[Congressional Record: December 13, 2007 (House)]
[Page H15426-H15438]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. REYES. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the conference report
is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
December 6, 2007, at page H14462.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. REYES. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. REYES. 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.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The
process and the substance of the bill fall sadly short. As one of the
crossover Members who serves on both the Select Intelligence and the
House Armed Services
[[Page H15427]]
Committees, it's critical that the House Armed Services Committee and
Select Committee on Intelligence work together on national security
programs that serve both the military and national intelligence.
Regretfully, the Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Republican,
Mr. Hunter of California, was denied any input into the joint programs
that are shared by both committees.
On substance, I had hoped the bill would have improved from the
House-passed measure in May. That didn't happen. The conference report
includes even more politically charged provisions from the Senate bill
that micromanage and politicize the interrogation techniques of the
intelligence community.
In case anyone in the Chamber has forgotten, we're at war with
terrorists. Should we really be publishing our interrogation manuals
for the entire world and for terrorists to see?
On a positive note, I would like to mention two specific program
areas that are important to both the military and intelligence
communities: the U-2 aircraft and space radar programs. The conference
report language keeps the U-2 and its critical intelligence
capabilities flying until we are truly transitioned over to the Global
Hawk.
And I am also pleased that the bill authorizes funding for space
radar capabilities, though at a lower funding level than I would like.
This is an essential capability that combat commanders and service
intelligence chiefs have continuously requested.
Madam Speaker, we can do better than this, and I urge all my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.
Mr. REYES. 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).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, this bill, our first in 3 years, will
strengthen the oversight of the intelligence community, require reports
on the administration's compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act, and
reduce the overall number of contractors employed by intelligence
agencies.
But for me, the most important element of this bill, the main reason
I am supporting this conference report, was added just 1 week ago
during conference. When the intelligence oversight committees gathered
to consider the conference report, we inserted an amendment that would
require all intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field
Manual on interrogations. This would mean no more torture and no more
questions about what the CIA is allowed to do behind closed doors. The
Army Field Manual is unclassified, and explicitly prohibits
waterboarding, use of hoods, electric shocks and mock executions. The
military has voluntarily imposed these restrictions upon itself, and
now we must impose the same rules on the intelligence community.
I'm a new member of the Intelligence Committee. The Speaker called me
at the beginning of this session and asked if I would serve my country
by joining this important and distinguished group, and I consider my
work on this bill to be just that.
The intelligence agencies we oversee operate in the shadows, and on
the Intelligence Committee, we learn about policies and priorities and
problems that no one in the broader public will ever see. Some of these
issues are very troubling. Some of them keep me up at night.
The question of interrogation techniques is one of the most important
I've dealt with on the committee, and I'm gratified we're having this
debate today in a public forum.
My colleagues in the minority complain that the inclusion of this
provision will make it impossible for our intelligence officers to
protect the American people from terrorists. As a member of the
Intelligence Committee, I assure you that those claims are false. But
don't take my word for it. Please consider the advice of General David
Petraeus, who said in a May 10 memo to the members of the Armed Forces
that the Army Field Manual allowed intelligence officials to get the
information they need. Among the things he said is, quote, ``our
experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army
Field Manual 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.''
If we don't pass this bill with this provision, how can we assume the
moral authority to criticize Burma or any other nation for its
treatment of prisoners?
In the end, we have hurt our own country and undermined the real
source of our strength, the rule of law and the sanctity of our
Constitution. We're fighting for the soul of our country today. I urge
the adoption of this bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes
to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in disappointment, really, of
this bill. There is no doubt that there are a number of good provisions
in it, thanks to the work of the chairman, ranking member and others.
But I believe that we could and we should have done better. And I'll
say this, Madam Speaker, in the context of the intelligence issues of
the moment.
As the chairman noted, there is a great deal of turmoil about the
product of the intelligence community on specific issues today, and I
would recommend that all our colleagues read two editorials in today's
Washington Post, one by Dr. Henry Kissinger that talks about the
politicization of intelligence and the other by Mr. Ignatius that talks
about the congressional oversight of intelligence, which has broken. We
need to do things to improve that oversight, to increase the
credibility of the community and congressional responsibilities in
overseeing the intelligence community, but, unfortunately, this bill
does not do the things, many of the things that could help improve our
credibility and improve the community. For example, just a few days
ago, this body voted for a motion to instruct to remove all earmarks in
this bill and to increase human intelligence collection.
Now, part of the reason I believe we should have done that is to
increase the credibility of Congress in overseeing the intelligence
community because there have been problems in this area. But,
unfortunately, the conference report that comes back to us today did
not follow the clear bipartisan vote of the House in removing earmarks
and in maximizing human intelligence collection, which is very
critical. And it is a missed opportunity to improve the community and
to improve ourselves in our responsibilities. And I don't think we can
emphasize enough the importance of human intelligence collection in the
face of the threats we face today. Much of the intelligence that will
keep Americans safe is not going to come from satellites or other sorts
of technical collection. It's going to come from human beings who
understand the capabilities and the intention of another small group of
human beings hidden in a cave or in a compound somewhere. And that's
where we have to put the emphasis. Unfortunately, this bill does not do
as much as it should.
{time} 1145
Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would say that I believe it's a mistake to
telegraph to al Qaeda or other potential enemies exactly what we're
going to do when we capture you. And I believe that that provision of
this bill that basically gives your playbook to our enemies increases
the danger to American lives. As the gentlelady from Illinois said, it
does not eliminate our ability to protect this country, but it
increases the danger; and for that reason, the bill should be rejected.
Mr. REYES. 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.
Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report.
Our intelligence professionals are on the front lines of a critically
important campaign, a campaign against a determined enemy, an enemy
that's ruthless, cunning, and does not abide by the rules.
In my past, I served our Nation on the front lines in a different
campaign
[[Page H15428]]
against another determined enemy. My experience in Vietnam taught me a
lot about what our Nation needs to do when it sends its best and
brightest off to protect itself from threats abroad.
It taught me that a Nation needs to invest in its national security
professionals to ensure that its men and women on the front lines have
the best and most effective training possible. One of the principles of
war is intelligence. You cannot have a successful strategy without
knowing your enemy. Absolutely essential, saves lives.
I'm proud to say that the conference report does, in fact, invest in
our intelligence professionals.
It increases spending on language training at the DNI level,
Department of National Intelligence, so languages can be leveraged
across the intelligence community. Because of bipartisan concerns about
language skills, it also requires an annual report on language
proficiency.
It fully funds our Nation's counterterrorism effort to ensure that
our human intelligence officers have what they need to collect against
our Nation's most important intelligence targets.
It increases training and funding for analysts to ensure that when
our intelligence collectors gather important information on the front
lines that we have trained and qualified professionals back home that
can piece the information together and inform policymakers about the
important issues of our time.
Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to highlight one provision of the
conference report that I worked hard to include. It will require
significant and critical reporting on the nuclear programs of Iran and
North Korea, once in the 2008 fiscal year and twice in 2009. Last
week's National Intelligence Estimate showed us that the intelligence
can change significantly over time and that we have to constantly
reassess our beliefs. I don't want us to forget about the threats that
are a little further down the road while we're focused on today. That's
why I've been pushing this provision for 2 years, and I'm glad it's in
the conference report.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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. REYES. 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. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the conference report in front of us today,
imperfect as it is, addresses several key issues facing our
intelligence community today: attracting and retaining people with
foreign languages and cultures; bringing speed to security clearance
processes for new hires; the provision directing the Director of
National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance
process; and a number of other things.
But as the person appointed by Speaker Pelosi to chair the Select
Intelligence Oversight Panel, I'm especially interested and supportive
of the provisions of this legislation that will improve the ability of
Congress to exert oversight of the intelligence activities of this
country, such as requirements that the intelligence community report to
Congress and requirements that strengthen the Inspectors General in the
intelligence community.
Intelligence is among the most important functions of our government
because intelligence can save lives, prevent war, and assist our
soldiers and protect Americans. But it is also among the most
dangerous, dangerous because of the damage of intelligence poorly done,
the damage that can be done to American interests and America's
reputation and the freedoms and humane behavior that Americans hold
dear. So these oversight provisions are particularly important.
Another provision of this legislation that I'm pleased to see is the
requirement that the DNI produce National Intelligence Estimates on
Iran and North Korea. I'm pleased to see that it seems that some
reforms are now reflected in the way that the intelligence community
does these National Intelligence Estimates. The recent Iran report
appears to be a product of a reformed intelligence process.
Now, I've argued for years that we should have only one policy on how
to handle detainees, and this bill addresses that issue head-on by
requiring that the U.S. Government personnel and contractors, anyone
involved in detainee operations, adhere to the Army Field Manual.
The bottom line is this: no torture of detainees, period. I'm
thankful that we're finally taking that issue straight on; and in light
of last week's news involving the CIA's detainee operations, I think
it's clear that we still have more work to do.
The revelations surrounding and the ongoing investigations of the
CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations only
underscore why Congress must establish clear policies for the video
recording of detainee interrogations. I'm offering legislation in
addition to what we're dealing with today that will deal with this, and
I look forward to working with Chairman Reyes and the House leadership
to bring that measure to the floor for a vote very soon.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New
York (Mr. McHugh), a member of the committee.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Like my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), I rise today in
disappointment, and I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman.
But in his opening comments, the chairman spoke about last week's NIE
on Iran as the best of times; and, clearly, we all take heart in the
possibility that Iran has put aside its program to develop nuclear
power for weapons systems. It's an opening we need to vigorously pursue
and cautiously monitor.
But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, this is hardly all good news because
it also, in a less noted part of the report, talked about what we
missed. It confirmed that they had an active program. It confirmed that
that was going forward, and it confirmed that it happened without our
knowledge, and many of the shortcomings that made that reality come
about are contained in this bill.
There were a number of reasons for that failure, but some, sadly, are
reflected starkly in this bill. And, indeed, for all of its good
intentions, for all of its considerable effort, this legislation is
sadly an example of high rhetoric that clouds stark reality.
As Mr. Thornberry and as the distinguished ranking member have said,
there are a number of deficiencies,
[[Page H15429]]
things that threaten the viability of our intelligence services. In my
opinion, most importantly, the failure again to provide adequate
resources for human intelligence collection, whether we're talking
about Iran or any other highly denied theater, it is that ability to
get on the ground, to find the intelligence that would have helped us
not have incorrect NIEs in places like Iran in the past and protect
each and every American there.
As also has been noted, this bill really does fail to provide key
surveillance authorities the kind of legislation authority that is
necessary to streamline surveillance of foreign terrorist targets in
foreign countries, again harkening up the issue that we're clouding the
reality of today's world with high rhetoric and ideals.
On that point, let me make another observation. Mr. Thornberry spoke
of not telegraphing our interrogation techniques to our enemy. I would
disagree with Mr. Thornberry a little bit there in that I think we're
not just telegraphing; we are actually giving them the entire playbook.
None of us, none of us in this government, none of us in this Chamber
support torture. We have made that clear. But to give the clear
playbook to our enemies, those that would do the greatest harm, as we
saw on September 11, through our interrogation techniques, I think, is
a very unwise step to make.
For those reasons, I would urge we take this bill, defeat it here
today and rework it in a way which better serves the interests of each
and every American citizen.
Mr. REYES. 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. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report. We all should be proud of the bipartisan, bicameral product. I
want to thank Chairman Reyes and also Ranking Member Hoekstra for your
leadership in helping us put this together. It's very important for our
country and our national security.
It has been 3 years since an intelligence authorization bill has been
in front of the President for signature. We worked across the aisle
with our Republican counterparts to put America first. We must pass
this conference report.
We are the most powerful country in the world because we control the
skies. Our country faces serious threat from China and Russia. These
countries are working continuously to outpace our security efforts,
particularly in space.
This intelligence authorization addresses those, as well as other
critical national security issues. This past year, we have scrutinized
all aspects of the intelligence community and insisted upon
accountability and results.
My congressional district includes the National Security Agency. The
men and women of the NSA work tirelessly to keep our soldiers and our
civilians on the the front lines safe. They're fighting the war on
terrorism 24 hours a day all over the globe. I'm proud that this
conference report gives NSA the infrastructure and tools they need to
protect our country.
This conference report also addresses some critical satellite issues.
I assure you this Congress is looking into the problems associated with
the space industry. We have made hard decisions. We've recommended
changes, and we look to hold the administration accountable in the days
ahead.
I support this conference report, and I recommend its passage.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the
State of Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today a bit disappointed but unfortunately not
surprised. On December 4, just a week ago, the House of Representatives
passed a motion to instruct conferees to remove the earmarks from this
authorization.
{time} 1200
That vote passed by a margin of 249-160.
Now, I have a little bit of experience with amendments trying to
strike earmarks, and I don't think I've ever come close to 249. That's
a significant number of votes. That was a bipartisan total, in that 60
Democrats joined Republicans to oppose these earmarks; yet these
earmarks remain in the conference report. Every House earmark that was
added remain in the conference report.
Simply put, if controversial earmarks like these can remain in a
report and aren't eliminated, what earmark will ever be eliminated?
When will we ever get around to eliminating these?
Let me just remind you that procedural irregularities surrounded the
consideration of this bill when it came to the House. The earmark list
required by the House rules was not submitted with the House report.
The amendment review procedure was flawed. Members didn't have the
critical time necessary to review these earmarks. In fact, the earmark
list, when we finally got it, was submitted after the deadline to go to
the Rules Committee to offer the amendments that would be considered.
So we got the list of earmarks after the deadline to oppose them. So we
had considerable irregularities going into this. And then we have a
vote where the majority of this House, a clear majority, 249 Members,
60 Members of the majority party, said please remove these earmarks;
yet they remain. They're still here. Why are we doing that? Why are we
doing that? If we can't remove these controversial earmarks, when will
we ever remove any earmarks?
Let me remind you as well there have been numerous, numerous
newspaper articles, media accounts since that time about these same
earmarks; some of the private companies they are going to, what kind of
consideration or scrutiny was given. I can tell you, very little, if we
don't even get the list in time to be able to offer amendments to
strike them and then we're presented with a conference report where we
have no opportunity to strike individual earmarks after a majority of
the House has said let's remove them all. Why are we bringing this bill
up? Why are we being urged to vote ``yes'' on this? I would ask the
majority, please tell us.
As mentioned, I attempted before to convene a secret session to
provide a review of the classified earmarks in the bill. That was
defeated. But I would ask my colleagues who are associated with the 23
House earmarks in this bill to please voluntarily give them up. Concede
that no proper scrutiny was given. And I will offer legislation in the
next session to actually defund each of these earmarks in this
authorization bill.
And I would encourage all of those, and I look forward to having all
of the 249 Members who voted to remove these earmarks, to join me in
pushing that legislation.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The gentleman from Texas has
15\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Michigan has 18 minutes.
Mr. REYES. With that, I will reserve my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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
[[Page H15430]]
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. REYES. 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. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and I urge my
colleagues to adopt it.
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am pleased that this
conference report will improve our security and protect the freedoms
that make this country so great. It includes critical funding for
counterterrorism, human intelligence and counterintelligence efforts,
as well as making strong progress in improving our overhead
architecture. And on that point in particular, I commend not only
Chairman Reyes but also Congressman Ruppersberger, as well as the staff
for their hard work in this area, and I was proud to be a part of that
effort.
Furthermore, as my colleagues have discussed, it brings the
intelligence community in line with the rest of our national security
professionals by requiring it to abide by the Army Field Manual when
conducting interrogations. As a member of the Intelligence Committee
and, in general, members of the Intelligence Committee, we devote many
hours behind closed doors addressing some of the most important
national security issues facing our Nation. This conference report
reflects the high priority that the committee, led by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), places on congressional oversight of the
intelligence community. And I commend the chairman for his stepped-up
efforts to ensure that oversight is a greater priority for the
Intelligence Committee.
We have included a number of provisions to restore a greater role for
the Congress and to ensure that our intelligence activities are not
subject to political influence. This measure requires the Central
Intelligence Agency's Inspector General to audit all covert action
programs every 3 years, for example. It also requires the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence to provide Congress with a
comprehensive listing of all special access programs to ensure that the
intelligence community is keeping us fully informed of these
activities.
It requires a report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005 and provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 regarding
detentions and interrogations and mandates that the administration
provide Congress with the Justice Department's legal opinions related
to these activities. And it requires semi-annual reports on what we
know about nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea to make sure that
we have accurate and timely information.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, strong oversight is essential to effective
government and to the ability of our intelligence community to respond
to the threats that we face today. This conference report will demand
accountability and give our intelligence professionals the resources
that they need to keep Americans safe.
I want to thank, again, the chairman for his hard work, as well as
the ranking member on this bill and as well as Members of the Senate
for their hard work on this conference report.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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. REYES. 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.
Ms. HARMAN. I thank Chairman Reyes for yielding, and I'm proud to be
part of this debate along with him, Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra and
other friends from my long service on the committee.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee for 8 years, the last 4 as
ranking member, I remain passionate about intelligence issues and very
proud of the thousands of my constituents who comprise the industrial
base that builds our intelligence satellites.
As we have heard, this is the first intelligence authorization
conference report in 3 years. It is the House's main tool for setting
directions and conducting oversight of our intelligence community. It
includes new tools, record funding, investments in language training,
and a provision I have pushed for years: multilevel clearances.
I honor and support the work of the brave women and men of our
intelligence community around the world. Often their families cannot
accompany them on their assignments and in many cases don't even know
what they do. I visit them often, and if they are tuning in, let me say
thank you again on behalf of a grateful Nation.
Two items. First, interrogations policy. For years I have urged a
clear legal framework around detention and interrogation policy in the
post-9/11 world. The scandal over destruction of the interrogations
tapes was avoidable. As ranking member in 2003, I urged in writing that
planned destruction of tapes was ill advised. The committee was not
advised in 2005 that the tapes
[[Page H15431]]
were destroyed, and the thorough hearings now in progress may reveal
that the committee was deliberately misled. That would be disgraceful.
There should not be a separate interrogations program. That's why I
support the Senate language requiring all interrogation procedures to
conform to the Army Field Manual.
{time} 1215
Second, the Iran NIE. I've read it in its entirety, and I'm proud of
those who wrote it. They did careful work, and they spoke truth to
power.
Intelligence is not policy. It is a tool which helps wise
policymakers develop policy. Instead of blaming the messenger, policy
experts and security experts should use the conclusions in the NIE to
support tough sanctions, which we need, and diplomacy, which we lack.
They should also understand that this NIE identifies gaps in what we
know.
This policymaker is wary of Iran's possession of advanced missiles,
its work on many dual-use technologies that could be part of a
restarted nuclear weapons program, and its ongoing sponsorship of
terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, on balance, this conference report is responsible and it
is needed. Vote ``aye.''
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes; the
gentleman from Michigan has 12 minutes.
Mr. REYES. With that, I will reserve my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. 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.
[[Page H15432]]
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
[[Page H15433]]
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.
{time} 1230
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.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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. REYES. 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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to affirm
America's values and our respect for the rule of law. This bill
includes language drawn from the American Anti-Torture Act, introduced
by myself and Representative Delahunt, that would extend the
interrogation standards in the U.S. Army Field Manual to all
interrogations conducted on persons in the custody or effective control
of any element of the intelligence community. This will ensure a
single, uniform baseline standard for interrogations. That means no
more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever word play, no more
evasive answers, no more dishonesty.
People in nations do terrible things in war, but civilized nations
long ago recognized that there must be limits on their conduct even
during military conflict. Our Army Field Manual is an outstanding
example of a modern military dedicated to observing international norms
of conduct while waging war effectively. It is a credit to our men and
women in uniform that they continue to abide by these rules. It is
unforgivable that some civilians here in Washington seem to think that
they know better and we must be more brutal than our military and
professional interrogators.
I understand the critical role that intelligence plays in protecting
ourselves, but torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
besides being contrary to American values and traditions, have proven
not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.
Current and former members of the military have made this clear.
General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recently
wrote in an open letter to U.S. troops that the standards in the Army
Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information
from detainees.''
Lieutenant General Kimmons, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence
similarly stated ``no good intelligence is going to come from abusive
practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress
through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable
credibility.''
The Bush administration has long argued that it does not torture but
it does waterboard. And we prosecuted, we sent to jail Japanese
officers for waterboarding prisoners after World
[[Page H15434]]
War II. We knew then that waterboarding was torture, and despite
statements from the Bush administration or the nonstatements, we know
now that it is torture. Torture places our servicemen and women and our
allies at grave risk. We must accept that whatever we authorize and use
against our enemies will be turned against our own men and women.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore the honor of the United States. It
is time to restore the good name of the United States in a world that
has been so sullied by the conduct of this administration. It is time
to compel the administration to act in a manner consistent with the
Constitution of the United States.
I applaud the leadership of the conferees in including the
antitorture language in this bill. I urge support for the conference
report. I hope this will begin the process of restoring the honor and
the integrity of the United States.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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.
Mr. REYES. 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. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
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. REYES. 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.
[[Page H15435]]
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. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2082, the
conference agreement on the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization
Act.
As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I
believe it is vital that we provide the United States intelligence
agencies with the tools and resources necessary to ensure our security.
Therefore, I strongly support funding in this bill for human
intelligence activities, intelligence analysis, and training,
infrastructure, and global intelligence improvements. I also support
the authorization in the bill providing emergency funding for
counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, I support language in the agreement prohibiting the use
of any interrogation techniques not authorized by the U.S. Army Field
Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations against any
individual in the custody or effective control of any element of the
intelligence community. Our soldiers and interrogators need to know
exactly where the line is when engaging prisoners and there should be
absolutely no question about what is acceptable behavior and what is
not. In fact, I recently cosponsored legislation to require the anti-
torture provisions included in this conference agreement.
Nevertheless, I will oppose this bill because it fails to implement
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for reforming congressional
oversight of intelligence funding. In its final report, the 9/11
Commission concluded that: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening
congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.
So long as oversight is governed by the current congressional rules and
resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security
they want and need.''
Earlier this year, the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a
``Band-Aid'' to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence
Oversight Panel that has very little control over actual funding
decisions. This is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In
fact, its report plainly states that ``tinkering with the existing
committee structure is not sufficient.'' In May, I offered a simple
amendment to the bill before us, calling for Congress to implement
these crucial recommendations--but it was prevented from being
considered for inclusion in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all
of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--even those that are difficult.
We will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an
effective committee structure capable of giving our national
intelligence agencies the oversight, support, and leadership they need.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
conference report and, in particular, in support of Section 327 of the
report, which prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized by the
Army Field Manual on Interrogation.
Despite White House claims that the United States does not torture
prisoners, we continue to learn about administration actions that seem
to condone the use of coercive techniques in questioning prisoners.
A few months ago, we learned about a classified Justice Department
memo from February 2005 allowing waterboarding and other coercive
techniques. Then there was the Executive Order signed in July of this
year that effectively opened a loophole for the CIA to practice
interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed by the U.S.
military.
Reports this week of destroyed interrogation tapes showing CIA
operatives using waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' techniques are
deeply disturbing, and suggest a double standard, whereby these
techniques are approved for use by the CIA but not by the Department of
Defense and its intelligence agencies. All this points to the need for
a common standard for humane and effective interrogation techniques
across the Government, which is what this conference report provision
calls for.
Senator John McCain has called the Army Field Manual techniques
``humane and yet effective,'' and has argued for a policy by which ``we
will never allow torture to take place in the United States of
America.'' In May 2007, General Petraeus wrote to U.S. troops serving
in Iraq that ``our experience in applying the interrogation standards
laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . published last year shows that
the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting
information from detainees.''
There is no reason why interrogation techniques that work effectively
and humanely for our military interrogators cannot also work
effectively and humanely for CIA and other intelligence agency
interrogators. Section 327 of the Intelligence Authorization report
sends a message that the United States believes no part of its
government is above the law, and that no interrogation method is
acceptable that could not also be used on Americans in enemy custody.
I strongly urge passage of this important legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 2082, the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence
Authorization Act. I share many of the concerns raised by Ranking
Member Hoekstra, but my primary purpose in speaking today is to express
my distaste for the bloated bureaucracy created by this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, 3 short years ago the House voted to create a Director
of National Intelligence: a small, agile intelligence shop meant
primarily to improve coordination and information analysis among and
between the various intelligence--gathering agencies.
At that time, Democrats fought hard to turn the new agency into a
large bureaucracy, replete with a chief information officer, a chief
human capital officer, a chief financial officer, an out-of-control
inspector general, a comptroller, an ombudsman, multiple privacy
officers, and a civil liberties board with unlimited subpoena power--
layer upon layer upon layer.
But we remained focused on creating better government rather than
bigger government, and efforts to create more redundant bureaucracy
were ultimately defeated.
For better or for worse, the party of smaller government is no longer
in control, and this legislation is a perfect example.
Evidence of bureaucratic creep is marbled throughout this
legislation, from the creation of new offices to forcing even more
officials through the cumbersome and slow Senate confirmation process.
But nowhere is the problem more prevalent than in the creation of an
inspector general for the intelligence community.
[[Page H15436]]
On the surface, no one can argue against the need for a robust
inspector general within the disparate intelligence community. In fact,
the creation of one, unified and cohesive IG to oversee all
intelligence activities of the Federal Government would probably be a
step in the right direction.
But that's not what this legislation does.
Instead, this bill creates a new IG and places that office awkwardly
on top of the many existing IGs at the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
As if creating another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy within the
intelligence oversight community was not enough, the legislation goes
the extra step of elevating the IGs at the National Security Agency,
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office,
and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
It's inevitable the existence of six separate IGs within the
intelligence community will lead to duplication of effort and turf
battles between them. The conferees admit it. Conceding they're
creating more problems than they're solving, they direct the IGs to
``expeditiously resolve'' any disputes or turf battles that may arise
between them.
After spending years trying to find ways to make the intelligence
gathering and analysis more streamlined and efficient, this legislation
does an about-face, loading up the intelligence community with more
bureaucracy and bigger government.
Which leads me to my next concern with the legislation: H.R. 2082
represents a significant step backwards in our efforts to modernize our
security clearance process.
Several years ago, the 9/11 Commission recommended an overhaul of the
government's woefully backlogged security clearance process, proposing
uniform application, investigation and adjudication procedures as well
as a single database to store clearance information. In 2004 Congress
responded by enacting the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act, which placed a single Federal agency in charge of security
clearance processes Government-wide and established a unified database
for information related to security clearances.
Rather than assisting that ongoing effort, H.R. 2082 compounds past
problems by allowing the intelligence community to continue to operate
in isolated stovepipes.
The conference report does this in two ways. First, it places the
Director of National Intelligence in charge of developing a ``multi-
level security clearance approach'' only for the intelligence
community. Separate from the otherwise ``government-wide'' system now
being developed, the mandated multi-level system would somehow allow
the intelligence community to clear foreign- born applicants better and
faster than everyone else. It's not clear how. It's not even clear what
this mythical ``multi-level'' approach would do differently in terms of
current clearance levels: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and SCI. But
it is painfully clear this is an effort to keep the intelligence
agencies from taking part in the larger reform effort. Second, as if to
underscore the drive to make sure there are no uniform clearance
standards, the bill specifically exempts the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency from the Government-wide system so they can
duplicate the whole process on their own.
As the primary sponsor of the 2004 legislation calling for a
modernized, uniform security clearance process for the Federal
Government, I fear these supposed ``reforms'' will do nothing to help
improve the security clearance backlog and will likely exacerbate the
problems of inconsistent standards, slow processing and a lack of
clearance reciprocity.
As the former Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I invested
considerable time and energy into highlighting overlap and duplication
in Government and finding ways to streamline federal programs and
processes. And I think we made some progress in that regard.
But H.R. 2082 represents a stark contrast to our efforts to
streamline Government. It expands the Federal bureaucracy and
propagates the existing stovepipes that have long hindered our efforts
to bring the federal government into the 21st century.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that after failing to
reauthorize our Intelligence programs for the past 2 years under
Republican leadership, the Democratic majority has taken the health of
our Nation's intelligence community seriously. I support the critical
improvements to this bill: strengthening the offices of the Inspector
Generals, authorizing increased attention to climate change, and
strengthening contractor oversight.
Most importantly, I support this bill because of its torture
prohibition. Torture violates not only the laws and values of our
country, but all standards of decent human conduct. I have consistently
spoken out against the stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this
administration's ``interrogation'' of prisoners. It is clear that the
American people will not get satisfactory answers from the
administration, and that it is now Congress's duty to set interrogation
standards worthy of our great Nation.
Extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to intelligence
personnel is a significant step. I am proud that Congress will send the
message to our Nation and the world at large that Americans do not
approve of, and will not stand for, torture.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``nay'' on the motion to
recommit H.R. 2082 with instructions to conference committee because
such a vote would have killed the bill. H.R. 2082 includes a provision
to ban torture and authorizes the intelligence activities of the United
States. While I would have strongly preferred for the Conference
Committee to follow the instructions adopted by the House, I believe
the intelligence programs and ban on torture included in this bill are
too important to the national security of the United States to endanger
it by returning it to conference.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoekstra moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 2082 to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House, to the
maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference,
to--
(1) eliminate any House or Senate provisions providing for
earmarks as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives; and
(2) insist on provisions authorizing the maximum level of
funding permissible for human intelligence collection
activities in the classified annex.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 215, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 1159]
YEAS--205
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
[[Page H15437]]
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--215
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Ackerman
Carson
Cleaver
Cubin
Heller
Hooley
Jindal
McNulty
Miller, Gary
Paul
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1318
Messrs. KIND, McDERMOTT, RUPPERSBERGER, COSTA, Ms. McCOLLUM of
Minnesota, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MEEK of Florida, GENE GREEN of Texas,
RUSH, HINCHEY, BERMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of
California, and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. GINGREY, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. FEENEY, LAMBORN, ROSKAM, Mrs.
MUSGRAVE, Messrs. WALBERG, SHUSTER, GOODE, PICKERING, WILSON of South
Carolina, KING of New York, and McINTYRE changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 199, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 1160]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
[[Page H15438]]
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Ackerman
Carson
Cubin
Heller
Hooley
Jindal
McNulty
Miller, Gary
Paul
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1327
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
