Denny Heck

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the committee for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly support the David Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act.

In the last year we have made some pretty incredible progress in reducing the security clearance backlog, yet, frankly, after all the progress we have made, we are still--and you are hearing this number correctly--left with nearly a half a million people on the waiting list for security clearance.

Earlier this year, the average wait time for top secret security clearance was reduced to 468 days, down from 534 days.

So, in other words, when we are out there competing for young talent to come in and be a member of the intelligence community, say in a field such as cyber, we are told we have to tell them, ``Cool your jets. We will get back to you in a year, year and a half or so.''

Indeed, closer to home, my senior military adviser is a distinguished graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. He served not one, but two tours in Afghanistan, where he had a security clearance, and yet when he joined a staff in the House of Representatives, to again earn a security clearance, it took 20 months, nearly 2 years.

We are losing good people when we subject them to that long of a wait time.

This bill makes some progress. It will build on the progress we made this year by providing needed reform to this mission. It creates a system of accountability and clear goals for how the process should run.

Furthermore, the bill allows for innovation on using digital tools, and reciprocity among agencies to improve our efficiencies when clearances are needed to be transferred from one agency to another.

Our government can and must efficiently and effectively review security clearance applicants. We owe our national security workforce at least that much. This bill will help us to do that, to further reduce it, so that the intelligence community can compete for the best and the brightest in a timely fashion.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, among many, I urge Members' support for the Intelligence Authorization Act.

Madam Chair, I was standing when he was recognized. The gentleman from Ohio did not yield to him. And when he asked to claim time in opposition, he did not say ``although I am not opposed.'' And you did not, therefore, ask if there was no objection.

He was not legitimately recognized.

He asked for time in opposition but did not state that he was not opposed.

You did not ask if, therefore, there was no objection. He was not legitimately recognized.

The offerer of the amendment did not yield to him. The gentleman from South Carolina claimed time in opposition but did not say ``although I am not opposed.'' He supported the amendment. And you did not ask if there was no objection.

Madam Chair, you didn't ask if there was no objection, which is the customary practice.

Madam Chair, I thank very much the graciousness of the gentleman from Ohio, although I think his amendment is wrongheaded.

Here is what is real:

Climate change is real, number one.

Number two, it has significant national security implications.

Number three, the only smart thing to do is to borrow the old motto from the Boy Scouts, ``Be prepared.'' Passage of this amendment, which would remove the Climate Security Advisory Council, renders us less prepared.

We all know that the intelligence community and the DOD have, time and again, assessed the measurable effects of climate change--rising sea levels, higher temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events, new stressors on natural resources and agriculture--have tangible impacts that exacerbate economic distress, human insecurity, political instability, and other humanitarian conditions detrimental to our national security.

The smart thing to do is to be prepared, to have the advisory council that can work across the intelligence community, that can collect the information, coordinate the information, so that we know what is coming, we know what we are being presented with, and we can confront it in a smart way.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to please defeat this amendment and pass the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment is about creating economic opportunities in Indian Country. It is about improving housing conditions, creating jobs, and helping Native communities meet their community development needs.

It is a bipartisan amendment, and it provides an additional $5 million for the Indian Community Development Block Grant program, which is one of the most flexible, most competitive grant programs of its kind and, might I add, one of the most effective.

Frankly, I was disappointed to see the President's budget request attempt to eliminate the program, especially when the problem statement associated with the need to increase our investment in infrastructure is so clear.

I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: We are in the middle of a housing crisis, in large part because we simply do not have enough homes.

While it is true that housing shortages exist across the country, nowhere is the issue more pronounced than it is in Native American communities. Native Americans experience worse housing conditions and a higher incidence of homelessness than nearly every other demographic.

One of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress is ensuring the sovereignty of the four Tribes in my district that I have the privilege to represent, as well as the 29 Tribes in my State, and to help them as they work to provide better opportunities for Tribal members.

That is our Federal trust responsibility. Cutting this program violates that trust responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Indian Community Development Block Grant program and, in doing so, supporting the many Native American communities who will benefit from it.

Finally, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Don Young, Gwen Moore, Jared Huffman, Deb Haaland, and Tulsi Gabbard, for joining me in offering this bipartisan amendment.

I also sincerely thank Chairman Price and his staff for putting together such a comprehensive appropriations package that funds our Nation's vital transportation and housing programs.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, again, very much.

It seems to me that often around here, we have solutions in search of problems. That is absolutely not the case in this instance. The problem statement here is clear. It is screaming in its need and the depth of the need.

As a consequence, again, I thank the chair of the subcommittee and the bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it was, indeed, 100 years ago in this very room that the House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, granting women the right to vote.

The vote was here, but the work was out there, because the fact is the victory was due in no small part to the countless trailblazers who championed women suffrage throughout the decades.

Many of those trailblazers called home that which I call home: the Pacific Northwest. That included activists like Emma Smith DeVoe of Tacoma and Mary Arkwright Hutton of Spokane. It was because of their efforts that Washington State became the fifth State in the Union to enact women suffrage in 1910. These efforts built the momentum to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment nearly a decade later.

But the point is, as we celebrate this anniversary, let us not allow the progress we have made beget complacency; because the long, hard- fought battle for equality and representation spans generations and continues to this very day.

Let's continue to affirm those principles as we recognize and commemorate the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote.