Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5020, Inelligence Authorizing Act for Fiscal Year 2007

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5020, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (House of Representatives - April 26, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, deals with one of the most important aspects of our national security: our ability to gather and analyze intelligence effectively so that our policies are based on fact, not fantasy or obsessive desire, so that our Federal law enforcement agencies can defend us from the threat of attack, and so that our allies can rely on our resources for timely, coordinated operations in defense of freedom abroad.

I want to commend Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member HARMAN and members of the Intelligence Committee for authorizing 100 percent of the funding required for our counterterrorism operations. Regrettably, President Bush only included 78 percent of this funding in his budget request; so I thank the committee for correcting this dangerous shortfall.

The Intelligence Authorization Act traditionally receives strong bipartisan support and will likely receive that same support this year. But despite its many attributes, this bill could have and should have been better. This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004 in response to the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report, it created this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights of the American people in a post-9/11 world.

Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running. The President did not nominate the members of the board for 9 months. The Senate took 5 months to confirm the chair and vice chair. And, once again, the President's budget failed to include a single penny for the board's operation in fiscal year 2007.

This could have and should have been fixed in committee. Congressmen HASTINGS, REYES, and HOLT offered an amendment to provide $3 million in dedicated funding for the oversight board, an amendment that should have had bipartisan support. But the majority chose to reject this funding and abandon their promise to the American people to safeguard their most basic freedoms and rights. And last night in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership compounded this mistake by denying Congressman Reyes the right to offer this same amendment for debate on the House floor.

And then we have the issue of the National Security Agency's spying on U.S. citizens. In committee, Representative Eshoo offered a carefully crafted amendment to withhold 20 percent of the NSA's budget until the executive branch provided the Intelligence Committee with the total cost of its surveillance program. That is all: just inform the committee of this one number. The Eshoo amendment was not looking for more operational details. It was not passing judgment on whether the NSA's domestic spying program is legal or not, even though that is a controversial matter in this House. All it was looking for is how many of our tax dollars are being spent on this surveillance program.

This is a question that should concern every single Member of this body on both sides of the aisle. But with just one exception, the Republican majority found it too much to ask and rejected the Eshoo amendment.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership went even further. The Republican Rules Committee denied Representatives SCHIFF, FLAKE, HARMAN, and INGLIS the right to offer their bipartisan amendment for debate. This amendment would have required a classified disclosure to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, the two committees with jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities over the NSA and the FISA process, on which U.S. citizens have been the subject of NSA electronic surveillance, and what criteria was used to target them. Such a classified report would allow Congress to understand the program and whether any current laws need to be amended to grant the President the authority he needs to carry out this program more effectively or make any changes to safeguard against abuse. In short, these two committees need this information in order to do their jobs, in order to carry out their oversight responsibilities.

This bipartisan amendment should have received bipartisan support from the Rules Committee, but it did not; not from the Republican majority on this Rules Committee and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House.

It is outrageous, Madam Speaker. Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple. And when the Attorney General says that Congress somehow granted the authority for this program after September 11, he is just wrong.

We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?

I would ask my Republican friends to re-read their Constitution. Congress was not designed to be a rubber stamp for the President. Congress was not designed to protect Members from difficult votes on controversial issues. Congress was not designed to protect the President's political rear end. But under this leadership that is exactly what Congress has become.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor. They should at least show that level of respect for this House and for this Constitution.

I am willing to bet that the majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe that what the President is doing is wrong. But either way, the very least we could do is have a debate and a vote.

Madam Speaker, 25 amendments were brought to the Rules Committee last night. They dealt with issues ranging from how the NSA carries out surveillance of American citizens to how the Intelligence Committee and other relevant committees are briefed about weapons of mass destruction or the situations in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other hot spots. They dealt with how information is classified or reclassified, how national security whistle-blowers are protected or punished, and whether and how the amount of funds requested and appropriated for various intelligence-related activities are reported to Congress.

These are not trivial matters, Madam Speaker. Yet only five amendments, five amendments, Madam Speaker, plus the manager's amendment, were made in order under this highly restrictive rule.

Why is the Republican leadership so afraid to debate these issues? Why is it so afraid to debate, period? After nearly 4 months of a lackluster Congress, are we suddenly on some tight time clock so there is no time to debate matters affecting national security? Do we need to get out of town by Thursday afternoon? I am happy to stay in town on Friday if it means we can get a full debate on the Intelligence Authorization Act.

I am tired of restrictive rules. I am tired of stifling debate. I am tired of ignoring or running away from the big issues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and to support an open debate on important issues facing our national security and intelligence agencies.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, whom I have a lot of respect for.

First of all, the cost of the program that we were debating was only given to members of the committee that the President chose, not all members of the committee.

Secondly, I find it scandalous, quite frankly, that this Congress is abdicating its responsibility to put in place checks and balances on the President's domestic spying program. When you talk about enforcing and abiding by the Constitution of the United States, that is one of our responsibilities. I think what the President is doing is illegal. We should have a debate on this. The White House should be more forthcoming. Quite frankly, it is an outrage.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, before I introduce our next speaker, let me just respond by saying what has the American people concerned is that we have a set of procedures in place, the so-called FISA procedures, which allow the President to put anybody under surveillance here in the United States providing that he gets a warrant. And he can even get a warrant after he puts somebody under surveillance. The question is why can't he follow the procedures in place? In my opinion, he is breaking the law.

And I would also say that the other question is, why in the world, given the controversy on this issue, can't this Congress have an up-or-down vote on this issue? If the majority thinks that the President should be able to put anybody under surveillance he wants without a warrant, fine. Then write the bill and bring it to the floor, let us debate it and pass it up or down.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Boswell amendment on Iran nuclear programs. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. It is yet another example of what I believe is the abuse of power by the Republican-dominated Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit reports to Congress on Iran's weapons of mass destruction every 90 days. It requires these reports to include an assessment of Iran's nuclear programs, an evaluation of intelligence sources, a summary of new intelligence for any information that would increase confidence in overall assessment.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned over the ominous situation in Iran with regard to the potential for nuclear weapons in that country, and I think most Members of this body would agree that it is absolutely critical that we continue to monitor the situation very closely and receive frequent updates on Iran. We need to have constant and accurate updates on this very serious situation. There is too much at stake here for us to do less.

Have we learned nothing from what we experienced with regard to the misleading intelligence and the false intelligence on Iraq? Have we learned nothing from the fact that this Congress did not do its job; did not take its oversight responsibility seriously; did not ask the questions; did not hold the administration accountable?

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member HARMAN have worked in a bipartisan way. This should have been worked out in a bipartisan way. I cannot imagine why anybody would be opposed to this amendment.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the intelligence bill and will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to add this important amendment that seeks to fully understand the depth of the nuclear situation in Iran.

I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. This should be a bipartisan vote. There is no reason, there is no reason to vote this down unless somehow you do not want to hear the information; unless somehow you do not want to demand this administration be accountable and inform the Members of this Congress.

On the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran, it should be every Member of this Congress, quite frankly, who should have access to relevant material. We need to learn our lesson. We are in a mess right now in Iraq. We are involved in a quagmire that has cost over 2,500 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we know the intelligence was wrong. Let us do it right this time. Let us not rush into a war unnecessarily. Let us demand from this administration some accountability and some truth.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/