Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker set the perfect tone for what I'd like to talk about. He talked about the threat from al Qaeda and that high on their list is their desire to explode a nuclear weapon in the United States. I think their quote goes something along the lines, if, by the grace of God, we get access to a nuclear weapon, we will use it. We know that in their writings they talk about they want to move the violence from what they call the outlying areas of the world, from the Middle East, from northern Africa, from Asia, and they want to move it to the core countries. And they define the core countries as being Western Europe and the United States. It's clear that they want to take every opportunity to attack the United States. And it's great to see one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle acknowledge that threat. Sometimes I really believe, with the strategies that they are proposing, as to whether that threat is really perceived. So what are we going to do in this bill? I find it very ironic that as we move forward with this bill, we're going to give radical jihadists and al Qaeda more information about our Intelligence Community than what they have today. This bill says that we're going to tell al Qaeda, radical jihadists, and our enemies around the world exactly how much we spend in the intelligence community. If that makes us safe or makes us safer, I suppose that the next strategy will be, let's break it down and outline how much we spend in every category. Because if telling them the total number makes us safer, giving them even more detail probably makes us more safe, makes us safer yet. Why would we want to tell al Qaeda more about what we are doing in the intelligence community? And then the other question is, while we tell al Qaeda more about what our strategies and tactics are to confront them, we don't deal with the most pressing homeland security issue that we face today. Our intelligence community has significant gaps as we try to listen and determine what their plans and objectives and strategies are. The Director of National Intelligence recently sent our committee a letter saying significant gaps exist in our intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate that came out in the last week says that we are at a heightened level of threat. Things are more dangerous perhaps in the United States today than they were earlier this year. We've had this information since the middle of April, that because of changing circumstances and various other issues, this intelligence gap exists. We have this opportunity to change it. So we know that we are at a heightened threat level. We know that there are gaps in intelligence. We are on the verge of passing this major bill, and we decide we're going to take this opportunity. We're going to use this as an opportunity to give radical jihadists more information about our Intelligence Community. But we are not, we are not going to provide the intelligence community with the legislation and with the opportunity and the authority to go in and listen to foreign intelligence by foreign terrorists who are located outside of the United States. They are in foreign countries. I would encourage every single one of my colleagues to read the letter that Director McConnell sent to our Intelligence Committee. It is unclassified. You can see clearly in his statement that a gap does exist, that he does need to get a warrant, and that this is about foreign intelligence on foreign terrorists.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that we're going to go into another weekend not having addressed the threat from radical jihadism. Just moments ago, this House passed a 9/11 bill supposedly to increase the security and the safety of the United States of America. But since April 12, our national Director of Intelligence, the position that was created in the Intelligence Reform Act earlier in 2004 to specifically provide us with information about the threats to the United States, this organization that was put together to make our intelligence community more effective, the Director of National Intelligence has reported to this Congress now for almost 4 months that there are significant intelligence gaps at the same time while we are a Nation at greater threat than perhaps any time since 9/11. In a letter that Director McConnell recently sent to the Intelligence Committee in an unclassified version, he highlights a situation in which our intelligence community every day is missing a significant portion of what we should be getting in order to protect the American people. He goes on and says this is about foreign intelligence, about foreign targets overseas, and that to collect this kind of an intelligence, what he needs to do is he needs to get a court order. Now, think about this; we need to get a court order to listen to an alleged terrorist, who may be in Pakistan, may be in Afghanistan, but we know that they're outside of the U.S. borders, so it's foreign intelligence about a foreign terrorist outside of the United States, and we need to go get a court order to listen to that conversation at a time when we know that we are at heightened risk. Isn't it ironic that as we pass a 9/11 bill, in the 9/11 bill that we passed this afternoon, the 9/11 bill gives al Qaeda and radical jihadis more information about the United States and about our intelligence community than what they had before. The 9/11 bill says we are going to reveal our top-line spending on intelligence. If we believe that revealing our spending at a macro level on intelligence makes us safer, maybe we should just give radical jihadis a breakdown of how we spend all of our money. So on a 9/11 bill we're going to say, you know, because of leaks in the intelligence community, leaks to the press, we've already told you about our Terrorist Surveillance Program, we've already talked with you and given you details about how we do financial tracking, we've talked to you about interrogations, we've talked to you about prisons and all these types of things, and now we're also going to tell you how much money we spend on intelligence on an annual basis. And remember, just about everybody agrees that the tip of the spear in keeping America safe is how effective our intelligence community is. And now we're going to give them more information about our intelligence community, and at the same time, while our Director of National Intelligence for 4 months has been telling us that there are gaps in our intelligence, significant gaps in our ability to get information about what foreign terrorists may be planning against the United States, at a time when we know that one of their highest priorities is to attack the homeland again. And this is not only about their intentions to attack the United States, but remember, if there is a foreign terrorist in Afghanistan talking to a foreign jihadist or radical terrorist in Iraq and that communications may in some way come through the United States, that information will not even be available for our combat troops in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Not only are we blind for homeland security, we are also handicapping our troops who are on the front lines each and every day. We're not even getting them the information that they could use on a tactical basis to protect themselves, but also to identify where the radical jihadists are, where al Qaeda might be in Iraq, and what they may be up to in Iraq or in Afghanistan or in the United States or in Western Europe, wherever. And the most concerning thing is that we may not even deal with this before we go on recess next week. This needs to be fixed before we go on recess.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, in the last few days we've received a National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus opinion of the intelligence community that indicates a number of disturbing things. But as we take a look at the information that came out of the National Intelligence Estimate, perhaps the most important thing that it says is that we are a Nation at heightened risk. In some ways, al Qaeda has strengthened itself. We're concerned about the situation in Pakistan, where it appears that in parts of Pakistan al Qaeda may now enjoy a safe haven, a safe haven where it can plan, where it can train and prepare to attack the homeland again. We know that that is the true intent of al Qaeda. In communications that they have recently released, they've outlined their objectives clearly. Number one, they want to defeat the coalition in Iraq. The second step is that they want to destabilize the moderate Muslim regimes in the Middle East. The third step is they want to eliminate the State of Israel. The fourth step is they want to establish the caliphate, northern Africa, southern Europe and Middle East reaching down into Asia. And then they want to establish Sharia law in these areas. In another part of this recent communication, they indicated that they believe the world is made up of two primary areas: a core, Western Europe and the United States and outlying region, outlying areas; and the Middle East, northern Africa, the parts that make up the caliphate. And what they clearly say is that in today's world, because we have been on the offense, the violence has been in the outlying areas, Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern Africa and Iraq. And what they say is they want to move this violence from the outlying regions to the core. What does that mean? They want to move the violence to Europe and to our homeland. Today, as we face this critical test, today we received a letter from Mike McConnell who is the Director of National Intelligence, building on testimony that the intelligence community provided us in September in 2006, building on information that they gave to us in April, building on a public statement that Mr. McConnell made on May 21 in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. What does it all say? Our Nation faces an intelligence gap. Think of it. As we face greater risk and a higher security threat than we've faced perhaps in a long time, we have an intelligence gap, a situation in which our intelligence community every day is missing a significant portion of what we should be getting in order to protect the American people. Not only should we be getting it, but we could be getting it, but we have this intelligence gap because we have a 1970s law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Members on the other side of the aisle refuse, refuse to update and to modify. The letter goes on, If we are to stay a step ahead of the terrorists and protect the American people, I firmly believe that we need to be able to use our capabilities to collect, now listen to this, to collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas, without requirements imposed by an out-of-the-State, out-of-date FISA statute. Today, for instance, the statute requires that in a number of important situations that we obtain court orders. We need to obtain court orders to most effectively obtain foreign terrorist communications, and remember, this is about foreign intelligence, about foreign terrorists, who are overseas, and we need to get court orders to intercept those communications. The letter goes on, Simply put, in a significant number of cases we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas. Then some say, well, let's just take some of our resources and apply it; we can expedite. Number one, it doesn't solve the problem to prepare these court orders by just putting more people, but to get the right kind of information, to prepare these court orders and get them done in the right way, it would take important analysts and put them in the position of preparing court orders for foreign terrorists and get court orders. We need to fix this intelligence gap, and we need to do it before we go on recess next week.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. A classic Democrat bait and switch proposal. What the Democrats propose is a historic investment in student aid-- what they deliver is massive new entitlement spending on programs controlled and run by their friends. These new entitlement programs, which are exempt from annual congressional review, are replete with layers of bureaucracy, rules and regulations, and require virtually no accountability to the American taxpayer. If the Democrats were serious about stemming the dramatic rise in college education costs, they would not use a reconciliation bill--a vehicle meant for deficit reduction--to push their agenda. Yes, the legislation provides cuts to student loan providers estimated at $18.58 billion over 5 years, but instead of using that money to lower the deficit as is custom, this legislation actually spends $17.13 billion (almost 92 percent) during that same period on multiple programs--including 9 new areas of mandatory Federal entitlement spending. This bill will not improve access to higher education for low and middle-income Americans. In fact, it has the potential to cost student borrowers and their parents thousands of dollars more in interest on Federal student loans by wiping out the interest rate discounts currently available to borrowers. Furthermore, this legislation could lead to the elimination of consumer choice and lender competition, making it a boon to the Direct Loan Program. In recent years, the Direct Loan Program's market share has fallen to 22 percent because schools have chosen to participate in the FFEL Program instead. Cutting the successful FFEL program is a back-handed way to increase the competitive position of direct lending, a program that up until now has been withering on the vine through the voluntary attrition of colleges. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2669. Our students deserve more from us than to play politics with their college education.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate today, I end up having a lot of more questions than I have answers. I have a question as to whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that the threat from radical jihadism is real or not. Have they read the latest Zawahiri statement, ``Advice of One Concerned,'' where he goes on to say in the statement, a global system, whose center and heart is the United States and the European Union? As for the rest of the states of the world, they are the outlying states. It goes on to say, the strategy of al Qaeda, the only way to confront them, the core states, according to al Qaeda's theory, is by taking the war from the outlying states to the central states, in which case the damage and consequences of this damage will all take place in the central states. Have they not read the other documents that come from al Qaeda that talk about what their strategy is? Their number one goal and objective is to defeat the United States and the coalition in Iraq, then to move out into the region and destabilize the other countries in the region, eliminate the State of Israel, establish the caliphate, Southern Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, stretch down into Asia and then establish Sharia law. Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that radical Islam is a threat to the security of the United States and our allies, or not? If they don't, perhaps pulling out of Iraq is a good strategy. If they do believe that radical jihadism is a threat to the United States, if they do believe that looking at the reports in London, in Europe that radical jihadists actually have attacked in those places and that they may be attacking in the United States or planning to attack in the United States, the question becomes, if you are not willing to fight the threat of radical jihadism in Iraq, where will you engage radical jihadism, in other parts of the Middle East? Should we deploy our troops to other parts of the Middle East? Maybe we should just write off the Middle East and deploy into Northern Africa or into Western Europe, or maybe what we should do is bring them all home and redeploy them here in the United States, because they will follow us home. So the question is, if you do believe it is a threat, where and when will you confront the threat that we face? Others have pointed it out. I have taken a look and read this resolution. I encourage all of the American people to read this bill. What does it say? Very, very little. It says that we will commence reductions of our troops. Commence reductions. Exactly how many do you want to commence reducing? 100? 5,000? 50,000? Then by April 1 there will be a plan for a limited presence. What is ``limited presence''? There are some that would say that the number of troops we have today is a limited presence, because they may not be enough to get the job done. But the bill doesn't define where we go. This is no plan. If this is the way forward, we are in big, big trouble, because it doesn't recognize the threat and it doesn't have a plan as to how we are going to move forward. But there are other things that this Congress should be debating. As our minority whip said, we debated for 45 minutes as to whether cats should be declawed before moving into public housing. The previous question that was defeated earlier today would have enabled us to deal with a real issue, and that is the modernization of FISA, our ability to listen to radical jihadists in other parts of the world as they are communicating their plans and intentions. Today, there is a massive loophole in FISA for radical jihadists who are outside of the United States to communicate, and our intelligence community is prohibited from listening to them. We provide them the full protection of American law, even though they are not United States citizens, even though they are outside of the United States, and even though they are radical jihadists. Let us fix this problem, and let's make sure that we fix it before we go home in August. We should have done it today.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, later on, my colleague from California will make a motion to defeat the previous question, as the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) indicated. That will then enable us to address a very serious issue, the problem that, right now, we are blind and deaf to people who may want to attack the United States. As Secretary Chertoff indicated earlier this week, all of the indications are that we still remain very, very vulnerable. The chatter, the signals, indicate more clearly that America is still at risk. And it is not only the chatter. All you really need to do is take a look at what al Qaeda says. They are clear on their intent to attack the United States again. Take a look at what happened in the U.K. 2 weeks ago. Planned attacks in the heart of London, a planned attack at an airport indicate that al Qaeda and radical jihadists want to attack the U.K.; they want to attack in Europe, and they want to attack us in the United States. One of the things that needs to be clear is that what has helped keep us safe is our intelligence community. And as our ability to gain information has changed and adapted over the last couple of years, it has become even more clear that FISA needs to be updated, and FISA needs to be updated now. It needs to be done before we go home in August because if we expect to stay safe, we need to make sure that our intelligence community has all of the tools at its disposal to identify risks, to identify potential terrorists and to identify individuals who want to do us harm. FISA should not be used to protect international terrorists. It should not be used to protect radical jihadists. It should not be used as a screen to protect members of al Qaeda. Remember, FISA was designed in the 1970s, designed to handle a Cold War surveillance of countries like the Soviet Union. Back then and into the 1980s and early 1990s, our intelligence community only needed to be one step faster than the former Soviet Union. We didn't have to be that fast. And the risks and the threats were not as real or as immediate to our homeland as what they are today. Today our intelligence community needs to be one, two, three steps faster than radical jihadists, radical jihadists who use technology and who use the Internet and who use the communications world of today to drive their message and to plan their attacks. We need to be able to penetrate into it and penetrate into it very effectively. Now is the time to modernize FISA. Now is the time to make sure that the intelligence community has the capability to identify the threats and the individuals who may want to attack the United States and make sure that they are in a position to identify these threats and get this information to our law enforcement individuals in the United States in a seamless way. We've made progress in a number of areas in intelligence reform. There's still much work to do, but one of the areas that we have not done is update FISA. Defeat the previous question and allow for the modernization of FISA now.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor former Congressman Guy Adrian Vander Jagt, who passed on June 22 at 75 years old. Although I prevailed in a contested primary election with Congressman Vander Jagt in 1992, I hold him in the highest regard for his gifted oratorical skills and his ability to advance the cause of the Republican Party. Congressman Vander Jagt was born in Cadillac on Aug. 26, 1931 to Dutch immigrant Harry Vander Jagt, a livestock dealer and rancher, and his wife Marie. He began preaching at Tustin Presbyterian Church while still a student at Cadillac High School. By the time he graduated from our mutual alma mater, Hope College in Holland, Michigan, in 1953, he had won the National Oratorical Championship, was undefeated in four years of unscripted speaking competitions at the state and national level and won the Michigan Debate Championships a record three years in a row. Congressman Vander Jagt's first job after graduating from Hope was as news director and anchor for WWTV in Cadillac. In 1958 he left for Washington, D.C. to accept a position as a public relations assistant to Michigan Congressman Robert McIntosh and commenced the study of law at Georgetown University Law School. He left Washington shortly thereafter to study law full time at another mutual alma mater of ours, the University of Michigan, where he received his juris doctorate degree in 1960. After passing the Michigan bar, he entered private practice in Grand Rapids, and in 1964 married Carol Dorn. That same year he began his career in public service by winning election to the Michigan Senate. In 1966 he went on to win a special election to the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked hard to win the confidence of his Congressional colleagues. In 1974, they reposed such confidence in him that he was elected to lead the National Republican Congressional Committee, working throughout the United States to elect Republican candidates to Congress. He would tirelessly lead the NRCC, becoming the longest-serving national political party committee chairman in American history. In what was surely one of the greatest moments in his career, in 1980 he was chosen personally by Governor Ronald Reagan to deliver the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in Detroit. Reagan would later write: ``My desire was simple. I wanted the best-- Guy Vander Jagt.'' He was even considered a potential candidate for vice president at the time. Congressman Vander Jagt would serve 27 years in the House, and when he retired in 1993, he returned to private law practice and became a premier attorney with his firm. Madam Speaker, the thoughts and prayers of my wife, Diane, and I are with the friends and family of Congressman Vander Jagt at this difficult time. I respectfully request that my remarks be accepted into the Record.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and classmate from the State of Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, but I believe last year, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she voted against the bill on the floor. And to characterize our disagreement with this bill as partisan, and to, I assume perhaps in another way, characterize her vote against our base bill last year as something else, her vote as something else, is disappointing. We had a good partnership when I was chairman and you were ranking member. I am disappointed by that. I believe this is a well-founded difference of opinion on the content of this bill. There are clear differences in priorities. As the gentlelady said and others have said, we are a Nation that faces a great threat. We saw earlier this week that threat may have evolved and found its way once again to our shores, in New Jersey. We believe we need to strengthen HUMINT and face the threats that are out there. We believe that we can't be working in the politically correct environment. The message that people are looking for in the field is, what direction is this new majority going to take our Intelligence Community? They are seeing cuts in key activities that support the war, the effort against the threat that we face from radical jihadists, and not applying the resources that we need against targets that we don't know enough about. I think we would all agree on a bipartisan basis, we don't know enough about al Qaeda and how it works and where it is and what its resources are and what its plans and intentions are. We don't know enough about Iran, Syria, North Korea and the people that are proliferating and making this world a much more dangerous place. We will see amendments later on from both sides of the aisle that acknowledge that we are not where we want to be with the reorganization of the Intelligence Community. We have lots of questions about where the DNI, the office of the DNI is headed and whether this structure is going to work the way that some of us worked in a very bipartisan way to reform it with a certain expectation and hope, and what we would get as a result of that: An enhanced Intelligence Community that would be quicker, more nimble and more effective than the threats that we face today. And we need to rebuild HUMINT. And at the same time, we see in this bill a commitment that says we are going to task the Intelligence Community, and the question that has not been answered is what specific skills does the Intelligence Community add to the study of climate change when we are already spending $7 billion projected for the next fiscal year on climate change? What secrets are we going to steal? What are we going to task our HUMINT folks for? What are we going to task our limited resources with spy satellites to do? To assess the political, social, agricultural and economic risk during the 30-year period beginning on date of enactment? And don't say it is not going to take resources. This is a massive undertaking. It is not a throw-away. This is Congress coming and saying the most important national intelligence assessment that the community can complete next year, and you need to do it in 180 days; 180 days with no input from the community on whether they have the resources, the capabilities to carry out this task. We are saying that it needs to be done in 180 days. You need to do it on a global basis, and you need to do it over 30 years, and you need to cover all of these different areas. And by the way, we are not going to give you a benchmark from where to start. Are you going to take the U.N.'s assessment of what may be happening with climate change? Are you going to take a university's assessment on climate change? Where do you start? This is a massive undertaking. It will shift resources because when you tell the Director of National Intelligence Congress wants this done, and Congress we know has been dissatisfied with the national intelligence estimates that we have been given on Iraq and Iran and on a number of other issues, they know they need to get this one right or it better be a very, very good piece of work. They will take this very, very seriously. They will divert resources to get this done, and they will divert resources from the things that we need them to be doing. This bill sends the wrong message to our men and women in the field. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. As we have already talked about a number of times in general debate, the base bill includes a provision that directs the Director of National Intelligence to complete a national intelligence estimate on climate change where they shall assess the political, social, agricultural and economic risk during the 30-year period beginning at the date of enactment of this act posed by global climate change. This is a global study, 30 years, and it is very clear what we want to do with this amendment. We want to make sure that the Intelligence Community stays focused on its priorities which is the threat from radical jihadists, the proliferation and the threats posed by Iran, Syria, North Korea and other countries that over this 30-year period may participate in proliferation, the restructuring of the Intelligence Community, and the rebuilding of HUMINT. These are the key priorities that the Intelligence Community and the Intelligence Committees have been focused on over the last number of years. We need to continue that focus rebuilding this community, rebuilding the resources and the capabilities while, as it was discussed, the information that is going to be used is public information. The direction in the bill says it will be a public report, so the real question comes: What specific value does the Intelligence Community add to this process that makes it so important that we will divert resources from other key priorities to climate change? Why can't this be done in other areas of the government where it is already being done, areas that have already been allocated and been spending dollars in these areas over a number of years in what is projected to be over $7 billion of expenditure in these areas in 2008? Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think as you listen to the discussion, the question almost answers itself because the primary question hasn't been answered: Exactly what are we going to task our spy satellites to do? Exactly what are we going to task our human collectors to do? The statistics are very, very obvious in terms of climate change, and there's lots of different, competing ones. Exactly what secrets, with limited resources, are we going to task the intelligence community to go out and collect? And precious analysts that are taking a look at northern Africa and trying to determine exactly what the footprint is of al Qaeda in Algeria and Morocco, Nigeria, other parts of Africa, are we going to ask the CIA stations in those areas to take their time and dedicate it to studying climate change for the next 6 months? It's a totally new task. We have a community that at this point is not even a global community. So we are going to dedicate precious resources instead of expanding the reach of our intelligence community into places where we are not at today, the bigger emphasis is going to be giving them a totally new and different assignment? Instead of tasking our satellites to take a look at exactly what the proliferation capabilities are in China or North Korea, we are going to task them to look somewhere else even though that same kind of capabilities may be available from commercial imagery? Exactly what information does the intelligence community, I mean, it's our business to steal secrets, to find out what the plans and intentions are of those who want to attack the United States. This is information. There are hundreds and probably thousands of people that are very skilled at investigating climate change, predicting what may happen in certain regions of the country and certain regions of the planet, and they are not in the intelligence community. These people have their plate full. The threats are real. We should not diminish the threats. The information is in the public. These are two missions that do not come together. Studying climate change can be done by other government agencies. Stealing the secrets of al Qaeda and North Korea, Iran, other parts of the world, that is the job of the intelligence community. Let them focus on the job that we need them to do. Support this amendment and strike this National Intelligence Estimate.

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

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, just in response to my colleague, if we investigate ``slam dunk,'' I hope we investigate the term ``bugs and bunnies'' as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I will yield myself as much time as I shall consume. There's no doubt that the Air America's personnel deserve the recognition for the service that they provided during these critical times in our country in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. But it's very interesting to me that, at this time, as we're considering other amendments, and much of the debate that I hear about contractors and our use of contractors today, contractors are getting hammered each and every day. And then we step back and say, well, you know, we ought to take a look at the contractors of 50 years ago, and we maybe now ought to provide them with government benefits. And I just wonder whether, in 50 years, we'll look back at the service that is being provided by contractors today that in many different areas is not being very well received, and whether we will then recognize the service that they're providing. I hope that we do. But, under this, under the terms of Air America, legally these individuals did not qualify for government benefits. We need to make sure that we deal in a way that is fair, especially to the people that are serving as contractors today. And we need to make sure that we have a consistent pattern of how we deal with contractors in this way, recognizing that their pay comes from a private sector entity, and be very careful about when and where we are going to involve the Federal Government in picking up responsibilities of private corporations. Madam Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Lee for working over the last couple of years to get to the point where we have got an amendment that I still have a little bit of unease with, but I will not oppose the amendment, and look forward to continuing to work with her and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as we do the oversight necessary of what goes on in the intelligence community. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a senior member of the committee, Mr. Everett.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is exactly the point, that whatever abuses, whatever we wanted transparency, these were guidelines and rules that we agreed upon in the previous Congress, where I am glad that they were carried over into this Congress. I am disappointed that they were not followed the way that they were outlined in the committee process.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will yield.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, no, that does not follow. The measure that we had, you and I sat in a conference room; we went through the list with staff discussing specifically each and every earmark. And that earmark was not part of that process. When we got the report that accompanied this bill to the Rules Committee, all of a sudden there was a new earmark that you and I had not gone through. You can talk to staff and those types of things. I was never aware and neither were they that it was an earmark.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will yield.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the chairman.