something that was equally difficult was dealing with the
post-9/11 situation, the Department of Homeland Security. We had to put
into place a committee structure here that allowed us to establish this
committee on Homeland Security that we have today, taking jurisdiction
from other committees.
  Similarly, we had a very tough time when it came to the Energy and
Commerce Committee and what was then called the Banking Committee,
trying to bring that together. It is very tough work. And it saddens me
that this great opportunity that is here, like the one we faced in
1994, is slipping away with the measure that we are considering right
here.
  For that reason, Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.
Res. 35, this resolution that provides for simply a new oversight
committee for national intelligence.
  Madam Speaker, as we all know, the five most important words in the
middle of the preamble of U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the
common defense.'' Part and parcel of that responsibility is effective
oversight of the Intelligence community, both to ensure its success and
to protect our liberties.
  Now, the 9/11 Commission correctly identified significant
deficiencies in our national intelligence apparatus and, yes, our
oversight of those agencies. The 9/11 Commission, as I said, made 41
separate recommendations. Through enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the
Homeland Security Act, the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act, and
I was proud to serve as a conferee in that effort, our majority took
affirmative steps to implement nearly all of the 9/11 Commission
recommendations.
  Is there more that remains to be done? Of course there is. We all
acknowledge that. As long as America has enemies, Madam Speaker, we
will need to re-evaluate and improve our Nation's defenses.
  Does the resolution before us do that? Absolutely not. Unfortunately,
it doesn't.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended two options for intelligence
oversight. First, a joint committee based on the model of the old Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, and second, a single committee in each
House of Congress combining authorizing and appropriating authorities.
The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that
were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely
the opposite direction, Madam Speaker. Rather than consolidating
oversight authority into a single committee that has both authorizing
and appropriating authority, it just creates a new committee that has
neither, doesn't have either of those powers. So while the 9/11
Commission recommended one committee, we will have three committees
dealing with this very important issue.
  Further, I am unsure as to what authority this committee actually
will have. Having been in the midst of jurisdictional struggles, as I
said, for the last decade and a half, I know what it means. As far as I
can tell the only authority that this committee has is to write a
report to the same people who serve on the committee. They could write
a report and give it to themselves.
  And the 9/11 Commission was very specific about who should serve on
the committee. And I quote from the 9/11 Commission report, Madam
Speaker, they said, ``Four of the Members appointed to this committee
or committees should be a Member who also serves on each of the
following additional committees, the Armed Services Committee, the
Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, where are the members of the Armed Services
Committee, Judiciary Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee?
  Apparently, those aspects of our intelligence activities weren't
important enough for the promised improved oversight.
  Now, did the Republicans enact, as I said, every 9/11 Commission
recommendation exactly as they wrote it? No, we didn't. But, we didn't
promise to, and I quote from Speaker Pelosi, ``to make our Nation safer
by implementing all of the recommendations of the independent
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.''

  Now, Madam Speaker, Republicans made sure that there was good
communication between the administration, our authorizing committees
and Appropriations Committee on intelligence matters. That has made a
difference over the last few years. We all know that very, very well.
The fact that we haven't had an attack on our soil is, to me, evidence
of the success of this administration and the role that this Congress
played.
  I don't believe that creating committees with both authorizing and
appropriating authority, and we have the distinguished former chairman,
my always chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from
California (Mr. Lewis), here, and I know he would share my concern
about this merger. But it is something that is worth considering.
  Frankly, that notion concentrates a lot of power and erodes some of
the very important checks and balances that exist in the committee
system. But, frankly, it is very important to note that this resolution
does away with even the pretense of bipartisanship.
  I applauded enthusiastically when Speaker Pelosi talked about her
quest for civility and bipartisanship. And it has been said time and
time again, unlike our resolution in the 109th Congress establishing
the bipartisan Katrina panel, I remember very well when we put that
together, established it, and it did great work. Unfortunately, this
resolution, the resolution on Katrina gave the minority the right to
appoint its members. This resolution authorizes the Speaker, the
Democratic Speaker, to appoint the Republican members of the committee,
without any consultation with the Republicans at all.
  The tradition in this House is that each party caucus is responsible
for its own appointments. And this resolution, for the first time ever,
does away with that precedent.
  Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I never got a chance to make those
arguments where I should have made those arguments, with my very good
friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings) where? Right upstairs in the
Rules Committee.
  As I argued here at the end of last week when we had this measure
before us, we had, for the first time in the history of this
institution, the first time ever, five closed rules brought up in the
opening day rules package of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules
Committee has been thrown completely out the window when it comes to
this.
  And last week, when we debated this, we had a total of 5 minutes to
debate the opening day rules package and five closed rules, without
bills being introduced, without committee hearings, without the process
whatsoever and without even giving us, the struggling minority,
upstairs in the Rules Committee the opportunity to have our amendments
denied. We didn't even have the chance to have our amendments denied
upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  All I am saying, listen, I am loving my role here in the minority,
Madam Speaker. It is really a great opportunity to be able to represent
the people of California here. But I will tell you, Democrats and
Republicans alike all across this country have been treated very poorly
in an unprecedented way.
  Now, I believe that many of the Commission's recommendations were
right. That is why we implemented so many of them. But this resolution
that we have before us is wrong when it comes to this opportunity that
we unfortunately are allowing to slip through our fingers. We are not
being given the chance to put into place the very, very important
jurisdictional reforms that are needed to deal with this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind my good friend
from San Dimas that you had 2\1/2\ years to introduce these measures,
and you did nothing.
  The Members of the 9/11 Commission support this change. I saw one of
them this morning, Lee Hamilton; and all of them are on board with the
change that they recommended.

[[Page H202]]

  But perhaps since we have had so much rhetoric, and we need some
guidance for results, we can ask the author of the legislation if he
would give us information on this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I very much thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I observed that the minority is complaining about the
fact that this approach has not been sufficiently bipartisan. As I
recall, during the 10 years that the Democrats were in the minority, or
more, I asked the Rules Committee almost 100 times to make specific
proposals in order. The last time I checked, the record demonstrated
that they had made them in order exactly two times.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point? At least it was
not when I was upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I didn't hear what you said, but I don't have the time to
yield anyway, I am sorry.
  The fact is that the 9/11 Commission recognized two problems that in
their words rendered congressional oversight of intelligence
``dysfunctional''. The first was that the intelligence authorizing
committee was routinely ignored by the administration and the
intelligence community because they didn't provide the money. In this
town, people follow the money.
  Secondly, the Appropriations Committee, frankly, was negligent in its
responsibilities for oversight. Example: When Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld established an independent intelligence operation outside of
the purview of his own agency's intelligence shop, I tried to find out
what was going on. I requested that the Appropriations Committee do a
thorough Surveys And Investigations study of what was going on. My
efforts were blocked by that same committee.
  The third problem we faced is that there was grossly insufficient
staff on the part of the Appropriations Committee to have decent
congressional oversight. Example: The Democratic minority had exactly
one staffer to deal not only with all intelligence issues but also with
the entire defense budget. How much do you think you can get done with
one person?
  The other problem was that there was not sufficient emphasis on
intelligence matters by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee because
they had a lot of other things to do dealing with ``little'' problems
like the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
  So the 9/11 Commission suggested one way to correct that problem.
They suggested that we merge the authorizers with the appropriators,
and that the authorizing committee, in fact, do the appropriating.
  We concluded that there was a better way to accomplish the same goal.
We felt that the problem with the initial recommendation was that it
doesn't make much sense to consider intelligence funding requests
standing alone, because in the real world those requests have to
compete with other national security imperatives, again, funding the
Army, the Air Force, and the other agencies.
  Instead, we chose to follow a different model, that of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. That committee conducts an annual review of the
strategic plans and the budget of the IRS.
  This bill follows, with some variation, that pattern. It creates a
hybrid committee composed of members from the Intelligence Committee
and the Appropriations Committee. They are all appointed by the Speaker
because, in technical terms, whenever task forces are created around
here, it is the Speaker who does the appointing. Speaker Pelosi has
already made crystal clear that she intends to appoint whatever
Republicans are suggested by the minority leader.
  But there was another reason that the Speaker is listed as appointing
all of these people, because we want to make clear to the intelligence
community that if they try to ignore what this task force is trying to
do, that they are not just messing around with individual Members of
Congress; they are messing around with the leader of an independent
branch of government who has the authority to inflict consequences if
they don't provide information the Congress is entitled to have.
  This task force will be given the obligation to prepare an annual
assessment of all intelligence activities and to make budget
recommendations, which will serve as the basis for the preparation of
the intelligence budget, the classified annex to the defense
appropriation bill.
  The reason the subcommittee needs to have at least the ability in
theory to change some of those recommendations is because it has a job
which that panel doesn't have. It has the job of measuring the needs of
intelligence against other national security needs, and it needs to
have that flexibility.
  But this bill would also lead to a beefed-up staff for this task
force, and that task force will be buttressed by the subpoena power of
the Appropriations Committee.
  That means that at long last we will have at least one panel which
the intelligence community cannot ignore. We will have one panel which
even the Republican members of the commission, like John Lehman, have
indicated is a great step forward. I would just suggest that if the
gentleman had preferred a different approach, it would have been nice
if he had produced one in the 2\1/2\ years he had the chance.
  I urge support for this proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member, our former chairman and future chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Highland, California
(Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be with
you. On this occasion, we are addressing one more time a recommendation
of the 9/11 Commission. I must say that while it is very important that
we get the House to seriously review those matters and see what next
steps we should be taking, I feel pretty strongly that it is important
that the two sides of the aisle work very closely together regarding
this. This resolution would create a new panel of the Appropriations
Committee that would, in part, duplicate work already performed by the
Intelligence Committee.
  Unfortunately, this substantive change in committee jurisdiction is
being proposed without benefit of the kind of bipartisan input that I
personally appreciate and think causes the place to work an awful lot
better. The present structure in intelligence oversight was developed
following the recommendations of the Pike and Church committees in the
1970s. It took years to develop and execute a quality congressional
restructure for intelligence oversight.
  Something of this importance and sensitivity requires more than just
an hour's consideration on the floor. It deserves a thorough review by
the committees of the House and all of us who are concerned, from
various jurisdictions, about these matters.
  I recognize that this is an oversight bill; and with tongue in cheek,
I congratulate the new majority for that kind of oversight, drafting
legislation without any input from the Republicans of the House.
  While I am grateful to Mr. Obey for his efforts to reach out to me
personally, I am deeply concerned that no substantive consultation
occurred between the majority and the minority, particularly at a
leadership level.
  Further, I am very concerned that we not jettison the oversight
regime that is in place without knowing for certain that we are going
to replace it with something that goes beyond just simply getting in
the way of the oversight process. I am afraid that what we are doing
here is talking about oversight. Instead, on the other hand, we are
defusing effective oversight.
  It is important that we recognize that one more time we are putting
out press releases and producing very little in terms of substantive
results.
  Madam Speaker, as I said, it is a delight to be with you, and I
appreciate the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will bridge
the current divide between the oversight

[[Page H203]]

and the funding of our Nation's intelligence community, and it will
make a significant long-term contribution to the safety of the American
people.
  The robust and lawful collection, analysis, and integration of
intelligence on our enemy's activities is one of the most powerful
tools in the battle against terrorism. But over the last several years,
this Congress has been reluctant to ensure that this powerful tool is,
in fact, used to its fullest capability.
  It is time for Congress to fulfill its oversight responsibility by
undertaking hard-nosed assessments of the intelligence community's
operations. This oversight panel will be in the position to make these
tough and needed assessments, and based on these conclusions, to make
recommendations that will enable the intelligence community to deliver
the highest level of performance. For example, our human intelligence
assets must be able to infiltrate developing global terrorist networks.
The exodus of long-serving professional agents from the intelligence
community must be reversed, and a new generation of analysts must be
recruited.
  The Inspector General within the Directorate of National Intelligence
must be empowered to identify waste, fraud, and abuse whenever it
occurs throughout the intelligence community.
  Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi's proposed panel will, in fact, improve
the operations of the Nation's intelligence community and, in so doing,
will advance the security of the American people. That is why this
proposal should be passed overwhelmingly by the Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished and hardworking former chairman of the committee from
Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Every single argument that I heard from Mr. Obey, Madam Speaker, was,
in fact, in support of the argument from the House Select Committee on
Intelligence.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, the conduct of oversight of our Nation's
intelligence community is one of the most sensitive and complex duties
that we have as a Congress. Our committee and other committees took a
very close look at recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. We
implemented many of them. Some of them we did not implement.
  We recognized the need to coordinate the strategies of the
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee. We recognized
the need for additional oversight. As a matter of fact, in the last
Congress we created subcommittees specifically focused on oversight and
increased the number of committee staff that were dedicated to the work
of oversight.
  We also recognized the importance of coordinating between authorizers
and appropriators. In the last Congress, the appropriations bill
closely mirrored the authorization bill that this House passed. We
worked hand-in-glove because we recognized the importance of putting
that together and recognized the importance of what the 9/11 Commission
recommended.
  This resolution today goes in exactly the wrong direction. The
objective of the 9/11 Commission that was identified was to give the
authorizing committee greater, if not sole, influence and control over
appropriations, authorizations, and oversight.
  This resolution creates an additional committee between the
authorizers and the appropriators that will add confusion. One of the
things that we hear so often from the homeland security folks, from the
intelligence folks, is we report to all of these different committees
on the Hill, and there is a lack of clarity. It is exactly what is
going to happen now. We are adding more confusion to the process,
rather than adding and keeping clarity in this process.
  If you go back to when the committee was first established under the
Church committee, there was one issue that was very important: there
had to be clarity as to what committee was going to conduct oversight.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to
tell each side how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17 minutes;
the gentleman from California has 16 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this
time to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the
chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend
Silvestre Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  A few weeks ago I had a conversation with my good friend and
colleague, the former chairman, who is now our ranking member. At the
time, he was supportive of this panel. I recognize we all have the
right to change our minds, but part of this process is starting to
build a bridge that gives us an opportunity on the authorizing side to
be able to do a better job for this country.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 35, which
would implement a core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  Madam Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, five
Democrats and five Republicans, unanimously made 45 recommendations to
prevent another attack on United States soil. Tragically, the President
and previous Congress earned dismal grades for failing to enact these
recommendations. One of these recommendations, indeed the one the
commission called the most difficult and the most important, was to
reform the way Congress oversees the intelligence activities of the
United States.
  Intelligence is the tip of the spear in the war against violent
extremists and in the efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction.
Yet despite the importance of this mission, congressional oversight of
intelligence has largely been dysfunctional.
  Most significantly, the committee responsible for overseeing the
intelligence community, the House Intelligence Committee, has had
little role in deciding how the Nation's intelligence budget is spent.
H. Res. 35 is a critical starting point for fixing our broken oversight
system. Today, we are creating a special panel within the
Appropriations Committee to recommend funding levels for intelligence
activities. This panel will be comprised of appropriators and
authorizers, both Democrats and Republicans, with its own dedicated
staff to review intelligence community activities.
  As the chairman of the authorizing committee, the House Intelligence
Committee, I welcome this change because it gives authorizers, those of
us who review the intelligence programs and set overall funding levels,
a real seat at the table in deciding how the money is being spent. In
the past, our committee has had no real voice in the appropriations
process. Today, with the passage of H. Res. 35, those who control the
policy and those who control the purse will become unified.
  Oversight promotes greater accountability; and accountability results
in better intelligence, greater diversity among intelligence officers
to penetrate the hardest targets, more sophisticated analysts, and a
deeper understanding of the longer term threats that are facing this
country. One need only look at the situation in Iraq to understand the
perils of faulty intelligence. The best way for Congress to ensure that
those days are over is to enact a meaningful reform of the way we
oversee the intelligence budget.
  Madam Speaker, the threats facing our country are real. We have some
of the best and brightest on the front lines, often undercover and
frequently under fire, trying to gather the intelligence to keep
America safe. We owe it to them and to their families to provide the
strongest intelligence community that we can support and we can field.
H. Res. 35 is an important start to achieving that goal, so today I
proudly urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am very proud at this time to yield 3
minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Intelligence, the
gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I have some sympathy with
those on the Democrat side of the aisle tonight because you made a
promise. You said you were going to implement the 9/11 Commission
recommendations, and now you have to at least appear to make good on
that promise even if it doesn't make any sense. So you have come up
with a way to do so that really doesn't implement or address the real

[[Page H204]]

concerns of the 9/11 Commission, but is actually going to make things a
whole lot worse around here in terms of intelligence oversight.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended streamlining and combining oversight
functions and budgeting functions and giving a single committee the
power of the purse and the power to oversee our intelligence community.
  Now, the 9/11 Commission, in my view, had some good ideas and we
implemented them, particularly in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Protection Act of 2005, which was the most comprehensive reorganization
of the intelligence community since the creation of the CIA in 1948.
  But they also came up with some ideas, as commissions do, that
weren't such great ideas. They recommended putting the Director of
National Intelligence inside the political ring of the White House. I
think that is a terrible idea for independence of intelligence and
keeping intelligence from being influenced by political considerations.
They recommended that we reveal the size of the intelligence budget,
which has always been secret. Both of those were bad ideas.
  I think there is also a danger in eliminating the checks and balances
that are inherent in the fact that we separate appropriations from
authorizing, particularly in a realm where almost everything is done in
secret. The existence of those checks and balances within this
institution is actually healthy with respect to oversight of the
intelligence community.
  But they came up with a solution in this resolution that doesn't even
do what the 9/11 Commission decided was the real problem. We have two
boxes on the chart overseeing the intelligence community, so the
resolution creates three. How does that streamline anything? And by
adding these, when we add these boxes to the organization chart, we
don't even in this resolution clarify who is responsible for what. So
if you are interested in a particular program, its challenges, its
prospects, its importance, who do I go to? The chairman of the intel
community? The chairman of defense approps? The chairman of this new
community that doesn't seem to have much authority at all?
  We have now divided it and made it even more confusing and messed up
than the 9/11 Commission said it was in the first place. At least my
colleague from Wisconsin was honest enough to admit this isn't what the
9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, they are probably rolling their
eyes as we speak.
  We have tied the intelligence oversight in knots with this proposal;
and I would urge my colleagues if they can't stomach rejecting it now,
at least fix it later when nobody else is looking.


                             General Leave

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

[[Page H205]]

conducted this body in the wake of 9/11 itself in a bipartisan manner,
and yet today we don't have that. We do not have those amendments which
people could come together on.
  So I just wanted to raise that because, as I sit as an Appropriations
Committee member on the Defense Subcommittee, and I sit there and I
listen to so many people like Mr. Obey, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr.
Young, the folks I would consider the sage folks in the back room who
at the end of the day do the pragmatic thing and put the best interests
of the Nation forward, in this particular case that has not been
allowed to happen. So I find myself a little perplexed by this because
it has not been thoroughly vetted, and I am going to vote ``no'' on it
because of the process itself.
  Now, there are a lot of other issues that are important, and it is
important to me that the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the
Homeland Security, of the Rules Committee, of the Intelligence
Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Judiciary
Committee are all resoundingly against this.
  Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I
have read and reviewed, and I submit for inclusion into the Record that
has been written by them, and I think the points that they have raised
are very, very important.
                                                    110th Congress


                                         of the United States,

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

                              {time}  1715

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

[[Page H206]]

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). The Chair
would ask Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois, my good
friend, wants to hyperventilate over the fact that I simply verbally
referred to this as a ``task force'' rather than a ``panel,'' be my
guest. I guess his threshold of excitement has been considerably
lowered these days.
  Let me simply say, the gentleman says this is an insult to Mr. Murtha
and to Mr. Young. No, it is not. He asked, does the Defense
Appropriations Committee need oversight? It certainly did the last
year, and let me tell you why.
  When Mr. Rumsfeld set up his separate stovepiping operation for
intelligence, I went to Mr. Murtha, asked him to sign a letter
instituting a surveys and investigations study because, under our
rules, under our practices, we needed the support of the full chairman,
the full ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and the
subcommittee ranking member. I went to Mr. Murtha. He signed on to the
letter calling for the investigation. I went to Mr. Young. He signed on
to the letter calling for the investigation. But I was blocked by the
full committee chairman.
  So if you are asking me, does the Appropriations Committee, based on
its record of the last 2 years, need some additional oversight on this
issue? You bet it does, because as a result of that refusal to proceed,
we never did learn what Rumsfeld was doing until we read it in the
press. That is not the way it is supposed to work.
  This is the first time that we have created any kind of a panel that
will

[[Page H207]]

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

                              {time}  1730

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

[[Page H208]]

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


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Dreier

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

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

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

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               YEAS--195

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

                               NAYS--232

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

[[Page H209]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Culberson
     Gillmor
     Knollenberg
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1804

  Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, BROWN of South Carolina, ROGERS of Michigan, LATHAM,
EHLERS, SOUDER, WELDON of Florida, and KIRK changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               AYES--239

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

                               NOES--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1818

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________