Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I think I misspoke earlier. I said the troops were in Erbil. They were in Balat. The troops were in Balat.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. No, I appreciate you doing the Special Order. I appreciate you yielding me the time and the opportunity. The one thing we did not talk about was Serbia, that on the way back we stopped in Serbia, so that we had an opportunity to see a part of Iraq that had been divided, that was coming out of a very tough time and after 14 years was prospering. We then stopped overnight in Serbia, met with the three Presidents in Serbia at Sarajevo; and, again, there is an evolving success story that, 10 years ago, the brutal and the bitter conflict, we still have some troops there. There are a lot of Europeans, more European troops over there, but, again, they have made significant progress. It takes a while to move from the ethnic religious strife to the steps forward. What is happening in Kosovo, or Serbia, and the region, is that the European Union finally embraced them, they have moved forward, Serbia is moving forward, Kurdistan is moving forward. What we now also have to have is the modern Islamic or moderate states in the Middle East. They need to embrace Iraq. They need to invest. They need to have their people there, their businesses there, to show that they stand with this new democratically elected government and that they are invested in the success of a new Iraq, in what the people of Iraq are. It is possible. It is not easy, but there are two examples of how this can work. It was very painful, but by sticking to it and moving through it, you can get to where you want to be.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. And maybe we can have a little bit of a dialogue about the trip that we had. It is kind of interesting. It was your first opportunity to be in country. It was my eighth trip into the theater, and I probably spent close to 20 days on the ground now in Iraq. And you are flying in from Kuwait, and I think you and I both had an opportunity to be up in the cockpit with the pilots. And I think the pilot, he had been on assignment a number of times, and I believe this might have been his eighth tour. It was something like that. So he spent a good part of the last 3 years flying C-130s back and forth between Kuwait, Baghdad, around the theater inside Baghdad to Jordan, probably to UAE and various places. But what really struck me was the first two soldiers that I met, the conviction and the enthusiasm that they still felt for the mission. I mean, each time I go, the litmus test to me is kind of what are our soldiers saying? This C-130 pilot, he is flying our troops back and forth, and he says, We are here. I keep wanting to come back. We need to win this mission. We need to stay until it is done, and we are doing the right thing and we are making progress. And I think for a couple of reasons, these folks interact with the pilot maybe not as much, but they hear the stories of our troops on the ground as to the interaction that they are having with the Iraqi people and the appreciation from the Iraqi people. And I hope this is one of the things that Prime Minister Maliki talks about next week, about the genuine appreciation of the Iraqi people for the progress and the support that they have received. They see that appreciation. The other thing that I think they see is they see the horror of the other side. These are terrorists who attack civilians. Our troops understand their viciousness, and they understand the nature of these people, that they are not just attacking in Iraq, but I mean there is all this talk now about what is going on in Lebanon. 1983 is when our barracks were blown up, 23 years ago, Hezbollah. Even before that, terrorist groups have been attacking U.S. interests, Western interests around the globe. And I think our troops see the need to confront this and to defeat it and that they genuinely believe that if we step away and do not confront it, it will move back to the homeland. We go on the ground to Baghdad, get met at the airport by someone who interned in my office about a couple of years ago, interned in my office, went to Hope College in my district, got to be a good friend with a number of the people in the church that we go to, so he went to our church. He is now embedded not in the international zone where you and I were, he is embedded with Iraqi troops that have been trained. So there are like eight to ten U.S. troops with a large group of Iraqi troops, and he says, Man, am I glad I am here. He hadn't been there long, but he said, You know, this is where I wanted to be. This is where I want to be right now. I am working with Iraqi troops. I have been to their homes. I have been to their families. We need to do this, and we need to see the mission through. And like I said, he had just been there a couple of months. And like I said, this is a kid that I know. If he did not feel that way, he would have told me. But he had just gotten there, and they also see the sacrifices that the Iraqi people are making. There have been a lot more Iraqi troops, police and citizens that have been killed over the last number of months than U.S. troops. They are willing to go to the front lines. They are willing to pay the price and make the difference. You and I both saw, there is lots of work to be done. It is not a pretty picture on certain occasions. The day we were there, the folks went in and got the chairman of the National Olympic Committee. Maybe you have talked a little bit about some of the other things we observed. We can talk about the training of the troops, the need to secure Baghdad. I heard you talk about Kurdistan. But there is lots of work to do. It is two steps forward, one step back. But it is clearly a war against radical Islam that is moving forward, that needs to be completed.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. A couple of things. You are a hero, and you are a target.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, that is a conclusion that we probably reached on a bipartisan basis, that it is absolutely essential to as rapidly as possible train up the Iraqis and transfer sections of the country to Iraqi troops with U.S. advisers. They know the neighborhood, they know the culture, and I think they have the desire and conviction to win. We need to provide them with the training and the resources, but then get them at the front lines so that the Iraqi people in the communities see them. This is their opportunity to get the country back. I think the other thing you said, it was my first time to Kurdistan. There was never a need to go there before. Now you can see what happens in a period of 14 years. Remember, what was the number, 182,000 Kurds had been killed by Saddam. Iran was active in creating mischief. There was an ethnic cleansing going on in the southern part of Kurdistan. But over a period of 14 years, they have got political stability. The two major parties have come together to form a unity government, the economy is doing well and the security situation is good. So if the rest of the country can see Kurdistan as a model and embrace the kinds of reforms, I think that is the other thing that happened in Kurdistan. They are doing the things that are attracting foreign investment and foreign confidence in what they are doing. Because you cannot rebuild Iraq with just U.S. money. You need to get the private sector coming in, and Kurdistan is doing that in the laws they are shaping to encourage and welcome foreign investment into their area. You do it in the south and the rest of the country, you have got oil, you have got agriculture, you have some manufacturing, but you have got to put in place the right legal framework.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The political meetings we had, it was very interesting meeting with the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Interior. The difference this time is you are meeting with people who know they are going to be in the job for 4 years. Every time I have gone before, you have always been kind of meeting with an appointed or an interim minister. Now you are meeting with somebody that has been selected, and they know they are going to be a part of this new government, which gives you a little bit more stability. The parliamentarians, obviously, representative government is a new phenomena for them and they have a little bit of work to understand exactly how that works.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is all about securing Baghdad right now.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. It is still a real experience.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. It is why they are nervous about us pulling our final troops out, because we are the ones that have earned their trust, and they still look to you, and I both hope and pray for the day where the same type of result, as we see in Kosovo, as we see in Bosnia, that we can see that same kind of result in the rest of Iraq.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. But you can walk down, what is it called, Sniper Alley?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That we could walk down Sniper Alley Sunday night, and that we could walk through the streets of Sarajevo in Bosnia, and that we could walk through the streets of Bosnia on Monday morning, and, you know, that it was a vibrant city, people sitting at the cafes, drinking coffee and getting their country moving forward. Again, problems, high unemployment rate, slow economic development, but secure.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The other thing, the solder saying, before I leave, they were on space-available because he was not as seriously injured as some other soldiers, he was going on to Germany. I think he was going to leave in the next 24 hours. But said, you know, before I leave I need to make sure that I call back to my unit.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. I have got the list of who was briefed, when they were briefed. The first briefing of the Intelligence Committee goes back to March of 2002, where the chairman and then the former ranking member of the committee were briefed. I have the briefing dates for Members, of when members of the committee were briefed. I have the dates for when the staff was briefed on the HPSCI Committee. Staff was briefed as early as March of 2002. Staff was briefed in 2003, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, and 2006. Alcee, these records indicate that you also had the opportunity and you were at a briefing session on this program.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. On the financial services program, that is correct.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from California, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, for the work that we have done together on leaks, and I think the approach that we have taken on the committee. We, today, are on different sides. I rise in strong support of this measure. Just a week ago, this program was one of the most highly classified and sensitive intelligence programs of our Nation. Former 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that the idea of a U.S. having a tap into this type of information would have been, quote, impossible to believe, end of quote. There is little dispute that the program is lawful. It is appropriate, and it has been an effective tool to identify terrorists and their financial networks. The Intelligence Committee has been briefed, has been conducting oversight. My colleague has talked a little bit about the Members that were briefed. But also it is important to note, and as many of us know, much of the work that is done on any committee in the House or on the Senate side, there is significant work that is done by staff. Nine staff members, joint House, Senate, 9/11 inquiry staff, were briefed in May of 2002. HPSCI consistently, in 2002, 2003, twice in 2005 and three times in 2006, have been briefed on this program. The program has had extensive exposure to staff and to Members. A week ago, this program was only about one thing, finding our enemies and keeping Americans safe. If it had been talked about in a secret setting or in a public setting, it would have violated the law, the rules of the House. Today I am not only talking about it; it seems like everyone in America may be talking about it. And the interesting thing is that perhaps the group that is most closely watching this and trying to understand exactly what this program may be capable of doing are our terrorist enemies. They are now aware of what we are doing. Sure, we told them after 2002 we are going to track you financially, we are going to try to intercept your communications. We are going to try to find you in Afghanistan. We are going to try to find you wherever you may be. Sure, they knew that. But they never had the details of the specific tools that would be at our disposal to help us catch them, to help us stop their funding streams and enable us to go out and make sure that they could not attack us again successfully. That tool has now been compromised, along with other tools. That is a disappointment. The newspapers bear a responsibility for that. I find it very interesting that as we go through this process, the New York Times has decided that on their part, they went through a process that indicated that now it is okay to release this information. We don't know what process that is. Some of us have had experiences with the New York Times before where they were going, quote, unquote, through their process. And it is a very, very questionable process that they go through, but we don't know and they don't talk about that process. They don't talk about who they talk to. They don't talk about what information is provided to them, and they do not talk about what information they provide to the sources or to the people that they may be seeking information from. I would love the New York Times to do an expose of their program and their review process that led them to this decision to publish this program. I would also like to see the expose of the process that they went through and the deliberative process and the information that they shared when they made the decision to go public with the terrorist surveillance program. I think it would be enlightening to the American people to understand their process as they make these very, very critical decisions that have an impact on our national security. And, finally, we do need to focus on finding the people that leaked this information, whether they are in the intelligence community, whether they are somewhere else, in the executive branch, or whether they are in Congress. I think we have a mutual goal and objective to stop these leaks, to do effective oversight, and to make sure that the intelligence community is working within the box that we have set. That function is the responsibility of the House and the Senate. It is not a function of America's press to go through that process in a way that is unaccountable to us and to the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from Massachusetts, consensus means that we have 12 votes to move a bill out of committee. All right. Consensus does not mean 21 ayes and zero noes. Okay. So thank you for that clarification. I think it is also important to know that moving a bill to floor that would deal with this issue, we would probably not be the only committee of jurisdiction. Other committees would have jurisdiction as well.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the discussion and the debate that we have had on this amendment. I join with the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee in opposing this amendment. It would jeopardize one of the most critical abilities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. In addition, it would interfere with an ongoing course of oversight that has been conducted on a bipartisan basis by the leadership in the authorizing committee since the inception of this program. It is the day after 9/11 and the President has asked NSA, other parts of the intelligence community, the military: What is the threat? How do we most effectively respond? And what is the threat to the Nation? And he has asked the intel community and the military to come back with various options as how best to protect the United States in that time of uncertainty, and the executive branch and the various agencies come back with a series of proposals as to exactly what they believe can be done and should be done to keep America safe. The President doesn't act unilaterally; the President acts in a collaborative basis. It is not an overreaching of an Executive. To my colleague from Arizona, if a President of the other party went through the same processes that this President went through and exercised these authorities would I support that President? My answer would be different than my colleague from Arizona; the answer would be, yes, because the process was very straightforward. Four times within the first 8 months after 9/11, it was a collaborative process between leaders of this House and the U.S. Senate who sat down with the executive branch and reviewed this program in detail. Do you know what they said? This is a program that is necessary in a time of uncertainty. We support this program, and it needs to move forward. We have had some discussions and disagreements as to the extent of the number of people that should have been briefed on the authorizing committee. We have worked through that process, and now every single person who has the desire to be briefed on this program is briefed on the program and have had the opportunity or will be given the opportunity when they get new questions to have every single one of their questions answered. We have a way ahead on our authorizing committee. The ranking member has introduced legislation that she thinks may address some of the issues. But we know that FISA and electronic surveillance is a very, very difficult issue because technology has changed significantly since FISA was originally developed. And so we are going to move forward, and I am thrilled that within the Intelligence Committee we are going to continue a bipartisan way ahead. It doesn't mean we are going to agree, but it does mean that we have laid out a process as to what the needs are of the intelligence community to keep America safe, what the legal framework is, and evaluate the changes in technology and the environment so that we can do the necessary oversight and protect and balance civil liberties with the needs of America's security.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, absolutely. And as we have talked about it, and I appreciate the patience of my colleague as we have worked through the briefings of the entire committee and as we move forward, the legislative hearing on H.R. 5371 and other legislative initiatives that some of our colleagues are developing that address both the FISA issues which may apply to the current program but also which will be further reaching in terms of taking a look at different technology and those type of things as that has evolved is something that I think we can do on a bipartisan basis, and I am committed to doing.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. From my perspective, it is very, very important that Congress create the legal framework by which the President exercises his authority. And the only thing that could overrule our legislative box that in our case we put the intelligence community in would be the overriding authority of the Constitution. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will not use my position as chairman of the committee to block a consensus of the Intelligence Committee to move a bill to the floor.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We will hold a legislative hearing, and we will determine whether there is a consensus in the committee that will enable us to move a bill that would reform FISA and move it to the floor.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding. As the gentlewoman knows, we have worked through this very much in a collaborative process. We followed on the heels of the former chairman and the former ranking member in trying to make sure that we do this in a bipartisan basis. We have had a number of briefings on this program to fully understand how FISA works both from the NSA, from Justice and a number of place. It is interesting for those people who are not part of the committee, who make categorical statements that nothing has happened, and we know that we have had a way forward, where we have done things. But in terms of your simple question, I just had to take the shot, the opportunity to respond to just what I thought were some unfair characterizations as to what you and I have been doing in the committee. I commit that we will have a legislative hearing on this and other proposals that will create a framework that hopefully can move out of committee, but there will be a legislative hearing, yes.