India-Pakistan Peace Resolution

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Under what authority are we considering this resolution, Madam Speaker?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Did the order of the House which is allowing for consideration of this resolution specify a specific resolution by number in that order?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Are there other resolutions

that have been introduced with the title ``To enhance intelligence oversight authority''?

I am sorry?

Well, further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. I, with authority, can say that there in fact is a resolution that has been introduced, House Resolution 38, that has the exact same title, which is, ``to enhance intelligence oversight authority.''

And my question that I would propound to the Chair is whether or not the Chair would have been able to recognize me if I had, in fact, based on the structure of this order of the House, H. Res. 6, I had called up House Resolution 38.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The only thing that I would say, if I could just engage in a further parliamentary inquiry, is would there in fact have been an opportunity for those of us in the minority had we been recognized by the Chair to call up the resolution other than the one that is called up.

And I know we are going through a transition period, and I want to do everything I possibly can to help the majority to pursue their goals here and try to move this legislation.

I would just like to let those members of the majority know that.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Let me begin by saying that I really am somewhat surprised at the remarks of my very good friend. First of all, if you look at the fact that we focused very enthusiastically on the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission and implemented 39 of the 41, we had a challenge in dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. And I have got to say, Madam Speaker, that if you look at the question of jurisdiction and making very important changes in jurisdiction, it is one of the single most difficult things that is to be done.

And I will tell you, I see my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) here, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; 13 years ago, he and I had the opportunity to serve on what was known as the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. And we had a tough time looking at the issue of jurisdiction.

And you know what, Madam Speaker? After the work of that commission, and unfortunately, when the new majority was in power back then, none of the recommendations of that commission were put into place. None of the brilliant ideas that Mr. Obey propounded were put into place at that time.

But when we came to majority in 1994, Madam Speaker, I still have scars on my back to show how difficult it was to bring about major jurisdictional reform. And I have to say that it is a very, very difficult thing to do, but essential. At that time, we consolidated, basically eliminated three standing committees. I had Members on both sides of the aisle at that time come to me and say that the future of the Republic was jeopardized if we did not keep the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, the District of Columbia Committee, and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries committee. My God, if we didn't keep that in the place, we as a Nation were going right down the tubes.

But guess what? We eliminated those committee. We reduced by 20 percent the number of subcommittees, and it was very tough. We were going through a transition, as we had Members who

were looking forward to taking on the gavels.

And then something that was equally difficult was dealing with the post-9/11 situation, the Department of Homeland Security. We had to put into place a committee structure here that allowed us to establish this committee on Homeland Security that we have today, taking jurisdiction from other committees.

Similarly, we had a very tough time when it came to the Energy and Commerce Committee and what was then called the Banking Committee, trying to bring that together. It is very tough work. And it saddens me that this great opportunity that is here, like the one we faced in 1994, is slipping away with the measure that we are considering right here.

For that reason, Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 35, this resolution that provides for simply a new oversight committee for national intelligence.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' Part and parcel of that responsibility is effective oversight of the Intelligence community, both to ensure its success and to protect our liberties.

Now, the 9/11 Commission correctly identified significant deficiencies in our national intelligence apparatus and, yes, our oversight of those agencies. The 9/11 Commission, as I said, made 41 separate recommendations. Through enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act, and I was proud to serve as a conferee in that effort, our majority took affirmative steps to implement nearly all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Is there more that remains to be done? Of course there is. We all acknowledge that. As long as America has enemies, Madam Speaker, we will need to re-evaluate and improve our Nation's defenses.

Does the resolution before us do that? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

The 9/11 Commission recommended two options for intelligence oversight. First, a joint committee based on the model of the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and second, a single committee in each House of Congress combining authorizing and appropriating authorities. The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely the opposite direction, Madam Speaker. Rather than consolidating oversight authority into a single committee that has both authorizing and appropriating authority, it just creates a new committee that has neither, doesn't have either of those powers. So while the 9/11 Commission recommended one committee, we will have three committees dealing with this very important issue.

Further, I am unsure as to what authority this committee actually will have. Having been in the midst of jurisdictional struggles, as I said, for the last decade and a half, I know what it means. As far as I can tell the only authority that this committee has is to write a report to the same people who serve on the committee. They could write a report and give it to themselves.

And the 9/11 Commission was very specific about who should serve on the committee. And I quote from the 9/11 Commission report, Madam Speaker, they said, ``Four of the Members appointed to this committee or committees should be a Member who also serves on each of the following additional committees, the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.''

Now, Madam Speaker, where are the members of the Armed Services Committee, Judiciary Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Apparently, those aspects of our intelligence activities weren't important enough for the promised improved oversight.

Now, did the Republicans enact, as I said, every 9/11 Commission recommendation exactly as they wrote it? No, we didn't. But, we didn't promise to, and I quote from Speaker Pelosi, ``to make our Nation safer by implementing all of the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission.''

Now, Madam Speaker, Republicans made sure that there was good communication between the administration, our authorizing committees and Appropriations Committee on intelligence matters. That has made a difference over the last few years. We all know that very, very well. The fact that we haven't had an attack on our soil is, to me, evidence of the success of this administration and the role that this Congress played.

I don't believe that creating committees with both authorizing and appropriating authority, and we have the distinguished former chairman, my always chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from California (Mr. Lewis), here, and I know he would share my concern about this merger. But it is something that is worth considering.

Frankly, that notion concentrates a lot of power and erodes some of the very important checks and balances that exist in the committee system. But, frankly, it is very important to note that this resolution does away with even the pretense of bipartisanship.

I applauded enthusiastically when Speaker Pelosi talked about her quest for civility and bipartisanship. And it has been said time and time again, unlike our resolution in the 109th Congress establishing the bipartisan Katrina panel, I remember very well when we put that together, established it, and it did great work. Unfortunately, this resolution, the resolution on Katrina gave the minority the right to appoint its members. This resolution authorizes the Speaker, the Democratic Speaker, to appoint the Republican members of the committee, without any consultation with the Republicans at all.

The tradition in this House is that each party caucus is responsible for its own appointments. And this resolution, for the first time ever, does away with that precedent.

Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I never got a chance to make those arguments where I should have made those arguments, with my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings) where? Right upstairs in the Rules Committee.

As I argued here at the end of last week when we had this measure before us, we had, for the first time in the history of this institution, the first time ever, five closed rules brought up in the opening day rules package of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has been thrown completely out the window when it comes to this.

And last week, when we debated this, we had a total of 5 minutes to debate the opening day rules package and five closed rules, without bills being introduced, without committee hearings, without the process whatsoever and without even giving us, the struggling minority, upstairs in the Rules Committee the opportunity to have our amendments denied. We didn't even have the chance to have our amendments denied upstairs in the Rules Committee.

All I am saying, listen, I am loving my role here in the minority, Madam Speaker. It is really a great opportunity to be able to represent the people of California here. But I will tell you, Democrats and Republicans alike all across this country have been treated very poorly in an unprecedented way.

Now, I believe that many of the Commission's recommendations were right. That is why we implemented so many of them. But this resolution that we have before us is wrong when it comes to this opportunity that we unfortunately are allowing to slip through our fingers. We are not being given the chance to put into place the very, very important jurisdictional reforms that are needed to deal with this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield on that point? At least it was not when I was upstairs in the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member, our former chairman and future chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Highland, California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and hardworking former chairman of the committee from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Every single argument that I heard from Mr. Obey, Madam Speaker, was, in fact, in support of the argument from the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud at this time to yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Intelligence, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

I never said that.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say in response to my good friends, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Reyes, that I never in my prepared remarks at the outset said that I was supportive of this notion of merging the authorizing and the appropriating process. I simply said that that was the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and I stated that I was concerned about that prospect.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Savannah, Georgia, a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kingston.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very hardworking colleague from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me at the outset say to my good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings), one of my staff members encouraged me to have his words taken down when he accused me just a few minutes ago of being disingenuous when it came to the introduction of House Resolution 38. That resolution, as the gentleman knows from the parliamentary inquiry that I engaged in, was designed to simply point to the flaws and the way this measure was crafted. Now, that resolution in no way called for the merging of the authorizing and the appropriating process. I simply said at that point that that was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

I would be happy to yield to my friend if he can, in fact, point to me where in the resolution I introduced, House Resolution 38, it states that there should be a merging of both the authorizing and the appropriating process. And I am very happy to yield to my good friend from Fort Lauderdale.

I introduced the H. Resolution 38, and I support it much more so than I do the resolution that we have here. The reason being that I believe very much that there should, in fact, be consultation in a bipartisan way rather than having unilateral decisions made by the Speaker of the House over the minority in this Chamber, as Mr. LaHood said so well, an unprecedented action that has been taken. And my point is, there is nothing in the resolution that I introduced that does what led the gentleman to call me disingenuous. I, in the spirit of comity as set forth by Speaker Pelosi in her opening remarks, am not going to have the words of my friend taken down. I do not engage in name calling on the floor of this House, and even if people want to continue that towards me, I refuse to respond.

Madam Speaker, let me close by making a couple of remarks about what it is that is before us here. About 6 months ago in July, my very distinguished colleague, the new chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, and he also will be serving as the chairman of the very important House Democracy Assistance Commission, and I am looking forward to serving now as the co-chairman, the ranking Republican on that committee; last July we went on our mission to help build democracies, build the parliaments in these fledgling democracies around the world. And I am very proud, Madam Speaker, that we have been able to do this in 12 countries. Last July, we were in Nairobi, Kenya, meeting with members of the parliament. When we were there, we had an opportunity to go and visit the site of one of the greatest tragedies to take place in our Nation's history, and that was before September 11, 2001. In 1998, our colleagues will recall that the embassies of both Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were brutally attacked by al Qaeda. We all know that that happened, and we know there was a response at that time. We finally got the news last night that we have been able to see, with regional support, support of the Ethiopians, support of the Kenyans, who very courageously have stepped up to the plate; we launched an air strike in southern Somalia against al Qaeda that was successful, successful in making sure that we make another blow against those who inflicted the worst attack in modern history against the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I argue that that kind of success was not an accident. That kind of success in launching that strike against those who attacked the United States of America, both here on our soil and on our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, was done because of our effective leadership in the United States of America in prosecuting this Global War on Terror.

Now, I believe that as we look at what it is that we are doing here, it is very admirable. We know, as Mrs. Wilson said earlier, a promise was made to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We are very proud of the fact that 39 of the 41 recommendations that were made by that commission have been put into place.

What we have before us is something that is very ill founded, and it is an attempt to respond to that promise.

But one of the things that I have learned, Madam Speaker, when you do something simply for the sake of doing something, it is probably the wrong thing. Madam Speaker, I do believe very fervently this is the wrong thing.

Now, I have here a copy of the rules of the House, and as I look through the structure that put into place the committee on which Mr. LaHood has served so proudly, the Intelligence Committee, it calls for membership from the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, and it makes the Speaker and the minority leader ex- officio members. And it in fact does call for the Speaker to make the appointments. It traditionally is done in with consultation with Members of the minority.

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that is what the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is all about. We have virtually the identical structure being put into place for little more than a feel- good measure. That is really what it is. It is to be able to say, yes, we have this committee.

I am going to say, as I did when I opened this debate, Madam Speaker, Mr. Obey and I worked on that joint committee on the organization of Congress back in 1993. We had 37 hearings, and 243 witnesses during that 2-year period came before us. Those numbers have stuck with me because that was a great opportunity I had to serve, along with our colleague, Lee Hamilton, interestingly enough, who was the co-chair of the commission on the House side, and Pete Domenici and David Boren, the father of our colleague, Dan Boren, co-chaired the committee on the other side.

We looked at a wide range of changes, many of which I am proud to say we implemented. We talked about the issue of jurisdiction, but we didn't come up with firm recommendations. But when we took over, before a single Republican Member got their hands on the gavel, we saw them put into place recommendations.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I urge a vote for my motion to recommit that I will be offering forthwith.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding. I will simply state once again that there is absolutely nothing in either Mr. Obey's resolution or the resolution that I introduced that calls for the 9/11 Commission's recommendation of merging the authorization and the appropriations process. That is why it is very clear that it has not called for the merging.

If the gentleman would yield, that is what I was accused of having said. I never said anything of the kind.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 506 of House Resolution 6, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 35) to enhance intelligence oversight authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9/11 Commission, made several recommendations on steps that the government could take in order to prevent and prepare for future terrorist attacks.

In particular, the Commission said, and I quote, ``Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee, in each House of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities is another.'' End of quote.

Subsequent to the report, commissioners also suggested creating a new appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters. It is my pleasure today to see the House implement this recommendation from the 9/11 Commission.

This House rules change, by creating a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel within the House Appropriations Committee, responds to the commission's recommendation by creating a new panel that is made up of members of both the Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will be primarily responsible for reviewing and studying, including through the hearings process, the President's budget submission for intelligence and the execution of intelligence activities.

The committee will also be tasked with making recommendations to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and to other Appropriations subcommittees on intelligence programs, projects, and activities. Moreover, this new panel will, on an annual basis, prepare a report to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee containing budgetary and oversight observations and recommendations for use by the subcommittee in preparation of the classified annex to the Defense Appropriations Bill.

I see that the Republican members of the Rules Committee, in a letter to the chair lady of that committee, are complaining that we are not allowing the committee process to work its will, and that it is unfair to the Republican side. I would say, to paraphrase Shakespeare, ``They do protest too much, methinks.''

The 9/11 Commission report was published more than 2\1/2\ years ago. Aside from sitting on their collective thumbs, what did the Republicans do on this specific recommendation? Nothing, much like what they did on the rest of the 9/11 report.

Okay. Fine. The President now claims the right to open every citizen's mail without judicial approval. The President says he can listen to every citizen's phone calls without judicial approval. Oh, and read everyone's e-mails too, without judicial approval. But I don't remember those being recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Madam Speaker, we are doing this for the security of our Nation and our people. As I said at the outset, this was in large part a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

Now, I see my friend from California, and he is my friend, about ready to speak. And I would simply say to the ranking member, maybe you should ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they think Congress should spend another 2 years debating action and then taking none, or whether we should take action and move forward on behalf of the families affected by those terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the rest of the country that is looking for results, not rancor.

No more rancor, Madam Speaker. No rhetoric, Madam Speaker. Results. That is what the American people have asked for, and that is what we will deliver.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind my good friend from San Dimas that you had 2\1/2\ years to introduce these measures, and you did nothing.

The Members of the 9/11 Commission support this change. I saw one of them this morning, Lee Hamilton; and all of them are on board with the change that they recommended.

But perhaps since we have had so much rhetoric, and we need some guidance for results, we can ask the author of the legislation if he would give us information on this measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell each side how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend Silvestre Reyes.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 35.

Madam Speaker, before yielding again, I would just remind my colleagues my good friend from New Mexico says that we shouldn't merge this committee. My good friend from San Dimas, California, says that we should merge this committee, which kind of demonstrates that the Republicans are capable of falling off the same horse from both sides, all things considered.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Committee on Intelligence, my good friend, Rush Holt.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before yielding to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York.

My colleague, the ranking member, just said he did not say he supported combining these functions, and yet here is his signature on his legislation that does just that. That is what I was talking about when I said that is disingenuous.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and classmate.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and very good friend, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence that I have served with, my good friend from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), with whom I have served on the Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Do you support the legislation that you filed?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would first like to respond to my good friend and say to him that I am awfully glad you did not accept the recommendation of your staff member that my words be taken down with reference to the comments that you made. Let me repeat for you what I said. I said and I quote, ``Mr. Dreier just said he did not say that he supported combining these functions. And yet here is his signature on his legislation that does just that.''

No.

Let me read from Mr. Dreier's House Resolution 30. You said there is established a select intelligence oversight panel of the Committee on Appropriations. The select panel shall be composed of not more than 14 Members, delegates or the resident commissioner appointed by the Speaker. The select panel shall include the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Defense, six additional members of the Committee on Appropriations, and four members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

That is the exact same thing Mr. Obey is doing with the exception of the constitution of the number on the committee.

I would be more than pleased to yield to my friend because I don't like the characterization that you put forward that I am being disingenuous by saying that you are disingenuous and that you were going to take my words down.

I need time to respond to Mr. LaHood as well. He commented on the nomenclature of the intelligence committee, and his comment was that I know better. And he knows that I know that the nomenclature is difficult because he and I were on that steep learning curve, he before me, and I had to learn as well.

But I can tell him that Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young know that nomenclature as well as you and I do, Ray, and you know that.

If I have time at the end, I will yield.

As I said before, this is a specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am proud that the House Democrats can again do more in 1 week than Republicans were able to do in the last 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission made their report. The gentleman that I have already referenced knows of what I speak.

With that, I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, nobody said that, Mr. Dreier.

Reclaiming my time, as I said earlier to my friend, I enjoy our banter and I can suggest to him that being in the minority is going to be a very long 2 years for you.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise one premise that no one has talked about, and that is this blind belief in everything the 9/11 committee says, and apparently individual Members as well.

The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group of good people, some who served in the House. They are intelligent people who have been involved in public policy, but I am not aware that they were top-notch CIA or FBI or intelligence community members. I don't know of them having risen up through the ranks of the intelligence circles or the antiterrorism circles that makes them absolutely experts on everything on what is now a 2\1/2\-year-old report.

I wanted to bring that up because I think it is important when you consider that when the 9/11 Commission came out, this Congress on a bipartisan basis implemented 39 out of the 41 recommendations. We did not implement all the recommendations, but we had hearings on them and they were bipartisan and there was a lot of discussion, unlike what we have here today. What we have here today is a recommendation, a recommendation not made by the 9/11 Commission but, from what I am hearing, one Member wandering around the Hall said, Yeah, this is a good idea. Now, that is hardly the way to make a major step in the way we approach intelligence in the House. It doesn't make sense at all.

This bill today has not had a hearing. The Rules Committee did not hear of any amendments that could or would be offered or debated. I think, frankly, the thing that is ironic, and I have got to say as I see over there many of my very good friends, many institutionalists, people who have great respect for the institution, you know that on intelligence we have generally been bipartisan here in the Capitol. Certainly there are times when intelligence like everything else devolves into partisanship, but generally speaking we have

conducted this body in the wake of 9/11 itself in a bipartisan manner, and yet today we don't have that. We do not have those amendments which people could come together on.

So I just wanted to raise that because, as I sit as an Appropriations Committee member on the Defense Subcommittee, and I sit there and I listen to so many people like Mr. Obey, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Young, the folks I would consider the sage folks in the back room who at the end of the day do the pragmatic thing and put the best interests of the Nation forward, in this particular case that has not been allowed to happen. So I find myself a little perplexed by this because it has not been thoroughly vetted, and I am going to vote ``no'' on it because of the process itself.

Now, there are a lot of other issues that are important, and it is important to me that the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the Homeland Security, of the Rules Committee, of the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Judiciary Committee are all resoundingly against this.

Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I have read and reviewed, and I submit for inclusion into the Record that has been written by them, and I think the points that they have raised are very, very important.

110th Congress

of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2007.

Dear Republican Colleague: Today the House is scheduled to

consider House Resolution 35, a resolution purporting to

enhance intelligence oversight authority. We are writing to

you to outline our strong concerns with the current version

of the resolution and to ask you to join us in opposing this

resolution.

As a response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation to

streamline intelligence oversight, Speaker Pelosi proposed

the select panel on Intelligence oversight within the

Appropriations Committee to consolidate intelligence

oversight. Unfortunately, we believe this proposal is wholly

inconsistent with any notion of a more streamlined and

rigorous intelligence oversight process. In fact, we believe

the proposal will make oversight more complex and less

effective.

The 9/11 Commission recommended creating a single committee

with both authorizing and appropriating authority. The House

of Representatives did not agree with this recommendation,

and instead worked to ensure proper oversight by creating a

new oversight subcommittee within the House Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence and by improving coordination and

cooperation between the authorization committees and the

House Appropriation Committee. The new proposal undermines

these efforts by adding a duplicative and seemingly powerless

panel to the process. Instead of consolidating our oversight

responsibilities, we will be diffusing them, making three

entities within the House for oversight of the intelligence

community instead of the current two.

It is also apparent that the oversight parameters and

responsibilities are not clearly defined. If this panel is

supposed to be conducting oversight, it is unclear whether

the panel will get into intelligence operations. We have

worked hard to limit the unauthorized dissemination of highly

classified and sensitive programs, and we are concerned about

the practical implementation of the panel.

Finally, if the proposed oversight panel is charged with

reviewing and studying the entire intelligence community, why

are the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security,

and Judiciary Committees not represented on the panel? The 9/

11 Commission specifically recommended members from the Armed

Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees also

serve on the joint authorization appropriations committee.

The purpose of the recommendation is to ensure adequate input

and review by the appropriate authorization committees. If

the purpose of the panel is too afford more aggressive

oversight, why were these equities and jurisdictions

overlooked?

If this proposal had gone through the normal committee

process, which House Rules Ranking Member Dreier requested,

we would have had an opportunity to address these serious

concerns through regular order.

Given these serious concerns, we do not agree this would be

a responsible revision of the current intelligence oversight

structure. We respectfully request you join us in voting

``no'' on H. Res, 35.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, Appropriations

Committee; Rep. Duncan Hunter, Ranking Member, Armed

Services Committee; Rep. Peter King, Ranking Member,

Homeland Security Committee; Rep. David Dreier, Ranking

Member, Rules Committee; Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking

Member, Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, Ranking Member, Foreign Affairs Committee;

Rep. Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee.

But I have to say, this is just not the right step in terms of addressing the national security needs of our Nation.

I very much thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I observed that the minority is complaining about the fact that this approach has not been sufficiently bipartisan. As I recall, during the 10 years that the Democrats were in the minority, or more, I asked the Rules Committee almost 100 times to make specific proposals in order. The last time I checked, the record demonstrated that they had made them in order exactly two times.

I didn't hear what you said, but I don't have the time to yield anyway, I am sorry.

The fact is that the 9/11 Commission recognized two problems that in their words rendered congressional oversight of intelligence ``dysfunctional''. The first was that the intelligence authorizing committee was routinely ignored by the administration and the intelligence community because they didn't provide the money. In this town, people follow the money.

Secondly, the Appropriations Committee, frankly, was negligent in its responsibilities for oversight. Example: When Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld established an independent intelligence operation outside of the purview of his own agency's intelligence shop, I tried to find out what was going on. I requested that the Appropriations Committee do a thorough Surveys And Investigations study of what was going on. My efforts were blocked by that same committee.

The third problem we faced is that there was grossly insufficient staff on the part of the Appropriations Committee to have decent congressional oversight. Example: The Democratic minority had exactly one staffer to deal not only with all intelligence issues but also with the entire defense budget. How much do you think you can get done with one person?

The other problem was that there was not sufficient emphasis on intelligence matters by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee because they had a lot of other things to do dealing with ``little'' problems like the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

So the 9/11 Commission suggested one way to correct that problem. They suggested that we merge the authorizers with the appropriators, and that the authorizing committee, in fact, do the appropriating.

We concluded that there was a better way to accomplish the same goal. We felt that the problem with the initial recommendation was that it doesn't make much sense to consider intelligence funding requests standing alone, because in the real world those requests have to compete with other national security imperatives, again, funding the Army, the Air Force, and the other agencies.

Instead, we chose to follow a different model, that of the Joint Committee on Taxation. That committee conducts an annual review of the strategic plans and the budget of the IRS.

This bill follows, with some variation, that pattern. It creates a hybrid committee composed of members from the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Committee. They are all appointed by the Speaker because, in technical terms, whenever task forces are created around here, it is the Speaker who does the appointing. Speaker Pelosi has already made crystal clear that she intends to appoint whatever Republicans are suggested by the minority leader.

But there was another reason that the Speaker is listed as appointing all of these people, because we want to make clear to the intelligence community that if they try to ignore what this task force is trying to do, that they are not just messing around with individual Members of Congress; they are messing around with the leader of an independent branch of government who has the authority to inflict consequences if they don't provide information the Congress is entitled to have.

This task force will be given the obligation to prepare an annual assessment of all intelligence activities and to make budget recommendations, which will serve as the basis for the preparation of the intelligence budget, the classified annex to the defense appropriation bill.

The reason the subcommittee needs to have at least the ability in theory to change some of those recommendations is because it has a job which that panel doesn't have. It has the job of measuring the needs of intelligence against other national security needs, and it needs to have that flexibility.

But this bill would also lead to a beefed-up staff for this task force, and that task force will be buttressed by the subpoena power of the Appropriations Committee.

That means that at long last we will have at least one panel which the intelligence community cannot ignore. We will have one panel which even the Republican members of the commission, like John Lehman, have indicated is a great step forward. I would just suggest that if the gentleman had preferred a different approach, it would have been nice if he had produced one in the 2\1/2\ years he had the chance.

I urge support for this proposal.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, wants to hyperventilate over the fact that I simply verbally referred to this as a ``task force'' rather than a ``panel,'' be my guest. I guess his threshold of excitement has been considerably lowered these days.

Let me simply say, the gentleman says this is an insult to Mr. Murtha and to Mr. Young. No, it is not. He asked, does the Defense Appropriations Committee need oversight? It certainly did the last year, and let me tell you why.

When Mr. Rumsfeld set up his separate stovepiping operation for intelligence, I went to Mr. Murtha, asked him to sign a letter instituting a surveys and investigations study because, under our rules, under our practices, we needed the support of the full chairman, the full ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and the subcommittee ranking member. I went to Mr. Murtha. He signed on to the letter calling for the investigation. I went to Mr. Young. He signed on to the letter calling for the investigation. But I was blocked by the full committee chairman.

So if you are asking me, does the Appropriations Committee, based on its record of the last 2 years, need some additional oversight on this issue? You bet it does, because as a result of that refusal to proceed, we never did learn what Rumsfeld was doing until we read it in the press. That is not the way it is supposed to work.

This is the first time that we have created any kind of a panel that will

force the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee to work together like adults rather than worrying about dunghill jurisdictional issues. And the security of this country is a whole lot more important than the feelings of any one committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with my good friend and colleague, the former chairman, who is now our ranking member. At the time, he was supportive of this panel. I recognize we all have the right to change our minds, but part of this process is starting to build a bridge that gives us an opportunity on the authorizing side to be able to do a better job for this country.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 35, which would implement a core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

Madam Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, five Democrats and five Republicans, unanimously made 45 recommendations to prevent another attack on United States soil. Tragically, the President and previous Congress earned dismal grades for failing to enact these recommendations. One of these recommendations, indeed the one the commission called the most difficult and the most important, was to reform the way Congress oversees the intelligence activities of the United States.

Intelligence is the tip of the spear in the war against violent extremists and in the efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction. Yet despite the importance of this mission, congressional oversight of intelligence has largely been dysfunctional.

Most significantly, the committee responsible for overseeing the intelligence community, the House Intelligence Committee, has had little role in deciding how the Nation's intelligence budget is spent. H. Res. 35 is a critical starting point for fixing our broken oversight system. Today, we are creating a special panel within the Appropriations Committee to recommend funding levels for intelligence activities. This panel will be comprised of appropriators and authorizers, both Democrats and Republicans, with its own dedicated staff to review intelligence community activities.

As the chairman of the authorizing committee, the House Intelligence Committee, I welcome this change because it gives authorizers, those of us who review the intelligence programs and set overall funding levels, a real seat at the table in deciding how the money is being spent. In the past, our committee has had no real voice in the appropriations process. Today, with the passage of H. Res. 35, those who control the policy and those who control the purse will become unified.

Oversight promotes greater accountability; and accountability results in better intelligence, greater diversity among intelligence officers to penetrate the hardest targets, more sophisticated analysts, and a deeper understanding of the longer term threats that are facing this country. One need only look at the situation in Iraq to understand the perils of faulty intelligence. The best way for Congress to ensure that those days are over is to enact a meaningful reform of the way we oversee the intelligence budget.

Madam Speaker, the threats facing our country are real. We have some of the best and brightest on the front lines, often undercover and frequently under fire, trying to gather the intelligence to keep America safe. We owe it to them and to their families to provide the strongest intelligence community that we can support and we can field. H. Res. 35 is an important start to achieving that goal, so today I proudly urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.