[Congressional Record: December 4, 2007 (House)]
[Page H14126-H14128]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by
direction of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I move to
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoekstra moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2082 be
instructed, to the maximum extent possible within the scope
of the conference, to--
(1) eliminate any House or Senate provisions providing for
earmarks as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives; and
(2) insist on provisions authorizing the maximum level of
funding permissible for human intelligence collection
activities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct is about priorities. America
continues to face threats. We are engaged in a global struggle against
radical jihadists. For a time of war, for a time of threats like this,
the priorities of portions of this intelligence bill are completely
misplaced in critical areas.
The motion to instruct would make our priorities clearer by
eliminating provisions providing for earmarks and by ensuring the
maximum level of funding for increasing human intelligence collection.
Our intelligence programs should be based on only one primary
consideration: what best ensures that the intelligence community is
able to do its job in the best interest of the national security of the
United States.
This motion would ensure that we are appropriating and authorizing
funding on a bipartisan basis to critical human intelligence programs
based on the merit of these programs and the intelligence we learn from
them.
The unclassified National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments
released publicly just yesterday illustrate how important intelligence
gathering is to our national security. As we take a look at where we
want to put our priorities, it is clear from what we have learned and
what we understand in this committee the importance of putting
resources, the necessary resources on human intelligence, and to remove
them from earmarks, Members' pet projects, which don't necessarily
always go through the rigorous process necessary to ensure that the
funding for these projects and these programs is appropriate.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct to make
sure that we put the resources where they will make maximum benefit to
the intelligence community.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this motion is not about policy. It is not even about
priorities; it is about politics. This bill that we passed, this bill
that passed the House, the bill we are talking about tonight, is
legislation that sets unprecedented levels of commitment for our
intelligence community, to the professionals who are charged with
keeping this country safe. It sets the priorities for human
intelligence. It sets record levels and expenditures from the House so
that those professionals that are charged with keeping us safe, keeping
this Nation secure, have the necessary resources to do that job.
This legislation also prioritizes the issue of diversifying the
intelligence workforce. This legislation protects this country. This
legislation prioritizes those issues that are vitally important that we
pass here tonight.
So for those reasons and because for the first time in history we
have had care and process with this legislation, setting record levels
of expenditures for our intelligence community, I urge all my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H14127]]
Madam Speaker, this is about priorities. It is about priorities in
terms of allocating dollars to those programs which the intelligence
community and the committee itself has taken a look at and thoroughly
debated and thoroughly gone through and said this is where the money
needs to be spent versus putting money into Members' projects.
This is not about a project for a school back home or things that we
see in some of the other appropriations bills. These are national
security, intelligence priority projects; and putting earmarks into
this bill is something that we think is inappropriate, especially as we
have gone through that process, at least for one of these, where the
committee didn't go through a process where it went through the
committee and wasn't identified as an earmark and we get to the floor
and it is an earmark and it is for a significant amount of money and it
is for programs that people have taken a look at and said: this is not
a necessary program; and as a matter of fact, this is duplicative of
other things that are already being done in the community or being done
in the Federal Government. It is saying, no, we are not doing these
earmarks, especially for those types of redundant and wasteful
government spending.
It is important that as we focus on the intelligence community, that
we spend the dollars where it makes the most sense. As we take a look
at some of the earmarks in this bill, it is clear it is not the most
effective way to spend taxpayer money in an area that is critical to
the safety and the security of the American people.
It is why we have put into this motion to instruct to take earmarks
out. We are going to go to conference, and we are encouraging that on
the House and Senate side both that we bring a bill that is free of
earmarks to the House and the Senate floor when this conference report
comes out of a conference committee. We think that that sets an
important principle and an important precedent for the intelligence
bill to have a bill that is free from earmarks.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I agree with the chairman, there are
many good things in this bill. This motion to instruct raises two
issues. One is that human intelligence is very important, and the
motion to instruct would insist on the provisions authorizing the
maximum level of funding permissible for human intelligence collection
activities.
Madam Speaker, gathering intelligence through human collection is in
many ways classic intelligence work, but it is more important than ever
in an age of terrorism where a very small number of individuals can get
together and can do great damage.
So to find out about such a group, much less to find out what their
intentions and capabilities may be, we require human intelligence.
Technical collection is very, very important, and we have lots of
debates on this floor about one particular aspect of that. But the rest
of the story is war threats are moving underground and in places where
technical collection is difficult. And so human intelligence which
doesn't just spring overnight, which takes months, if not years, to
develop, is absolutely crucial today in the fight against radical
Islamic terrorists and tomorrow against all sorts of threats.
This motion to instruct says we have to insist on the maximum funding
level today so the country will be better prepared tomorrow.
But the second thing that this motion to instruct does is it tries to
strengthen, I would say, the integrity and the credibility of what this
committee and this Congress do.
Intelligence is really the only part of government that operates
outside of the scrutiny and oversight from the press and other people
and institutions outside of the government. So that puts more
responsibility on our shoulders, on this institution, on the Committee
on Intelligence, and on the products we produce.
So if a bill that this committee or this Congress produces has
specific earmarks for specific projects in specific Members' districts,
when you don't have that outside scrutiny, I think it calls our
credibility into question.
{time} 1745
And it clearly does so because we have had a history, unfortunately,
in this institution of a problem in that area.
So this year, the motion to instruct conferees says the better course
is to remove all of those earmarks, to have a bill clean of earmarks.
We have funding for individual programs and individual initiatives,
most of which cannot be discussed on this floor. But the better course
is to fund those things, many of the good things the chairman talked
about, but take away the earmarks, the specific funding for specific
programs in specific Members' districts that call our credibility into
question. That is why I think this motion to instruct emphasizes the
important good things in this bill, but it makes it stronger by
increasing its integrity and credibility, and I hope Members will
support it.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise and yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, unfortunately this motion is not about policy, it is not about
priorities, it is not even about earmarks; it is about politics. Using
politics, I think, at a time when our intelligence professionals depend
on us to provide them the means and the tools and the funds with which
to keep us safe is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this motion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and yield myself
such time as I may consume.
My colleague, the chairman, is exactly right, that it is important
that we give our resources to the intelligence community for the
activities they believe are most important, not perhaps what an
individual Member of Congress may believe is important for them. It is
why we are asking in this motion to instruct for a clean bill.
As my colleague from Texas on this side of the aisle talked about
earlier, there have been unfortunate cases, not only on this committee
but on other committees, about Members abusing the privilege and
responsibility of putting in earmarks. This takes away that
responsibility. This takes away that opportunity for Members to direct
funding outside of the normal course of business of the committee.
What it does is it says, let's make sure that we fully fund human
intelligence capabilities. Our dedication is to provide the resources
to those people who are involved in human intelligence. That is, we
take a look at the various groups that have taken a look at the
intelligence community since 9/11 and determined that one of the
critical weaknesses we had was in human intelligence, in many different
facets: that we don't have enough of those resources, we don't have the
resources with the right capabilities and the right places, and those
types of things. And as we take a look at where we are today, not only
is that the analysis of where we were shortly after 9/11, it is also a
clear indication of, in many cases, where I believe that we still are
today: that we are woefully inadequate in terms of having a balanced
approach, in terms of technical collection and human intelligence, and
these types of things. And the weak leg, the short leg on a three-
legged stool continues to be human intelligence. And what we are saying
is move the money from earmarks to making sure that we fully fund this
extremely important capability in the intelligence community that for
far too long has been neglected, in some cases neglected by this
Congress and in other cases neglected by the community.
One of, I think, the strong parts of the intel community is that on a
bipartisan basis we have been putting pressure in trying to get the
intel community to respond and to put in place the resources, the
capabilities, and the focus on building a very effective system of
human intelligence. And this is just one more step to send a clear
signal to the intelligence community that says we, as policymakers,
believe that you still have not done enough to build up our human
intelligence capabilities, and we are taking these additional steps in
this bill to make sure that
[[Page H14128]]
these capabilities are enhanced and to send a clear signal to you that
we want you and the community to do more. We want you to do more, we
want you to do it sooner, we want you to do it quicker, and we need to
you to do it better, because it continues to be an area that we have
significant concern about.
And as we do this, what we are doing is we are taking money, again,
as I identified, from programs, various sources in the media where some
of these earmarks have been public and where various other government
auditing agencies have taken a look at these programs and said: Wait a
minute. This is duplicative, it is not effective, and it maybe doesn't
even add anything to the intelligence capabilities of the United States
of America.
So you have people in the intelligence community wondering and
saying, if this is so important, if HUMINT is so important, then why
are we funding these other types of programs, these Member requests?
This motion to instruct sends a very, very clear signal that says
Member priorities are no longer Member priorities. As a matter of fact,
the priority of this committee, the priority of this Congress, is to
put the money where it needs to be and to put it in places that fills
the gaps that we have identified in the intelligence community. And the
biggest gap and the biggest area of weakness that we have today is
human intelligence.
This sends a clear signal to the intelligence community that we have
our priorities right; that it is about them and it is not about this
House or individual Members or individual Members' districts; that it
is about the bigger objective of getting things done in the
intelligence community at a time when this country continues to be at
risk, whether it is the nonstate actors, people like al Qaeda, other
radical jihadist groups and those types of threats, or whether it is
the threats that come from state actors, whether it is North Korea,
whether it is Iran, whether it is Russia, whether it is Venezuela, or
whatever emerging threat that is out here, it sends a very, very clear
and distinct message that says those are our priorities, that is where
we want to put our money, that is where the threats come from. And, as
a signal of being aligned with the intelligence community, we as a
committee and we as a Congress are willing, and not only willing, we
are mandating, we are instructing the conferees to give up their
earmarks, to give up their Member projects, to make sure that we get
maximum effect for the dollars that we are spending in this area.
That is what this motion to instruct is about. It is about getting
maximum effectiveness for the dollars that we allocate into the
community. We spend a lot of money in this area, but we all know that
some of the results that we get have not been the kind of leading edge
or providing us with the insights into the threats that we would like
to have. This motion to instruct says, clearly, it is not going to be
about us taking money from the intelligence community and putting them
into Member projects; it is going in the other direction, to make sure
that if the intelligence community comes up short, but we really
believe that it won't come up short, that we will be providing it with
the resources that will enable it to do the job that we need it to do.
That is why this is an important motion to instruct. That is why we
are asking our colleagues to support this motion to instruct, to make
sure that we have got alignment between the Congress, and that we have
got alignment between Congress and the intel community, and making sure
that we put the dollars where they make the most difference and where
they will be most effective. That is why I ask my colleagues to vote
for this motion to instruct, to send a clear signal to the conferees as
to where they want to go and where they need to go and what we want to
see coming back from the conferees in a conference report: A bill that
focuses resources on what will build this community and not what may
build things within a Members' district.
Let's put the resources where they need to be. Let's put the
resources addressing some of the weaknesses that this committee has
identified through its oversight process over the last 12 months. Vote
for this motion to instruct.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
[Congressional Record: December 4, 2007 (House)]
[Page H14130-H14131]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hoekstra
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) which the Chair will put de novo.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 160, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 1125]
AYES--249
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
[[Page H14131]]
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--160
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Capps
Carney
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Delahunt
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Brown, Corrine
Carson
Cubin
DeGette
DeLauro
Hall (TX)
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hunter
Jindal
Kucinich
Linder
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Nunes
Poe
Smith (NE)
Tancredo
Towns
Wasserman Schultz
Weller
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised less
than 2 minutes remain on this vote.
{time} 1920
Messrs. NEAL of Massachusetts, WELCH of Vermont, BISHOP of Georgia,
MEEK of Florida, POMEROY, SCOTT of Georgia, LIPINSKI, JACKSON of
Illinois, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
