Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I would like to note for the Record my specific objections in several respects with the Fiscal Year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act ``agreement'' that was passed by the Senate and agreed to by the Administration based on a Staff draft, and that now may come before the House just two days before the end of that fiscal year after repeated delays. The bill is completely unnecessary and moot for the purposes of authorizing intelligence activity; it instead appears intended to force through several controversial provisions as the House approaches a ``lame duck'' session. While I have repeatedly raised our broader concerns with respect to this legislation in the House and in our formal Minority Views, I felt it important to memorialize what we believe are significant shortcomings and flaws in the current bill, especially with provisions that were not previously included in the House bill. I do not believe that this bill in its current form addresses a number of critical national security issues, and in many respects would fail to empower our intelligence professionals and create significant and unnecessary new bureaucracy and politicization of the intelligence community. Most significantly, we are concerned with the absence of provisions to address the following critical issues: Earmarks: The bill removes language from a previous Republican amendment to prohibit the use of funds authorized in the bill for any earmarked purpose, and effectively authorizes earmarks of the Appropriations Committee. Covert Action Authorities: The bill does nothing to provide safeguards for certain covert action activities that could impact U.S. citizens. Intelligence Flaws Revealed After Fort Hood Shooting: The bill contains no substantive provisions to address critical information sharing flaws brought to light in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting. Interrogation of High Value Detainees: The bill contains no substantive provisions to make intelligence collection a priority in the interrogation of high value detainees, or to address the complete lack of coordinated decisionmaking with respect to interrogation of high value detainees. FISA Authorities: The bill does nothing to provide critically needed clarification of authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Guantanamo Detainees: The bill contains no outright prohibition on using intelligence funds to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States, or to prohibit secret payments to foreign countries using intelligence funds to accept Guantanamo Bay detainees. The conference agreement also omits a Republican amendment--agreed to on a bipartisan basis--to evaluate potential threats from released Uighur detainees. Administration of Miranda Warnings: The bill omits a Republican amendment--supported on a bipartisan basis in the Committee and in the House--to prohibit giving Miranda warnings to foreign terrorist suspects in foreign countries in order to protect intelligence collection. In addition, I have concerns with several provisions of the bill that we believe are seriously flawed in several different respects. A number of these provisions are inconsistent with the letter or the spirit of bipartisan agreements reached in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I believe a number of provisions would unduly and unwisely further grow the intelligence bureaucracy. I believe that other provisions would impinge on the smooth operation of the intelligence community, and that others would interfere with efficient and centralized intelligence oversight as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Other objectionable provisions do not appear to have been fully or adequately justified, some with potentially significant consequences. The objectionable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following: Contractor Conversion: While I support appropriate review of the size and nature of the contractor workforce, Section 103 of the bill would provide unlimited authority to add an unlimited number of employees, regardless of any other statutory limitation. This is inconsistent with bipartisan agreements in the House Intelligence Committee with respect to limiting the size of the ODNI. ``A not A'' Funds: Section 101 of the bill would deem any appropriated but unauthorized funding to be authorized. This provision fundamentally cedes the authorization prerogatives of the Intelligence Committees to the Appropriations Committees, and virtually renders moot bipartisan agreements on the funding authorizations contained in the classified annex. No Classified Annex: The bill omits the classified annex that provides the specific direction to the intelligence community on the conduct of operations and the permissible uses of funds, which had been negotiated on a bipartisan basis. Unlimited Increases in Employee Compensation: Section 301 of the bill would allow unlimited increases to pay and benefit authorization for any increases authorized by law. Such unrestricted authority effectively renders moot specific authorization levels elsewhere and can be used by the ODNI to circumvent such restrictions for additional unapproved growth. Similarly, Section 303 would permit the DNI to authorize technically unlimited pay for specific positions at his sole discretion. I am not aware of any demonstrated need for such extraordinary authority. Award of SIS Rank: Section 304 of the bill would permit the Director of National Intelligence to recommend that the President directly award Senior Intelligence Service rank to employees across the intelligence community. This would directly involve the DNI in specific agency personnel matters contrary to the intent of the IRTPA and may foster cronyism and non-merit based promotions of intelligence community personnel. Temporary Personnel Authorizations for Critical Language Training: Section 306 of the bill would exempt up to 100 ODNI personnel from personnel caps for the purposes of language training. Given the widespread prevalence of persons receiving foreign language training in the intelligence community, I believe this is a thinly veiled authorization to circumvent existing personnel caps, again inconsistent with the intended size and scope of the ODNI and bipartisan agreements within the House Committee on personnel levels within the ODNI. Education Programs: Sections 311 through 314 of the bill would create or modify a number of education programs in the intelligence community. While I do not necessarily oppose any of these programs, I do not believe that these provisions-- most of them permanent--have been adequately explained or justified. I note that previous versions of the bill would have required a study to review and justify such programs, which suggests that others share our concerns that these programs have not yet been fully reviewed. For that provision to be dropped in lieu of outright authorization makes little sense in light of the implicit acknowledgment that further study is needed. Business System Transformation: Section 322 of the bill would require the DNI to ``develop and implement'' (rather than coordinate) an enterprise architecture to ``cover all intelligence community business systems''. I believe this provision is inconsistent with the role and scope of the ODNI contemplated in the IRTPA. IP Funded Acquisitions: Section 326 of the bill authorizes the DNI to delegate certain acquisition authorities within the intelligence community. This provision is inconsistent with the express agreement reached in the IRTPA conference not to permit such delegation. Congressional Notification: Section 331 of the bill continues to cede sole authority to the President to determine which members of the congressional intelligence committees would receive briefings on particularly sensitive intelligence matters. This provision is inconsistent with previous bipartisan agreements reached in the House Committee, and fails entirely to protect the Constitutional prerogative of the Congress to make its own rules of proceedings. It would have little meaningful effect and appears to provide political cover at the expense of real reform in this critical area. GAO Review: Section 348 of the bill also contains a provision that requires the Executive Branch to promulgate guidelines for dealing with GAO reviews of intelligence community programs. I believe that this provision is unwise for a number of reasons. Most notably, it potentially cedes significant elements of the traditional oversight role of the intelligence committees to the GAO and potentially to other Committees of the Congress, and it fails to adequately protect the security and dissemination of classified work product under the same terms as the Committee rules. In addition, this specific provision cedes to the Executive Branch and the Comptroller General the determination of how to manage GAO inquiries that should be directed by Members of Congress. Report on Intelligence Community Contractors: Section 339 of the bill would improperly require reports on sensitive intelligence collection matters--including covert action programs--to be provided to the Armed Services committees, contrary to the Rules of the House. Several other provisions of the bill also require reports on intelligence matters to be submitted to Committees that may not have jurisdiction over the material to be reported on. Reprogramming Standard: Section 362 of the bill would modify the reprogramming standard for intelligence activities in a manner that would render it virtually meaningless. This change is contrary to the express bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act conference. Declassification of Intelligence Budget Topline: Section 364 provides for permanent declassification of the intelligence budget topline. This provision serves no demonstrable intelligence purpose, and is contrary to the express bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act conference. Review Authority of the Public Interest Declassification Board: Section 365 would allow any individual member of certain committees to request declassification review of certain records. This provision is contrary to the express bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act conference to restrict such requests. Accountability Reviews: Section 401 of the bill would authorize the DNI or the congressional intelligence committees to directly conduct or request accountability reviews of individual intelligence community personnel. This provision would involve the DNI in individual personnel matters within intelligence agencies in a manner inconsistent with the authorities contemplated in the IRTPA. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community: While I do not necessarily oppose the concept of greater coordination by the DNI of intelligence community inspectors general, Section 405 of the bill is a massive and unduly prescriptive provision that is inconsistent with the contemplated size and scope of the ODNI and in many respects duplicates existing oversight by Department inspectors general. Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency: Similarly, I have significant concern that Section 425 of the bill is unduly prescriptive and burdensome with respect to the organization and management of the office of the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency. Defense Inspector General Matters: Section 431 of the bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to prohibit certain inspector general reviews of intelligence matters within the intelligence community. I see no apparent justification for this provision, which we believe could potentially interfere with the independence of the intelligence community and may be inconsistent with the intention of the IRTPA. Confirmation of Heads of Certain Components of the Intelligence Community: Section 432 of the bill would require Senate confirmation of the heads of certain IC agencies. This provision threatens to politicize such positions, which are often held by career military officers, and could impede the efficient functioning of these agencies in times of vacancy. FBI Relocation and Retention Bonuses: Section 443 of the bill would provide certain authorities relating to relocation and retention bonuses for the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation--not just employees funded by the National Intelligence Program. Such a broad provision is outside the Committee's jurisdiction, has not been justified to the Committee, and has not been reviewed for consistency across the Intelligence Community and federal law enforcement. While I strongly support line personnel of the FBI, we believe that this provision must be more carefully reviewed and harmonized with personnel practices in other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Similarly, we believe that section 444, which extends authority to delay certain FBI mandatory retirements must be better reviewed, especially for its implications for federal law enforcement retirement, which is intended to promote a young and vigorous workforce and should be applied consistently across federal law enforcement agencies.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the committee. I am disappointed that we did not get to agreement on this bill and that we are at different places on what is a very important piece of legislation to keep America safe. I wish you the best in your future in Congress, as I leave this institution and as I leave the House Intelligence Committee. It has been a great honor to serve on this committee and do the work that we have tried to do to keep America safe. You know, there are things that I wish we would have gotten done as we structured this bill that would have enabled us to move forward in a bipartisan basis. There have been a number of investigations, beginning in 2007 dealing with the tapes investigation, dealing with detention, dealing with interrogation. I wish those investigations had been completed and reports would have been issued, and that we would have used the findings of those reports and those investigations to improve this bill. I wish that we would have continued to move forward in a way that, a few years ago, in a bipartisan basis, this House said we are not going to put earmarks into intelligence bills. I wish that we as a committee would have taken a position in repudiating a position that the President of the United States took soon after he assumed office which said he was going to close Gitmo and move the detainees from Guantanamo, move them into the United States. I wish we had said in this bill that we would have continued that prohibition on moving and expending any funds for moving people from Guantanamo into the United States. That is now an open question as to whether that may or may not happen. I wish that in this bill we would have taken a position and said that it is inappropriate to Mirandize terrorists captured overseas, in many ways, I believe, giving them more legal rights than what we give to our own employees of the CIA. CIA employees that do face perhaps the possibility of being prosecuted, I wish we would have said in this bill, these people have been investigated twice, they did what the leadership and the political leadership of this country asked them to do, and we will now protect them and say no, no funds will be used to prosecute them for the things that leadership in the United States of America asked them to do to keep us safe. I wish we would have clearly said that we repudiate the policy of this administration where they for a period of time said, ``We are not going to use the word `terrorism' anymore. We are going to wipe the slate clean, and we are not going to use that language. We are now going to call terrorism `manmade disasters.' '' We all know that if you don't correctly identify the threat that you face, you will never be able to contain it, confront it, and defeat it. I wish that we would have taken a strong position in this bill in response to what happened at Fort Hood. Remember at Fort Hood, for months after the attack at Fort Hood, where 14 Americans were brutally murdered, this administration refused to recognize that this might be related to terrorism or the threats that we face from overseas. We now know that in this and other terrorist attacks, as this face of terrorism changes, that in Fort Hood and other instances, Anwar al- Awlaki, associated with al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, played a part. We maybe don't know exactly how big of a part, but whether it was Fort Hood, whether it was the Christmas Day attack or what happened at Times Square, al-Awlaki may have been involved in some if not all of these attacks, and we know that al-Awlaki, bin Laden and all of these individuals continue to plan attacks against the U.S., against our allies in Europe, and against other friends around the planet. These are all things that needed to be done in this bill. These are all things that needed to be done if we were going to keep America safer. Right now, we all see and read about the fact that there is heightened awareness of threats, a heightened threat alert in Europe and in the United States, because we sense that there is an urgency by the radical jihadists to attack the West and to attack them again. This bill needed to meet that standard of addressing a changing environment, a changing threat level. We see that happening. And my fear is that sometime in the future people are going to say Congress came up short. They didn't connect the dots one more time. They didn't connect the dots of threats coming out of Pakistan, coming out of Somalia, coming out of northern Africa, coming out of the Arabian peninsula. They didn't clearly understand the changing face of terrorism. They didn't learn the lessons from Fort Hood. They didn't learn the lessons from Christmas Day. They didn't learn the lessons from Times Square. Because the people who investigated those said, These are the types of things that we need to do to keep America safe. And as we close out a fiscal year, Congress acted; but it didn't act on the lessons learned. Why didn't they act? Didn't they really have all the knowledge? Didn't they really connect the dots? I think we have the information. We could have connected the dots better. We needed to connect the dots better because each and every day the threats that we face change and adapt. The challenge that we have as a Nation, that we have as an intelligence community is to design an intelligence community, to design an intelligence capability that is one step ahead of the challenges that we face, not one or two steps behind. The face of terrorism is changing. This bill doesn't put us out in front of dealing with those threats. It leaves us behind. That's why I am disappointed in this bill. That's why I am voting ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' because we need to do better than what is in this bill. Having a bill with no classified annex providing no direction is not an authorization bill. Much more needs to be done. I wish and I hope that we can send this bill back, vote it down and improve it, and do what this country needs and what this country demands from us to keep America safe. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The fourth time for this bill on the floor is not the charm. This continues the process of bringing badly thought through, badly formed legislation on intel to the floor of the House of Representatives. This is the fourth rule that we've considered this year as we've gone through this process. It is interesting that this bill is titled the fiscal year 2010 authorization. It's September 29. Tomorrow is September 30. Maybe the President will sign this bill if we pass it tonight, meaning that much of the bill will be meaningless, or only in effect for 6 to 8 hours, maybe 10. This bill, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, even has a classified annex. It was the one thing that we agreed on, on a bipartisan basis, as to how funding for the bill, or for the intelligence community and different agencies within the intelligence community, at what level they would be funded. Again, it's one part where we had bipartisan agreement. It's gone. We're now just authorizing the expenditures as done through the appropriations committee. Members have no time to review the classified annex. There was no classified annex outlining these specific appropriations levels by different organizations within the intelligence community. Nothing for the Members to review. The notifications, it's a fig leaf. It says the administration still shall determine who shall be informed of what and when. We had stronger language before, accepted on a bipartisan basis. Now all the administration has to do is notify other people that the Gang of Four or the Gang of Eight has been notified of certain information, but they don't have to disclose. They have to outline why, but there is no requirement for more complete exposure. It is a fig leaf that may serve as a justification for dealing with a complaint that was made by the Speaker of the House in May of 2009. The Speaker of this House said the CIA ``misleads us all the time.'' You know, we've asked for more of an explanation on that. The chairman of the committee and the chairwoman of the subcommittee in October 2009 said that they were going to do a notification and a covert action investigation--as far as I can tell, it has never happened, and it is not complete after almost a year now--to find out if there were problems with notification and if it were true that, as the Speaker claimed, the CIA misleads us all the time. So, in one way, we are providing something that may serve in dealing with this allegation by the Speaker. At the same time, we have CIA employees around the world who did what the administration asked them to do and what previous administrations notified Congress they were doing about what they were going to do to keep America safe. They notified, and took Congress through that in great detail. The people went through that notification process in great detail, understanding that, when they left, if the administration had had a problem with it, they ought to have stood up and said, ``We've got issues with these, and we need to work through them.'' Instead, there was either silence or affirmation that what the CIA and what these individuals within the CIA were doing was appropriate, was necessary and was supported by the political leadership of this Nation as being their best intent to keep us safe. So, while this bill may serve to provide some people with political cover, it does nothing to protect the CIA employees who now, for the third time, are under review by the Justice Department as to whether they should be prosecuted for doing what the political leadership of this country asked them to do. Where is the equality? Where is the fairness? How does this serve our national interest by allowing these people to continue to be hung out, facing possible prosecution? It is wrong. It is inappropriate. It should have been dealt with in this bill. I will detail a number of other issues that also need to be dealt with, but at this point in time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly). (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. There aren't a lot of things in this bill. The chairman is absolutely right. Lots of things that should be in this bill. There should be a classified annex. There should be something that outlines our committee's response to what many believe are actions that are being carried out by the government through covert means that affect Americans overseas. This committee should take a stand on that position or on that issue. This committee should take a stand on Mirandizing. This committee should take a stand on Gitmo. This committee should take a stand on the things that groups who have taken a look at what is happening to terrorism and have recommended changes that be made to keep America safe. And that is a reason why we are opposed to this bill. We know what is in the bill, and we know what is not. The things that would keep America safe and safer in a changing environment are not in this bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that people talk about, we are bringing fiscal responsibility back to the Intelligence Committee. There's not even a classified annex which outlines the spending that this committee believes each of the agencies should have for running their operations for fiscal year 2010. As I said earlier, that's one area where we had bipartisan agreement. That's been taken out. That's gone. We are not providing any type of fiscal direction to the intelligence community by telling them what we believe our priorities are. The other interesting thing, as we go through this process, is that in the bill 2 years ago, we had a bipartisan vote on the floor. We adopted an amendment that I offered to prohibit the use of authorized funds for earmark purposes. As you take a look here, we've authorized everything that the Appropriations Committee has done. What has the Appropriations Committee done? Lots of earmarks in the intelligence bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, let's talk about what should have been in this bill and what this bill does do and what it doesn't do. We all know that the face of terrorism is changing. We have seen Fort Hood, we have seen the attempted attack in Detroit, we have seen the attempted attack at Times Square. We know that terrorism is changing. This bill is based on the past. There were reports that came out after these attacks and attempted attacks on the United States outlining changes that they thought needed to be made. As terrorism changed, intelligence policies needed to change as well. The recommendations included improving the systems that deal with information, information sharing, terrorist screening, watch lists, watch list criteria, and those types of things. That's not dealt with in this bill. It is on the sidelines, even though the threat has evolved. My colleagues have clearly articulated that, by doing nothing, we now open the possibility for Gitmo folks to come to the United States. We open the possibility and the likelihood that once again terror suspects overseas will be Mirandized. Where is there a provision in this bill that would regulate covert actions that may impact U.S. citizens? Where is the bipartisan part of this bill, the classified annex, the part that we did agree? It was tossed. Why wasn't there a conference on this bill? Why couldn't we go and have a meaningful discussion and debate involving all the parties about what would make a good intelligence bill? When did Members meet to discuss the bipartisan agreement that has been claimed in the Senate amendment? They didn't meet. This is a short-circuited process that didn't address and doesn't address the top issues that needed to be addressed to keep America safe.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I submit the following. When Will America Recover? (By Hon. Nick Smith, former U.S. Representative (MI-07)) I just returned from speaking at several British universities on American politics and the economy. England, like the United States, has high unemployment and huge government debt. Many I spoke to believed that the current global economic mess is all our fault. In a sense, they are right. As the world's leading economy, our economic health affects everyone, especially trading partners like England. We are its largest trading and investment partners at $400 billion last year. The students were most interested in my opinion on how long it would take before America recovers economically. Some White House economists are predicting that we can fully recover from this recession in a year or two. As I told the students, however, it will take ten years or more to rebuild our economy--and then only if we can control spending. It's not just ``the government'' or even ``the Democrats.'' All of us, government and consumers alike, have been living on borrowed money. Our national savings rate three years ago was a negative number. One bit of recent good news is that consumers have increased their estimated average individual savings rate to over five percent, which means less consumer spending in the short run but a stronger overall economy in the long run. The Government needs to do likewise. But Congress not only continues to borrow, it is borrowing more than ever with no sign of stopping. Deficit spending, expected to hit $1.5 trillion, is one third of the President's proposed budget. His budget projects huge deficits every year for the foreseeable future. Our debt, which is the sum of all historical deficits, now adds up to $12 trillion. Interest on that debt consumes almost ten percent of federal spending. Without dramatic change the future will be much worse. Interest rates will be doubling and the unfunded liabilities (what we've promised to pay out in the future) for entitlements such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and veteran's benefits adds up to another $60 trillion debt--in today's dollars. Reckless spending has mostly been driven by Congressmen currying favor with voters who demand ever more money and services from ``the government'' to solve their problems. But the government gets its money from current taxpayers and lenders. Who will repay these lenders? Future taxpayers. Each baby born in this country is instantly saddled with $40,000 of government debt, not including interest. And that does not include future deficit spending or the $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We have ended up with a tax, borrow, and spend government that will handicap future generations. Ten years ago, our federal spending was 18% of GDP, 4 years ago it was 20%, and today it's over 24%. The dollar increase will have gone from $1.8 trillion in 2000 to $3.8 trillion in the President's budget. That is over 200 percent of spending ten years ago. Washington's over-spending not only mortgages our children's future, it crowds out business and industry borrowing today, for research, expansion and ultimately jobs. As alarming as these numbers are, even more worrisome is that our political and economic system is nearing a tipping point that, if reached, will change this country forever. Today 50% of voters pay less than 2% of the total income tax. These voters want the government to solve more of their problems, and why not? It's in their best interest to elect politicians who will spend more because they don't have to pay for it, and it's in politicians' best interest to vote for that spending to get reelected. Meanwhile, countries like Communist China, which has lent the United States nearly a trillion dollars, gains more and more influence in foreign affairs, literally at our expense. The point is that we're close to losing our status as a strong economic power. That affects us, our children, England, and the rest of the world who rely on us for our leadership and for much of their own economic well being. It is in all of our interest to be more self sufficient, ask less of Washington and bring down government spending.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vehemently object to the government takeover of health care. It is bad social policy, bad public policy and bad fiscal policy for the United States. The health care bills we will vote on today are estimated to cost more than $1 trillion, will expand government bureaucracy, permit taxpayer-funded abortions, increase taxes and cut Medicare. Additionally, it includes egregious sweetheart deals such as the ``Cornhusker Kickback'' for Nebraska, ``Gator Aid'' for Florida and the ``Louisiana Purchase.'' My home state of Michigan alone will be forced to pay $710 million annually for new Medicaid enrollees, money the state does not have to spare. It is verging on denying the state's ability to regulate health care programs and insurance and encroach on its sovereignty in doing so. Every American is personally impacted by health care. As such over the last year Michigan residents and all Americans have voiced their opposition with the health care proposals in Congress. It is disheartening to see that Congress is blatantly ignoring the voice of the public. The U.S. health care system remains the best in the world, but still needs reform. Reform can be achieved by targeted measures such as allowing insurance competition across state lines and creating high- risk pools of money for states to support those with pre-existing conditions. I had hoped that we could work in a bipartisan manner to achieve reform of health care, but Republicans were not allowed a seat at the table. We do not need the federal government to take over one-sixth of the American economy, and saddle states like Michigan with mandates, tax increases and debt. Mr. Speaker, in Michigan a situation has developed in which home health car providers have been forced to pay union dues to state because they accept federal dollars. How can we be sure that the same will not happen to medical practitioners who will be forced into a government-run system? Additionally, I am concerned that the reconciliation bill that we will vote upon today will completely federalize student lending, leading to lost jobs, tax increases and the elimination of choice. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the bills, and I respectfully submit my remarks for the Record.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I rise here today to honor Ludington talk show host George Wilson for a career of service in radio broadcasting in Mason County. George Wilson joined WKLA radio in June of 1959. Along with his popular morning show, Big George served in a variety of other roles over the years, including sales manager and play-by-play sports announcer. George left WKLA for a brief period to serve as advertising manager at the Ludington Daily News, but returned to WKLA in 1986. In 2007 Wilson was nominated for induction into the Michigan Broadcasting Hall of Fame, and his name will remain on the Hall of Fame ballot through 2012. Throughout his morning show broadcasting career, George woke every day at 3 a.m., but despite the hours, he always enjoyed his job, saying, ``If you look forward to going to work every day, then that's a good job and I've always looked forward to going to work at WKLA.'' I have interviewed with George on countless occasions throughout my 18 years in Congress, and have always enjoyed our conversations on issues of the day. Whether it was through our conversations, watching him lead the Scottville Clown Band or working with him as mayor of Scottville, my wife Diane and I have always enjoyed our friendship with George. George Wilson's retirement marks the end of an era in Mason County, and he will be missed by all those who tuned in to listen to his morning show during the weekdays.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank Mr. Dreier from California for giving me the 5 minutes. Here we go again. This bill could have been done in July, but it was pulled. This is the third rule that we've had on one bill. It's almost unprecedented; I'm not sure that I have ever seen this before. It was pulled in July because of the controversy surrounding the Speaker's remarks saying the CIA lies, the CIA lies all the time. So it sat dormant as this country was under attack. When we went to the Rules Committee this week, we had a lot of amendments that we thought should have been put in order. An amendment that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the capabilities of Iran--it wasn't important enough to debate that when we went through the debate on this bill yesterday. An amendment that would require the CIA to release publicly unclassified versions of documents relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques--that wasn't important enough to debate. What we are going to do with the folks in Guantanamo--that wasn't important enough to debate. What the intelligence community did after Fort Hood and in between Fort Hood and Christmas Day--that wasn't important enough to debate. The process for authorization and notification of covert actions that may result in the death of a targeted U.S. citizen--that wasn't important enough to debate. But then we see that there is an amendment to be offered by the manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, 22 pages, including an amendment from Mr. McDermott. And here's Mr. McDermott's own words: ``My amendment would have expanded upon the President's executive order to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhumane, or degrading interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations.'' Not a single minute of debate on this amendment, not one hearing on this amendment, and we dump it into a manager's amendment, along with 22 other amendments. Sloppy work. And how do we know it's sloppy? Because we're back here today for a third time with a third rule pulling it out. It's not because the leadership on the other side believes that this is a bad amendment. They believe it's the right amendment. That's why they put it into the manager's amendment. That's why the chairman put this amendment into the manager's amendment, because he agrees with it. He defended this yesterday, expansion of criminal penalties only to the intelligence community; on the floor defending this amendment, saying it was the good thing and the right thing to do, and it was consistent with American values. If it's consistent with American values, why are they pulling it out? Because they know it's unfair to the intelligence community. We asked the question yesterday, what are you going to say to the men and women, the front lines in the intelligence community, when you go and visit them and say you have created a special set of penalties only for them? You know, these rules, this new criminal law, you wouldn't even apply these to your county sheriff, you wouldn't even apply them to your State trooper, but they wanted to sneak them in in the middle of the night, with no debate, no hearing, saying this is the right way to go. They're pulling it today because they recognize, their leadership on this issue, that when they turned around, they had no followers. They didn't have enough votes to pass this. It jeopardized their bill. It was sloppy work to put this in in the first place, and it's an indication of how this bill has gone through the process. This amendment was put in without any consultation with the other side of the aisle. This is a partisan bill. As my colleague said earlier, it creates some real confusion as to whether we're in the law enforcement business or whether we're in the fighting terrorism business. I'm glad this is coming here today, but we could have dealt with this yesterday. It should never have been in the manager's amendment to begin with. If they wanted to put it up, put it up for a separate vote as a separate amendment. But they knew they couldn't do that. We asked questions yesterday that they didn't answer. Why does this amendment define a criminal offense that only intelligence community personnel would be guilty of? They wouldn't answer that, they wouldn't engage in that debate. The amendment would make it a crime for depriving an individual of necessary food, water, sleep. How does the bill define ``necessary?'' Participate in acts intended to violate the individual's religious beliefs. Is there an objective standard? Then it gets into phobias. Exploit the phobias of the individual. We asked the other side, please define this for us, and they didn't.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague. They weren't willing to answer any of those questions or even have a debate or a discussion on what the amendment meant. So that is why we're back here today. But the bottom line is it's a symptom, it's a symptom of the confusion on the other side, the sloppiness with which they brought this bill to the floor. I am glad that they have taken this lousy amendment and they are going to trash it today. It should never have been in there. It jeopardized and attacked our men and women on the front lines who are keeping us safe each and every day. The McDermott amendment was an insult, an insult to American men and women in the intelligence community.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our country and our intelligence community are at a crossroads. Over the last 14 months, we've been struggling as to whether we're going to be focused on defeating terrorists or whether we're going to be focused on a law enforcement approach. This couldn't have been defined more clearly than what it was yesterday when the manager of this bill brought forward an amendment that would have put our intelligence community professionals at risk putting them under criminal statutes that you wouldn't even apply to your local sheriff or your local State trooper. Thankfully, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined with us and forced the majority to go back and rewrite the rule and come back and strip that provision from the bill. But that move yesterday should not have been a surprise. It was only last year that the Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor to investigate CIA personnel even though career Justice Department officials had already decided that there was no basis for prosecution. It appears that the majority wants to investigate and prosecute everyone who has been involved in our critical interrogation programs-- except themselves. The records of briefings have shown clearly and repeatedly that Democratic and Republican leadership of the House were briefed early and often on the use of the same techniques that they wanted to criminalize yesterday. And they never objected. And while there has been a selective release of certain briefing documents over the last few days, the record is far from complete because the administration and the majority have repeatedly blocked requests and amendments to publicly release a full, unclassified briefing of the classified records: who knew what and when. The motion to recommit would stop the criminalization of our national security policy and ensure that Members of Congress would be as accountable for their conduct as the majority wants to hold the men and women of the CIA. The motion would ask the CIA Inspector General to conduct an independent review of whether any Member of Congress objected to the use of the techniques to review what steps were taken and to require the release of all of the briefing memos. If the majority was not briefed or raised concerns, it should have nothing to fear from an independent and objective review by the facts of the Inspector General. And, secondly, the motion would also clarify once and for all that the Director of National Intelligence should be in charge of coordinating interrogation of terrorists and should ensure we have collected all actionable intelligence before reading terrorists their Miranda rights. This is a proposition that should not be controversial. Why is this in here? It was only on Christmas Day that the DNI, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Secretary of Homeland Security all said that they were not consulted before the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda rights. These provisions are fully consistent with all of the other authorities that have been given to the DNI to coordinate the activities of the intelligence community. It makes no sense for the DNI to be in charge of coordinating all other intelligence activities but then the Attorney General is in charge of interrogation of foreign terrorists. This motion would place the emphasis back where it belongs. It would align accountability and authority for those who make the decisions with the DNI. The DNI is responsible for collecting intelligence to prevent attacks. This is where we need to go. We can answer two fundamental questions with this motion to recommit. Who knew what, when, on enhanced interrogation techniques. Before we go and prosecute people in the intelligence community, let's have a clear record of what Members of this body knew and approved, because basically the administration and this Congress asked the intelligence personnel to do what they did. They were following our orders and instructions to keep America safe. The second thing is, let's make sure that the DNI, the person with the responsibility to keep us safe, has the final decision on when and how we will interrogate foreign terrorists to keep America safe. It's his job. It's his responsibility. Let's get rid of the confusion. Let's get the alignment. Let's do what's necessary to keep America safe and to protect and recognize the service of our men and women in the intelligence community. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I shall consume. Madam Chairman, annual Intelligence authorization bills should be bipartisan legislation designed to address critical national security issues and deal in a deliberate and considered way with legislation affecting the intelligence community, the personnel within the intelligence community. Unfortunately, this bill does neither. I'm forced to rise in strong opposition. When this bill was first reported almost 8 months ago, the bill failed to address critical national security issues such as Guantanamo detainees, attempts by this administration to convert intelligence and counterterrorism into matters of criminal law and meaningful reforms to the congressional notification process. In the nearly 8 months since this bill was reported out of committee, our country has suffered two major terrorist attacks and a significant number of near misses. During that time, the majority took no time and no action to bring this bill to the floor. In 8 months nothing was done to fix the flaws in our intelligence community that were apparent to every American in the wake of the first attack at Fort Hood and, later, the Christmas bombing attack on an American airliner. In 8 months, nothing was done to clarify who is in charge of interrogation of high-value terrorist detainees, these people that are captured around the world who want to do harm to America. In 8 months, nothing was done to provide a long-term renewal of our critical intelligence authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act. In 8 months, nothing was done to, once and for all, stop hard-core, radical jihadist terrorists from being brought into the United States, despite the clear opposition that has arisen to this ill-considered idea from average Americans across the country. In 8 months, nothing has been done to clarify how covert actions should be conducted or authorized when they could have deadly effects on American citizens. Nothing has been done. Then, you go through and you take a look at the amendments that we wanted to propose that would have addressed these issues, and all of these were thrown out by the majority, an amendment that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction programs of Iran. Politically speaking, our intelligence community is now to the left of the United Nations as to our assessment of what Iran's capabilities are, to the left of the ill- fated National Intelligence Estimate that came out under the previous administration. We've asked for an independent panel of experts to give us a red team review. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, no, that's not necessary. We asked for an amendment that would require the CIA to release publicly unclassified versions of documents relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, this controversial background as to who knew what when, including some of the leading Members of this body. We asked for those documents to be released. The majority said no. We asked for the prohibition of funds to bring Guantanamo detainees into the United States. The majority said, we won't even debate it. We won't consider it. We won't allow for an amendment that would do just that. We asked for a report requiring the DNI to submit a report detailing steps taken to fix problems identified in the President's Fort Hood intelligence review prior to December 25. Why? Because the incident on November 5 had striking parallels to what happened on December 25, and we thought it was fair to ask the question and ask the Director of National Intelligence: With the information that you gained on November 5, what actions did you take that might have helped prevent what happened on Christmas Day? And the answer was, no, we don't think that that would be a worthwhile effort to ask the intelligence community those kinds of tough and difficult questions and be held accountable to this body. And then we said we had another amendment that said, Don't we think it would be appropriate that we actually establish a process for the authorization and the notification of covert actions that may result in the death of a targeted U.S. citizen? It doesn't get into a debate as to whether that is appropriate, an appropriate course of action. It just says, don't we think that the intelligence community and the executive branch should have in place a detailed process of how these decisions are made, how they are authorized, and when Congress would be notified? And the answer from the majority was no. A process that would give us an idea as to how the administration would authorize and notify Congress when they took actions that might result in the death of a targeted U.S. citizen, a targeted U.S. citizen. And these are just the amendments that were not considered, substantive, serious issues that the majority is unwilling to debate, to discuss and to address. Later on, as we go through the day and as we take a look at the manager's amendment and the other amendments, we'll take a look at the striking contrast between what the majority is willing to debate and discuss and to act on, and what they are unwilling to debate and discuss. And it has a direct impact on the safety of each and every American. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Thornberry from Texas, who will talk about the continued efforts by this administration in what appears to be a war on the intelligence community, a legal war on our intelligence community, the brave men and women in that community.