[Congressional Record: February 26, 2010 (House)]
[Page H936-H942]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2701, INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
[[Page H937]]
call up House Resolution 1113 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1113
Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010
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, pursuant to House Resolution
1105, amendment number 1 printed in House Report 111-419
shall be considered as modified by striking the matter
proposed to be inserted as section 506.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of
H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The
rule modifies amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 111-419 by
striking the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506.
Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act provides much-needed
policy guidance for the 16 agencies that comprise the intelligence
community. At the same time, this bill improves accountability and
helps to prevent the often disastrous consequences that faulty
intelligence and misinformation to Congress can have on national
security. This bill is vitally important because it recognizes the
fundamental reality that solid intelligence is our Nation's first line
of defense against terrorists.
This Congress has not reauthorized the intelligence bill in 4 years.
The funding in this bill provides our intelligence agencies with tools,
resources, and authorities they need to keep us safe. For example, it
increases funding for human intelligence collection and
counterintelligence activities; it makes significant investments in
cybersecurity safety while also improving language capabilities in the
intelligence community. Furthermore, it fully authorizes the
President's budget request for the intelligence community programs and
operations.
The rule we are debating this morning is the second rule the House
has considered. Yesterday we heard impassioned arguments from both
sides of the aisle regarding an amendment from Mr. McDermott on actions
of the intelligence officers in the field and their criminal liability.
Today, we are moving ahead with the authorization bill without that
language because it's important to keep this bill moving forward.
The President has issued guidelines on this subject, and it deserves
to be considered by this body. However, we are 4 years overdue on
reauthorization, and our intelligence community cannot wait any longer.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can continue the
business of protecting America's families. No American should ever face
harm because this body could not do its job, and this bill needs to
move forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation for my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from
Atwater, and I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed
with our customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend has just gone through--as was the
case yesterday when Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale,
was managing the rule on his side--the importance of dealing with our
Nation's intelligence. And we obviously have, since this bill first
came to the forefront last year, been dealing with a wide range of
very, very serious challenges: the shooting at Fort Hood, which the
Speaker pro tem understands very well took place in his home State of
Texas; the great threat that existed on Christmas Day when Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab posed a threat, and thanks to the fact that his device
did not go off, and, even more important than that, the fact that we
were able to see these courageous passengers come forward and prevent
this man from posing a threat to all of those on board; and then, of
course, the arrests of those who posed a terrorist threat, Najibullah
Zazi and David Headley. And then of course there are many other
instances that have not been in the headlines.
But those three which I have just mentioned have developed since last
summer when this bill first came forward.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening today is, unfortunately, a very
disturbing trend. We have had some records set by this Congress and,
frankly, since Speaker Pelosi has been leading this Congress and the
last Congress.
Last year, we went through the entire--entire--calendar year, the
first session of the 111th Congress, without a single open rule. Not a
single open rule on even the appropriations bills. Never before in the
now 221-year history of the Republic have we had that take place. We,
in fact, in the last 3 years have saved the appropriations process, in
the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have had a grand
total, Mr. Speaker, of one open rule. And now, today, we seem to be
establishing another very disturbing and unfortunate record.
It seems to me that as we look at legislation in its first stage,
which is where we are right now, in its first stage, we are now
considering not the second rule, as my friend from Atwater has said in
his opening remarks, but in fact the third rule because this
legislation last July was reported out of the Rules Committee. We had a
rule. On July 3, we had a statement that came forward from the
administration that leveled a very, very harsh criticism of the bill
itself.
Now, we've gone through a wide range of measures that have been very
important and many that are less than important in the last 8 months,
and yet we have not considered this very important intelligence bill.
My friend from Atwater has just talked about how critically important
it is; and if that were the case in the eyes of the majority, it would
seem to me that last July we would have dealt with this bill, since
it's been 4 years since we have had an intelligence authorization
measure.
Now, the language which has just been stricken from this bill, it was
one of 21 amendments, Mr. Speaker, included in the manager's amendment.
And the message that comes through to me over and over and over again--
and my friend from Atwater just referred to it as a vigorous debate on
both sides as an attempt to continue to move the legislation forward--
this language was taken out.
Well, the bottom line is it meant that the votes weren't there on
either the Democratic or the Republican side to move ahead with the
intelligence authorization bill. Why? Because one of the most
outrageous amendments imaginable was incorporated in this measure, and
that's the McDermott language.
Yesterday, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Hoekstra and I, and
I know others during the debate throughout the bill, talked about this
language. And I think that probably this was best put when the special
election took place in Massachusetts and we saw our new colleague,
Scott Brown, elected to the United States Senate. And he gave an
entertaining and rather lengthy victory speech that night. But the
message that came through loud and clear was that when he got to
Washington, he was going to do everything within his power to make sure
that we expand our hard-earned taxpayer dollars ensuring that we defeat
the terrorists and not defend them.
And the language that was included--not allowed for debate on the
House floor, but actually included among the 20 other amendments all by
Democrats in the manager's amendment--the manager's amendment is
usually a relatively noncontroversial measure, Mr.
[[Page H938]]
Speaker, that comes to the floor and there is often a very brief 10-
minute debate and it sails through with bipartisan support--but the
manager's amendment included this McDermott amendment. And it provided
a circumstance which could have seriously jeopardized our men and women
who are courageously engaging in intelligence gathering.
Now, when we talk about, as now-Senator Brown mentioned, the rights
of those individuals who have perpetrated terrorist acts against us and
our interests around the world, the notion of using the word
``phobia,'' which was actually included in the McDermott amendment, it
would mean that an individual could be imprisoned and they could claim
that for religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a
knife with them at all times.
People can say, Well, that is silly. How can that possibly take
place? I mean, one has to scratch their head thinking that that could
happen. And yet there are individuals who've interpreted that language
which was included in the manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, as language
that would have allowed a prisoner to say that for religious reasons
it's absolutely essential that they have a knife in their possession,
obviously posing a threat to everyone around them.
And so, again, it's difficult to comprehend that that could take
place, but we know how ruthless these barbarians are who have been
perpetrating acts against us and other freedom-loving peoples around
the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, it to me is very disturbing that we are here dealing
with what has been once again a major management problem which has
taken place in this institution.
The American people want us to focus on job creation, economic
growth. We, of course yesterday, saw the 7-hour summit take place at
the White House on the issue of health care. But of paramount
importance is our security. It's the single most important thing that
we deal with. And to have it mishandled in the way that it has that has
led us at 9:25 Friday morning to be on the House floor with the third
rule dealing with the Intelligence authorization bill is, I think, a
sad commentary on where we are.
I have to say that this rule actually included several other
provisions which should not have been included at this point, and I
discussed this last night up in the Rules Committee when we met into
the evening. And that is we understand--I mean, I was privileged to
serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we understand that moving
the agenda and ensuring the process of getting that agenda passed is
very, very important. And yet, Mr. Speaker, what this rule did was it
put into place a so-called martial law rule.
Mr. Speaker, martial law basically means that something can move
immediately to the House floor, and it usually takes place--and I see
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my
friend, Mr. Obey, here. He knows very well that martial law rule
usually takes place at the end of a session when there are very, very
pressing needs that need to be addressed.
{time} 0930
When we are dealing with those issues we can see martial law imposed.
I understand that and recognize that sometimes it's necessary. But, Mr.
Speaker, we are in the second month of the second session of the 111th
Congress, and yet we have imposed a so-called martial law rule here.
So the most important thing is, of course, dealing with the
intelligence authorization bill. But underlying all of that are very,
very serious management flaws which have taken place. So I just want to
voice my concern, and I know we are going to have a number of my
colleagues who are going to want to speak and address the issue of the
intelligence authorization bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague from
California that we must get this legislation done. I agreed with him.
He agreed with me. This is very important legislation. It's critical to
the country.
Then he said, well, there is no real rush because you are doing a
martial law rule. I submit to you that we need to get this done. It's
very important for the country, and we have taken a long time. And I
would also submit that the majority of the Congress people speaking to
us all, Republicans and Democrats, as I said in my opening statement,
felt that that amendment wasn't appropriately included in the manager's
amendment. We agreed. That's why we are here today striking it out.
I realize that the gentleman is saying, well, it should have never
been in there to begin with, and that may be true, but the reality is
we are fixing and correcting that error today. That is why we are here,
and I appreciate the gentleman's statement.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, interestingly enough, the measure
that we are addressing here is not being considered under a martial law
rule. The martial law provision in this rule was to deal with any other
issue that would have come to the floor either yesterday or today. The
idea of including that in the rule----
Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is correct, and there are other measures,
like the jobs bill, which is critically important, critically important
to our home State.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. CARDOZA. Like my district, it has got 20 percent unemployment. So
there are other pressing matters that we have to get to, and that's
exactly the kind of point that I was making.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. CARDOZA. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that obviously job creation and
economic growth is a very, very important priority, but the notion of
saying that all of a sudden this has to be done under martial law,
which basically undermines the legislative process, is not only not
necessary, but we are all focusing on job creation. We want to do what
we can. We all have very strong feelings as to what should be done on
this and we are concerned about this dramatic expansion of government.
Let me at this point, Mr. Speaker, yield 4 minutes to the very
thoughtful, diligent, and hardworking gentleman from Clarendon, Texas,
the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr.
Thornberry.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, since a number of our colleagues were watching the
events or participating in the events at the White House yesterday,
like the gentleman from California, I think it's important to review
briefly the history of this legislation.
The Intelligence Committee referred or reported out H.R. 2701 out of
committee on June 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. The Rules
Committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on July 8,
2009, and from July 8, 2009, until February 24, 2010, it just sat
there, no action.
Meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrorist attacks or
plots for which arrests were made against our homeland. Meanwhile,
events changed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran. All around the
world things were changing, but we couldn't find time on the floor to
deal with the Intelligence authorization bill. We had important things
to do. We had post offices to name.
But then on February 24, 2010, the Rules Committee reported the
second rule out, which included the McDermott language as part of a
manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments combined into one.
That McDermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for
our intelligence professionals if they did things like deny terrorists
a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a
terrorist's religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define
those religious beliefs. There was no standard of reasonableness there
at all.
So throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events
in the White House, we argued against that provision; yet it was
defended on the other side of the aisle throughout
[[Page H939]]
the day. Some people said, Oh, it just restates current law. Mr.
McDermott answered that himself in a 1-minute last night. He said, My
amendment would have expanded on the President's Executive order to
define what constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation,
and it will create criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of
interrogations.
People over there who said that it just restates current law were
just mistaken. Somebody else said it reflects American values. I don't
know when it became American value to treat terrorists better than we
treat Americans in the criminal justice system. When it came time to
vote, the majority found that they didn't have enough votes to pass the
bill, and so they went back to Rules a third time on this bill. Now
this rule strips out that provision that the majority spent the whole
day yesterday defending.
Now, I heard what the gentleman from California said. I am not quite
clear that I have understood why we have had this amazing turn of
events, why the Rules Committee on Wednesday night would say this
provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment, but on
Thursday night they say, no, we are going to have a rule that does
nothing but strip it out. Maybe they didn't really know what the
McDermott language did. Maybe they just voted the way the Speaker's
office told them to vote.
As a matter of fact, there is a report in the Washington Times today
that says a House Democratic aid told the Washington Times leadership
supported the amendment and told the House Rules Committee to put it in
the provisions. Maybe they were just persuaded by our eloquence on the
floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and decided that it needed to be removed.
I don't know, but this provision is deplorable; it needs to be
scrapped. But it's a symptom, I would suggest, of a deeper sickness
that, in fact, some in this body, some in the administration, of how
they view our intelligence professionals. Their reflex action is to
blame the intelligence community first. We see it when special
prosecutors are appointed to go after our intelligence professionals.
We see it when classified interrogation memos are released, despite the
protestations of five former CIA directors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. THORNBERRY. We also see that ``blame the intelligence
professionals first'' mentality when someone as distinguished as the
Speaker of the House, under political pressure, just accuses them of
lying all the time. That's the sort of mentality that gets a provision
made in order that mixes up the good guys and the bad guys and goes
after the good guys and puts a higher standard on them than any county
sheriff or State trooper in the country would have.
Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. Terrorists are plotting and
planning to attack us every single day. It doesn't do our intelligence
professionals much good if we give them nice words and then enact new
crimes against them. What counts is our actions, standing up for them
and what they do to protect us, and I would suggest this bill needs to
go a long way further in doing that. But that strain that goes through
this House and some in the administration to attack them first must be
stopped at all costs.
Mr. CARDOZA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend from
Atwater has chosen to reserve his time, I am happy at this point to
yield 4 minutes to another hardworking member of the Select Committee
on Intelligence who brings his great experience, having served in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan
(Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you to my friend from California.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, was a very, very important symptom
for us to all understand, and it's easy to get confused, by the way, in
who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. When you take the fight
on the war on terror from a proactive intelligence approach to a law
enforcement approach, things get pretty murky in a hurry, and
everything slows down, and information exchanges slow down.
What we have done, what they have tried to do in the middle of the
night, is sneak in a provision that would actually, when you read the
entire thing, treat terrorists with a special carve-out that not even
white-collar criminals, organized crime members, extortionists as
American citizens would get, that your interrogator could be brought up
on charges for what you believed might be incidences that offend you.
Unbelievable. But that's exactly what happens when you are confused
about who the bad guys are.
This bill should be known for what it doesn't do. I mean, right now,
they are getting ready to bring, through the administration policy and
support of this Congress, hundreds of some of the most dangerous
terrorists in the world to the United States. Do you know that about
over a dozen times where these terrorists have been held overseas,
including places like Great Britain, that terrorists have tried to
break in to break them out? And guess what? Our policy is to bring them
to the United States, give them a special carve-out, and treat them
like American citizens at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
You know, we had the opportunity to do disruptive activities to al
Qaeda, and some speculate that between the Fort Hood shooting and the
Christmas Day bomber, there were methods and activities that we as a
Nation didn't engage in because we were confused about being proactive
on intelligence against terrorism or treating it like a law enforcement
matter. There is a lot to be accountable in that decision, but it can
happen when you get confused who the bad guys are.
We have never had a full vetting of what was known at one time as the
Global Justice Initiative where you send FBI agents around the world,
including to the battlefield, to Mirandize foreign-trained terrorists
who have declared war on the United States. That can happen when you
forget who the bad guys are. There is nothing in this bill that
protects the very courageous CIA interrogators for following Department
of Justice guidelines in the interrogation and the development of
information that will have saved lives in the United States.
And, by the way, it was brought to our attention that the same
interrogators who gave us about 70 percent of what we know about the
logistics and operations of al Qaeda are subject to criminal
investigations. You know why that happens? Because it's easy to do when
you are confused about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
Yesterday was that symptom, Mr. Speaker, that when you make that
decision, there are serious consequences. Now, folks want to say, oh,
that's just politics you are trying to interject.
This is serious business. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will come to New
York. Some estimate it as high as $200 million just for the security.
That city said, ``No.'' Michigan said, ``No.'' Kansas said, ``No.''
Americans are saying, ``No.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. We ought to stand together in this body and
say, ``No.''
This bill falls short of addressing the serious debate we better have
ongoing from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement
approach. This is not about you have the right to remain silent and if
you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you at the
expense of the U.S. taxpayers. This is about aggressively pursuing
terrorists where they live, where they train, where they operate.
If our whole new plan is a law enforcement approach and we are going
to catch them at the airport, we are going to lose this fight, and
that's exactly what this bill fails to address. You cannot let one
stand in the line with any American citizen and hope to God your last
defense works, and that's what happens when you go to a law enforcement
approach and you treat CIA officers like criminals and you treat
foreign terrorists like high-status American citizens. You could get
confused on who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in a hurry.
I would recommend strong rejection of this bill. We need to start
over, and we need to start asking hard questions
[[Page H940]]
about what this policy is doing to the national defense of the United
States.
{time} 0945
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of
this rule. It provides us with the opportunity to advance the
Intelligence Authorization Act to conference and then to the President.
This bill provides essential funding to the intelligence community,
improves and updates critical legal authorities, and enhances important
oversight authorities that will empower the congressional intelligence
committees to carry out their constitutional responsibility to monitor
the work of the intelligence agencies.
As everybody knows, I take this obligation very seriously. The work
of the intelligence community is of critical importance, but by its
nature must be done largely behind closed doors. As a result, the
intelligence committees exist to ensure that the work of the
intelligence agencies is being done in a manner that is effective, that
is legal, and that is without waste. H.R. 2701 provides the funding
authorities and the guidance necessary to that function.
First and foremost, this bill will dramatically improve the process
for congressional notification of covert actions. Over the past several
years, Democrats and Republicans have both had complaints about the
notification process. Provisions in the manager's amendment will
require notifications in writing, insist that the President certify the
need to restrict briefings to the Gang of Eight, and compel the
executive branch to provide the legal authority under which covert
action is being conducted.
As I have said before, this bill was truly a team effort. We received
input and drafting assistance from a variety of Members. The manager's
amendment also includes contributions from many of my colleagues.
Representative Giffords from Arizona crafted a provision that would
require the DNI to report on intelligence cooperation between the
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement.
Representative Boccieri asked for a report on the dissemination of
counterterrorism information from the intelligence community to local
law enforcement.
Representative Bishop introduced language to require the DNI to
submit to Congress a report describing the strategy of the United
States in balancing intelligence collection needs with the prosecution
of terrorist suspects.
Representative Harman, the former ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee, submitted an amendment that will require the Inspector
General of the intelligence community to report to Congress on the
problem of overclassification of intelligence and ways to address that
issue and those problems.
The manager's amendment also contains language from Representative
Hinchey requiring a report on previous intelligence community
activities in Argentina, an issue that has long been a concern of
Representative Hinchey.
Representative Langevin, a leader on the issue of cybersecurity,
drafted a provision that requires the President to submit a plan to
Congress to secure the networks of the Federal Government.
Finally, Representative Markey of Colorado drafted language that will
require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the
congressional Intelligence Committees assessing the threat posed to
allies and interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf by Iran's
missile arsenal.
Beyond the manager's amendment, the base text of the bill makes
several important improvements in oversight of intelligence activities.
First, it establishes an Inspector General for the entire intelligence
community. This provision will help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse,
and it will also keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of
Americans.
The bill will also require the DNI to establish a plan to increase
diversity within the intelligence community. As is very clear, this is
a measure that is important to all our Members, to me personally, and
to the committee's vice chairman, Mr. Hastings. For the intelligence
agencies, diversity is not just about virtue and equality, though both
are important ideals; it is about making sure that we have a clear and
complete understanding of the different languages and cultures around
the world. In the world of intelligence, diversity translates directly
into improved operational capability.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, it has
been a privilege to work with both sides of the aisle to craft this
bill. It is important to keep in mind that all of these issues are
vital and important components of making sure we do our work.
With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and enact
these critical provisions into law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to
congratulate the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, my good friend, for his service in the Border Patrol. And
we have worked together on a wide range of issues. I thank him for
that.
I have to say that I am very concerned, though, about the fact that
we, unfortunately, have not seen what is best described as a forward-
leaning policy when it comes to dealing with this threat of terrorism.
We all know that law enforcement by its nature is reactive, and we
need to have a policy that is more proactive. The inclusion of language
like the McDermott amendment in this measure in the manager's amendment
unfortunately creates a scenario whereby we are not focused on being
the forward-leaning entity that we should.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, my friend from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank Mr. Dreier from California for giving me the 5
minutes.
Here we go again. This bill could have been done in July, but it was
pulled. This is the third rule that we've had on one bill. It's almost
unprecedented; I'm not sure that I have ever seen this before. It was
pulled in July because of the controversy surrounding the Speaker's
remarks saying the CIA lies, the CIA lies all the time. So it sat
dormant as this country was under attack.
When we went to the Rules Committee this week, we had a lot of
amendments that we thought should have been put in order. An amendment
that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the
capabilities of Iran--it wasn't important enough to debate that when we
went through the debate on this bill yesterday. An amendment that would
require the CIA to release publicly unclassified versions of documents
relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques--that wasn't
important enough to debate. What we are going to do with the folks in
Guantanamo--that wasn't important enough to debate. What the
intelligence community did after Fort Hood and in between Fort Hood and
Christmas Day--that wasn't important enough to debate. The process for
authorization and notification of covert actions that may result in the
death of a targeted U.S. citizen--that wasn't important enough to
debate.
But then we see that there is an amendment to be offered by the
manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, 22 pages, including
an amendment from Mr. McDermott. And here's Mr. McDermott's own words:
``My amendment would have expanded upon the President's executive order
to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhumane, or degrading
interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are
unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use
those kinds of interrogations.'' Not a single minute of debate on this
amendment, not one hearing on this amendment, and we dump it into a
manager's amendment, along with 22 other amendments. Sloppy work.
And how do we know it's sloppy? Because we're back here today for a
third time with a third rule pulling it out. It's not because the
leadership on the other side believes that this is a bad amendment.
They believe it's the right
[[Page H941]]
amendment. That's why they put it into the manager's amendment. That's
why the chairman put this amendment into the manager's amendment,
because he agrees with it. He defended this yesterday, expansion of
criminal penalties only to the intelligence community; on the floor
defending this amendment, saying it was the good thing and the right
thing to do, and it was consistent with American values. If it's
consistent with American values, why are they pulling it out? Because
they know it's unfair to the intelligence community.
We asked the question yesterday, what are you going to say to the men
and women, the front lines in the intelligence community, when you go
and visit them and say you have created a special set of penalties only
for them? You know, these rules, this new criminal law, you wouldn't
even apply these to your county sheriff, you wouldn't even apply them
to your State trooper, but they wanted to sneak them in in the middle
of the night, with no debate, no hearing, saying this is the right way
to go. They're pulling it today because they recognize, their
leadership on this issue, that when they turned around, they had no
followers. They didn't have enough votes to pass this. It jeopardized
their bill. It was sloppy work to put this in in the first place, and
it's an indication of how this bill has gone through the process. This
amendment was put in without any consultation with the other side of
the aisle. This is a partisan bill. As my colleague said earlier, it
creates some real confusion as to whether we're in the law enforcement
business or whether we're in the fighting terrorism business.
I'm glad this is coming here today, but we could have dealt with this
yesterday. It should never have been in the manager's amendment to
begin with. If they wanted to put it up, put it up for a separate vote
as a separate amendment. But they knew they couldn't do that.
We asked questions yesterday that they didn't answer. Why does this
amendment define a criminal offense that only intelligence community
personnel would be guilty of? They wouldn't answer that, they wouldn't
engage in that debate. The amendment would make it a crime for
depriving an individual of necessary food, water, sleep. How does the
bill define ``necessary?'' Participate in acts intended to violate the
individual's religious beliefs. Is there an objective standard? Then it
gets into phobias. Exploit the phobias of the individual. We asked the
other side, please define this for us, and they didn't.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague.
They weren't willing to answer any of those questions or even have a
debate or a discussion on what the amendment meant. So that is why
we're back here today. But the bottom line is it's a symptom, it's a
symptom of the confusion on the other side, the sloppiness with which
they brought this bill to the floor. I am glad that they have taken
this lousy amendment and they are going to trash it today. It should
never have been in there. It jeopardized and attacked our men and women
on the front lines who are keeping us safe each and every day.
The McDermott amendment was an insult, an insult to American men and
women in the intelligence community.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza)
has 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to
the chairman of the committee, Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
You know, facts are pesky things, and sometimes we have to keep
reminding those on the other side of the aisle that they are entitled
to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
When the ranking member made reference to the Speaker and her comment
about being misled by the CIA, it is important to keep in perspective
that we are talking about the last administration, where the
policymakers repeatedly misled the Congress. He himself complained
bitterly many, many times about those kinds of issues. In fact, one of
the amendments, the amendment on the issue of Peru, is a direct result
of complaints voiced by the ranking member and others on the committee.
He asked a rhetorical question: What will we say to the men and women
of the intelligence community? My message has always been consistent:
We appreciate their work, we honor their professionalism, we depend on
them, and the safety of our country relies on them doing the job that
they need to do.
{time} 1000
It's interesting for me to note that, over the course of the last few
months, because of an issue that the minority has with Miranda
warnings, they have been repeatedly questioning the proficiency of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have 26\1/2\ years of experience in
Federal law enforcement. I've had an opportunity to work with the
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I know they are the
best we have.
Do you know why I say that?
Because they didn't need to resort to waterboarding. They didn't need
to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques. All they did was
conduct interrogations professionally and bring all the tools to bear
that they have traditionally relied on, and they got information from
the individual who tried to take down the airliner on Christmas Day.
I know it's a tough contrast, because some would like to take
shortcuts. Some would like to subscribe to the last administration's
policy of ``anything goes.'' Well, facts and rules are pesky things. I
know the Constitution, which they like to quote, is pesky because it
provides protection to anyone here in the United States, whether you
are here legally, illegally, whether you are in a car, on a plane or in
another type of conveyance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
understands that, and that's why, once they determined that there was a
violation, they gave the Miranda warnings.
The other side would like to mischaracterize that and say, ``We're in
favor of the FBI's going around the world, giving the Miranda warnings
to those who would seek to harm our country.'' Well, the difference
between us and the rest of the world should be that we are a Nation of
laws, that we don't seek to take shortcuts, that we don't think it's a
good idea to waterboard and to torture and do those kinds of things.
That's a basic and fundamental difference in political philosophy, I
think, here today.
Do you know what? As I go around the world and talk to members of the
intelligence community in the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the FBI, and
others, that's what they want to do. They want to be given the tools to
carry out their jobs and to do their jobs within the framework that we
are so proud of as Americans. That's what we should be doing. That's,
more than anything, what this debate is about.
Are we going to honor the traditions that our country stands for--the
reasons that we are held up as a model around the world--or are we
going to subscribe to the policies of the previous administration which
say, because people are intent on attacking us, that anything goes,
that we throw the rule book out the window, that we throw the
Constitution out the door and let people do whatever they want,
whenever they want, however they want? That is not who we are. That is
not what we should be about. Believe me, the men and women who are
charged with keeping us safe want those issues to be clear-cut and
understood.
I will close by saying it is very telling that, when the last
administration made a decision under enhanced interrogation, to
waterboard, two things happened. First of all, the CIA did not have
that expertise in-house. They had to go to the DOD to get it. Secondly,
when the FBI realized that that was part of the interrogation process,
they said, you know, that's not what we're about. We can get the job
done the right way without resorting to those kinds of techniques, and
they returned back to headquarters.
So, with that, I hope that we can have a substantive debate on issues
[[Page H942]]
that are important to our country, on issues that are relevant and,
most importantly, on issues that provide the men and women, the
professionals in whatever agency you're talking about, the tools and
the direction that we are a Nation of laws. We have to respect our
Constitution.
Mr. DREIER. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another
hardworking, thoughtful member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the gentleman from metropolitan Chumuckla, Florida (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my 2 minutes in a colloquy with the
chairman of the full committee.
If you believe what you've just said, why are we striking section 506
from your manager's amendment?
Mr. REYES. If the gentleman would yield, last night, we offered a
unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, why did you do that?
Mr. REYES. The issue, after reflecting on it, was, at least as I
understood from the comments that were being made by your side, there
were some misimpressions of what, actually, the amendment was intending
on doing, so I offered to withdraw that under unanimous consent, and
your side decided not to.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again,
please, I am going to continue the colloquy.
You are saying there are misimpressions on our side. It was your side
last night that blew up when this issue was brought forward, and you
didn't have the votes to do it. So my next question is: If you had
defended it all-day long, why did you allow it to be put in the bill in
the first place?
Mr. REYES. Well, we can only do so much to make sure that your side
understands that the concerns that you were raising were not, in fact,
what was meant by the amendment. That's the long and short of it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Thank you, sir.
Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what I am trying to put forth to
the public today.
You talk about our being entitled to our own opinions but not to our
own facts. Facts are facts. The facts are the chairman of the committee
had this put into the bill. The chairman of the committee is now having
it pulled out of the bill, which is the way they want to go.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Gold
River, California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I am sorry, I had to come over
here and just respond to what was said by the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
You said, in the previous administration, anything goes. Read the
memo that just came out of the Justice Department. Look at the actions
of the Justice Department. They suggest that anything did not go. To
say that now is to besmirch the reputations of good men and women who
have worked both career and political to save us from the threat of
terrorists since 9/11. To come here and to say ``anything goes'' is a
continuation of besmirching the reputations of good men and women.
Frankly, it ought not to stand. Look at the facts. Look at the recent
memo that reviewed those analyses. You will see that is not the case.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman such time as he may
consume.
Mr. REYES. First of all, in response to my friend from California's
comment, I will just give you one example.
The issue of waterboarding has been characterized as the equivalent
of a training exercise, that the SERE training does it to train our
pilots. Don't you think there is a big difference between categorizing
it in that way and waterboarding an individual 183 times?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would look at
the memo that just came out which reviews the legal analysis provided
by the Justice Department in terms of waterboarding, you would see that
there is not only a historic but a legal and substantial difference
between the waterboarding referenced in the complaints versus that
which we did.
Mr. REYES. Answer the question: Do you think there is a difference
between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to respond if
the gentleman would allow me to.
Mr. REYES. Please.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. There is no difference in the
application--the numbers, yes.
The fact of the matter is, after that individual was waterboarded
multiple times, we received actionable information from the
intelligence community, which allowed us to stop plots that were aimed
at killing Americans. That has been said under oath by the highest
levels of the intelligence community in the United States.
Mr. REYES. Reclaiming my time, that doesn't deserve a response.
What I will say is that the FBI and our interrogators, the
professionals that they are, have proven that you can get better
information by following the traditional interrogation procedures. You
don't have to resort to ``enhanced interrogation techniques.''
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The facts are difficult.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the White House, Speaker Pelosi
said that people sitting around the kitchen table don't care about
process; they care about results.
Well, the fact of the matter is this has been an extraordinarily
sloppy process. As we've just seen from the exchange that has taken
place, it looks like we had the potential for very, very serious, far-
reaching results which could have been devastating had we included the
McDermott language in this measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this pattern, it is unfortunate. I
think we have made history here today by having the third rule
considered for the first step of legislation. It has taken 8 months for
us to get here when we should have dealt with it last summer when it
was a priority for us.
I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, when you have bad process, you end up
with bad results, and that's exactly what has happened here. So I am
very, very troubled that we are at this point, but we are going to try
to do what we can to move forward.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I am pleased
we are removing the language today.
I want to remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we are helping to
prevent the disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and
misinformed Congresses can have on national security. I urge a ``yes''
vote on the rule and on the previous question.
I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 26, 2010 (House)]
[Page H942-H951]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1105 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2701.
{time} 1013
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Rahall (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
[[Page H943]]
February 25, 2010, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 111-419, offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Schauer), had been postponed.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1113, amendment No. 1 shall be
considered as modified by striking the matter proposed to be inserted
as section 506.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Reyes:
Page 9, line 21, strike ``$672,812,000'' and insert
``$643,252,000''.
Page 23, line 14, strike ``a grant program'' and insert
``grant programs''.
Page 23, line 15, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert
``subsections (b) and (c)''.
Page 24, after line 10, insert the following:
``(c) Grant Program for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.--(1) The Director of National Intelligence may
provide grants to historically black colleges and
universities to provide programs of study in educational
disciplines identified under subsection (a)(2) or described
in paragraph (2).
``(2) A grant provided under paragraph (1) may be used to
provide programs of study in the following educational
disciplines:
``(A) Foreign languages, including Middle Eastern and South
Asian dialects.
``(B) Computer science.
``(C) Analytical courses.
``(D) Cryptography.
``(E) Study abroad programs.''.
Page 24, line 11, strike ``(3) An'' and insert ``(d)
Application.--An''.
Page 24, line 15, strike ``(4) An'' and insert ``(e)
Reports.--An''.
Page 25, line 1, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 25, line 4, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 25, line 10, strike the quotation mark and the second
period.
Page 25, after line 10, insert the following:
``(3) Analytical courses.--The term `analytical courses'
mean programs of study involving--
``(A) analytic methodologies, including advanced
statistical, polling, econometric, mathematical, or
geospatial modeling methodologies;
``(B) analysis of counterterrorism, crime, and
counternarcotics;
``(C) economic analysis that includes analyzing and
interpreting economic trends and developments;
``(D) medical and health analysis, including the assessment
and analysis of global health issues, trends, and disease
outbreaks;
``(E) political analysis, including political, social,
cultural, and historical analysis to interpret foreign
political systems and developments; or
``(F) psychology, psychiatry, or sociology courses that
assess the psychological and social factors that influence
world events.
``(4) Computer science.--The term `computer science' means
a program of study in computer systems, computer science,
computer engineering, or hardware and software analysis,
integration, and maintenance.
``(5) Cryptography.--The term `cryptography' means a
program of study on the conversion of data into a scrambled
code that can be deciphered and sent across a public or
private network, and the applications of such conversion of
data.
``(6) Historically black college and university.--The term
`historically black college and university' means an
institution of higher education that is a part B institution,
as such term is defined in section 322 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061).
``(7) Study abroad program.--The term `study abroad
program' means a program of study that--
``(A) takes places outside the geographical boundaries of
the United States;
``(B) focuses on areas of the world that are critical to
the national security interests of the United States and are
generally underrepresented in study abroad programs at
institutions of higher education, including Africa, Asia,
Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin American, and the
Middle East; and
``(C) is a credit or noncredit program.''.
Page 30, strike lines 10 through 12.
Page 30, line 13, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 30, line 16, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Page 30, line 19, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
Page 31, line 1, strike ``any information'' and all that
follows through ``dissenting legal views'' and insert ``the
legal authority under which the intelligence activity is
being or was conducted''.
Page 31, line 11, strike ``any information'' and all that
follows through ``legal views'' and insert ``the legal
authority under which the covert action is being or was
conducted''.
Page 31, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 8
on page 32 and insert the following:
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``in writing'' after
``be reported'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``If the President'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (5), if the President''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A) The President may only limit access to a finding
in accordance with this subsection or a notification in
accordance with subsection (d)(1) if the President submits to
the Members of Congress specified in paragraph (2) a
certification that it is essential to limit access to such
finding or such notification to meet extraordinary
circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States.
``(B) Not later than 180 days after a certification is
submitted in accordance with subparagraph (A) or this
subparagraph, the Director of National Intelligence shall--
``(i) provide access to the finding or notification that is
the subject of such certification to all members of the
congressional intelligence committees; or
``(ii) submit to the Members of Congress specified in
paragraph (2) a certification that it is essential to limit
access to such finding or such notification to meet
extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the
United States.'';
Page 32, strike lines 12 through 15 and insert the
following:
(B) in paragraph (1), as designated by subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph, by inserting ``in writing'' after
``notified''; and
Page 33, line 13, insert ``or to the limiting of access to
such finding or such notice'' after ``notice''.
Page 33, line 13, strike ``48 hours'' and insert ``seven
days''.
Page 33, line 22, strike ``on the content of'' and insert
``regarding''.
Page 34, strike lines 14 through 20.
Strike section 334 (Page 41, line 8 and all that follow
through line 25 on page 44) and insert the following new
section:
SEC. 334. REPORT ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IN THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter for four years, the
Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the
congressional intelligence committees and the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report on the proficiency in foreign languages and, as
appropriate, in foreign dialects, of each element of the
intelligence community, including--
(1) the number of positions authorized for such element
that require foreign language proficiency and the level of
proficiency required;
(2) an estimate of the number of such positions that each
element will require during the five-year period beginning on
the date of the submission of the report;
(3) the number of positions authorized for such element
that require foreign language proficiency that are filled
by--
(A) military personnel; and
(B) civilian personnel;
(4) the number of applicants for positions in such element
in the preceding fiscal year that indicated foreign language
proficiency, including the foreign language indicated and the
proficiency level;
(5) the number of persons hired by such element with
foreign language proficiency, including the foreign language
and proficiency level;
(6) the number of personnel of such element currently
attending foreign language training, including the provider
of such training;
(7) a description of the efforts of such element to
recruit, hire, train, and retain personnel that are
proficient in a foreign language;
(8) an assessment of methods and models for basic,
advanced, and intensive foreign language training;
(9) for each foreign language and, as appropriate, dialect
of a foreign language--
(A) the number of positions of such element that require
proficiency in the foreign language or dialect;
(B) the number of personnel of such element that are
serving in a position that requires proficiency in the
foreign language or dialect to perform the primary duty of
the position;
(C) the number of personnel of such element that are
serving in a position that does not require proficiency in
the foreign language or dialect to perform the primary duty
of the position;
(D) the number of personnel of such element rated at each
level of proficiency of the Interagency Language Roundtable;
(E) whether the number of personnel at each level of
proficiency of the Interagency Language Roundtable meets the
requirements of such element;
(F) the number of personnel serving or hired to serve as
linguists for such element that are not qualified as
linguists under the standards of the Interagency Language
Roundtable;
(G) the number of personnel hired to serve as linguists for
such element during the preceding calendar year;
(H) the number of personnel serving as linguists that
discontinued serving such element during the preceding
calendar year;
(I) the percentage of work requiring linguistic skills that
is fulfilled by an ally of the United States; and
(J) the percentage of work requiring linguistic skills that
is fulfilled by contractors;
(10) an assessment of the foreign language capacity and
capabilities of the intelligence community as a whole;
(11) an identification of any critical gaps in foreign
language proficiency with respect to such element and
recommendations for eliminating such gaps;
(12) recommendations for eliminating required reports
relating to foreign-language proficiency that the Director of
National Intelligence considers outdated or no longer
relevant; and
(13) an assessment of the feasibility of employing foreign
nationals lawfully present in
[[Page H944]]
the United States who have previously worked as translators
or interpreters for the Armed Forces or another department or
agency of the Federal Government in Iraq or Afghanistan to
meet the critical language needs of such element.
Page 45, beginning on line 18, strike ``one of the
congressional intelligence committees'' and insert ``a
committee of Congress with jurisdiction over such program or
activity''.
Page 46, beginning on line 8, strike ``the congressional
intelligence committees'' and insert ``each committee of
Congress with jurisdiction over the program or activity that
is the subject of the analysis, evaluation, or investigation
for which the Director restricts access to information under
such paragraph''.
Page 46, line 13, strike ``report'' and insert
``statement''.
Page 46, line 16, strike ``report'' and insert
``statement''.
Page 46, beginning on line 17, strike ``the congressional
intelligence committees any comments on a report of which the
Comptroller General has notice under paragraph (3)'' and
insert ``each committee of Congress to which the Director of
National Intelligence submits a statement under paragraph (2)
any comments on the statement''.
Page 46, line 21, strike the closing quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 46, after line 21, insert the following:
``(c) Confidentiality.--(1) The Comptroller General shall
maintain the same level of confidentiality for information
made available for an analysis, evaluation, or investigation
referred to in subsection (a) as is required of the head of
the element of the intelligence community from which such
information is obtained. Officers and employees of the
Government Accountability Office are subject to the same
statutory penalties for unauthorized disclosure or use of
such information as officers or employees of the element of
the intelligence community that provided the Comptroller
General or officers and employees of the Government
Accountability Office with access to such information.
``(2) The Comptroller General shall establish procedures to
protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified and other
sensitive information furnished to the Comptroller General or
any representative of the Comptroller General for conducting
an analysis, evaluation, or investigation referred to in
subsection (a).
``(3) Before initiating an analysis, evaluation, or
investigation referred to in subsection (a), the Comptroller
General shall provide the Director of National Intelligence
and the head of each relevant element of the intelligence
community with the name of each officer and employee of the
Government Accountability Office who has obtained appropriate
security clearance and to whom, upon proper identification,
records and information of the element of the intelligence
community shall be made available in conducting such
analysis, evaluation, or investigation.''.
Page 48, line 15, strike ``Biannual'' and insert
``Biennial''.
Page 48, line 19, strike ``biannually'' and insert
``biennially''.
Page 62, line 14, strike ``NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE''
and insert ``REPORT''.
Page 62, beginning on line 18, strike ``National
Intelligence Estimate or National Intelligence Assessment''
and insert ``report''.
Page 62, strike line 20 and insert the following: ``supply
chain and global provision of services to determine whether
such supply chain and such services pose''.
Page 62, line 21, strike ``counterfeit''.
Page 62, line 22, strike ``defective'' and insert
``counterfeit, defective,''.
Page 62, line 23, insert ``or services that may be managed,
controlled, or manipulated by a foreign government or a
criminal organization'' after ``organization''.
Page 63, beginning on line 5, strike ``counterfeit''.
Page 63, line 6, strike ``defective'' and insert
``counterfeit, defective,''.
Page 63, line 8, insert ``or services that may be managed,
controlled, or manipulated by a foreign government or a
criminal organization'' after ``organization''.
Page 63, at the end of line 8 insert the following: ``Such
review shall include an examination of the threat posed by
State-controlled and State-invested enterprises and the
extent to which the actions and activities of such
enterprises may be controlled, coerced, or influenced by a
foreign government.''.
Strike section 353 (Page 67, line 20 and all that follows
through line 25 on page 68).
Page 69, beginning on line 5, strike ``Federal Bureau of
Investigation'' and insert ``Federal Bureau of Investigation,
in consultation with the Secretary of State,''.
Insert after section 354 (Page 69, after line 15) the
following new sections:
SEC. 355. REPORT ON QUESTIONING AND DETENTION OF SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall submit to
Congress a report containing--
(1) a description of the strategy of the Federal Government
for balancing the intelligence collection needs of the United
States with the interest of the United States in prosecuting
terrorist suspects; and
(2) a description of the policy of the Federal Government
with respect to the questioning, detention, trial, transfer,
release, or other disposition of suspected terrorists.
SEC. 356. REPORT ON DISSEMINATION OF COUNTERTERRORISM
INFORMATION TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to Congress a report on the dissemination of critical
counterterrorism information from the intelligence community
to local law enforcement agencies, including recommendations
for improving the means of communication of such information
to local law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 357. REPORT ON INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES OF STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to Congress a report on the intelligence capabilities of
State and local law enforcement agencies. Such report shall
include--
(1) an assessment of the ability of State and local law
enforcement agencies to analyze and fuse intelligence
community products with locally gathered information;
(2) a description of existing procedures of the
intelligence community to share with State and local law
enforcement agencies the tactics, techniques, and procedures
for intelligence collection, data management, and analysis
learned from global counterinsurgency and counterterror
operations;
(3) a description of current intelligence analysis training
provided by elements of the intelligence community to State
and local law enforcement agencies;
(4) an assessment of the need for a formal intelligence
training center to teach State and local law enforcement
agencies methods of intelligence collection and analysis; and
(5) an assessment of the efficiently of co-locating such an
intelligence training center with an existing intelligence
community or military intelligence training center.
SEC. 358. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON OVER-CLASSIFICATION.
(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community shall submit to Congress a report
containing an analysis of the problem of over-classification
of intelligence and ways to address such over-classification,
including an analysis of the importance of protecting sources
and methods while providing law enforcement and the public
with as much access to information as possible.
(b) Form.--The report under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
SEC. 359. REPORT ON THREAT FROM DIRTY BOMBS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in
consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shall
submit to Congress a report summarizing intelligence related
to the threat to the United States from weapons that use
radiological materials, including highly dispersible
substances such as cesium-137.
SEC. 360. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
IN ARGENTINA.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report containing the following:
(1) A description of any information in the possession of
the intelligence community with respect to the following
events in the Republic of Argentina:
(A) The accession to power by the military of the Republic
of Argentina in 1976.
(B) Violations of human rights committed by officers or
agents of the Argentine military and security forces during
counterinsurgency or counterterror operations, including by
the State Intelligence Secretariat (Secretaria de
Inteligencia del Estado), Military Intelligence Detachment
141 (Destacamento de Inteligencia Militar 141 in Cordoba),
Military Intelligence Detachment 121 (Destacamento Militar
121 in Rosario), Army Intelligence Battalion 601, the Army
Reunion Center (Reunion Central del Ejercito), and the Army
First Corps in Buenos Aires.
(C) Operation Condor and Argentina's role in cross-border
counterinsurgency or counterterror operations with Brazil,
Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, or Uruguay.
(2) Information on abductions, torture, disappearances, and
executions by security forces and other forms of repression,
including the fate of Argentine children born in captivity,
that took place at detention centers, including the
following:
(A) The Argentine Navy Mechanical School (Escuela Mecanica
de la Armada).
(B) Automotores Orletti.
(C) Operaciones Tacticas 18.
(D) La Perla.
(E) Campo de Mayo.
(F) Institutos Militares.
(3) An appendix of declassified records reviewed and used
for the report submitted under this subsection.
(4) A descriptive index of information referred to in
paragraph (1) or (2) that is classified, including the
identity of each document that is classified, the reason for
continuing the classification of such document, and an
explanation of how the release of the document would damage
the national security interests of the United States.
[[Page H945]]
(b) Review of Classified Documents.--Not later than two
years after the date on which the report required under
subsection (a) is submitted, the Director of National
Intelligence shall review information referred to in
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) that is classified to
determine if any of such information should be declassified.
(c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
SEC. 361. REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY STRATEGY TO
PROTECT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NETWORKS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the National Security Agency shall
submit to Congress a report on the strategy of the National
Security Agency with respect to securing networks of the
Department of Defense within the intelligence community.
SEC. 362. REPORT ON CREATION OF SPACE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to Congress a report on the feasibility and advisability of
creating a national space intelligence office to manage
space-related intelligence assets and access to such assets.
SEC. 363. PLAN TO SECURE NETWORKS OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
(a) Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress
a plan to secure the networks of the intelligence community.
Such plan shall include strategies for--
(1) securing the networks of the intelligence community
from unauthorized remote access, intrusion, or insider
tampering;
(2) recruiting, retaining, and training a highly-qualified
cybersecurity intelligence community workforce and include--
(A) an assessment of the capabilities of such workforce;
(B) an examination of issues of recruiting, retention, and
the professional development of such workforce, including the
possibility of providing retention bonuses or other forms of
compensation;
(C) an assessment of the benefits of outreach and training
with both private industry and academic institutions with
respect to such workforce; and
(D) an assessment of the impact of the establishment of the
Department of Defense Cyber Command on personnel and
authorities of the intelligence community;
(3) making the intelligence community workforce and the
public aware of cybersecurity best practices and principles;
(4) coordinating the intelligence community response to a
cybersecurity incident;
(5) collaborating with industry and academia to improve
cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, the defense
industrial base, and financial networks;
(6) addressing such other matters as the President
considers necessary to secure the cyberinfrastructure of the
intelligence community; and
(7) reviewing procurement laws and classification issues to
determine how to allow for greater information sharing on
specific cyber threats and attacks between private industry
and the intelligence community.
(b) Updates.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the plan referred to in subsection (a) is submitted to
Congress, and every 90 days thereafter until the President
submits the certification referred to in subsection (c), the
President shall report to Congress on the status of the
implementation of such plan and the progress towards the
objectives of such plan.
(c) Certification.--The President may submit to Congress a
certification that the objectives of the plan referred to in
subsection (a) have been achieved.
SEC. 364. REPORT ON MISSILE ARSENAL OF IRAN.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to the congressional intelligence committees a report
assessing the threat posed by the missile arsenal of Iran to
allies and interests of the United States in the Persian
Gulf.
SEC. 365. STUDY ON BEST PRACTICES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN
COMBATING VIOLENT DOMESTIC EXTREMISM.
(a) Study.--The Director of National Intelligence shall
conduct a study on the best practices of foreign governments
(including the intelligence services of such governments) to
combat violent domestic extremism.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence
shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a
report containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
SEC. 366. REPORT ON INFORMATION SHARING PRACTICES OF JOINT
TERRORISM TASK FORCE.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
shall submit to Congress a report on the best practices or
impediments to information sharing in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation-New York Police Department Joint Terrorism Task
Force, including ways in which the combining of Federal,
State, and local law enforcement resources can result in the
effective utilization of such resources.
SEC. 367. REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE INFORMATION SHARING.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to Congress and the President a report describing the
improvements to information technology needed to enable
elements of the Federal Government that are not part of the
intelligence community to better share information with
elements of the intelligence community.
SEC. 368. REPORT ON THREATS TO ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit
to Congress a report in unclassified form describing the
future threats to describing the future threats to the
national security of the United States from continued and
increased dependence of the United States on oil sources from
foreign nations.
Page 70, strike lines 1 through 7.
Page 74, line 16, strike ``includes'' and insert ``means''.
Page 75, line 24, strike the closing quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 75, after line 24, insert the following:
``(D) Terrorist screening purpose.--The term `terrorist
screening purpose' means--
``(i) the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of
terrorist identity information to determine threats to the
national security of the United States from a terrorist or
terrorism; and
``(ii) the use of such information for risk assessment,
inspection, and credentialing.''.
Page 86, line 11, strike ``the congressional defense
committees'' and insert ``Congress''.
Page 87, line 17, strike ``the''.
At the end of subtitle E of title III (Page 88, after line
18), add the following new section:
SEC. 369. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MONITORING OF NORTHERN BORDER
OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that suspected terrorists have
attempted to enter the United States through the
international land and maritime border of the United States
and Canada.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the intelligence community should devote sufficient
resources, including technological and human resources, to
identifying and thwarting potential threats at the
international land and maritime border of the United States
and Canada; and
(2) the intelligence community should work closely with the
Government of Canada to identify and apprehend suspected
terrorists before such terrorists enter the United States.
Page 96, line 14, insert after the period the following:
``Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a personnel action
with respect to the Inspector General otherwise authorized by
law, other than transfer or removal.''.
At the end of subtitle A of title IV (Page 116, after line
6), add the following new section:
SEC. 407. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT FOR
REVIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS
REGULATIONS AND EXPORT ADMINISTRATION
REGULATIONS.
The Director of National Intelligence may provide support
for any review conducted by a department or agency of the
Federal Government of the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations or Export Administration Regulations, including a
review of technologies and goods on the United States
Munitions List and Commerce Control List that may warrant
controls that are different or additional to the controls
such technologies and goods are subject to at the time of
such review.
Strike section 411 (Page 116, line 9 and all that follows
through line 2 on page 118) and insert the following new
section:
SEC. 411. REVIEW OF COVERT ACTION PROGRAMS BY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
Section 17 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949
(50 U.S.C. 403q) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4)--
(A) by striking ``(4) If'' and inserting ``(4)(A) If''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The Director may waive the requirement to submit the
statement required under subparagraph (A) within seven days
of prohibiting an audit, inspection, or investigation under
paragraph (3) if such audit, inspection, or investigation is
related to a covert action program. If the Director waives
such requirement in accordance with this subparagraph, the
Director shall submit the statement required under
subparagraph (A) as soon as practicable, along with an
explanation of the reasons for delaying the submission of
such statement.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subsections (F) and (G), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) a list of the covert actions for which the Inspector
General has not completed an audit within the preceding
three-year period;''; and
[[Page H946]]
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Covert Action Defined.--In this section, the term
`covert action' has the meaning given the term in section
503(e) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
413b(e)).''.
Strike section 426 (Page 128, line 21 and all that follows
through line 15 on page 129).
Strike section 427 (Page 129, lines 16 through 25).
Strike section 502 (Page 133, line 1 and all that follow
through line 10 on page 134).
At the end of subtitle A of title V (Page 135, after line
12), add the following new section:
SEC. 505. CYBERSECURITY TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a cybersecurity
task force (in this section referred to as the ``Task
Force'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Task Force shall consist of the
following members:
(A) One member appointed by the Attorney General.
(B) One member appointed by the Director of the National
Security Agency.
(C) One member appointed by the Director of National
Intelligence.
(D) One member appointed by the White House Cybersecurity
Coordinator.
(E) One member appointed by the head of any other agency or
department that is designated by the Attorney General to
appoint a member to the Task Force.
(2) Chair.--The member of the Task Force appointed pursuant
to paragraph (1)(A) shall serve as the Chair of the Task
Force.
(c) Study.--The Task Force shall conduct a study of
existing tools and provisions of law used by the intelligence
community and law enforcement agencies to protect the
cybersecurity of the United States.
(d) Report.--
(1) Initial.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall submit to
Congress a report containing guidelines or legislative
recommendations to improve the capabilities of the
intelligence community and law enforcement agencies to
protect the cybersecurity of the United States. Such report
shall include guidelines or legislative recommendations on--
(A) improving the ability of the intelligence community to
detect hostile actions and attribute attacks to specific
parties;
(B) the need for data retention requirements to assist the
intelligence community and law enforcement agencies;
(C) improving the ability of the intelligence community to
anticipate nontraditional targets of foreign intelligence
services; and
(D) the adequacy of existing criminal statutes to
successfully deter cyber attacks, including statutes
criminalizing the facilitation of criminal acts, the scope of
laws for which a cyber crime constitutes a predicate offense,
trespassing statutes, data breach notification requirements,
and victim restitution statutes.
(2) Subsequent.--Not later than one year after the date on
which the initial report is submitted under paragraph (1),
and annually thereafter for two years, the Task Force shall
submit to Congress an update of the report required under
paragraph (1).
(e) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on the
date that is 60 days after the date on which the last update
of a report required under subsection (d)(2) is submitted.
{time} 1015
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-419 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1, as modified, by Mr. Reyes of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Schauer of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Reyes
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 166, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 69]
AYES--246
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--166
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--26
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Boucher
Capps
Deal (GA)
Dent
Fallin
Hall (TX)
Inslee
Johnson (GA)
King (NY)
Mack
Moran (KS)
Paul
Pierluisi
Radanovich
Reichert
Scalise
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Westmoreland
[[Page H947]]
{time} 1047
Mr. CASSIDY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. TAYLOR and WU changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 401,
noes 11, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
AYES--401
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Sutton
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--11
Akin
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
King (IA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
McClintock
Miller, Gary
Rohrabacher
Royce
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--26
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Boucher
Capps
Deal (GA)
Dent
Fallin
Hall (TX)
Inslee
King (NY)
Mack
Moran (KS)
Olver
Paul
Pierluisi
Radanovich
Reichert
Scalise
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1055
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Schauer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Schauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 1, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 71]
AYES--410
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
[[Page H948]]
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Sutton
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--1
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--27
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Boehner
Boucher
Bright
Capps
Deal (GA)
Dent
Fallin
Hall (TX)
Inslee
King (NY)
Mack
Moran (KS)
Paul
Pierluisi
Radanovich
Reichert
Scalise
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1102
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRIGHT. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 71, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2701) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 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, pursuant to
House Resolution 1105, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, 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 bill, H.R. 2701, to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following new
section:
SEC. 407. COORDINATION OF HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION.
Section 102A of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 403-1) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(s) Interrogation of High-value Detainees.--(1) The
Director of National Intelligence shall, in consultation with
the heads of departments and agencies of the United States
Government containing elements of the intelligence community,
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation--
``(A) coordinate the interrogation of high-value detainees
associated with international terrorism captured, held, or
questioned by a department or agency that is or contains an
element of the intelligence community;
``(B) be responsible for any interagency group conducting
an interrogation of a high-value detainee associated with
international terrorism; and
``(C) before an officer or employee of the Federal
Government provides the warnings of constitutional rights
described in Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) to
a high-value detainee who is suspected of terrorism,
associated with terrorists, or believed to have knowledge of
terrorists and who is captured, held, or questioned by a
department or agency that is or contains an element of the
intelligence community, approve the providing of such
warnings to such high-value detainee.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a
detainee who is captured on the battlefield by the Armed
Forces of the United States, unless the Director of National
Intelligence determines that such detainee is a high-value
detainee.
``(3) The Director of National Intelligence may not
delegate the authority to approve the providing of warnings
under paragraph (1)(C).''.
At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following new
section:
SEC. 417. REVIEW OF BRIEFINGS ON COVERT ACTIONS BY THE CIA;
PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF UNCLASSIFIED VERSIONS OF
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USE OF ENHANCED
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
(a) Review of Briefings.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of
the Central Intelligence Agency shall--
(1) compile any objections raised by a Member of Congress
to a covert action (as defined in section 503(e) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413b(e))) on which
such Member of Congress was briefed by personnel of the
Central Intelligence Agency after September 11, 2001; and
(2) assess whether the Central Intelligence Agency
addressed such objections.
(b) Public Availability of Unclassified Versions of
Documents Relating to Use of Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques.--The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
shall make publicly available--
(1) an unclassified version of all Memoranda for the Record
memorializing briefings made to Members of Congress on the
use of enhanced interrogation techniques; and
(2) an unclassified version of finished intelligence
products produced after September 11, 2001, assessing the
information gained from detainee reporting, including
documents dated July 15, 2004, or June 1, 2005.
Mr. HOEKSTRA (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to dispensing with the
reading?
Mr. REYES. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page H949]]
Our country and our intelligence community are at a crossroads. Over
the last 14 months, we've been struggling as to whether we're going to
be focused on defeating terrorists or whether we're going to be focused
on a law enforcement approach. This couldn't have been defined more
clearly than what it was yesterday when the manager of this bill
brought forward an amendment that would have put our intelligence
community professionals at risk putting them under criminal statutes
that you wouldn't even apply to your local sheriff or your local State
trooper.
Thankfully, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
joined with us and forced the majority to go back and rewrite the rule
and come back and strip that provision from the bill.
But that move yesterday should not have been a surprise. It was only
last year that the Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor to
investigate CIA personnel even though career Justice Department
officials had already decided that there was no basis for prosecution.
It appears that the majority wants to investigate and prosecute
everyone who has been involved in our critical interrogation programs--
except themselves.
The records of briefings have shown clearly and repeatedly that
Democratic and Republican leadership of the House were briefed early
and often on the use of the same techniques that they wanted to
criminalize yesterday. And they never objected. And while there has
been a selective release of certain briefing documents over the last
few days, the record is far from complete because the administration
and the majority have repeatedly blocked requests and amendments to
publicly release a full, unclassified briefing of the classified
records: who knew what and when.
The motion to recommit would stop the criminalization of our national
security policy and ensure that Members of Congress would be as
accountable for their conduct as the majority wants to hold the men and
women of the CIA.
The motion would ask the CIA Inspector General to conduct an
independent review of whether any Member of Congress objected to the
use of the techniques to review what steps were taken and to require
the release of all of the briefing memos. If the majority was not
briefed or raised concerns, it should have nothing to fear from an
independent and objective review by the facts of the Inspector General.
And, secondly, the motion would also clarify once and for all that
the Director of National Intelligence should be in charge of
coordinating interrogation of terrorists and should ensure we have
collected all actionable intelligence before reading terrorists their
Miranda rights.
This is a proposition that should not be controversial. Why is this
in here? It was only on Christmas Day that the DNI, the Director of the
National Counterterrorism Center, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security all said that they were not consulted before the Christmas Day
bomber was read his Miranda rights.
These provisions are fully consistent with all of the other
authorities that have been given to the DNI to coordinate the
activities of the intelligence community. It makes no sense for the DNI
to be in charge of coordinating all other intelligence activities but
then the Attorney General is in charge of interrogation of foreign
terrorists.
This motion would place the emphasis back where it belongs. It would
align accountability and authority for those who make the decisions
with the DNI.
{time} 1115
The DNI is responsible for collecting intelligence to prevent
attacks. This is where we need to go.
We can answer two fundamental questions with this motion to recommit.
Who knew what, when, on enhanced interrogation techniques. Before we go
and prosecute people in the intelligence community, let's have a clear
record of what Members of this body knew and approved, because
basically the administration and this Congress asked the intelligence
personnel to do what they did. They were following our orders and
instructions to keep America safe.
The second thing is, let's make sure that the DNI, the person with
the responsibility to keep us safe, has the final decision on when and
how we will interrogate foreign terrorists to keep America safe. It's
his job. It's his responsibility. Let's get rid of the confusion. Let's
get the alignment. Let's do what's necessary to keep America safe and
to protect and recognize the service of our men and women in the
intelligence community.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, to me, it seems that the minority would have
us fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our back. This motion to
recommit would require that before a Miranda warning can be issued, an
investigator or a beat cop would have to get permission from a gaggle
of Cabinet-level officials in Washington. This is simply absurd.
The minority would put FBI agents who arrest potential terrorists in
a bitter catch-22. The courts require that Miranda warnings be given in
certain circumstances. The minority would have an FBI agent ignore
those rules and shut down the possibility of ever building a criminal
case, or the agent can stop an interrogation while someone tries to get
signatures from half of Washington.
The provision doesn't even include authority for these officials to
delegate the required certification. This means that if one official
happens to be traveling, it's just going to take that much longer for
that beat cop or that FBI agent to start gathering evidence.
Let's get the facts straight about Miranda. Federal agents are not
required to Mirandize terrorism suspects when there is an imminent risk
to public safety. They are free to interrogate suspects on concerns
about any immediate or ongoing threat to our country. Federal agents
questioned the Christmas Day bomber without the Miranda warnings under
this very public safety exemption. Federal agents also don't need to
give Miranda warnings when an interview is voluntary. The FBI routinely
secures intelligence from suspected terrorists without Miranda in this
manner.
But even when Miranda warnings are given, the record is crystal
clear; suspected terrorists do not stop talking. Just this week, in the
case of Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty to charges of attempting to
kill innocent civilians on the New York subway, was apprehended by law
enforcement, given Miranda warnings, and interrogated thoroughly. In
that questioning, Zazi provided valuable information about the plot and
now he will be convicted without any fanfare. That is just one example
among many. The Christmas Day bomber, the shoe bomber, Richard Reid,
and scores of other suspected terrorists provided valuable intelligence
after receiving Miranda warnings.
But this really, today, isn't about Miranda at all. What the minority
really wants to take away is our ability to use the criminal justice
system to go after suspected terrorists. I urge my colleagues not to
make such an irresponsible and reckless decision. Don't support this
motion to recommit.
The Federal criminal justice system has proven to be the most
reliable and effective means we have for putting terrorists behind
bars. Federal prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judges know
better than anybody else how to interrogate, how to try, how to
convict, and how to hold terrorists.
In the 10 years since 9/11, the Justice Department has successfully
convicted more than 300 terrorists in Federal criminal courts. These
include hardened members of al Qaeda such as the so-called 20th
hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui.
One case in particular on this point, Richard Reid was arrested for
attempting to ignite a bomb in his shoe while on a flight to Miami in
December of 2001. Reid was advised of his Miranda rights within 5
minutes of being removed from the aircraft and was reminded of these
rights four times within 48 hours and now is serving a life sentence in
Federal prison. To my knowledge, my Republican friends did not
criticize the Bush administration for its handling of that case or any
of the other cases that we have on file.
This motion to recommit applies to the high-value detainees, so that
in the
[[Page H950]]
toughest cases, they want us to play by a completely unreasonable set
of rules that will slow us down and make us weaker. That is why the
Department of Defense opposes this, the Director of National
Intelligence opposes this, the Department of Justice opposes this.
I think this morning, it's time to say enough with the games. It's
time for us to stop playing politics with our national security. It's
time for us to create a system that makes those responsible for our
safety not play it with one hand tied behind their back.
Let's let our law enforcement professionals do their jobs. Above all,
let's stop attacking the FBI agents that know what they are doing, know
how to do it, and let's vote down this motion to recommit. Vote ``no''
on the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 2701, if ordered, and the motion to
suspend the rules on H. Con. Res. 238.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 217, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 72]
AYES--186
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Owens
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Putnam
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--217
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--29
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boucher
Capps
Deal (GA)
Dent
Fallin
Hall (TX)
Inslee
King (NY)
Mack
Moran (KS)
Paul
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Reichert
Scalise
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.
{time} 1140
Mr. HODES and Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. DONNELLY of Indiana and PLATTS and Mrs. HALVORSON changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 72 on H.R. 2701,
I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted
``yes.''
I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record
immediately following rollcall vote No. 72.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
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 235,
noes 168, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 73]
AYES--235
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
[[Page H951]]
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--168
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boucher
Capps
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Fallin
Hall (TX)
Inslee
King (NY)
Lynch
Mack
Moran (KS)
Paul
Radanovich
Reichert
Scalise
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1149
Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
