Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield myself 4 minutes.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Chairman Reyes, for the cooperative working relationship that we have had as we have gone through this process and as we have developed and built this bill. There are a number of

things in this piece of legislation that I do support, so I appreciate the cooperative working relationship we have had. I appreciate the hard work by the committee on both staffs.

You know, it is absolutely important that we provide the Intelligence Community with the information or with the resources, the commitment and the framework with which they can be the tip of the spear to keep us free. We all owe the men and women of the community a deep sense of gratitude for the work that they do each and every day, as they risk their lives to keep us safe.

As they well know, let me quote, ``we are in a state of war. And if we have not yet realized that we are in a state of war, when will we realize that''?

Some folks may say, well, Pete, what's new? You have been saying that for a long period of time.

Actually, I don't believe that, and I don't like to use the term ``war.'' We shouldn't elevate the people that pose this threat to the United States as being soldiers or representing a nation-state. They are thugs. They are murderers, and they are terrorists.

These are the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri from an interview that he just gave last week, a video. Those are the words that he says. He says that they are at war. We need to recognize that that is how they view the U.S. and how they view the West.

We have continued a number of initiatives that were begun in the last Congress. I feel good about that. Building global collection capabilities, rebuilding HUMINT capabilities, working on the overhaul of the Intelligence Community.

But I think we do need to affect and address the weaknesses in this bill. This bill significantly cuts from the President's budget request in a very important area, human intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, and cuts that directly affect our efforts in Iraq.

I agree with the chairman. Passing the wrong bill sends exactly the wrong message to our troops. Just like saying we are going to pull out of Iraq on a definite date sends the wrong message, sending a bill that cuts the funding for our Intelligence Community in Iraq sends exactly the wrong message.

And telling the community that we want to move their priorities from radical Islam, North Korea, Syria, Iran, restructuring the community, rebuilding HUMINT to focusing on a national intelligence estimate on climate change sends exactly the wrong message. As a matter of fact, what the community will tell you is this hearkens back to the exact things that they experienced in the 1990s, a very depressing decade for the Intelligence Community, a dark decade, a decade where budgets were cut, where human intelligence was cut, where we changed rules for human intelligence and said, we are only going to have good-guy spies. It was known as the ``Deutsch doctrine.'' It said, if we have people on the payroll or we are working with people who have human rights records, criminal violations, we are not going to work with them anymore.

And the other thing that we did is we did the politically correct thing, is we moved resources to spy on the environment. George Tenet mentions it in his book. He refers to it as those were the days that the community said we were focused on bugs and bunnies. And we are going right back to that. We are doing the politically correct priorities. We are cutting HUMINT, and we are cutting the resources that are directly supporting our efforts in Iraq against a very deadly and a very dangerous enemy. That is the message that we are sending to the agency that says, we are going back to the 1990s.

The community doesn't want to go back to the 1990s. They recognize what had happened at that time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman on the committee, Mr. Thornberry from Texas.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, Mr. McHugh of New York.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

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

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.''

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chairman, as I indicated, I agree with the gentleman's amendment, and I will vote for his amendment. However, I wish that as we were talking about leaks that we were discussing this in a much broader context.

The issue of leaks has been something that has been plaguing the community for an extended period of time, so we were not just talking about the leaks of personal identities. We would be talking about the leaks of programs and tactics and strategies that were being used by the intelligence community and used effectively to keep America safe.

We have had far too many leaks of highly classified information, and some of us would believe that as you take a look at some of these leaks, some would say that they perhaps have been made for political purposes.

The gentleman's focus on the identities of covert CIA officers is commendable, but should include the loss of capabilities because of other leaks as well.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I support the gentleman's amendment. I am glad that we are able to work through this one. I am hoping that, as we move forward into the rest of this year, we will be able to develop a process that will enable us to more effectively go after all of the different kinds of leaks that the community and the country have suffered from over the last number of years.

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

Madam Chair, while I will not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment, recognizing that it's very similar to an amendment that we actually accepted last year. And the reason we reluctantly accepted it last year, we had a high degree of confidence that if we got into a conference, we would be able to work with the author of the amendment to take a look at it and to make sure that what was finally in a conference report in a bill that we were looking forward to sending to the President would make sure that we took care of some the redundancies and some of the burdensome elements of the amendment. And without necessarily having that same assurance this year, I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I think that it is absolutely critical that we do measure the accountability and the performance of our contractors, but much like last year, we are concerned about the redundancy, the bureaucracy that may result if this amendment becomes law in its present form. It could add significant cost to the contractors as they serve and provide services to the Intelligence Community.

So I hope as we go through this process that we will be able to make sure that we work on a bipartisan basis, that we work with the community, that we work with the ODNI to structure this in such a way that both of the requirements are met, that we see and get the performance and, at the same time, that we don't burden contractors or the ODNI with additional bureaucracy.

With that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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

Intelligence is our Nation's first line of defense. In a world of asymmetrical threats, it is critical that we detect and disrupt the plans and intentions of those who would do us harm. And it is critical that we conduct intelligence operations in a way that conforms to our laws and to our values as a Nation.

This bill was the product of bipartisan work, and I am pleased that the ranking member, Mr. Hoekstra, worked with me over the past several weeks and months to draft this bill. We do not agree on every provision in this bill, but we agree on the larger points, and we agree that intelligence officers in the field deserve our support.

Let me address up front one area where I think there has been some confusion, and that is section 407 of the bill, which asks for a national intelligence estimate on the national security impact of climate change.

We heeded the advice of 11 former 3- and 4-star admirals and generals who have studied this issue and specifically recommended an NIE. They believe that significant changes in global climate may act as a ``threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of our world.''

The ranking member has argued that this work should not divert resources from higher priority items. Our committee staff has spoken with senior Intelligence Community leaders in the administration, and we have been assured that this will not, I repeat, will not divert resources.

The data needed is already available. The administration is already drafting a community assessment on this very issue. And I want to assure the ranking member that we will work with the administration to ensure that nothing will divert resources away from higher priority efforts.

But I also want to be clear; targeted discussion on this topic is a distraction from the key points of this bill. This bill provides funding for the men and women in the field. Opposition to this bill sends the wrong signal to them.

We are at war, and we face many threats over the horizon. This bill contains robust funding for critical intelligence programs to penetrate the hard targets, such as terrorist networks and countries developing WMD capabilities.

We add funds to both CIA and military elements for human intelligence training. We invest in language training for collectors and analysts and in language translation capabilities. We add funding for sending additional analysts overseas, and we strengthen counterintelligence field operations.

We have added funds to broaden our view so that we are spending, not just on Iraq, but on some of the other global challenges that we face, such as Iran, Russia, East Africa, Latin America and countries in Asia.

We have several provisions that enhance critical oversight. We require quarterly intelligence reports to Congress on the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea.

We also require that the CIA Inspector General conduct an audit of covert activities no less than once every 3 years. And we require the administration to provide the Intelligence Committees with a full list of all special access programs.

We also require detailed reports to Congress on the use of contractors in the Intelligence Community because their use has grown without adequate oversight, both by Congress and even by the executive branch.

We also require a strategy for implementing a multi-level security clearance system. This will allow patriotic Americans with much needed foreign language skills to serve as translators or linguists in the Intelligence Community.

And we also promote diversity in the Intelligence Community by requiring a strategic plan for implementing the recommendations of a highly regarded diversity panel.

I am of the strong view that diversity is a major strategic asset of the United States, and we have to leverage that asset to our full advantage.

In sum, Madam Chairman, this bill strengthens U.S. intelligence capabilities. This bill, if passed and signed into law, will help the courageous women and men of our Intelligence Community accomplish their mission. They are counting on our support, and tonight I hope we respond.

I urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, it is my privilege to yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), one of our subcommittee Chairs.

Madam Chairman, I would remind the gentlewoman that we will be having hearings and addressing the issue of FISA in regular order, which is the proper way to handle very serious issues that the American people want us to handle.

Madam Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Anna Eshoo, who chairs our Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Madam Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), who serves as our chairman on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence.

Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman from Iowa, an American hero, fellow Vietnam veteran (Mr. Boswell), a member of the committee.

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, sometimes I feel like we are living in a parallel universe here, when I hear the Members of the minority quote the ``slam-dunk expert.''

Madam Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee who serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Madam Chairman, so we move from a parallel universe to the Twilight Zone.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of our committee.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of our committee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a former ranking member of this committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Madam Chair, I am very proud of this bill, and I am proud of the work we all put into it. I realize there are some political differences. You have heard the minority go from characterizing bugs and bunnies. Well, I think bogeyman politics doesn't work with the American people. It doesn't work with the challenge that we are facing in Iraq, and it is not going to fly with what we are doing with this intelligence bill.

This bill does not make cuts. It adds funds to both CIA and military elements for human intelligence training. It adds funding for sending additional analysts overseas.

Yes, I agree with the former ranking member, we should be concerned about al Qaeda. The ranking member mentioned the potential attacks against Fort Dix last week. So this is serious business. We know it is.

This is an important piece of legislation that I hope everyone knows it is imperative that they support. The men and women of the Intelligence Community don't care about mischaracterizations. They don't care about talking about slam dunking and bugs and bunnies and all of these other rhetorical phrases that the minority likes to engage in. They care about support from Congress.

This bill gives the Intelligence Community the support that they need. All you have to do is travel around the world and listen to them. I am proud of this legislation.

By strengthening our Nation's Intelligence Community, we will be able to detect and disrupt the plans of those that are threatening our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have tremendous respect for both of my colleagues, and they know that they have my commitment that we will continue to do aggressive oversight, because I do understand the concerns that they have about Office of the DNI and the way that it has grown and become too large. And while I support the goal of the amendment, I don't necessarily think this is the best way to proceed.

The amendment, I believe, will have unintended consequences. For example, though the intent of this amendment is to limit the layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, this cap would actually eliminate large numbers of analysts and planners, with the harshest impact falling on the National Counterterrorism Center, which analyzes terrorism information and plans counterterrorism operations. It would also have the unintended consequence that it would eliminate personnel from the National Counterproliferation Center and the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties.

In addition, this amendment would force the DNI to fire anyone hired between May 1 and the date of the enactment of this bill, preventing the DNI from increasing capacity in priority areas.

It is important, I believe, to note that this amendment would not cap the number of billets; it would cap the total number of people. Any currently unfilled billets would have to remain unfilled. This could negatively impact the DNI's ability to perform vital functions.

Finally, I would ask my colleagues to consider that we do have, as Mr. Rogers said, a new DNI, and he deserves an opportunity to do the kinds of things that he has articulated to our committee. He is reorganizing his office, and I believe that we need to give him the flexibility needed to make those changes, while at the same time aggressively pursuing the oversight that is the responsibility of our committee.

So, for those reasons, I reluctantly would oppose this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank my good friend and colleague. And reclaiming my time, again, we want to accomplish the same goal. We just have a difference of opinion on how we are going to do it. But it will get done, and it will get done by this committee this year. So, again, I have deep respect and admiration for both my colleagues.

Madam Chair, I just want to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and offer my support. I think it is an important amendment.

Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman on mostly good work. And a big budget doesn't necessarily mean a good budget. We have had some great discussions. There are some really good things in this bill. But there are some serious departures on the direction in which we take intelligence that I think are so important that we need to stand up and oppose this bill.

This bill jeopardizes our ability to listen to terrorists. It puts it at risk. This bill cuts very specific human intelligence programs. They will get less money this year than they got last year.

I just want to talk for a minute about global climate change. As mentioned earlier, the President's budget proposes over $7 billion for climate change activities. This bill should be about securing America. Instead, it is being used to secure a political agenda on these items.

Climate change is an important issue, and it should be taken seriously. Thankfully it is. Fourteen Federal agencies already have active climate change programs. Let me go through them: Agriculture, Commerce, State, Health and Human Services, Interior, Transportation, EPA, NASA, NSF, Defense, Treasury, USAID, the Smithsonian, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, DARPA and NASA all have active research, development, testing and evaluation programs. NASA's program already makes satellite images available to government researchers.

This legislation assigns intelligence agencies that have limited experience in this area the job of researching climate change. We are going to take analysts away from looking for Osama bin Laden and we are going to put them on the ``March of the Penguins.''

This bill requires intelligence agencies to use intelligence satellites to monitor environmental issues. Many of my colleagues have been in the field. You know that imagery is so important and so high in demand. This is the wrong direction for their mission accomplishment.

If you want to break the spirits of our intelligence agencies, if you want to destroy their morale, go ahead and give them this assignment. Tell them they should spend their day watching the grass grow, and see how it works. George Tenet referred to these kinds of assignments as ``bugs and bunnies assignments.''

We are making a mockery of the seriousness of climate change and a mockery of the important work our intelligence agencies do. If you liked building the rain forest in Iowa, you are going to love the Department of Environmental Espionage.

Vote against this legislation. The stakes are too high. The people in the field mean too much to us. Their mission is too crucial to have it diverted for a political agenda.

Madam Chairman, I just want to quickly respond to my colleague, who I have the greatest amount of respect for. Climate change is an important issue, and I think the point we are trying to make here is that there are 14 agencies, $7 billion already being spent on it. The time to train an analyst and a case officer to their optimum performance level is between 5 and 7 years. Five and 7 years. That is an incredible investment. And I want them looking for Osama bin Laden, for the next nuclear program that we don't know about around the world. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to get them where they need to be. This is the wrong direction for it.

We have, I am going to read them again, the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, NASA, EPA, NSF, Defense, Treasury, USAID, the Smithsonian, Transportation, Interior, HHS, State, Energy, Commerce and Agriculture all looking at climate change. Don't waste these very precious resources.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. We have had long conversations or at least short interrupted conversations over the past several days and in committee. I thought we had a fairly spirited debate in the Intelligence Committee about this very issue.

The good thing is we agree this thing has exponentially grown, not the direction Congress intended. It was supposed to be a small, efficient organization that was coordinating and not inhibiting agencies from doing their work.

I reluctantly, as we talked earlier, oppose this amendment, because really all it does is say give me another report, and you can grow as much as you want in 2008. This is what the staggering number is here. The number itself is classified, but it is over 37 percent growth from where they are right now to 2008, in headquarters.

Now, they are not catching one spy. They are not recruiting one asset. They are not out analyzing any particular image from the sky. They are getting more in boxes. They are getting more in computers. They are getting more bureaucracies and personnel staff and all of the other things that go along with growing your headquarters. That is all happening.

When you travel around the world, the folks who are out there at the front end of this store, the analysts and the case officers, will tell you, please, enough already, because they took all of those analysts out of that community.

Remember, it takes 5 to 7 years to get somebody to where they are really effective in this community. It's very difficult work.

I would gladly yield.

Reclaiming my time. I don't know if I can say it any better. I hope to work with the gentleman in committee. I wish you would consider this.

One point I think it is very important to make, this does not cut one analyst. They didn't even make all the hires they requested in 2007. Then they came back and asked for a significant increase in 2008, didn't even hire all the people from 2007. So the notion that they put forward that this somehow cuts the analyst doing counterterrorism work is wrong.

It scares me more that this bureaucracy is so hell bent on protecting itself that it would make that claim. That's why I think we need to send this message, work with them to make this right sized, so we provide value added to the people risking their lives around the world.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Hastings for working with me on this amendment. We have watched this thing for 3 years, and we have watched it pretty closely. We all want it to succeed. There are some really dedicated and committed people really trying to make this thing work.

But one thing I have learned here in watching it in Washington, D.C., and going out to the field, where these case officers, the young ones, the middle-ranged ones and the older ones in the field, you can get a lot of insight about what happens between the difference of between there and back here.

We have seen, I thought, a very poor performance. I have had this conversation with many of my colleagues here about their briefings, about this increase, and what they really performed, and what their mission set was. There are some things that they do and do well and are value-added.

But this exponential growth, at the expense of analysts and officers in the field, I think is the wrong direction. I think it's so important that we make this statement to them that enough is enough.

They brought in, remember, everyone of those analysts came from an agency that's doing targeted work, the counterterrorism center at the CIA. They were doing real work, targeting bad guys, identifying, putting them on lists, trying to get our guys to bring them to justice.

What happened then is they disrupted some of those operations, brought those people in, and started tasking back to the people in the field. That's not value-added; it's just not.

We can live with this if we can work out the kinks. As a matter of fact, Senator McConnell said, he thought the thing was getting a little bit too big. He didn't really influence this budget, 37 percent increase. We must do better

by the people in the field, 5 to 7 years to train a case analyst and an officer.

Madam Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Reclaiming my time, I just thank the gentleman for his work and effort on this, and kind of us coming together on this conclusion over the past 3 years watching this process. Again, this is not anti-DNI. We think it serves a valuable purpose, but it is getting too big too fast.

Again, this does not cut one analyst from doing work in this country, not one. They couldn't even fill the slots we have for 2007 before they came back and said we have to get even bigger next year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to clarify again, there is no one to be cut, with all due respect to my chairman. What they are talking about is what they have future planned, which would be pulled from the community as it stands now. It would actually allow the DNI to reprioritize the folks that he has in that shop. And many of my colleagues will remember that the number that the DNI gave was lower than the number that is even in Mr. Hastings' and my amendment. He thinks it is too big.

So there won't be any cuts, there won't be any jeopardizing of security, there won't be any analysts that get home once they are employed and fully engaged. They may go back to doing counterterrorism work, but they will not be sent home.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, House Resolution 388 provides for consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 under a structured rule.

The rule makes in order a total of ten amendments, almost half of which will be offered by Members of the minority, including one which will be offered by the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Hoekstra.

The rule also makes in order an amendment that I offered, along with my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Rogers of Michigan, and our bipartisan amendment is a commonsense solution to holding the Office of National Director of intelligence accountable for its actions.

The House will have a chance to debate our amendment later today, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

I would like to point out that Members who wish to do so, as the Chair of the Intelligence Committee has pointed out previously, can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national and military intelligence programs.

The importance of the intelligence community touches all Americans as our Nation's first line of defense against increasing world threats. Effective intelligence is the first method to protect our citizens and prevent debacles like the war in Iraq.

The underlying legislation authorizes funding for all United States intelligence agencies, including the national and military intelligence programs. It is the largest intelligence authorization bill ever considered by the House and takes significant steps to eliminate duplication and ineffectiveness in our intelligence agencies.

The bill increases funding to improve human intelligence, training and send additional intelligence analysts overseas to maximize their abilities. It also requires additional intelligence reports on North Korea and Iranian efforts to become nuclear capable. We also take significant steps to improve the collecting, deciphering and understanding of intelligence.

The effectiveness of our intelligence community is significantly jeopardized when the diversity of the intelligence community does not reflect the diverse world in which we live. Women and minorities continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in the senior ranks and the core mission areas of analysis, human intelligence collection, and science and technology.

Simply put, we still do not have an intelligence community that looks like our country or the world. Minorities make up 37 percent of the American population, yet only 21 percent of the intelligence community, and the numbers for African-Americans and Latinos is woefully below that number. This is a problem that is addressed in the underlying bill, which requires the development of a strategic plan to increase diversity within the intelligence community and mandates increased diversity among the rank and file of the community.

I am fond of saying in the Intelligence Committee hearings that it doesn't take more degrees than the thermometer to be a spy, but somebody back there decided that that must have been the case.

Another significant concern exacerbated by this lack of diversity is a deficiency of linguist abilities in the intelligence community. There are countless stories of intelligence tapes that had piled up in the months leading up to September 11 when the terrorist attacks occurred here. That was done because we didn't have anyone to translate them.

Experts and administrators lament the fact that we don't have enough Arabic, Farsi, Urdu or Dari speakers, and we always go in that direction, but we don't have enough Asian language speakers, either, in the intelligence community and the military.

How can we expect to completely correct that course without thoroughly modernizing the recruitment, selection and security clearance processes to quickly bring on board people with these critical skills? The underlying bill provides for the commonsense modernization of our security clearance procedures to address this growing problem, requiring that the system make more efficient use of those who are proficient in foreign languages or with cultural, linguistic or other subject matter expertise that is critical to national security. We must make these necessary modernizations to adapt to the ever-changing threats around us.

Finally, following the recommendations of 11 three- and four-star generals, the bill requests that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of global climate change. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed discontent with this provision, because they believe that enough research is currently under way about climate change. In doing so, in my judgment, they failed to recognize that climate change is impacting global security.

Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells. If we can't even agree on the implications of climate change, it is obvious that more research is necessary, especially observing the impact of climate change on the movement of people and resources, and how that connects to terrorism.

Footnote right there, I pointed out in the Rules Committee that Iraq would be the classic example of what I am talking about. There are 2 million refugees, and it is almost like it is kind of hidden, that are displaced from their homes in Iraq. There are 400,000 to 500,000 internally displaced in Iraq. Yet, what we find is they are being pushed into Syria, Jordan and Egypt where there are already significant water resource problems. Someone tell me how that doesn't equate to an environment where terrorists will be produced.

If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations. As scientists explore the connection between such disasters and climate change, it is imperative that the national security implications of such events be thoroughly understood.

I am glad that our committee addresses this issue in the bill. If we have learned anything from the failures of the war in Iraq, it is that reliable intelligence is critical to ensuring America's national security.

I am pleased to support this rule and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend Ms. Harman, who is the previous ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and is a member of the newly appointed Special Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform each side of the remaining amount of time?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and he is the Chair of the Special Intelligence Oversight Panel, Mr. Holt.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I say through the Chair to my friend from Washington that I thought that we were having our last speakers

but I didn't know the nature and substance of his last speaker's remarks toward that end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes now to the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has comments regarding Mr. Flake's comments.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have now an amendment prepared that he is ready to offer?

Perhaps it would be that we could ask unanimous consent that your amendment be allowed to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have a process here with regard to legislation and how it moves through the Congress. In particular, the rules were changed in January, some very welcome changes to the rules with regard to earmarks.

We said that if you are going to have an earmark in a bill, or in a report, that you need to state that you do not have a financial interest in that earmark, and then you need to submit that earmark, or it has to be submitted with the report so that Members can actually see that and see that there is no financial interest, see if it has merit or warrant.

This process is not being followed here. We were told initially that there were no earmarks in the bill, and then those of us who went up to view the classified annex did not see a list. There was no list available there. We were told later that it was with the Clerk's Office. Then with the Parliamentarians.

It turned out that we finally did get the list, and here it is, 26 earmarks in the bill. But the list was not made public. It was not given to us until 5 hours after the deadline that the Rules Committee had established to submit your amendments.

So somebody who wanted to amend the bill or actually challenge or to highlight or to discuss the earmarks that are mentioned here and listed here did not have an opportunity to craft an amendment.

Again, this list was received, it was made public 5 hours after the Rules Committee already shut down the amendment process. This rule cannot go forward like this. We cannot continue to do business like this.

We all know the problems that we have had with the appropriations process with the earmarking, the scandals that have gone on. The earmarking process is secretive enough, it seems, in the Congress without adding the layer of the Intelligence Committee. Then there are things that you can't even discuss on the floor, that we can't discuss openly; so it makes it even more difficult.

Members need not be reminded that Duke Cunningham now sits in prison because of earmarks he largely got in the intelligence process, in the Intelligence Committee. We cannot allow that to happen again. We have to have a process that makes sure that that cannot happen. And that process is not happening right now, when you don't get lists until long after the process, when you can't challenge them on the floor. And then we have the problem here in open session where you can't even challenge the earmark and talk about what the earmark is actually about because you are in open session and you might be talking about classified things.

So for that reason I am announcing now that I will offer a motion to move into secret session after these votes are concluded.

Let me just remind the Members, if you want a process where you know what is going on, we have to move into secret session. If you vote against the motion to go into secret session, you are, in essence, saying let's just let it go; I don't care what is in there.

I would challenge those who want to see what is going on to go up and view the classified annex. You may or may not be able to find out what these earmarks are about. But with this process, the way it is, we will never know, and we can't continue this.

I applauded the majority's move to new earmark rules in January. They were, I felt, stronger than what we did when we were in the majority. I think they should have been stronger, but they were better than what we did, and I said so. But we aren't following those rules.

We have already highlighted a few times that if the majority submits a list of earmarks, incomplete or complete, or simply states there are no earmarks in a bill, there is no parliamentary recourse for the minority or for anyone on the floor. We have to accept at face value that there are no earmarks or that the list is complete. That is wrong. That is something that has to change.

But when we are dealing with the Intelligence Committee on something this important, we can't let this process go forward without adopting some of the reforms that we have said that we are going to adopt.

So for that reason I will offer a motion for a secret session at the appropriate time, and I would urge a vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I believe the requirement in the House rules is that the report be filed 72 hours before it is brought up. Actually, those of us who went up to view the classified annex, I asked for the list, if there was a list of earmarks, and I was told there was none.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, I reviewed and asked during that time if there were. I would say if it is the case that a computer glitch led to no printing of the list, then you would think that the Rules Committee would say, okay, maybe we should move the process back and allow Members to offer amendments on specific earmarks.

An unspecified opportunity. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I actually offered an amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee just encompassing all earmarks that might be in the bill because I wasn't given a list. I had no idea if there were any earmarks. And that was rejected.

The problem we have here in open session and the reason I will be calling to move into secret session is that in open session it is difficult to actually discuss what the earmark might be about.

Mr. Speaker, what I was offered about 30 minutes ago was an opportunity to offer perhaps a few amendments with regard to specific earmarks. It was never clear how many amendments I would be allowed to offer or on which of these earmarks. Until that is clarified, there is no reason to move forward.

And, also, let me point out again unless you are in secret session, you can't discuss exactly what the earmark might be about; so you might run afoul of any statements that you have signed or any confidentiality agreements that we are under in terms of classified information. And when I actually went up with the list to look at the classified annex again and pointed at certain earmarks, I was told that we are not sure what that was about. That was requested by a Member who is not on the committee. We don't know. And until we can have that Member actually stand up and be able to say what that earmark is about, whether it goes to a private company, whether it goes to an agency, we just don't know.

Yes.

I don't sit on the Intelligence Committee; so there may be some disagreement there about whether the ranking member was informed or not, and I think that will probably come to light later.

But in this case, if we had followed the rules, we would have had the list before the Rules Committee shut down the amendment process because you need to be able to offer amendments on specific earmarks. And in this case, unless a Member can go up and view the classified annex and come away with an assurance or some kind of comfort level that the earmark under question is for the intended purpose or it should be in the intelligence bill, then we are at a loss when we come to vote. I think our constituents expect us to be informed, and when we can't even go up and view the classified annex and be informed, then there is a problem.

Yes, I will yield.

My office has a timeline, actually, if anyone is interested, and when we requested the list of earmarks, when we finally got it, what we were told by which office, and I can tell you this is no way to run a process, particularly given the recent history of problems that we have had in this regard. And that is why I am concerned, and that is why I feel we can't do that in an open session like this. We have to go to secret session.

Yes, I will.

Reclaiming my time, I would not, given that I cannot discuss some of what I need to discuss in open session, given what has transpired. I don't think that we can. That is why we need a closed session.

I will offer the motion, and if you don't feel that we need to go into closed session, then you can vote against it.