Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining portion of my time. I am fascinated by my colleagues' arguments on the other side. We did have a Rules Committee hearing on this matter, and there are four members of the Rules Committee on the minority, none of whom raised any of the issues that we have heard here today on the floor; understanding full well that Mr. Flake comes now and says that we should have a special session. I also know that here on the floor I offered to Mr. Flake an opportunity, by unanimous consent, to offer any amendment he may have, and he didn't have an amendment at that time. I assume his argument is that we would need to be in what he says a ``secret session.'' But one thing I do know, being one of the few Members that does serve on the Rules Committee and on the Intelligence Committee, and that is that everyone knew the funding level of the issue that is being discussed. Mr. Flake may not have, but I can assure you that the remaining Members on the Intelligence Committee knew that the mark was included in our draft and the Community Management Account making that minority staff certainly aware at the time between the chairman and Mr. Hoekstra. Now, today more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest, highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation. When the American people elected Democrats to the majority, they sent a very clear message that ``business as usual'' is no longer accepted. They said to all of us, Republican and Democrat alike, that there are problems in the way we operate, and we need to change how we do business. We must, in my opinion, congratulate our intelligence community for its successes, but we also must hold them accountable for their failures. Rubber-stamping the administration's every action is not acceptable. Democrats are working every day, as are Republicans, to make America a safer place for all. I genuinely urge my colleagues to support this measure. I heard arguments about the climate change requirements put forward for there to be a national intelligence estimate in that regard. And there are arguments against it. I do not quite understand those arguments. We made it clear that much of the information is collectable by analysts at this time and that it would help prevent future terrorist developments. And the way the argument has been couched on the minority is as if this largest ever intelligence budget, largest in the history of the Congress, is not doing everything that is needed to be done because someone requested that there be a national intelligence estimate with reference to climate change. One day, some people in this body are going to get their head out of the sand and understand that something is changing in this climate of ours, in this world and that we all owe it as much as we can afford to make sure that we pass on a safe environment to all our children. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 388 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Wilson of New Mexico or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I say through the Chair to my friend from Washington that I thought that we were having our last speakers but I didn't know the nature and substance of his last speaker's remarks toward that end. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes now to the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has comments regarding Mr. Flake's comments.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and he is the Chair of the Special Intelligence Oversight Panel, Mr. Holt.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform each side of the remaining amount of time?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend Ms. Harman, who is the previous ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and is a member of the newly appointed Special Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, House Resolution 388 provides for consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 under a structured rule. The rule makes in order a total of ten amendments, almost half of which will be offered by Members of the minority, including one which will be offered by the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Hoekstra. The rule also makes in order an amendment that I offered, along with my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Rogers of Michigan, and our bipartisan amendment is a commonsense solution to holding the Office of National Director of intelligence accountable for its actions. The House will have a chance to debate our amendment later today, and I hope my colleagues will support it. I would like to point out that Members who wish to do so, as the Chair of the Intelligence Committee has pointed out previously, can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national and military intelligence programs. The importance of the intelligence community touches all Americans as our Nation's first line of defense against increasing world threats. Effective intelligence is the first method to protect our citizens and prevent debacles like the war in Iraq. The underlying legislation authorizes funding for all United States intelligence agencies, including the national and military intelligence programs. It is the largest intelligence authorization bill ever considered by the House and takes significant steps to eliminate duplication and ineffectiveness in our intelligence agencies. The bill increases funding to improve human intelligence, training and send additional intelligence analysts overseas to maximize their abilities. It also requires additional intelligence reports on North Korea and Iranian efforts to become nuclear capable. We also take significant steps to improve the collecting, deciphering and understanding of intelligence. The effectiveness of our intelligence community is significantly jeopardized when the diversity of the intelligence community does not reflect the diverse world in which we live. Women and minorities continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in the senior ranks and the core mission areas of analysis, human intelligence collection, and science and technology. Simply put, we still do not have an intelligence community that looks like our country or the world. Minorities make up 37 percent of the American population, yet only 21 percent of the intelligence community, and the numbers for African-Americans and Latinos is woefully below that number. This is a problem that is addressed in the underlying bill, which requires the development of a strategic plan to increase diversity within the intelligence community and mandates increased diversity among the rank and file of the community. I am fond of saying in the Intelligence Committee hearings that it doesn't take more degrees than the thermometer to be a spy, but somebody back there decided that that must have been the case. Another significant concern exacerbated by this lack of diversity is a deficiency of linguist abilities in the intelligence community. There are countless stories of intelligence tapes that had piled up in the months leading up to September 11 when the terrorist attacks occurred here. That was done because we didn't have anyone to translate them. Experts and administrators lament the fact that we don't have enough Arabic, Farsi, Urdu or Dari speakers, and we always go in that direction, but we don't have enough Asian language speakers, either, in the intelligence community and the military. How can we expect to completely correct that course without thoroughly modernizing the recruitment, selection and security clearance processes to quickly bring on board people with these critical skills? The underlying bill provides for the commonsense modernization of our security clearance procedures to address this growing problem, requiring that the system make more efficient use of those who are proficient in foreign languages or with cultural, linguistic or other subject matter expertise that is critical to national security. We must make these necessary modernizations to adapt to the ever-changing threats around us. Finally, following the recommendations of 11 three- and four-star generals, the bill requests that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of global climate change. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed discontent with this provision, because they believe that enough research is currently under way about climate change. In doing so, in my judgment, they failed to recognize that climate change is impacting global security. Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells. If we can't even agree on the implications of climate change, it is obvious that more research is necessary, especially observing the impact of climate change on the movement of people and resources, and how that connects to terrorism. Footnote right there, I pointed out in the Rules Committee that Iraq would be the classic example of what I am talking about. There are 2 million refugees, and it is almost like it is kind of hidden, that are displaced from their homes in Iraq. There are 400,000 to 500,000 internally displaced in Iraq. Yet, what we find is they are being pushed into Syria, Jordan and Egypt where there are already significant water resource problems. Someone tell me how that doesn't equate to an environment where terrorists will be produced. If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations. As scientists explore the connection between such disasters and climate change, it is imperative that the national security implications of such events be thoroughly understood. I am glad that our committee addresses this issue in the bill. If we have learned anything from the failures of the war in Iraq, it is that reliable intelligence is critical to ensuring America's national security. I am pleased to support this rule and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have now an amendment prepared that he is ready to offer? Perhaps it would be that we could ask unanimous consent that your amendment be allowed to go forward.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank you, and I have enormous respect for a colleague who has offered an amendment where it appears we are competing. But I agree our amendment, after his, does, I believe, what is necessary, and that is to answer the question that a lot of us have with reference to the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Director of Intelligence. If I could just share one brief anecdote. When the war on poverty began in the area that I live in, I was the attorney and original scrivener of the development of the program. When that program came into existence, within a year they had seven employees. They were extremely effective. They grew in 6 years to 1,500 employees, and they became much less effective, totally disrespected and in disarray. I am fearful that the same thing will happen here. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend from Michigan and am pleased to sponsor this amendment with him. Madam Chairman, when Congress established the National Director of Intelligence, it fulfilled one of the 9/11 Commission recommendations to centralize and concentrate the filtering of intelligence. Since its inception, however, the Office of the Director never realized its potential, growing in size with indication of limited long-term planning. As a result, many of us who are familiar with the office question its efficiency and effectiveness. Capping the size of the ONDI is a responsible manner by which Congress can and should go about holding the administration accountable for its decisions and actions. This is not, as some might suggest, an anti-NDI amendment. On the contrary, my friend, Mr. Rogers, and my amendment, is the much-needed solution for Congress to reassert its oversight authority over the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. For too long, Congress has abdicated its oversight authority and responsibility when it comes to American intelligence. This amendment says to the administration that, while we support your efforts, we will not give you a blank check with which you could continue to grow a new bureaucracy before we know what you are doing with what you already have. A bigger bureaucracy does not make better intelligence. I ask my colleagues for their support of the Rogers-Hastings amendment and ask them to join us in holding America's Intelligence Community accountable for its work.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I know the chairman knows of my immense respect for his perspective, and I appreciate very much what you have said with regard to how you would carry forth the intent of mine and Mr. Rogers' amendment, as well as Mr. Thompson's, in capping this. What I say to you, Mr. Chairman, is I don't know in all of my experience of any bureaucrat, I respect the new DNI director, but I don't know of any bureaucrat that has ever said, I don't need no more people. And I also know for a fact that, in this particular case, in the standing up of this particular directorate what has happened is it has impacted already the infrastructure by virtue of the persons that have already moved to that agency. The now-CIA Director came from NSA to that deputy position. And I could go on and on and on without giving forth that. And that is what we are trying to stop. What you do when you want to cut bureaucracy is you say to them, stop right where you are. Now, they will be back, and we will then do the oversight necessary in order to give them an opportunity to grow the way that they should rather than the way that they have been exponentially.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.