Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I appreciate again the work of the ranking member, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the staff on both sides of the aisle, to pull together a bill which I think addresses the priorities that we established at this committee really beginning a year and a half ago: that we were going to stay focused on rebuilding an intelligence capability to match the threats that America faces today. This legislation puts in the necessary fences that will ensure that this committee has the oversight over the standup of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We all want this process to work. We would all like it to go faster because of the significant threats that we face as a Nation. But standing up the Office of the DNI will be the responsibility of monitoring, and that will be the responsibility of our oversight subcommittee. Our policy committee is going to continue to monitor and evaluate the threats that we face as a Nation. Whether it is al Qaeda, radical Islam, the affiliated groups to al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, we want to make sure that we as a committee have a good grasp of making sure that the intelligence community is structured to go after these threats and provide us as policymakers with the information that we need to be successful. The third thing that we are going to do is to make sure that we thoroughly take a look at what we can accomplish to stop leaks, the devastating leaks from within the community and outside of the community that damage our capabilities and give those who want to attack us insight as to what our plans, intentions and capabilities are. And then for my colleagues who have talked about the TSA program and other activities, it is the responsibility of this committee, it is the responsibility of the members of this committee to make sure that we do effective oversight, to make sure that the executive branch operates within the parameters that we have established, the legal parameters that we have established for it to operate within. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) to close the general debate on our side.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, again, I believe that with some of the dialogue we have had before, we will not oppose the amendment, but I just want to add some clarification. I am very appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina to work closely with the committee to perfect his original amendment. The intent of this amendment, as I understand it, is to improve contractor management, civilian retention, and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse across the intelligence community. These are the goals that the Intelligence Committee has embraced and we fully support. The amendment as written requires numerous duplicative and onerous reports that will only increase costs in personnel overhead at the intelligence community agencies, and particularly within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an issue that the ranking member and I and other members of the committee have been very, very concerned about. As Mr. Cramer has also identified, the Oversight Subcommittee has been working in a way to try to reduce the number of reports. This amendment, we believe, as an example, within 90 days of enactment of the legislation, there would be a requirement for the delivery of a report on hiring, promotion, and retention of all intelligence community professionals. The text does not define intelligence professional; so the amendment basically would ask for this report on every career field within the intelligence community. This may simply not be necessary. It would potentially be overly burdensome. Since it also applies to parts of the Defense Department that are part of the military intelligence program, our friends at the House Armed Services Committee have expressed some concerns about this. But based on the discussions that we had before the amendment came up indicating Mr. Price's willingness to work with us on refining this amendment once we are in conference, we are inclined to accept the amendment and to move on. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for this motion to recommit so that we can talk about this issue. The language that is being used to describe the President and the executive branch is absolutely outrageous. Today we have heard the charges ``unlawful, reckless, abusive, infallible, without consulting with Congress.'' For 4\1/2\ years, Republicans and Democrats have been brought into this program. Immediately when this program was started, to protect Americans both here and abroad, the leadership, on a bipartisan basis, was informed on the program. They consistently on a quarterly or a 4-month basis met with the executive branch, met with the Vice President and the people operating this program, and they came back united and said this program is legal, it is limited, the safeguards are in place to protect American civil liberties, it is effective, it is making a difference, and it is necessary. And only when someone leaked it to the press all of a sudden did it become all of these other things that you have ascribed to the President. The President has reached out. The President has worked with Congress to make sure that we address these concerns. America is at war. We were at war when this program started. We continue to be at war. Bin Laden was on tapes this weekend. Zarqawi is on a tape. We have bombings in Egypt, and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This continues to be the same thing that on a bipartisan basis people said needed to be done. It is legal, it is limited, it is necessary, and it is making a difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona. My commitment is to work with the ranking member and with the gentleman from Arizona on making sure that this language, we move it to somewhere that we are all agreeable. I think we can find that common ground. I just want to say I rise to support the gentleman from Arizona's amendment today. We need to set the record straight about our national security. Specifically, Congress must speak with a single voice, clear and unwavering, about the value of our intelligence information and about who makes decisions regarding its use. We need to speak now. This amendment says the right things. We are at war. Every day our Armed Forces and intelligence services do battle with an enemy whose sole purpose is to kill Americans. This point sounds fairly basic. It is. But the point bears repeating as long as some individuals here in Washington behave as if they have forgotten that we are at war. Our government has a vital interest in protecting sensitive national security information during a time of war. The United States Supreme Court has recognized this vital interest in preserving secrecy. This interest is not merely some speculative opinion. It is the law of the land. This amendment makes that point. The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to protect national security with the President of the United States. The President does so as the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this fact as law. The gentleman's amendment again makes that point. Under our system of laws, the President must decide what sensitive national security information can be shared with the public and what must remain closely guarded. The President does not make these decisions lightly. He is elected by the American people to exercise his judgment in this regard and to make such decisions with the best interests of the American people in mind. Ultimately he is accountable to the people at the voting booth. We have worked with the President and disagreed with his opinions and directions, most recently the decision to declassify over 48,000 boxes of documents that were obtained in Iraq. The position of the intelligence community and the executive branch for an extended period of time was to hold that information. After working with the executive branch, that information is now in the process of being declassified and released to the American people. That is a good decision. But we went through a process. Individuals who disclose sensitive national security information without authority undermine the rule of law. These people substitute their judgment for that of the President, and they exercise that authority when legally it does not even belong to them. These individuals may act for self-determined reasons, not in the best interests of the American people, but in their own interests. I think that is what makes it different. Unless they are prosecuted, they remain unaccountable to the American people for their actions.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentlewoman has no additional speakers, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers), who chairs our policy committee on the Intelligence Committee, responsible for identifying and understanding the threats that we face as a Nation.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), our distinguished colleague who is the chair of our subcommittee responsible for rebuilding human intelligence capabilities.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment. I think this information is very consistent with the type of information that the Intelligence Committee receives on a regular basis, but we need to make sure that we continue receiving it in the future. Again, we will be inclined to accept this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the chairman of the oversight subcommittee assigned with the responsibility of making sure that the reshaping and the rebuilding of the intelligence community under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a successful launch and does rebuild the community into what we need after what we inherited in the 1990s.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first wish to announce that, subsequent to reporting the bill, the committee has modified the classified annex to the bill with respect to the authorized level of funding for certain programs with bipartisan agreement between myself and the ranking member. The classified annex containing the modified schedule of authorizations is and was available for review by all Members of the House, subject to the rules of the House and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under the procedures described in my announcement to the House on April 6, 2006. Mr. Chairman, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has a reputation for conducting its business in a bipartisan manner. With the intelligence authorization legislation before us today, I can say that we have clearly hit that mark again. I look across the aisle to my colleague and friend, the committee's ranking Democrat member, Ms. Harman, and say thank you for once again helping to craft a very good bipartisan piece of legislation that will allow the talented, dedicated and patriotic men and women of our Nation's intelligence community, our first line of defense, to protect America, its people and our friends around the world. Mr. Chairman, this bill is all about national security. It is about authorizing the intelligence resources, capabilities and operations necessary for us to know about foreign threats and to defend ourselves in an increasingly dangerous world. It is about rebuilding, reshaping and indeed fixing a community that was decimated by the budget cuts of the 1990s. Because of these cuts, on September 11, 2001, we were without a robust human intelligence capability and without a robust analytic capability that may have helped prevent or minimize these attacks on the United States. This bill continues a many-year effort to transform, build up and recreate an intelligence community that can know and respond to threats. There will be those here today who will not share our concerns about the many threats against which our intelligence community must operate. There will be those who do not agree with the necessary activities of our intelligence community. There will be even be those who actually accuse our dedicated intelligence professionals of violating, if not the law, then the spirit of American values. This as they go about a business to protect you and me. To those who would and will take such positions, I say: you are wrong. The threats are real. The professional dedication, the discipline, the expertise and the extraordinary respect for the civil liberties of all Americans that the honorable men and women of our intelligence community exhibit is real. To them we owe a great debt. To them we must make our best collaborative efforts to provide the resources and authorities that H.R. 5020 authorizes. Finally, because of them, we have the responsibility to rise above any partisan politics in order to come together and pass this national security bill. This is the first intelligence budget request that was fully determined by the new Director of National Intelligence, or the DNI. Although the Office of the DNI is still in its formative stages, I am pleased that the promise of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2040, the legislation that created the DNI, is beginning to bear fruit, and that incremental but real improvements have been made since the standup. It was our intent to better unify the disparate pieces of the intelligence community; to create a more cohesive whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. That goal is a work in progress, and we will continue to support the DNI's efforts to create a more effective intelligence community. We will support that effort, but we also provide the necessary oversight, and this bill provides some mechanisms to make sure that we get the intelligence community that the ranking member and I envisioned when we worked so hard at passing that legislation. Mr. Chairman, as you also know, much of this legislation is classified and can't be discussed here on the floor. We must be very careful to ensure that today's debate does not involve classified information. That said, I do want to discuss, at an unclassified level, some specific items contained in the authorization bill before us. The first is our continuing support for an effective Director of National Intelligence that can, as I mentioned earlier, bring together all of the agencies of the intelligence community. We need an effective and efficient DNI that fully coordinates and sets the direction for the high-fidelity capabilities of the intelligence community. In this legislation we are sending a strong signal that the vision of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation was about building a qualitatively better intelligence establishment and not building a bureaucracy. This bill continues to pursue improvements to our core intelligence for human intelligence, intelligence analysis, infrastructure and counterintelligence capabilities. Improvements in these areas are absolutely critical to gaining the upper hand in the war against worldwide terrorism. We have, for example, made recommendations for improved HUMINT training and associated support. We have recommended additional funding for analytical tools. And we have put a great deal of emphasis on increasing counterintelligence programs and personnel, because, in case you have not been looking, there are many nations and nonstate actors actively trying to steal America's secrets. This bill also puts a renewed and continued emphasis on overhead imagery architecture. As many know, last year there were some decisions that were made that included terminating a part of the Future Imagery Architecture program. This was a tough decision. It had its positive aspects. It also had its negative downside. We are now in a late-to- need race to ensure we do not have future capabilities gaps. I am concerned that the current approach has not adequately addressed this problem. So this legislation vigorously pursues one of a very limited number of options. Finally, I would like to also address a provision that was mentioned in one of the amendments that was proposed by the minority for today. I want to reinforce to my colleagues on the intelligence committee that we remain very, very committed to active oversight and reporting by the intelligence community on the progress that they are making in Iran. We have provisions in the bill for Iraq. We have got some of that language for Iran and other hot spots around the world. But as the ranking member and I have discussed, as the rule was being debated, the spirit of the amendment is one that we embrace. We may have some technical or drafting differences, but the intent of that amendment is one that we will stay focused on. We believe it is inherently important for us to focus on those kinds of issues and to do this in a bipartisan basis. The issues and the threats that we are facing, al Qaeda, radical Islam, Iran, North Korea, as well as future threats that are on the horizon that we are only beginning to think about, require us to continue to work in a bipartisan basis. I recognize that we had some disagreements on the bill. We have got disagreements between Republicans and Democrats. We have got disagreements within each side of the aisle. But the important thing is that we continue to focus on working in a bipartisan basis to keep America safe. That is the request that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have placed to us, and I hope that we will continue in working in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. McHugh) who in the past year has sat through seven briefings on Iran in the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. I will not oppose the amendment, but I do want to just have a couple of clarifying comments. We should not presume and we are not presuming by accepting the amendment that any such authorization to overthrow democratically elected governments has ever happened or been authorized. But we think it would be helpful to have this 10-year history to clarify that. The reporting requirements are very much appropriate. So with that clarification, we are inclined to accept the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who has responsibility as chairwoman of the Tactical and Technical Subcommittee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, again I am looking forward to working in conference in a bipartisan way to work out any concerns or any additional issues that may arise with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the manager's amendment to the bill. It contains two provisions. The first strikes the provision of the committee's amendment relating to the Freedom of Information Act at the request of the Committee on Government Reform. The second specifically clarifies that the new membership of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the intelligence community is limited to the DEA's Office of National Security Intelligence. This clarification was requested by the Department of Justice and the DEA. I do not believe that either of these changes are controversial. I urge Members to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5020, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use my 5 minutes now.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ralph Hauenstein. Mr. Hauenstein rose to the rank of colonel while serving in the U.S. Army during World Wars I and II and was appointed Chief of the Intelligence Branch in the Army's European Theater of Operations under General Dwight Eisenhower. Mr. Hauenstein was later selected to serve as a consultant on the President's Advisory Commission during the Eisenhower administration. He served as a member of the team that supervised the first free elections in Russia and served as an auditor for the Second Vatican Council in Rome. At 93 years old, he continues his career of public service and has significantly impacted west Michigan through his charitable donations and tireless involvement in his community. His generosity made possible the founding of the Grand Valley State University's Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies. The Center encourages students to emulate his career by aspiring to achieve leadership positions and committing to public service. It fosters discussion by students, government officials and the public about the role of the U.S. presidency in domestic and world affairs. Mr. Speaker, please let it be known that on this 6th day of April, 2006, that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges the vision, contributions and achievements of Mr. Hauenstein as he continues to serve his country and community. Honoring Members of the Hope College Women's Basketball Team

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the Hope College women's basketball team on winning the 2006 NCAA Division III national championship. On March 18, Hope defeated Southern Maine University 69-56 in the national championship game held in Springfield, Massachusetts. More than 500 Hope College students, alumni, faculty and fans were present at the Final Four tournament. With the win, Hope became Michigan's first women's basketball team to win more than one championship in any NCAA division. The college won its first title in 1990. Hope played all six tournament games on the road. The team finished the season with an NCAA Division III women's basketball record of 33-1 after defeating the top four teams in the Nation. Senior guard Bria Ebels of Holland, Michigan, was voted the most outstanding player at the tournament and a Division III All-American. Coach Brian Morehouse was chosen as the NCAA Division III National Coach of the Year by the Women's Basketball Coaches Association of America. Mr. Speaker, please let it be known that on this 6th day of April, 2006, that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges the achievements of the 2006 Hope College women's basketball team and wishes its members the best of luck in the future. Honoring Colonel Joseph Mazurek

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Joseph Mazurek as he approaches his July 1, 2006, retirement from the United States Army Reserve. Mr. Mazurek joined the Western Michigan University ROTC program in the fall of 1972. He graduated from the ROTC Advanced Camp and the Army Paratrooper School in 1975. He served 2 years of active duty and became an Assistant Adjutant before being assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve. Since 1978, he has served in a wide variety of Reserve assignments at locations throughout the United States. Colonel Mazurek continued to be promoted, and in 1992 he achieved the rank of Full Colonel. He has been called up for active duty three times since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom as Deputy and Acting Adjutant General for Fort Hood, Texas. Colonel Mazurek has had a long and successful career serving in the United States Army Reserve. Since April of 1978, he has served the Admissions Department of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and has assisted numerous Michigan young people in gaining appointments to West Point. He has also served on the advisory committee for the Second Congressional District for young people to be appointed to the various military academies. Mr. Speaker, please let it be known on this 6th day of April, 2006, that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges the 30 years of service of Colonel Mazurek and wishes him well upon his retirement.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has ordered the bill, H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, reported favorably to the House with an amendment. The committee's report will be filed today. Mr. Speaker, the classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex accompanying the bill will be available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room H-405 of the Capitol beginning anytime after the report is filed. The committee office will open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration by the House. I anticipate that H.R. 5020 will be considered on the floor of the House after the recess, as early as the week of April 24. I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. This will assure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire assistance during their review of these classified materials. I urge interested Members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. The classified annex to the committee's report contains the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal year 2007 and related classified information that cannot be publicly disclosed. It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of House rule XXIII, which only permits access to classified information by those Members of the House who have signed the oath provided for in the rule. Members are advised that it will be necessary to bring a copy of the rule XXIII oath signed by them when they come to the committee offices to review the material. If a Member has not yet signed that oath, but wishes to review the classified annex and schedule of authorizations, the committee staff can administer the oath and see to it that the executed form is sent to the Clerk's office. In addition, the committee's rules require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement indicates that the Member has been granted access to the classified annex and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information.