Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I object.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reserving the right to object, I would like to enter--I have a question for my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At the current time and in the current form, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit sends the bill back to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with instructions for an amendment requesting a national intelligence assessment on the strategic implications of high oil and energy prices for America. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House today that last year, when we did the Intelligence Authorization Bill, over 230 of my colleagues voted for an amendment that would require a national assessment on global climate change and asked the intelligence community to investigate that. This is a much more pressing and a much more serious issue and a much more immediate issue. This assessment would constitute the best analytical judgment of our intelligence community as to the outlook for supply, demand and prices for a variety of strategic energy sources. This assessment would also examine the plans and intentions of key energy-producing and exporting states. But most importantly, this assessment explores the national security implications of America's sworn enemies, such as Iran and Venezuela, using increased energy prices as leverage against us and our foreign policy goals. This assessment is timely and directly relevant to America's national security interests. This amendment stands in sharp contrast to the repeated attempts to divert precious time and scarce intelligence resources to discuss topics such as global warming, topics that merely advance an ideological agenda, rather than keeping this country and the American safe. Take a look at specifically what this motion to recommit asks the intelligence community to do. It asks the intelligence community to look at the plans, the intentions of key energy-producing and exporting nations with respect to energy production and supply. Energy-producing nations are changing their behavior. Why? For them it is less about increasing supply today because they are now flush with cash. Their behavior is changing. It also asks the intelligence community to look at the national security implications of potential use of energy resources as leverage against the United States by Venezuela, Iran, or other potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices. Some call this the ``Iran premium.'' 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are controlled by government or national oil companies, many of them unfriendly to the United States. This assessment also would ask for the national security implications of increases in funding to current or potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices. This year there will be a transfer of over $2.3 trillion from energy-consuming nations to energy-producing nations. The intelligence community should assess what the impact of that wealth transfer should be. In addition, the community would do an assessment of the likelihood that increased energy prices will directly or indirectly increase financial support for terrorist organizations. In an environment where America receives 60 percent of its energy overseas, where we are dependent on foreign supplies of energy, and where there are no indications that there will be decisions made to increase U.S. production, it is absolutely essential and vital that our national intelligence community does this assessment so that we, as policymakers, can understand the implications of the decisions that we make. We need this assessment. We need to understand how vulnerable we are and the tools that our adversaries may use against us in the future. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Send this bill to committee, where, on the Intelligence Committee, this can be done in a very expeditious way. To make sure that we get this information, this assessment will be required to be brought back to the House of Representatives by January of 2009. With that, I ask for my colleagues' support, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would like to suggest to my colleague that he amend the unanimous consent request to include putting on the House Calendar the opportunity to vote on, to schedule and vote on ANWR and other production issues.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for that clarification. So I will not oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I will support the amendment. And I am sure that those of us on the Intelligence Committee can work with the individual and the intelligence community to make sure that we get the information that is out there that is available to assess it and to go through it in such a way that will not take large amounts of time from the intelligence community and divert their attention from the tasks and the challenges that they face today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment. In the committee, I offered a similar amendment that would have required a revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. The discovery of the al Kibar facility in Syria shortly after the original National Intelligence Estimate on Iran came out clearly suggested that prior assessments with respect to proliferation should be reviewed and reevaluated and the confidence level reassessed. The previous NIE on Iran was so poorly drafted and so seriously undermined by subsequent developments in intelligence that I thought it was necessary for the DNI to go back to the drawing board and start over. While my amendment was not successful, I believe that this amendment helps to address the issues I was attempting to raise. Therefore, I will support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have 1 minute remaining; is that correct?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield an additional minute to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It was originally going to be offered by my colleague, the distinguished Republican whip. He was called to the White House, and I consider it an honor to move this amendment forward on his behalf. The amendment highlights not only the absolute success of the Colombian Government in its rescue of American and Colombian hostages that had been held for years by a narcoterrorist organization, but also the clear successes of the Colombian Government's efforts after years of close cooperation with the United States. I want to take this opportunity to commend President Uribe and the Armed Forces and the National Police of Colombia on their efforts on this rescue and their many successes in implementing Plan Colombia. The amendment emphasizes the strong need to continue our close cooperation to work towards finishing the job in Colombia. We will continue to follow these issues closely and carefully in the committee, and I appreciate the Whip's efforts to focus attention on this important issue. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I am probably the only speaker left. I will close at the appropriate time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield myself 1 minute. Again, this is an amendment that talks about the success of the programs that we have been working on in a bipartisan basis with the Colombian Government, highlighted, of course, by the recent rescue of the American and Colombian and other hostages that had been held for years; but more importantly, we have worked in a participative way, in a collaborative way, in a number of different areas, on the diplomatic front, political front, and also on an intelligence and military front and continue to do that, not only to free the hostages but also to make a firm statement against narcotraffickers that the Colombian Government, the U.S. Government, and others are committed to stopping the narcotraffic which is kind of performing and acting as a cancer in both the United States and Colombia. This amendment by Mr. Blunt that I have the privilege of offering recognizes the participation and the work of the various governments, the various agencies, and the various individuals that have enabled this program to be successful. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself as much time as I shall consume. Mr. Chairman, the annual Intelligence Authorization Act is one of the most important bills that the House passes each year. It provides and allocates resources critical to national security programs that are the front lines of America's defense and foreign policies and, most critically, work to detect, prevent and disrupt potential terrorist attacks against the American people. The bill is also essential to ensure close and effective congressional oversight of the intelligence community. There are issues that remain to be worked out as the legislative process continues. But I appreciate the work that Chairman Reyes has done to avoid many of the contentious items that have recently prevented the enactment of an intelligence authorization bill. And I appreciate that the bill reflects areas of consensus on critical national security issues. I believe that this bill is strong in two areas. First, it was significantly improved by seven Republican amendments that were adopted on a bipartisan basis to address what I believe are important issues in priorities facing the intelligence community. Among these, the committee adopted my amendment to remove all earmarks from the bill, a significant step forward. Our intelligence program should be based on only one primary consideration, what best ensures that the intelligence community is able to do its job in the interest of the national security of the United States. The committee adopted an amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) to limit the size and unintended bureaucratic growth of the Office of the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence. The bill also includes another amendment by Congressman Rogers to require a high-level strategic evaluation of the FBI's progress in transforming its FBI's intelligence capabilities. This process may not be moving forward fast enough to accomplish the needed changes and needs close attention. The bill is also strengthened by significant provisions to improve congressional oversight of the intelligence community and the executive branch which addressed issues I have repeatedly raised since serving as chairman of the committee. These include provisions to clarify that each member of the Intelligence Committee must be fully and currently briefed on current activities. Again, I'm pleased that we're able to take and improve this oversight on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats on the committee both believe that we need this information to be able to effectively do our job. Some work remains to be done to smooth this out. But we have taken the right steps to move this forward. I appreciate the chairman's work to develop this framework for this important reform. I understand and he understands that the executive branch may not like enhanced oversight and that they have expressed their concern about the provisions of the bill that strengthen the oversight process, including congressional notification, increased reporting and auditing. But there is no single current issue on which there is stronger bipartisan consensus on the committee than our concern that the administration is not fulfilling its statutory duty to keep each member of the committee fully and currently informed with respect to certain intelligence matters. In the past year alone, I joined with Chairman Reyes to call on the President to brief the members of the committee with respect to intelligence regarding the al Kibar facility in Syria. The full committee was not briefed until the day the information was subsequently disclosed to the public. The committee was briefed months too late, and we received the information after the media did. On another matter, the administration has refused to brief all members of the committee even though it has briefed five members of the committee staff. It is clear that reforms are necessary. In addition to these legislative provisions, I believe that the classified annex adequately supports our needs in important areas such as human intelligence collection and contains additional provisions to enhance oversight. While I may not agree with each of the specific authorizations, on balance the classified portion of the bill generally reflects consensus on the programmatic requirements needed to protect our national security. Despite these areas of consensus, I must point out that I have concerns with parts of the bill and the action of the Rules Committee not to make certain important amendments in order. I'm disappointed with certain provisions relating to national intelligence space systems. Certain levels of funding fall short, and the bill fails to stimulate a sense of urgency in overhead architecture and shortfalls. In certain areas, it mandates technical solutions without a complete analysis. I also have concern with what I believe is an unnecessarily complex and unwieldy provision to create a new Inspector General of the intelligence community. While I support the enhancement of oversight for community- wide issues, this provision would significantly duplicate existing efforts and further grow the size of the DNI bureaucracy. I hope that we can continue to improve the bill as it moves through the process. I also hope that we can work to address concerns that have been raised by the intelligence community with respect to section 425 of the bill concerning the use of contractors. Finally, I need to express my strong concern that the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment I submitted that would prevent funds authorizing the bill from being used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States. This provision should not be necessary. I believe that the public consensus that trained terrorists should not be brought into the American cities should be clear and overwhelming. However, there is a significant possibility that lawyers may try to argue that trained terrorist detainees should be released on American streets. This would be judicial activism at its worst, unsupported by either clear legal precedent or statutory authority. Congress must send a clear message immediately on this critical issue. We may have the opportunity to do that later today. On balance, this bill is a workable bill. It needs to be improved. And I look forward to seeing exactly how the amendments process moves forward through the day. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you. I will yield myself the balance of our time. I am looking forward to, and I am glad that we have had such a collegial discussion about the bill, the process that we have gone through in the committee, to get to the point that we are. Obviously, we are going to go through a process of trying to improve this bill while we are here on the floor today. I can look forward to going through that process. I look forward to hopefully passing an improved bill out of the floor, and then look forward to going to conference and hope that we can continue this same kind of partnership in trying to get, not only a bill through the House, but getting it through a conference process and getting a bill to the President that the President will sign. It is important that the Intelligence Committees, that the House and the Senate, put their imprint on the intelligence community. We haven't been able to do that for 3 years. It is important that we do it and that we do it at this time. The intelligence community needs the kind of direction and the parameters that we have established in this bill, to ensure that Congress can do its work, but also that the intelligence community can do its work within a framework that has been established by the Congress. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would like to yield my last minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who was successful in the committee in passing two important amendments to improve this bill.