Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be allowed to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 5959.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a sponsor of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill represents the culmination of more than a year's work by the members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee, together with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, to bring to the floor a bill that modernizes our surveillance authorities while protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his efforts to strengthen this bill. As always, I greatly appreciate my good friend's commitment to protecting our country and the principles that we hold so dear. I also want to thank the respective ranking members and all that worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor today.

This bill, Madam Speaker, enjoys wide support inside the Democratic Caucus. It has been endorsed by our Democratic whip, by our Democratic Caucus chair, by the Blue Dog Coalition, the New Democratic Caucus and by a number of our colleagues. For that, I want to thank in particular our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for leading the effort towards a bipartisan compromise. This bill is a far better deal than the Protect America Act. And it is far better than the Senate bill that passed earlier this year.

Madam Speaker, intelligence is the first line of defense in our Nation's effort to prevent terrorism and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This legislation strengthens the ability of our intelligence agencies to conduct lawful surveillance of foreign targets. But this legislation also serves another very important and vital function. It strengthens the constitutional rights of Americans, protects them from unlawful surveillance and it stops this President, or any President, for that matter, from invoking executive power to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans.

This bill does more than just retain the original FISA requirements for an individual warrant based upon probable cause for surveillance targeting Americans here in the United States. For the first time ever, this bill requires in statute warrants for Americans anywhere in the world. It also requires the government to establish clear guidelines to ensure that no American is the target of any surveillance without a warrant. It clarifies that FISA and Title 18, the Criminal Code, are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct domestic surveillance.

It will prohibit any unlawful, warrantless wiretapping, the kind we saw under this administration. It provides accountability by requiring the inspectors general of various agencies to compile a comprehensive report on the President's surveillance program and that review must be given to Congress. It requires prior court approval of the procedures used to conduct surveillance of foreign targets, except in an emergency, similar to the current FISA law.

This legislation, Madam Speaker, also addresses the issue of lawsuits against telecommunications companies that comply with directives from our government. This bill does not grant immunity to any government official who might have violated the law, and this bill does not grant automatic immunity to telecom companies, as the Senate bill would have.

Under this legislation, a Federal District Court will review the evidence submitted by the Attorney General and then the court will decide whether to grant civil liability and protection to a company that provided post-9/11 assistance to the government. This bill does not grant immunity. Congress isn't deciding the question of immunity; the District Court will.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill will sunset in 4\1/2\ years, ensuring that the next administration will be in a position to assess and review the effectiveness of this legislation.

This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise, and, as such, both sides got less than they wanted. But it is a product of a good faith effort by both Republicans and Democrats to give our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to keep America safe, while protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this very important piece of legislation.

In addition, Chairman Reyes submitted the following views for the Record:

Exigent Circumstances

Prior court review is an absolutely integral part of this

bill, but we have also crafted an ``exigent circumstances''

circumstances provision that allows the Administration to

commence surveillance immediately in an emergency. This

provision should be invoked rarely, if at all. In the normal

course of events, the Attorney General and the Director of

National Intelligence will have ample time to submit

applications for surveillance to the FISA Court for its

approval before initiating a particular surveillance.

When used, this exception should be for purposes of a true

emergency, involving unforeseen or extraordinary

circumstances. I consider this to be limited to situations

where the intelligence sought would serve a critical function

in protecting national security and where the failure to act

immediately would result in the loss of what might be the

only opportunity to collect the information in question.

The Intelligence Committee intends to engage in regular and

vigorous oversight of these new authorities and, in

particular, the use of the ``exigent circumstances''

exception to ensure that the important protections in this

bill are not circumvented.

``Reverse Targeting''

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 regularly uses the term

``targeting.'' We intend this term to mean more than simply

the process of selecting a telephone number or an e-mail

address to surveil. Rather, it is meant to describe the

process of purposely acquiring communications of or

information about a specific individual.

It is in this context that Section 702(b)(2) prohibits what

is generally referred to as ``reverse targeting.'' In our

discussions with the intelligence agencies, they have agreed

that this language prohibits the targeting of one or more

persons overseas where the purpose is to acquire the

communications of or information about a U.S. person or any

specific person reasonably believed to be inside the United

States. Accordingly, Section 702(f) requires that the

government adopt guidelines to ensure that this does not

occur.

Inadvertent Collection of U.S.-Person Information

Because of the nature of the new surveillance authorities

granted under this bill, we were particularly concerned about

the potential for a significant increase in the inadvertent

collection of U.S.-person communications and information. For

that reason, we have adopted several oversight provisions

that require the Intelligence Community to report to Congress

on the number of targets later determined to have been

located inside the United States, the number of disseminated

intelligence reports that contain U.S.-person information,

and the number of disseminated intelligence reports that

contain information identifying specific U.S. persons. The

Intelligence Committee plans to conduct vigorous oversight

of the reports.

Exclusivity

The exclusivity provision of this bill is extremely

important. This language is designed to prevent any future

efforts to conduct surveillance that is not authorized by

statute. The bill not only establishes that FISA and Title 18

are the exclusive means of conducting surveillance, it

requires that any future authorization for surveillance must

be explicitly established in statute. The language should in

no way be read to imply that there is an inherent power to

conduct surveillance beyond what is expressly authorized by

statute.

In particular, the language in Section 102(c)(l)(ii) should

be read to require citation to specific statutory authority

in all certifications for assistance in conducting electronic

surveillance issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B).

Sunset

This bill is set to expire on December 31, 2012. During the

next four years, Congress will continue to assess the

surveillance activities of the U.S. Government and assess

whether additional changes need to enacted before the sunset

date to correct any deficiencies or problems that arise.

Civil Liability Provisions

The provisions in title II of this bill establish a

meaningful court review to determine whether

telecommunications companies should be protected from civil

liability for assistance provided to the government. It is

important to state that these provisions are not intended to

imply in any way that the President's conduct in connection

with the President's warrantless surveillance program was

lawful or to excuse the conduct of any government official

that might have violated the law.

Further, no telecommunications company should interpret

these provisions to imply that Congress will act in the

future to seek the dismissal of any other lawsuits charging

improper conduct in connection with surveillance activities.

Rather, Congress considers the tragic events of 9/11 to be a

unique set of circumstances that require special

consideration. As a general matter, we expect companies and

private citizens to respect the rule of law and to require

the same of its government.

With respect to the applicable legal standard, we intend

``substantial evidence'' to apply not only to a finding that

assistance was provided in response to a request that

meets the standard of this bill. That standard should also

apply where the court is asked to determine that the alleged

assistance was not provided. A simple declaration from the

Government or the defendant that the alleged assistance did

not occur should be deemed insufficient where there is

sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, when the Government alleges that a surveillance

program was ``designed'' (as opposed to ``intended'') to

detect and prevent terrorism, the court should examine the

evidence to assess the scope of the program and determine,

where appropriate, that indiscriminate surveillance that

acquires the communications of millions of Americans is not

truly ``designed'' to detect or prevent terrorism.

Finally, these provisions should also not be interpreted to

remove the power of the courts to review the

constitutionality of the process this bill establishes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I grant the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Jane Harman, who is the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on all sides.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) who serves as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence on our Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a valued member of our Intelligence Committee.

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

I grant the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our esteemed Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, who in this case deserves MVP status for having the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

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

I just wanted to thank everyone again, as Mr. Hoyer indicated. I believe every Member in this body cares about our national security, and I also believe that this is a good bill, a good compromise and is worthy of supporting.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the centennial birthday of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a proud Texan with a Texas- sized personality. President Johnson provided the nation with strong leadership following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and his enduring legacy includes such seminal programs as Medicare and Medicaid, and the groundbreaking Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

One area where President Johnson's leadership continues to be felt today is the issue of education. Under his tenure the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was signed into law. This measure directed instruction in English as well as multi-cultural awareness in the wake of the Civil Rights movement. The Act gave school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs without violating segregation laws. As someone who grew up only speaking Spanish and had to attend a school that only taught in English, I personally know the significance of these actions for students in El Paso and the border region.

I will always remember meeting President Lyndon B. Johnson in the spring of 1965 while I was attending the University of Texas at Austin, and I rise today to honor the impact that he had on our country, and on El Paso. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Thank you Madame Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 84th birthday of the United States Border Patrol.

Next Wednesday, May 28, 2008, we will be commemorating the establishment of the United States Border Patrol, which began as the Patrol Inspectors in El Paso, Texas. The Border Patrol began under the Bureau of Immigration, then became a part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the Border Patrol has become an integral part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Today, the Border Patrol is led by my friend and former colleague, Chief David V. Aguilar. Under his strong direction and leadership, the Border Patrol has grown to over 16,000 agents stationed throughout the Nation's southern, northern, and coastal borders.

Guided by their national strategy, with the proper mix of manpower, technology, and infrastructure, the Border Patrol's primary goal is to gain and maintain operational control of our borders. Agents protect and defend the United States by preventing the smuggling of illicit materials, and surreptitious entry of persons into the United States. Last year alone, the Border Patrol arrested over 876,000 persons illegally entering or already present in the United States, and seized over 1.8 million pounds of marijuana and 14,000 pounds of cocaine.

Today, the Border Patrol uses state of the art technologies to aid in the performance of their duties. Infrared cameras, remote video surveillance, unattended underground sensors, and ground radar support their national strategy. Their special response teams and tactical units are specially trained for domestic and international emergencies and they have search, trauma, and rescue teams that provide humanitarian and rescue capabilities and perform countless rescues each year. The Border Patrol's mission is also supported by air and marine assets and personnel from CBP Air and Marine.

Before coming to Congress, I was honored to serve as a Border Patrol agent for 26\1/2\ years, of which 13 were spent as sector chief in McAllen and, then, in my home district of El Paso, Texas. My time in the Border Patrol gave me firsthand knowledge of the vigilance and dedication that are constantly required of these agents. The task of protecting our Nation's borders is no small charge.

Sadly, over the years, the Border Patrol has lost 105 men and women who courageously served our country. Let us take a moment to remember these brave men and women and honor their sacrifice.

The Border Patrol lives by their motto ``Honor First''; so today. I ask that we honor the men and women in green for the work they have done and the sacrifices they have made.

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform my colleagues that the classified annex to H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009, will be available for review by Members only during regular committee business hours. Staff are requested to call the committee to schedule a viewing appointment for Members. Members will be required to fill out the appropriate security paperwork to view the classified documents.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. David Plotinsky who recently left the House of Representatives to take a position with the Department of Justice.

Mr. Plotinsky served in the Office of the General Counsel for 10 years, first as a law clerk while he was a student at Georgetown Law School and, since 2000, as an Assistant Counsel.

Mr. Plotinsky provided frequent and invaluable legal advice and representation to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our staff came to rely on his expertise and guidance in connection with many of their investigative and oversight activities, as well as in the Committee's interactions with the other branches of the federal government.

Over the years, Mr. Plotinsky played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives, and he served the House with great distinction. I know that he will serve the Department of Justice with that same level of distinction.

On behalf of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I thank him for his many years of devoted service, and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Israel sets the example for the nations of the Middle East, as the only true democracy in that region. For the past 60 years, Israel has been a sanctuary of democracy and pluralism in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with free elections, a free press, freedom of religion, protection for minority rights and other safeguards typical of a free society.

Like the United States, Israel is a country founded by immigrants. Since its founding, the tiny state has absorbed more than three million immigrants from more than 100 countries, including Jews from the former Soviet Union and those forced to flee from Arab countries. A haven for Jewish refugees from around the world, Israel has also reached out to assist Jews wherever they suffer from persecution and has made the successful absorption of new immigrants in society a top priority.

The United States and Israel have formed a unique strategic partnership to meet the growing dangers in one of the world's most volatile regions. To support the U.S. war on tenor since September 11, 2001, the U.S. and Israel share vital intelligence on terrorism, weapons proliferation and other threats, at a level of sensitivity almost unparalleled among American allies. Thousands of U.S. armed forces personnel have utilized Israeli training facilities, and Israeli officials have shared ``lessons learned'' from their extensive combat experience with their counter-parts at the Department of Defense.

With U.S. help, Israel is able to maintain its qualitative military edge for deterring aggression by its potential enemies. By collaborating with Israel, the U.S. has a reliable, democratic and technologically advanced partner in securing American strategic interests. This partnership includes: bilateral strategic agreements on military planning; ballistic missile defense and counter-terrorism; joint development of weapons and technologies; intelligence sharing; and combined military exercises. The U.S. and Israel have established a cost-effective partnership in the research and development of military technologies and know-how, and in identifying solutions to some of the most challenging technical problems facing both countries' military planners.

Despite its small size, Israel is recognized as a world leader in the quality of its indigenously developed military technology. As such, the U.S. has incorporated Israeli equipment and technology into its armed forces.

It is also important to note that the ties between Israel and the Jewish Community in the Sixteenth Congressional District of Texas remain strong. Through many community based programs, the Jewish Federation of El Paso strives to strengthen this connection through education, through scholarships for trips to Israel, and through financial and spiritual support for their Israeli family. The Federation's upcoming celebration of Israel's independence (Yom Ha'atzmaut) will be a unifying experience that will also help teach our younger generation about the incredible story of Israel.

With my support of House Concurrent Resolution 322, I recognize the historic significance of the 60th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, and I extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and the Israeli people for a peaceful, prosperous, and successful future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am told by lawyers that every lawyer learns to argue the following way: When the law is against you, they are taught to argue the facts. When the facts are against you, they are taught to argue the law. To a certain extent, that is what is going on here today.

We just heard from the distinguished minority leader that he wants the House to go in neutral, put our engine in neutral and just vote on what the Senate has sent over. In other words, we want to rush to rubber-stamp what the administration wants. That's not going to happen.

We also heard this morning that somehow my good friend from Washington State says they haven't had enough time to debate these issues, the FISA issue. I would remind my good friend that we had invited our colleagues on the Republican side to work with us, to go through a process, the process of setting up our ability to go to conference, and they refused. They refused to participate. So it is not a failure of getting enough time to participate in the debate; it is a failure of wanting to participate because the rationale is let's rubber-stamp what the administration wants, which is the Senate version.

We also heard that somehow we are losing information. Somehow we are at a disadvantage because the Protect America Act expired. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would remind all of the Members that were here last night that I held up two documents, and one of those documents authored by the DNI and the Attorney General gave you the information that refutes that argument.

We have done everything that the DNI has asked us to do in this bill. He wants us to give the intelligence community the ability to monitor foreign to foreign. This bill does that.

He wants us to give the telecom companies the opportunity to state their case in order to get immunity. This bill does that.

The third thing he wanted was to make sure that any time that there is an American involved or an American address or phone involved, that a warrant be secured. This bill requires that.

This bill puts the FISA Court back in the process. That's the American way.

I will close by saying that I come from a State that reveres the second amendment, our right to bear arms. But I would submit to all of you, my colleagues here, that that amendment would be irrelevant if we were to give the administration exactly what they want, and that is the ability to monitor anyone, any time, for any reason, because a weapon or a gun is not going to do you any good if the government knows your every move.

The Senate version is their answer to give the administration exactly what they want. We took a different approach. Instead of being in neutral, we are telling the administration and, with all due respect, we are telling the Senate, let's reconcile our differences. We have given the DNI every single thing that he wants. And simply stated today, that dog is not hunting that would create an atmosphere of fear for America.

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

I am proud to rise today in support of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill arms our intelligence community with powerful new tools to track and identify terrorist targets outside the United States. At the same time, it restores essential constitutional protections to Americans that were sharply eroded when the President signed the law known as the Protect America Act last August.

We have put the security of Americans first and foremost, with close attention to their constitutional rights. We have also included provisions to allow companies that acted lawfully to make that argument to the courts. If they did nothing wrong, as they have said, then they will be immune from any lawsuit.

Title I of this bill ensures that the government does not need to get an individualized warrant when it targets communications of targets overseas, the so-called foreign-to-foreign. This is the central problem that the administration cited with FISA in August, and we have fixed it.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not require individual warrants for foreign targets before surveillance can begin. It does require the FISA Court to ensure that the procedures that the government uses to identify foreign targets are designed to protect the rights of Americans. This independent front-end review is necessary to ensure that the rights of Americans are being properly protected before any violations occur. However, we also provide a generous emergency provision, at least 30 days, so that the surveillance can begin in an emergency before the government has to go get approval from a court.

In title II, we address the issue of the lawsuits filed against the telecom companies who allegedly participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. This bill allows the courts to carefully safeguard classified information under well-established protocols. This information that the companies may wish to use to defend themselves now gives them that opportunity. This will also allow the companies to defend themselves in a secure effort. If they are innocent, they will face no damage. If they broke the law, they will be held to account. But this issue will be decided by a court, the American way.

Title III of this bill establishes a bipartisan national commission to investigate warrantless tapping. I believe that the Nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last 7 years. And I also want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community. Title III is designed to do just that, by bringing these things into light in a careful and bipartisan manner. The American people deserve to know the truth about what has happened. This provision makes that happen.

This is an important step forward, Mr. Speaker. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would be happy to oblige my good friend from Georgia.

That is correct.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the 110th Congress is not a rubber stamp for anybody, the Senate or the administration.

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Anna Eshoo, who chairs our Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) who serves on our Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only have one more speaker remaining as well.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of our time, I would like to insert into the Record at this point several letters of endorsement for H.R. 3773.

Center for Democracy

and Technology,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2008.

Re Vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act.

Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to support

legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act that the House of Representatives will soon consider. The

bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

3773, is a responsible compromise between the House RESTORE

Act and the Senate FISA legislation. This compromise includes

most of the civil liberties protections in the RESTORE Act

while also providing the intelligence agencies the

flexibility they need to monitor the international

communications of people believed to be abroad. The

legislation would replace the Protect America Act (``PAA,''

Pub. L. No. 110-55), which became law in August 2007 and

which expired a few weeks ago.

Like the RESTORE Act, the compromise bill permits

authorization of surveillance programs targeting persons

abroad who may be communicating with people in the United

States. The compromise bill makes it clear that the

government does not have to make an individualized showing of

probable cause for targeting any person reasonably believed

to be abroad, unless that person is a U.S. citizen or green

card holder. It provides intelligence agencies great

flexibility in adding new surveillance targets to existing

authorizations. The compromise bill also makes it clear that

no order is required for surveillance of foreign-to-foreign

communications. The compromise bill includes no blanket

immunity from civil liability for telecommunications carriers

who assisted with illegal warrantless surveillance from

October 2001 through January 17, 2007, but it does allow

carriers to defend themselves against those lawsuits while

protecting classified information.

Unlike the PAA, the compromise bill includes significant

civil liberties protections that merit your support.

Prior Court Approval. Most importantly, the compromise bill

requires court approval of surveillance procedures prior to

the commencement of surveillance. Except in emergencies, the

compromise bill bars the executive branch from commencing

surveillance unless the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (``FISA court'') has approved of targeting and

minimization procedures designed to protect Americans. The

targeting procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure

that communications to be acquired will be those of persons

reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

The minimization procedures limit the circumstances in which

a U.S. citizen or green card holder can be identified when

information resulting from intelligence surveillance is

disseminated. We are disappointed that under the compromise

bill, the authorization for surveillance comes from the

Director of National Intelligence (``DNI'') and the Attorney

General (``AG''), and not from the FISA court, as would have

been provided under the RESTORE Act. While we would have

preferred the RESTORE Act approach, surveillance under both

bills cannot commence unless the FISA court has first

approved the procedures under which it would be conducted.

Court Compliance Assessment. The compromise bill explicitly

authorizes the FISA court not only to assess the adequacy of

surveillance procedures at the front end, but also to assess

whether those procedures are being complied with on a going

forward basis. It provides that the court shall assess

compliance with the minimization procedures it has approved,

and it acknowledges that nothing in the bill prohibits the

FISA court from having inherent authority to assess

compliance with those procedures and other procedures it has

approved. While the extent of the court's inherent authority

is unclear, we understand that the Administration has agreed

that the court has inherent authority to assess compliance.

Prevention of Reverse Targeting. The compromise bill bars

the targeting of a person reasonably believed to be outside

the United States for the purpose of targeting a particular,

known person reasonably believed to be in the United States.

A number of provisions support this bar. They help ensure

that surveillance targeted at persons abroad will not be used

to circumvent individualized court order requirements that

protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance. The bill

requires the AG, in consultation with the DNI, to adopt

guidelines to ensure compliance with the reverse targeting

limitation. Those guidelines must contain criteria for

determining whether a ``significant purpose'' of an

acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific,

known U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident reasonably

believed to be in the United States. Those criteria must in

turn reflect consideration of criteria listed in the bill

that tend to show whether a person in the U.S. has become of

significant intelligence interest. The guidelines must be

submitted to Congress. AG/DNI certifications submitted to the

FISA court in connection with authorized surveillance are

reviewed by the FISA court for completeness, and must attest

that guidelines meeting the reverse targeting limitation have

been adopted. The Inspectors General and the AG/DNI both

report to Congress on whether the reverse targeting

guidelines are being followed.

FISA Exclusivity. The compromise bill takes a significant

step toward the goal of clarifying that FISA is the exclusive

means of conducting surveillance in the United States for

foreign intelligence purposes. It does this by cutting off

the argument advanced by the Administration that Congress may

implicitly authorize warrantless surveillance when it

authorizes the use of force following an attack on the United

States, or when it passes other legislation. Under the bill,

such authorization would need to be explicit.

Telecom Immunity. Unlike the Senate bill, the compromise

bill wisely rejects proposals to grant blanket retroactive

immunity to telecommunications carriers that assisted with

illegal warrantless surveillance for more than five years

following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Telecoms should

be immune when they assist surveillance that meets the

statutory requirements, and should face civil liability when

they assist with requests for assistance with unlawful

surveillance. The compromise bill preserves this incentive

system, which helps ensure that telecoms prevent unlawful

surveillance. In lieu of retroactive immunity, the compromise

bill frees telecoms to present in court information tending

to show that they complied with the law, even though such

information may be subject to the state secrets privilege. It

signals the courts that such submissions must be protected

from disclosure and should be handled in accordance with the

relevant provision of FISA, Section 106(f).

The compromise bill also includes the following significant

provisions:

A December 31, 2009 sunset to prompt Congress to reconsider

the legislation in a timely manner, and to encourage

Executive branch compliance with reporting duties imposed in

the legislation and with congressional requests for

information;

An Inspectors General audit of post 9-11 warrantless

surveillance that may represent the best chance of shedding

light on this surveillance, to the extent consistent with

national security concerns; and

A requirement for court orders based on probable cause for

surveillance of Americans and green card holders who are

believed to be abroad, in lieu of the Attorney General

certification of probable cause now required by executive

order.

For all of these reasons, we encourage you to vote for the

compromise bill when it is considered by the House of

Representatives. It represents a responsible effort to

preserve both liberty and security, and it is legislation the

Administration would be wise to support.

For more information, please see our latest policy brief on

FISA legislation (http://www .cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2008/3) or contact the

Director of CDT's Project on Freedom, Security & Technology,

Gregory T. Nojeim, at 202/637-9800 x113.

Sincerely,

Leslie Harris,

President and CEO.

Gregory T. Nojeim,

Director, Project on Freedom, Security & Technology.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the secret session of the House is dissolved pursuant to the previous order of the House, the House stand adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto. This year, for the first time in 3 years, the Congress passed an intelligence authorization act and presented it to the President. This was something that had proved impossible for a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate. In recent years, while the bill passed the House, it never even got to conference. When I took over as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I made passing an authorization all the way through conference a high priority. It wasn't easy, but I thought it was crucial that we revitalize the oversight process, and I committed to getting an authorization bill not only passed through the House but sent to the President.

The intelligence community, by its very nature, presents a very difficult oversight challenge for Congress. This is why the intelligence authorization bill is so critical. It is the culmination of the committee's oversight activities conducted over the previous year. Intelligence funding is one of the few areas where the law requires funds to be both appropriated and authorized. Our constituents, of course, are demanding that we weigh in on all the important intelligence-related challenges that our Nation is facing.

This legislation goes a long way towards strengthening oversight of the intelligence community, which the President seems to consistently want to fight. That's why the President vetoed it. He wants the authority to do whatever he wants, in secret, with no oversight or authorization or without any checks and balances.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree. The Constitution gives us a role in this process. We do have a say, in the name of the United States of America, in what the intelligence community does. That's why we need to override this veto.

This legislation enhances oversight in several ways. It requires quarterly reports to Congress on the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea. We learned a lesson from the experience in Iraq. Congress must be careful and must be part of the process and a consumer of intelligence to avoid being sold a bill of goods.

The act requires the CIA inspector general to audit covert activities at least once every 3 years. Covert activities are historically where our intelligence community runs into legal and policy trouble. An independent CIA audit is one way to prevent problems that have embarrassed our Nation and have eroded our moral authority.

The authorization act also requires detailed accounting to Congress on the use of intelligence contractors. The use of contractors has grown exponentially, and no one is asking critical management questions about whether this is a good use of taxpayer money.

An important substantive provision of the legislation also requires the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community to abide by the same regulations that DOD follows in the context of interrogations. If it's not permissible for soldiers in Iraq, where they face a life-or-death threat daily, it shouldn't be permissible for a CIA officer or contractor.

Mr. Speaker, if this veto stands, all of these important oversight provisions will disappear. If we believe in strong oversight, we need to override this veto.

In addition to addressing long ignored oversight issues, the legislation is fundamentally the mechanism for authorizing funds for the intelligence community. This legislation authorizes funds for the full range of critical intelligence activities. It authorizes funds to support counterterrorism operations to keep Americans safe today, and it authorizes funds for the strategic intelligence investments to keep Americans safe in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, the Intelligence Committee will be silent on these important authorization issues. Once more, we'll have no authorization bill.

The bill also addresses some persistent management problems in the intelligence community. It requires steps towards a multi-level security clearance system to recruit more native speakers of critical languages into our intelligence community. It takes important steps towards creating a more diverse workforce to strengthen our ability to collect intelligence all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, it's business as usual. No new solutions, just the same old intelligence problems.

I have visited the patriotic men and women of the intelligence community in the far corners and in the far reaches all over the globe. They deserve our support. They are brave, they are competent, and, in most cases, they are humbled to be doing the job to keep us safe. Many serve our Nation behind the scenes and at great risk, without any expectation of recognition or congratulations. For them, and for all Americans, this is important legislation.

The intelligence community came to us for money, they came to us for tools, and they came to us for new authorities. We gave them what they asked for. The President, with his veto, is denying them those very things simply because he wants no limits on his Presidential power.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back on point by yielding 3 minutes to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Service Committee.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on this parallel universe, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who chairs one of

our subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona that this veto is not about earmarks; it's about torture.

With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Mr. Speaker, again I would remind the gentleman that this is not about spy pork; it's about torture.

With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois, a valued member of our committee, Ms. Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we believe that our very capable and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community can keep us safe without torture.

I now yield 3 minutes to the newest member of our Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas (Mr. Doggett), who was just asking me, As I traveled around the world, have any of our fine men and women in the intelligence community ever asked to be given the tool of torture? and I said, No.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, it won't be interesting if this veto is sustained. It will be a sad day for this country because it will be sustaining torture.

With that, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the valued member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, a member of the leadership of this House, the majority leader, and one that is proud to stand up against torture and for the American people, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time.

Thank you.

I would advise the gentleman from Michigan I have one additional speaker.

With that, I now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical bill for the intelligence community. If you vote to sustain this veto, you are voting for torture with the President. I believe we should stand with the men and women of the community and override the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our distinguished colleague from the Virgin Islands, a valuable member of our Committee on Natural Resources and the chairwoman of our Insular Affairs Subcommittee, Donna Christensen, for sponsoring the pending legislation, H.R. 1143.

The bill would authorize the National Park Service to continue its successful relationship with Caneel Bay Resort, ensure that park resources are protected, and allow the resort to undertake needed maintenance and improvement programs that will benefit visitors to Virgin Islands National Park and the Caneel Bay Resort well into the future.

Congresswoman Christensen deserves our thanks for her work in ensuring that visitor services at Virgin Islands National Park are available and that resources are protected.

I fully support passage of the pending bill and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

In addition to restoring integrity to student loan programs, encouraging States and colleges to rein in student costs, bolstering Pell grants and expanding maximum awards, and investing in renewable and efficient campus energy practices, this legislation makes a vital investment in the economic competitiveness of our nation. Included in that investment is a needed focus on improving minority participation in the science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM, fields.

According to the U.S. Census, 39 percent of the population under the age of 18 is a racial or ethnic minority. That percentage is on a path to pass 50 percent by the year 2050. Yet, in 2000, only 4.4 percent of the science and engineering jobs were held by African Americans and only 3.4 percent by Hispanics.

This under-representation of minority groups in the STEM fields is a severe impediment to the formation of an adequate American STEM workforce. The increased education and participation of this segment of the workforce is essential to supplying the American economy with the STEM expertise the country needs to innovate and to improve America's economic standing in the world.

One year ago, I joined with several of my colleagues, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Congressman Ruben Hinojosa, Congressman Mike Honda, and Congressman G.K. Butterfield, to create the House Diversity and Innovation Caucus. The caucus was created on a relatively simple premise: If we want to expand the STEM pipeline, we must broaden our pool of talent. If we are to compete with the rest of the world, we cannot do so with one hand tied behind our back, with the vast majority of certain demographic groups severely under-represented in the fields that drive innovation.

This bill includes several provisions that would bolster the participation of under-represented groups in the STEM fields. Specifically, H.R. 4137 would:

Establish the YES Partnership grant program for Minority-Serving Institutions to support the participation of under-represented minority youth in STEM through outreach and hands-on experiential-based learning projects;

Strengthen and expand the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program;

Enact the Minority-Serving Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity

Program;

Establish a matching grant program to recruit math, science, and language teachers;

Establish a priority in the Graduate Areas of National Need Program for fellowships to develop faculty in math, science, special education, and bilingual education;

Expand loan forgiveness in areas of national need;

Authorize a grant to examine establishing an organization to ensure women and under-represented minorities on college campuses are not facing subtle biases that discourage them from careers in STEM fields; and

Ensure that legal immigrants and part-time students are eligible for the Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants.

I am particularly proud that H.R. 4137 includes a bill I authored and introduced in the House, the STEM Promotion Act. In addition to providing young Americans strong educational opportunities in STEM, we must find a way to interest them in pursuing the STEM professions. My generation was inspired by Sputnik to pursue careers in science, engineering, and math, but we cannot sit back and wait for another Sputnik to re-engage our young people in these critical fields. We must tackle the STEM pipeline issue head-on, by methodically attracting Americans to enter STEM.

The STEM Promotion Act proposes just that. The bill would require the Secretary of Education to work with marketing professionals, similar to what the military does, to advertise and otherwise market the attractiveness of pursuing opportunities in STEM. Moreover, the Secretary would order marketing research to be conducted to examine how best to appeal to segments of our population that have been under- represented in the STEM fields, such as women, Hispanics, and African- Americans.

If America is to achieve its strategic objectives in STEM, the enormous potential of groups that are currently under-represented in the STEM fields must be realized. This bill will expand the STEM pipeline and promote innovation and competitiveness by helping to correct the under-representation of certain groups in the STEM fields.

H.R. 4137 also makes broad investments in higher education and college access. In addition to increasing the maximum Pell grant award by over $3,000 and authorizing year-round grants, the bill includes key provisions of the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act, of which I have been an original cosponsor for the past three Congresses. Included is a new graduate program for those institutions, authorized at $125 million, and an increased authorization for the undergraduate program to $175 million.

I am particularly pleased that the Education and Labor Committee has seen fit to strengthen and increase funding for GEAR UP and TRIO, which are critical college access programs for low-income students for which I have advocated since arriving in Congress in 1997. Specifically, the bill increases minimum grant awards for TRIO and HEP-CAMP, increases the authorization for TRIO to $950 million, increases the authorization for GEAR UP to $400 million, and addresses accountability standards to ensure students are completing a rigorous program of study. The bill also promotes college transition and parental involvement in GEAR UP, and encourages GEAR UP and TRIO to promote financial literacy.

By passing this bill, we would also ensure that our military veterans have full access to both the Montgomery GI bill and education programs under the Higher Education Act. H.R. 4137 establishes a scholarship program for veteran students and their families and Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, and ensures fair treatment of veterans benefits in the financial aid need analysis formula.

I urge my colleagues to consider this bill's positive impact on competitiveness when deciding how to vote. Please support a strong and prosperous America. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4137.

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.

With that, I will reserve my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the conference report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008, has been filed in accordance with House rules and that the classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex of the conference report is available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room H-405 of the Capitol. The committee office is open during regular business hours, and this evening during our votes, for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to the consideration of the conference report by the House. Members wishing to review this material should contact the committee to arrange a time and a date for that review.

In addition to signing the oath for access to classified information specified in clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives Rules, committee rules also require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement that indicates that the Member has been granted access to the classified schedule of authorizations and classified annex, and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and the limitations on disclosure of such information.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I move to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this motion is not about policy. It is not even about priorities; it is about politics. This bill that we passed, this bill that passed the House, the bill we are talking about tonight, is legislation that sets unprecedented levels of commitment for our intelligence community, to the professionals who are charged with keeping this country safe. It sets the priorities for human intelligence. It sets record levels and expenditures from the House so that those professionals that are charged with keeping us safe, keeping this Nation secure, have the necessary resources to do that job.

This legislation also prioritizes the issue of diversifying the intelligence workforce. This legislation protects this country. This legislation prioritizes those issues that are vitally important that we pass here tonight.

So for those reasons and because for the first time in history we have had care and process with this legislation, setting record levels of expenditures for our intelligence community, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, unfortunately this motion is not about policy, it is not about priorities, it is not even about earmarks; it is about politics. Using politics, I think, at a time when our intelligence professionals depend on us to provide them the means and the tools and the funds with which to keep us safe is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion.

I yield back the balance of my time.