Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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 Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report today. I'm disappointed. I do compliment the chairman in an effort to move in a bipartisan direction. I think it's something that both he and I feel is essential, that at a time of risk, whether we're facing radical jihadists or whether we're facing the threat from China, North Korea, Iran, or other threats around the globe, it would be to the betterment of the country if we could reach a position on a bipartisan basis where we could come to the floor in support of a reauthorization or an authorization of the intelligence community. I can't do that today. I don't believe that this bill moves us in the direction that we need to go.

Earlier, a colleague talked a little bit about interrogation methods and these types of things. One of the problems that has happened over the last number of years, it's talked about in the editorial that my colleague from Texas referenced, the administration on a bipartisan basis reaching out to Congress, briefing Members of Congress on various programs that they felt were essential to keeping America safe and actually have kept the homeland safe ever since 9/11, have enabled us to put together the strategies and the tactics that have ensured that we have not been attacked again.

The problem is these programs have leaked out, whether it's from the community, whether it's perhaps from Congress, or wherever they have leaked out, even though Congress has been involved in the process and has reviewed these processes at their inception. These Members who were briefed and at one time said, yeah, we support these programs, have moved away from them and now that they're public said, well, yeah, we never had all the information; there's nothing that we could do about that. These programs need to be done in secret.

There are problems with this bill. I will detail more of these as we go through.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. McHugh), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the State of Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 2 minutes.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 2008 intelligence authorization bill. I think that this report does move us in the wrong direction and sets some of the wrong priorities.

It rejects the bipartisan approach for congressional authorization of the intelligence community at a time when we really do need to be working together. There were efforts to do this on a bipartisan basis. The end result of the product is that it is not a bipartisan bill. As my colleague from Arizona just stated, last week we had an overwhelming vote to remove earmarks from a national security bill. It went to conference. All the earmarks were maintained in the bill.

When we were at conference, my colleague from the Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter wanted to share his concerns about the bill. Ranking Member Hunter was denied an opportunity to speak at the conference. It is why today Duncan Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, is opposed to this intelligence bill. At a time when intelligence and defense ought to be integrated and seamless, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is opposed to this bill.

One of the strategies that the President outlined in his reform for the intelligence community was to increase

HUMINT, to significantly increase the size of the HUMINT individuals, people collecting human intelligence, put us on a glide path to significantly increase that critical asset. This bill falls far short of funding that glide path that I thought we had agreed upon on a bipartisan basis, saying if we are going to be effective, we need to have more human intelligence.

For these and other reasons, I oppose this intelligence bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 2 minutes.

As we continue to talk about the various weaknesses in this bill, let me highlight a few more.

The report fails to provide for long-term authorities to streamline the surveillance of foreign terrorist targets, foreign countries. We need this capability to detect and prevent potential attacks to the United States.

It has been talked a little bit about that this bill prohibits torture. Torture is already prohibited. The insinuation is that the Members of Congress who were briefed on the interrogation methods back in 2002, 2003, as they were briefed by the administration, that these Members signed off on interrogation methods that constituted torture. I don't believe that the current Speaker of the House signed off on those types of methods. The current Speaker of the House was one of the people that was briefed back in 2002 and 2003, along with other Members. Congress participated fully and had the opportunity to review the interrogation methods.

As we capture individuals and decide to determine exactly what information, I don't think we should treat them as outlined in the Army Field Manual. These are not normal enemy combatants, they don't wear a uniform, and we shouldn't be applying military rules to the intelligence community.

We talked about priorities. The report on Iran perhaps last week was a significant improvement over the National Intelligence Estimates that we had gotten from the community in previous years. We hope it was better. The one in 2005 the community now says was totally wrong. The conclusions they reached were very, very different.

We need to improve our intelligence capabilities. What this report says is one of the key National Intelligence Estimates that we need to develop over the next year is on global warming. We've got lots more important targets and resources. Number one is rebuilding the capability of actually doing estimates and doing assessments before we start moving on to those targets. As we improve that process, let's focus on hard targets, not global warming, which is being discussed in just about every other committee on the Hill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

As we continue to talk about this bill, and I agree with my colleague, the chairman of the committee, that as we go through this process, it is a democratic process, that you're not going to get everything that you would like to have. I appreciate the chairman's support on the amendment that we put in place in conference that said if the administration doesn't fully brief both intelligence committees on what happened and what we knew and what we didn't know about the attacks in Syria on September 6 by Israel, that we would fence off funds and they would not be available to the community to spend, because I believe that's an instance where the committee's being fully informed will enable us to better do our jobs because oversight is absolutely essential.

But when I take a look at the totality of the bill, I don't believe that it moves us in the right direction. As my other colleague from California just stated, in 2005, when the National Intelligence Estimate came out and talked about their weapons programs, we both, together, voiced skepticism about the quality of the intelligence, not the quality of the analysis, but do we really have in place the sources and methods to make the kinds of conclusions that were made in that National Intelligence Estimate. And I think we both concluded that back in 2005, reaching those conclusions with high confidence, we weren't sure you could do that.

Now, in 2007, we find out that in 2005 we were right and the community was wrong. We share some of those same concerns today. It is why it is so important that we build an intelligence community and where I think that this bill comes up short.

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

At this time, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

As we talk about the totality of the bill and why this bill comes up short, let me highlight a couple of other areas.

The conference report would subject four key positions, including the head of the NSA, the NRO, to the politicized Senate and confirmation process. If there is one thing that we've recognized through this process and through what's happened over the last few years, it is that the less politics, the less politicalization that we have in the intelligence arena, the better off we are. Creating four new confirmed positions in the Senate takes us in exactly the wrong direction.

The conference report would create a duplicate of a cumbersome new DNI Inspector General that would provide little significant new oversight. This is not about whether there should be an Inspector General with very clear powers in the Office of the DNI, but let's make sure that those responsibilities are clearly aligned with the accountabilities and the responsibilities of the Inspector General in the Department of Defense.

A number of these agencies in the community are dual functioned. What does that mean? It means that they have reporting responsibilities to the Director of National Intelligence, and they have responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense. And if we're going to create an Inspector General in the DNI, let's make sure that that Inspector General is coordinated with the activities in the Department of Defense. This bill fails to do that.

This bill also takes the DNI in a couple of other directions. It grows the staff on a bipartisan basis in the House in a very different position than from where the Senate is. We want to cap the size of the DNI. It's not a doing function. This bill not only grows the size of the DNI; it gives them new responsibilities in terms of science and technology. The DNI was never intended to be a doing function; it was intended to be a coordinating function. This moves it again in the wrong direction.

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

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, defeating the threat from radical jihadists is a difficult job. It requires input from the legislative branch. It requires leadership from the executive branch. After 9/11, the administration outlined a series of initiatives. It didn't outline it to the entire Congress because the threat was so new, or some thought so new. The decision to respond to it was very different than what happened in the 1990s, but we recognized we needed to take different steps. The administration brought in people from Congress, the people that the leadership and our colleagues had entrusted with the responsibility to shape an intelligence community.

Everyone talks about the President's terrorist surveillance program, the President's financial tracking system, and now, it is the President's interrogation system. What they forget to note, as pointed out in the editorial today, is that in each of those cases, membership from the House and the Senate were involved in the process, in reviewing and setting the direction and implementing the strategies and the tactics that they thought needed to be put in place to keep America safe. Some of those Members that were briefed have moved on to other careers and they are no longer in Congress. Some of those who were briefed back in 2002 and 2003 specifically on the terrorist surveillance program, specifically on interrogation, are still Members of the House. Some are still members of the committee. Others are serving on other committees. Some have moved into leadership positions in the House of Representatives.

It is interesting, as the majority leader is speaking and laying out his arguments, it is the Speaker of the House, elected by the entire House, today, who serves the entire House, who is briefed on these programs. Some who have looked at, who have remarked on those meetings said, not only did the people that were in those meetings support the techniques and the methods that were put in place, some actually even asked the question, Is it enough? These things were decided in a process that the House and the Senate and the administration participated in and decided jointly that these were the things that were necessary to keep America safe. Only when they became public, all of a sudden did some of these individuals get cold feet, feet of clay and say, Oh, well, I really didn't know. But when the rubber hit the road in terms of what we needed to do to keep America safe, these people said these are the techniques and the processes, and these are the programs that we need to have in place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

As we talk about this authorization bill, I think it is also important to talk about it in the larger context in terms of some of the other things that are going on that I believe are weakening our ability to effectively combat the threat from radical jihadists. What are some of these things? Policies that are being advocated by individuals on the other side who are committed to defeating terrorism. I just think they have the wrong strategy.

Terrorist phone calls cannot be monitored without court warrants even when all parties are outside of the United States or if the lives of American soldiers are at risk. They want to provide habeas corpus rights for foreign terrorists. Terrorists when captured overseas shall have the right to challenge their captivity in U.S. courts. The right of terrorists to incarceration in the United States. Foreign terrorists being held in facilities outside the United States, including Guantanamo Bay, will be removed from detention abroad and brought into American communities, ending the distinction between lawful versus unlawful combatants.

The United States henceforth will recognize al Qaeda terrorists as legitimate combatants and grant them the rights of lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists shall be afforded due process, attorneys, and protection from self-incrimination. Terrorists will also be protected from enhanced interrogation, even when they have information on pending terrorist attacks.

In terms of priorities, funds shall be diverted from tough antiterrorism intelligence programs targeted at apprehending and killing terrorists through intelligence analysis in connection against global warming because some folks from the other side may have implied or said that individuals join terrorist groups not because of radical Islam or hatred of the United States, but because they are unhappy about rising global temperatures and sea levels. Extend Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable search and seizures to terrorists. The rights of radical jihadists to avoid searches and seizures shall be protected, even if they are granted more protection than American citizens.

Some believe that terrorists have the rights to intelligence leaks. Terrorists have the right to read about classified and antiterrorist intelligence programs in the press because there has not been a vigorous effort either through this committee or through the intelligence community to stop the leaks. And then actually when corporations may help us like the telecommunications companies may have, people who agree to help us will not be protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't all that long ago that this House voted 249- 160, a difference of 89 votes, to instruct House conferees to eliminate all earmarks from the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence authorization bill and to fully fund human intelligence collection. The vote was clear, overwhelming, and bipartisan, and 62 Democrats supported the motion to instruct. It appears, however, that my colleagues on the other side have said one thing and done another on earmarks, as the conference refused to eliminate earmark projects from the classified annex to this bill.

Today, we are going to offer a motion to recommit that provides all Members, including those 62 Democrats who supported the motion to instruct, to take a decisive step to eliminate earmarks in national security bills. If you are for that motion to instruct, you shouldn't be against this motion to recommit. Putting it in the positive, you should be for this motion to recommit because you were for eliminating earmarks a week ago.

This motion would make our priorities clear by eliminating provisions providing for earmarks to allow those funds to be directed to improve intelligence collection. As I explained on the floor last week, and as the bipartisan support for the motion indicated, I believe that a consensus is developing among Members that programatic authorizations should be determined solely on their national security merits, absent other compelling circumstances.

This motion is clearly about priorities. America is at war. We are engaged in a struggle against radical jihadists, as well as facing threats from China, North Korea, Iran, drug cartels, and those types of things. Taxpayer dollars that are currently slated to be earmarked to individual Member projects should be applied to our most critical areas of need and should serve our Nation as a whole during this crucial time.

It is clear that the earmarks that are in the bill generally have not gone through the same rigorous substantive review and evaluation that intelligence programs receive in the formulation of the President's budget. It is critical to our world position that we fully understand the military capability of, and threat posed by, other nations. It is essential that human intelligence activities are fully funded so that we may make fully informed decisions concerning our national interest.

Our dedication of resources to human intelligence is a direct investment in the security of this Nation as a whole and the safety of the men and women serving on our behalf. It is also a direct investment in those areas that we know we are weakest in: human intelligence. This motion would eliminate all earmarks. It shouldn't be controversial. But these funds could be put to far better use in human intelligence and other programs. These are programs that we need.

Some of these earmarks have been described clearly as wasteful government spending. This bill has not provided adequate support to the intelligence community activity at the forefront of the ability to protect our national security.

It is not possible to describe all of these programs. Many of them are classified in their nature. But I can't emphasize enough the importance of these programs and the funding and the necessity to fund these programs at this time.

We are a Nation locked in a struggle, facing continued uncertainty and other threats around the globe. The men and women of the front lines of this struggle rely heavily on human intelligence for their own safety every day. The House should not diminish its support for a robust, empowered, and capable intelligence community that provides our first line of defense. It is time to properly focus our priorities.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this motion to recommit and will support me in my opposition to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, in its current form.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an important bill with an important objective, and the objective is to protect our country and to protect our Constitution.

Ironically, the ranking member has just said that by having oversight, by having checks and balance on the intelligence community, somehow we politicize it. Our Founding Fathers, in the best sense of politicalization, wanted the civil sector to be involved. That's the purposes of this committee, I suggest to my friend.

The fact of the matter is the intelligence community conducts critically important activities that we want them to conduct. But we give them extraordinary powers, and because of that, we need to make sure that they're not politicized. In fact, the irony is that I think most objective observers would say two things: first of all, that the defense establishment of our country has been probably the most politicized it's been in my 26 years in the Congress of the United States. That is not true, in my opinion, with the present Secretary, by the way, or with the present Deputy Secretary.

Secondly, they have abandoned oversight. I have said many times that the previous Congress and the Congress before that and the Congress before that exercised less oversight than any previous Congress in which I've served. In fact, there was much more oversight by the Democratic Congress of the Clinton administration, in terms of oversight hearings, numbers, depth, than there was in the entire framework of the last 6 years under Republicans in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. This is a serious piece of legislation; it requires serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my good friend, Congressman Reyes of Texas, and Mr. Hoekstra as well, who I think brings experience and judgment to this issue, although we have significant disagreements.

This, as the chairman has said, is the first authorization bill in 3 years to come to this floor. This authorization bill ought to come to the floor every year. Let me say briefly that this conference report enhances oversight. The reason, in my opinion, authorization bills didn't come to the floor in the last Congress is because oversight was not, as I said, as important. I've been disappointed with the oversight that's been exercised not only by this committee, but by others.

This conference report comes to the floor to enhance oversight and effective management of the intelligence community and expects and requires accountability. It enhances the management authority and flexibility of the Director of National Intelligence. Why? Because we want to have a more effective intelligence organization. And it authorizes new funding to improve the effectiveness of intelligence programs and activities. I would think all of us support those two efforts.

This legislation also includes an important provision, added in conference, that I want to talk about. It requires all American intelligence agencies and those under contract or subcontract with intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogations. Some find fault with that. I want to speak to that.

Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men and women and children in an effort to advance their twisted aims. No one on this floor should gainsay that that is not the objective of every Member of this body.

We can and we will act to prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction. Yet, under the current administration, we have seen that line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. Who said that? That's not a quote, but who said that essentially? Secretary Colin Powell, former four-star Army general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State in this administration.

The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as are the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is ``quaint,'' and the Vice President's persistent effort to undermine the ban on torture championed by whom? Senator John McCain of Arizona, Republican candidate for President.

Just last week we learned that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed, perhaps illegally, videotapes or interrogations conducted by American agents. These incidents unfortunately sully our great Nation's well-deserved good reputation. They raise questions about our commitment to human rights and the rule of law. And they allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred.

This provision requires all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogations. It is an attempt by this Congress to repair the damage that has already been done.

Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our international commitments, and very importantly, with the safety of our members of the Armed Forces.

At this time I will include a letter in the Record. The letter is signed by, and I will not take the time to read all of the generals, but there are four four-star generals. A four-star general is as high as you can go in the Armed Forces of the United States, except when we're in a world war, in which we accord a fifth-star.

December 12, 2007.

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,

Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC.

Hon. Silvestre Reyes,

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Reyes and Chairman Rockefeller: As retired

military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to

express our strong support for Section 327 of the Conference

Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2008, H.R. 2082. Section 327 would require intelligence

agents of the U.S. government to adhere to the standards of

prisoner treatment and interrogation contained in the U.S.

Army Field Manual on Human Collector Operations (the Army

Field Manual).

We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women

in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of

interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted

by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle,

embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of

American military personnel in combat. The current situation,

in which the military operates under one set of interrogation

rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate,

secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to

ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of

the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the

humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we

believe that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian--

should be held to a single standard of humane treatment

reflected in the Army Field Manual.

The Field Manual is the product of decades of practical

experience and was updated last year to reflect lessons

learned from the current conflict. Interrogation methods

authorized by the Field Manual have proven effective in

eliciting vital intelligence from dangerous enemy prisoners.

Some have argued that the Field Manual rules are too

simplistic for civilian interrogators. We reject that

argument. Interrogation methods authorized in the Field

Manual are sophisticated and flexible. And the principles

reflected in the Field Manual are values that no U.S. agency

should violate.

General David Petraeus underscored this point in an open

letter to the troops in May in which he cautioned against the

use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the Field

Manual:

What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . . . is

how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the

standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants

and detainees with dignity and respect. . . . Some may argue

that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or

other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy.

They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions

are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently

neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical

action can make someone ``talk;'' however, what the

individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our

experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out

in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence

Collector Operations that was published last year shows that

the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in

eliciting information from detainees.

Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field

Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks.

These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance

upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover,

revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage

to the reputation and moral authority of the United States

essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.

This is a defining issue for America. We urge you to

support the adoption of Section 327 of the Conference Report

and thereby send a clear message--to U.S. personnel and to

the world--that the United States will not engage in or

condone the abuse of prisoners and will honor its commitments

to uphold the Geneva Conventions.

Sincerely,

General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.).

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.).

General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.).

General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.).

General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.).

Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.).

Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.).

Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.).

Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.).

Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.).

Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.).

Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.).

Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.).

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.).

Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.).

Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.).

Major General Antonio ``Tony'' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.).

Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.).

Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

There are many lieutenant generals, admirals, vice admirals, brigadier generals, major generals, all of whom are concerned about defeating terrorism. And this is what they say:

``As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to express,'' on December 12, 2007, just a few days ago, ``we write to express our strong support for section 327 of the conference report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.''

And then this paragraph, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to this paragraph from those who have worn the uniform of the United States of America, who have themselves, before they became generals, fought in the battles that America has sent them to, and fought for the freedom of this country, and

confronted the terrorists of their day and today. Hear this paragraph from those who have been at war and who want to protect their troops, our troops, American men and women.

They say this: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform for the United States not to sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.'' That is the critical point.

We are a nation that believes in the premise of doing unto others what we would have them do to us. Our own enemies do not accept that premise. Our enemies do not accept that value. Our enemies are different than we are. We must not become what we confront. The techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual, as I say, are endorsed by all of these generals. General Krulak in particular wrote a very compelling op-ed piece on this issue in the Washington Post. General Krulak is probably known as one of the toughest commandants the Marine Corps has ever had. I served with him on the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy. He is as tough as they come. And he says, Protect our people, adopt this sanction.

Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq in May, just a few months ago, General Petraeus, four-star general, heading our effort to confront, supposedly, terrorism and, I believe, terrorism in Iraq. ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal,'' Petraeus's words, General Petraeus's word, ``history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' General Petraeus continued, ``Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone `talk'; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''

This is General Petraeus who wants to keep his troops safe and wants to prevent terrorist attacks on his people under his command.

Inexplicably, the administration has issued a veto threat on this conference report because it would require all intelligence agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. I believe that the administration's position is indefensible. This is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. Of course, we must. However, we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant, that we stooped to the depths of the dictator.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not for party but for country, not for partisanship but for a reverence for the constitutional oath we took, I urge us all, let's demonstrate our commitment to the values that make us Americans. Let's begin to repair and restore this Nation's reputation. Let's adopt this conference report.

I thank the chairman for the time. I thank him for his leadership. I thank Mr. Hoekstra, as well.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 859, I call up the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this conference report.

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

Last week was a remarkable week in the intelligence community. It was the best of times and the worst of times.

First, the good news. The week began with a release of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. That estimate was a careful, meaningful review of the intelligence on Iran, which many of us hope will bring about a significant change in our approach to Iran, which is still a significant concern to all of us.

Then came the bad news. We ended the week with the revelation that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of interrogations. This is also a subject of great concern to all of us in this House. The committee had a briefing on it just yesterday, and we will continue to investigate the issue thoroughly.

Both the good news and the bad news have one thing in common. They show that careful oversight of the Intelligence Community is absolutely essential and absolutely critical. The authorization process is where we do much of our oversight and it's where we can address problem areas.

Madam Speaker, today, for the first time in 3 years, the House will vote on a conference report on an intelligence authorization bill. I am proud of it, and I hope my colleagues are too. This is the largest intelligence authorization in the history of our country. It is the result of 11 months of work done by our committee.

The conference process was a challenge. The Senate bill and the House bill were substantially different, but we worked hard to arrive at a middle ground. In conference, we further improved the bill. The conference adopted amendments offered by Members from both Chambers and both parties. This includes an amendment by the distinguished ranking member of the intelligence committee.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill that will strengthen our intelligence community and our Nation's security. It adds significant funds to most of the Nation's satellite architecture. It reduces funding for nonperforming intelligence activities in Iraq, while robustly funding activities against al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan and around the globe.

I am particularly proud of the fact that it also includes funding for counterterrorism, human intelligence collection, analysis, training and languages. We have carefully tailored provisions to enhance the diversity of the intelligence community, which is a critical investment for the future of the intelligence community.

In another investment for the future, we've added significant funding for advanced research and development. This will also maintain our technical edge over our adversaries. We have also provided money to repair and replace aging infrastructure and to train and equip linguists and intelligence collectors, so vital and important in the global war on terrorism.

This bill promotes accountability within the intelligence community, and it puts the intelligence committee back in the business of oversight. It requires reporting to Congress on several issues of major concern to all of us, including a report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and related provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 regarding detentions and interrogations, as well as Justice Department legal opinions related to all of these activities. It includes provisions to strengthen oversight by the Inspector General in the intelligence community, including a provision establishing a confirmed communitywide Inspector General armed with essential authorities.

The conference report also provides for Senate confirmation of the Directors of the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. For agencies with such significant budgets and acquisition authority and the potential to impact American privacy rights, we think the Congress ought to have a say in their Directors through Senate confirmation.

In short, Madam Speaker, the conference report is a result of a bipartisan, bicameral effort to strengthen both the intelligence community and congressional oversight. I will be proud to vote for it, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to note for the record that Mr. Skelton was not available to provide input to the conference group, and Mr. Hunter was there but had to leave, so that is the reason they did not provide input.

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a fellow Vietnam veteran and a valued member of our House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left on both sides.

With that, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

As I said in my opening comments, this is the first time in 3 years that we've had an authorization bill. It's not a perfect bill and I think all of us acknowledge that, but the concept of democracy is that we work together. There are provisions in this bill by both Democrats and Republicans, and just because you don't like every aspect of it, you don't gather up your marbles and go home. It's about protecting our country. That's what we are trying to do. And I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and is the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my good friend from Michigan that this bill, the funding level is above the President's request, and it makes an investment in human intelligence of historic proportions.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who serves as the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to close. I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close and would ask the gentleman if he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman and others are concerned about the presence of earmarks in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could take them seriously with those concerns. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have now ``seen the light'' on earmarks, now that they are in the minority. But we all know that the most heavily earmarked bills in history were passed in the last few Congresses, when my colleagues controlled the Chamber.

The fact of the matter is that never, never in the history of this institution have we had the kind of process and transparency on earmarks that we have had in this bill, in this Congress. We have validated every single earmark in this bill to ensure that we believe that it is a good use of the taxpayer money. We take that seriously, and as something that will help the intelligence community. These earmarks have been vetted through the intelligence community.

In terms of the arguments about the motion to recommit, there has never been an intelligence authorization bill with this level of earmark process, with this level of transparency, and with this level of accountability. Every earmark in this bill has been vetted, as I mentioned, to make certain that the activity that the earmark proposes and the funds going to that activity are ones that make our country safer. Each earmark has been fully disclosed with the name of the requesting Member, the purpose, the amount. In previous Congresses, no such disclosures were ever required. For each earmark, a public record has been established, which is available for review; and they have been reviewed.

As chairman, along with my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, I have personally reviewed each and every earmark. These earmarks improve the bill and will help our intelligence community to keep this country safe. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a motion to recommit on this bill, as the gentleman has indicated, it will kill this bill. It will also kill this bipartisan process. It will kill our oversight, and it will kill our funding so desperately needed to keep our country safe and to provide the resources to our brave intelligence professionals. I urge my colleagues to oppose such a motion to recommit.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides the aisle who have spoken in favor of this conference report. As I said at the outset, I am proud of this conference report. A lot of hard work has gone into this process on a bipartisan basis, and I want to thank the staff on a bipartisan basis as well. It is a bipartisan, bicameral product. It strengthens the intelligence community and congressional oversight.

I would just remind every Member that this authorization is above the President's budget request for human intelligence funding. No authorization bill is perfect. No one gets everything that they want in this legislative process. But at the end of the day, this conference report reflects a bipartisan process that will make our country safer, that will give our intelligence professionals the resources and the tools that they need to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to submit my full statement for the Record and abbreviate it. I, however, wish to commend Chairman Reyes for the leadership on this bill. Under his leadership, and that of many others, consideration of this intelligence bill has been one of the most open intelligence authorization bills that we've seen. There may be some who will disagree with some of the report's content, but there should be none who disagree with the openness of the process.

Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CIA's destruction of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the importance of congressional oversight of the intelligence community.

For far too long, Congress has been silent as a partner in the unchecked actions of this administration. In neglecting to do our jobs, we were failing the people of America.

With this new majority Congress, we are again conducting the necessary oversight of the executive branch. With this bill, we are fulfilling our responsibility to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to succeed.

One thing that I think Members will be particularly interested in is that interrogation techniques put forth in this measure are limited to those of the Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or aggressive interrogation techniques are prohibited.

I participated in the conference myself, Madam Speaker, and I saw the development of this report that we have here. I would like to take a moment of personal privilege to say that I took the liberty of leaving the Select Committee on Intelligence with the hope of returning in the successive year. It is my great hope that all of the Members of that committee and the tremendous staff that work under awesome pressure know how much I and others in Congress appreciate their work.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act conference report under the standard rule for conference reports. As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee noted here on the floor yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members wishing to view the classified portions of the conference report can do so in H-405 of the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act Conference report under the standard rule for conference reports.

As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee noted here on the floor yesterday, Madam Speaker, Members wishing to view the classified portions of the Conference Report can do so in H-405 of the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today in strong support of the underlying Intelligence Authorization Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2008.

As a member of the Conference and a signatory of its Report, I take great pride in being a part of a Majority which has successfully completed its work on the Intelligence Authorization bill after the previous Majority failed to do so for the last 3 years.

I commend Chairman Reyes for his leadership on this bill. Under the Chairman's leadership, and that of many others, consideration of this intelligence bill has been one of the most open intelligence authorization bills that we've seen.

There may be some who will disagree with some of the Report's content. But there should be none who disagree with the openness of the process.

During the original consideration of this bill by the House in May, the House adopted multiple bipartisan amendments.

For example, the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Rogers and I offered an amendment which took aggressive steps to limit the growth of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The two of us share concerns that the Director of National Intelligence has grown without constraint and is adding an additional level of bureaucracy without providing the coordination that we hoped to see when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act.

This Conference Report addresses our concerns in a positive manner. Most importantly, so has the Committee, as it has held multiple hearings on the subject since May.

There were also amendments offered and adopted by the conferees that are included in the conference agreement. Indeed, every amendment adopted by the conferees, including the one offered by Ranking Member Hoekstra, enjoyed bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, over the past week, as we debate the CPA's destruction of videotapes of past interrogations, the Nation has realized the importance of Congressional oversight of the intelligence community.

For far too long, Congress was a silent partner in the un-checked actions of this Administration. In neglecting to do our jobs, we were failing the American people.

With this new Majority, Congress is again conducting the necessary oversight of the Executive Branch. With this bill, we are fulfilling our responsibility to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to succeed.

In response to growing concerns here in Congress and throughout the public, this bill takes significant steps to address interrogation and detention programs. It limits interrogation techniques to those in the Army Field Manual, making it clear that harsh or aggressive interrogation techniques are prohibited.

It requires that the intelligence community report to Congress on compliance with the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act.

The American people should know that we have asked the Administration to provide us with all Department of Justice legal opinions about interrogation and detention programs--opinions which are sorely needed given the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes of interrogations.

This Conference Report also increases Congressional oversight ability by strengthening the inspectors general of the intelligence community.

The Report requires the CIA Inspector General to audit all covert action programs every three years. And it also requires the DNI to provide Congress a comprehensive listing of all special access programs.

Members of the Intelligence Committee are concerned, with good cause, that the intelligence community has not been keeping us fully informed of all their activities.

With this new Majority, the critical oversight which has been lacking for the last six years is finally being conducted. And unlike in the past, it is being done in an inclusive and bipartisan manner.

Madam Speaker, the underlying Conference Report provides the necessary reforms and funding to ensure that America's intelligence community continues to pave the way in effective counter surveillance, human intelligence collection, and analysis.

I urge my colleagues support for the rule and the underlying Conference Report.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for our side.

I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Madam Speaker, 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. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threats fueled by extremism, radicalism, hopelessness and poverty underscore the importance of this legislation.

The new Democratic majority is working every day to ensure that we congratulate our intelligence community for its successes but also hold it accountable for its failures. This report is a strong step in the right direction, and it enjoys bipartisan support. I am proud of our product and hope that my colleagues will agree. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying conference report.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 859 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall he considered as ordered on

the resolution to final

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of

the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, here we are 74 days into the new fiscal year, and the new majority is requesting their third continuing resolution to fund the government because they failed to pass the necessary appropriations bills.

As of today, only one appropriations bill funding the Department of Defense has been signed into law. What is the status of the rest? Well, another one has made it to a conference committee, and the rest of the appropriations bills wait for the majority to decide what to do. They control both Houses of Congress, and yet they still have to decide what to do.

They had a chance to bring their record to two appropriations bills signed into law. But instead, the majority decided to play politics with a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support, the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, because the majority thought they could use it as a campaign ploy.

The new majority promised that they would finish their appropriations work. About a year ago, my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said things would be different under the leadership of the new majority. She said, and I quote, ``The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties.''

Well, today we see that that has not been possible. Next week, the majority is expected to propose an omnibus appropriations bill for all the appropriations bills that haven't been finished. That bill will probably run into the thousands of pages and spend nearly half a trillion dollars. Members may not have enough time to read and digest that legislation before they are asked to vote on it. And unless the majority decides to move the omnibus appropriations bill through a conference committee, that bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the majority's earmark rule, and the rules of the House then would not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in that massive omnibus appropriations bill. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one is going to be able to vet and that most won't even be able to see.

Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, sent a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to the consideration by the Rules Committee.''

I sincerely hope that Chairman Obey will comply with our request. If he does, that would, to an extent, provide Members with a bit of comfort when the bill comes to the floor.

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.

Hon. David R. Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a

``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day

consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That

measure also includes a provision giving you the option of

inserting extraneous explanatory material in the

Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the

remainder of this session.

During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment

to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks

required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus

appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the

rule was rejected along partisan lines.

Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during

this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained

in bills coming through your committee. However, because the

omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate

amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of

the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House

will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be

contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the

motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the

energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was

provided for that measure because it fell within the same

loophole.

We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the

letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and

provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of

earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior

to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of

disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its

Members, and the Nation.

We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.

Respectfully,

David Dreier,

Doc Hastings,

Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

Pete Sessions.

Madam Speaker, the new majority, again, has failed to live up to their promises to finish their work on time and many others, and the underlying third continuing resolution is just another example of their failure to lead.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing the conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that I made reference to a few minutes ago. The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate followed suit and named conferees on September 6 of this year.

Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees. Instead, the majority plans to include the veterans funding in the massive omnibus appropriations legislation. But the status of the omnibus is still in doubt.

Negotiations apparently are ongoing, but we all know there is one bill that has extraordinarily wide bipartisan support and that the President will quickly sign it into law, the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. We already know that we are going to be here next week. We should pass the Veterans Affairs appropriation bill and provide the veterans the funding they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question. Our veterans deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.