Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that will benefit the Second Congressional District of Michigan as part of H.R. 2997. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Research Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $346,000 for fire blight research to be shared by Michigan State University in East Lansing Michigan and Cornell University in New York. Approximately, $184,000 is for the salaries of laboratory and $162,000 for field research personnel and for materials and supplies at Michigan State University. The remaining funds will be allocated to Cornell University in New York. Researchers at both universities will collaborate on findings. Michigan State University has obtained funding from the State of Michigan. Michigan Apple Committee and industry sources and will continue to fund the fire blight research at MSU at a level of $112,0000 in FY10. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services Special Research Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 109 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Description of Request: Provide $346,000 in funding for Phytophthora research at Michigan State University. Approximately 85 percent of the funding will go to researchers, technicians and students. Approximately 15 percent will be used for materials, supplies and administration. Michigan State University has received outside sources of funding for Phytophthora research as well. This funding is consistent with the authorized purpose of the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, Capitol Guide Albert Carey Caswell has composed a poem for the Record in honor of the U.S. Navy SEALS.- Seal it! Crush it! Run, right up to it! As You Flush it! Terminate It! As You Break it! Bust It! As You God Forsake It! And Make Mush of it! Destroy It! Walk, right by it! Without, even touching it . . . Boy It, it was like . . . you were not even there! Climbing mountains . . . Overtaking it! While, disappearing through thin air! Capturing it, as over the coals you so rake it! As against all odds you make it! Go around it, run right through it! Or go right over it! As only, You can do it! Michael Monsoor It, Bob Kerrey It, Michael Murphy It . . . as only you can carry it! For there's nothing, you can not do . . . it! To The Tenth Power, The Men of The Hour . . . all in what your golden heart's so shower! Climbing walls . . . Jumping off buildings, falls! As to what these fine hearts, are called . . . Swimming the high seas, as they will not pause! As Freedom Fighters, one and all . . . Answering that, most noble cause! As you turn around, they disappear . . . From The Land, Air and Sea . . . A Force of Nature, So Complete! A Band of Brothers, so very sweet! As we hear, God's Voices in all these! Men of Honor, Men of Faith! Whose, fine hearts will not wait! Nor will not so waft! Who will not give up, or in! As into that face of death and hell, they so wade! Get In, Get Out . . . Get the job done, that's what it's all about! All for God and Country, Tis of Thee . . . All At The Very Top, as no one else can so compete! The very Origin, of Stealth Technology! Stealing from time, all across the seven seas! What Superman, so wishes he could be! As they can shoot the wings off of a nat, at 1,000 feet! So Incredible, as so are all of these! All so boldly marching forth, all out on liberty's course! For no one knows no more . . . That Freedom, Is Not Free! What ever boy, wishes he could grow up to be!

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for yielding the time. You know, Pakistan and Afghanistan are very difficult parts of the world. As we develop the strategies, I think many of us have the same goals and objectives in mind, but we need to take a look at exactly what we're doing today. I'm proud to support the Republican amendment to the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009. Interestingly, I believe that this substitute supports our current President's direction that he has outlined for Pakistan and Afghanistan. It supports President Obama's strategy to address the situation in Pakistan, to restore peace and stability to that region. Maybe, once again, this is another foreign policy initiative where President Obama has decided that perhaps following some of the direction outlined under the Bush administration may not be a bad idea. I'm one of many Republican ranking members to come forward today to express concern about the majority's bill and to urge support for the Republican substitute. The Democratic bill places too many restrictions on the ability of the President's advisors and the U.S. military to conduct diplomacy and military operations in the region. In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen raised their concern about the majority's bill, noting that ``The degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in H.R. 1886 ``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in Pakistan.'' But obviously, they're saying, our troops in Afghanistan and the military in Pakistan and our support of the military efforts in Pakistan require more flexibility than what this bill will allow. From intelligence briefings, I understand how volatile the situation is in Pakistan. Just on Tuesday, there was a hotel bombing, 18 people killed. The Pakistan Army has been engaged in a battle in the Swat Valley against Taliban militants. Any legislation on Pakistan must give the administration both flexibility to react to the fast-paced developments and the opportunity to develop a plan on how it will implement its strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Instead of flexibility, this bill is full of restrictive and intrusive provisions that I'm not sure we'd even apply to the United States, where the Democrat majority is trying to dictate and micromanage the President's administration's Pakistan policy. Their bill even includes language to increase Pakistani teacher salaries. It goes into the detail of the level of assistance for student meals. Wow. That doesn't sound like we're giving the Paks a whole lot of flexibility to even run their own country. This down-in-the-weeds language may represent a new low for congressional micromanagement, not to mention a distraction from the crucial issue of bringing peace and stability to the region. We need to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan. That is our goal. That is our mission. This Congress shouldn't be dictating to the Pakistanis teacher salaries and the level of assistance that it needs to provide students for meals in Pakistan. Republicans have been unfairly criticized in the press as being the party of ``no.'' Not only are the Republicans being the party of ``yes'' on this bill, we're also being more supportive of the Obama administration's Pakistan policy than the Democrat majority. We support President Obama's efforts in the region. We want them to succeed. I believe the Republican amendment presents the best way Congress can ensure and move toward success in Pakistan and, at the same time, make sure that we stay united on foreign policy, because this amendment, this substitute supports the President's Pakistan strategy. So let's stand with the President. Let's move forward. Let's make sure that we're united, Republicans and Democrats, House, Senate and the administration, in supporting this President's direction for Pakistan. I ask my colleagues to support the Republican substitute.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding, but I felt I needed to respond as my name was brought up from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. You know, the ROZs in this rule process, regardless of the underlying bill, will be part of the final package that moves through. What happens with the Democrat base bill here is they undercut many of the things and put in a lot of restrictions that, as Congressman Van Hollen and I tried to craft the bill together, we wanted to make sure that there was enough freedom for these programs to be successful. And the important thing here is you can vote for the substitute. The ROZs become part of the program when the substitute passes on final passage, after it replaces the underlying Democrat amendment. So I thank you. I think I understand the rule, but to say that I was not supportive of the ROZs because I was supporting the substitute I don't believe is an accurate indication.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the colloquy this evening as we were talking about what next week might bring in terms of the business. And as the majority leader and the minority whip were going through the process, the question that was asked was: Is the intelligence committee or was the intelligence committee assumed to be moving forward on investigating the allegations that the Speaker has made that the CIA, over a long period of time, consistently lied to Congress? I can inform the Members that now that process and that investigation is not going on because one of the things that has not happened is that the Speaker of the House has not outlined or directed the committee as to where she believes she was lied to over this period of time. And she has presented no evidence that backs up the claims that she has made. If that information is provided to the committee as to the direction and to the evidence that this action actually took place by the CIA, I think the committee hopefully would be ready to move forward. But at this point in time, we wouldn't know what to take a look at, and we wouldn't know what direction to move in.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding direct funding the Second Congressional District of Michigan received as part of H.R. 1105. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Detroit District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 477 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-2550 Description of Request: Provide $75,000 for operations and maintenance of Arcadia Harbor. Provide $275,000 for operations and maintenance of Frankfort Harbor. Provide $82,000 for operations and maintenance of Pentwater Harbor. Provide $325,000 for operations and maintenance of Muskegon Harbor. Provide $410,000 for operations and maintenance of Ludington Harbor. Provide $546,000 for operations and maintenance of Holland Harbor. Provide $1,218,000 for operations and maintenance of Grand Haven Harbor. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance account. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Bus and Bus Facility Program (Section 5309) Requesting Entities And Addresses: Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority, 1202 N. Mitchell St., Cadillac, Michigan 49601; Yates Dial- A-Ride, 1987 E. U.S. 10, Idlewild, Michigan 49642; Harbor Transit, 440 North Ferry St., Grand Haven, Michigan 49417; Muskegon Area Transit System, 2624 6th Street, Muskegon, Michigan 49444; Ludington Mass Transit, 5545 West Carr Street, Ludington, Michigan 49431; Macatawa Area Express, 171 Lincoln Ave. Suite 20, Holland, Michigan 49423; Benzie Transportation Authority, 12762 Honor Highway, Honor, Michigan 49640. Description of Request: Provide $285,000 for Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority for the purchase of replacement transit buses and improved transit facility; provide $190,000 for Yates Dial-A-Ride for the purchase of replacement transit buses; provide $152,000 for Harbor Transit for the purchase of replacement transit buses; provide $427,500 for Muskegon Area Transit System for the purchase of replacement transit buses, provide $190,000 for Ludington Mass Transit for the purchase of replacement transit buses; provide $256,500 for Macatawa Area Express for the purchase of replacement transit buses; and provide $190,000 for Benzie Transportation Authority for the purchase of replacement transit buses. This request is consistent with the authorized purpose of the Bus and Bus Facility Program in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI, 48824-9190 Description of Request: Provide $346,000 for fire blight research at Michigan State University. Approximately, $148,000 is for the salaries of laboratory and field research personal; and $36,000 is for materials and supplies. Michigan State University has obtained funding from the Michigan Apple Committee and industry sources and will continue to fund the fire blight research at MSU at a level of $52, 500 in FY09. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services Research and Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 109 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Description of Request: Provide $346,000 in funding for Phytophthora research at Michigan State University. Approximately 85 percent of the funding will go to researchers, technicians and students. Approximately 15 percent will be used for materials, supplies and administration. Michigan State University has received outside sources of funding for Phytophthora research as well. This funding is consistent with the authorized purpose of the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Community Development Fund/Economic Development Initiative Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 188 Howard Ave., Holland, Michigan 49424 Description of Request: Provide $142,500 in funding for the conversion of a former pharmaceutical plant into a center for bio-based start-up companies and research. Approximately 95 percent of the funding will go to equipment acquisition and plant re-conditioning. The project has received funding from and will be supported by Lakeshore Advantage, Holland-Zeeland Community Foundation, State of Michigan and U.S. Department of Labor. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Hoekstra Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Viridian Drive, Muskegon, Michigan 49440 Description of Request: Provide $1,427,250 in funding for an offshore wind demonstration project at the Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center. Approximately two-thirds of the funding will be used for the purchase and installation of the wind turbine. Approximately 30 percent will be used for technical support and interface, environmental impact, education and economic studies for the use of offshore wind turbines in Lake Michigan. The project will be supported by Grand Valle State University, Muskegon Area First and L-3 Communications.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize John D. Dingell and his service to the House of Representatives. John Dingell has proven to be a friend, a colleague and an effective legislator in all of the years that I have known him as a Member of Congress. As a fellow member of the Michigan delegation, I am very familiar with his tireless advocacy on behalf of his constituents in the State of Michigan. With John, Michigan always comes first. You can always turn to him for help, regardless of your party. For more than 53 years, he has proven to be an unwavering champion of Michigan's working men and women. His powerful voice is appreciated across the State of Michigan, throughout the American automotive and manufacturing industries, and within our delegation. Congratulations on your historic achievement, Representative Dingell. Your dedication to this institution and the people you represent is beyond compare.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I am opposed to the amendment in its current form. I'm encouraged that Representatives Van Hollen and Platts have indicated that they are willing to work with those of us on the Intelligence Committee to address some of the concerns that we have. Why would we be concerned? I am strongly in favor of whistleblower reform, and I think that we need to open up the process for whistleblowers in the intelligence community so that we in the Intelligence Committee sometimes can have a better understanding of what's going on in the intelligence community. But this amendment makes some grievous errors. First, it has nothing to do with economic stimulus. As the chairman stated, this should have gone through regular order, but that's not where we are today. I understand that a cottage industry seems to have developed in pundits and speculation on intelligence programs, but it's hard to see how this has anything to do with stimulating the economy. The amendment makes significant and potentially problematic changes to the existing intelligence community whistleblower statute. Most notably, it would effectively allow individual employees to judge what classified programs they can and cannot discuss with Members outside the Intelligence Committees. This not only defeats the purpose of having an Intelligence Committee, it also significantly increases the risk that other committees of the House will receive and potentially act on bad information that they will be unable to fully and fairly evaluate. The House Intelligence Committee is the only committee in the House that deals with sources and methods, and it should stay that way. I am encouraged that we are going to be able to work with the sponsors of this amendment through the process and make the necessary changes so that when it comes back from a conference committee that it will have addressed our concerns and it will reform the whistleblower statute effectively.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. And as we go through the next period of time, we may have the opportunity to have more of a dialogue to talk a little bit about the energy issue and the challenges that we are facing as a Nation. Of course you and I remember that early in August when Congress recessed, we were on this floor that Friday where a number of us had signed up for the opportunity to address our colleagues but most importantly to address the American people on the issue of energy. And we can sign up for 5 minutes, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, ``No, we're going home,'' and they shut down debate. We came to the floor. We continued talking on the floor as they turned down the lights, as they turned off C-SPAN as they attempted to lock the press from covering the issues as to exactly what was happening here on the floor of the House. We continued that process for the next 5 weeks until Congress belatedly came back into session this past Monday. And as my colleague has indicated, we came back into session, and we've done no meaningful legislation. We haven't dealt with the issue of the threats of radical jihadists. We haven't dealt with health care, we haven't dealt with energy. Prices back in my district have again spiked up this week even though the price of oil has come down about 30 percent of its high of $147. You know, prices at the pump spiked back up this week And for some people, the issue of energy is an inconvenience. Paying a little bit more or paying a lot more at the pump is an inconvenience to some people. But I can tell you in July, I spent a part of a morning at the gas station pumping gas. People would come in; I would help fill up their cars. They would fill out a survey for me. I would spend some time talking to them. And for a number of these people, filling up their tank is now a hardship. And I think you and I would agree that we wish they had a proposal on the other side of the aisle. We wish that they would bring energy to the floor of the House for us to debate because this problem is only going to get worse. I live in a northern State. Today my constituents are challenged with the price of filling up their gas tank, because I went through the district during August. I found people who drove as much as 40, 50, 60 miles one way to work. So they're putting on 80 to 100, 120 miles a day. Filling up their gas tank is a hardship. In those same areas, when we get to November, December, January, they're also going to get hit with home heating costs. A double whammy. They're going to fill up their pump or their car at the pump, and then they are going to have to go home and pay the heating bills for their house. And these folks are unwilling to build a plan to address that right here on the floor of the House. Now, they went into a caucus today, and we see how they're writing their legislation. It's kind of like we're going to get a plan that can get 218 Democratic votes. They're not going to introduce a bill. They're not doing to take it to a subcommittee, have hearings on it, have people come in and say, you know, here is what we really like about your bill and what we think really works, and we think this may be a weakness. People proposing amendments, they vote on amendments, the bill gets better, it goes to full committee, you go through the same process, and it comes to the floor of the House where again, people like you and I who might not be on a committee of jurisdiction, if we've got a good idea or something that we think is a good idea, we have the opportunity to present it to our colleagues and have it voted on to see if it can be part of this final package. That's not the process they're going to use. They're writing a bill in secret, and we have no idea what it is. And I would guess, you know, we thought maybe it would come out Friday. They're not going to hit that deadline. They're maybe coming out with a bill Monday or Tuesday. It will probably be a thousand pages, and they will say, Congresswoman, here it is. Here is our energy plan. Congressman, here it is. We will say, What is it? They will say, Read it. And it's like, whoa. And we already know what it's going to be. We're for all-of-the- above: Exploration, drilling for American oil, natural gas, we're for conservation, we're for higher fuel efficiency standards and automobiles and those types of things. We're for alternative technology and investing in wind, solar, geothermal, and all of those types of things recognizing that to fix the problem on energy, we need an all- of-the-above solution because nuclear alone won't fix it, drilling alone won't fix it. T. Boone Pickens is right. We can't drill our way out of this problem. But we can help. Right now one final comment, and then we can talk about this. Sitting on the Intelligence Committee we know where we're getting the oil from. We get a lot from Canada, a lot from Mexico. These are two reliable allies, although there is some instability from Mexico. After that, the neighborhood gets to be pretty ugly. Nigeria. Nigeria is a great country, but it has a tremendous amount of instability and corruption. You then go to the Middle East. A lot of these folks are not our friends. You then go to Russia. Ask the Georgians. Is Russia a reliable ally? Ask the people in Ukraine. Is Russia a reliable ally? Russia has started this. Russia, a couple of years ago, was the country that said, or through their policies, indicated that they were willing to use energy as a political tool by threatening to cut off natural gas to places like the Ukraine. And in many ways we're funding our enemies. Bottom line on this. This year we will run about a $600 to $700 billion trade deficit. If we became energy independent, our trade deficit would approach zero. Trade deficit isn't manufacturing. It's none of these things. It's energy. And if we invest in that, we could move forward.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will yield. We're joined by a few of our friends, and I think we can have a spirited discussion about the future of America rather than focusing on the past. So thank you for yielding.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentlelady will yield, I think the big promise was--I have Speaker Pelosi saying, I have a secret plan. I'm not sure that she said ``secret.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. ``I have a commonsense plan to lower the price of gasoline.'' Whoa. You know, I hope that she let's America know soon what it is because for the last 20 months under Speaker Pelosi, her commonsense plan has only meant pain and hardship for my constituents.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentlelady will yield for a minute. I thought it was pretty interesting on the floor when the minority leader on the floor, Mr. Boehner from Ohio, was talking about a procedural vote here on the floor and said, ``Will you allow a vote on the American Energy Independence Bill?'' And the answer after he asked that question three or four times, the folks on that side of the aisle started saying, ``No, no, no,'' meaning they don't want to have a full and complete debate on energy. What really makes me concerned is that they're going to throw up--we know what they're going to--we're for all-of-the-above. They're going to come out with a plan later on, who knows. I wouldn't even call it a plan. They will come out with a piece of paper, and as we dissect it, it will be none-of-the-above. They're not for nuclear, they're not for drilling offshore, they're not for drilling in Alaska.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

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. 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. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague again to amend his unanimous consent request.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. My reservation is, I request, I reserve the right to object and will not object if my colleague amends his unanimous consent request to include putting on the House calendar H.R. 3089, H.R. 2279, H.R. 5656, H.R. 2208, H.R. 2493, H.R. 6107 and H.R. 6108.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I continue to reserve.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just inquire of the chairman of the committee, you are prepared to close as well?

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