[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4829-H4840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2475, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 331 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 331

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2475) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2006 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. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) One hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules, if offered by Representative Maloney of New York or 
     her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order or demand for division of the question, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 331 is a structured rule that 
provides for consideration of H.R. 2475, authorizing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and 
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.
  I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its 
consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill.
  It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence modified 
by the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report 
accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted and shall be 
considered as read.
  It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) or her designee which shall be considered as read 
and shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and opponent, and all points of order against the 
amendment are waived.
  The rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his hard-working ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their 
excellent work on this legislation. More than any other committee in 
the Congress, we rely on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
to do work that we have confidence in and that is accurate and honest. 
The committee is the eyes and ears of this Congress in the intelligence 
community. We depend on them to be aware of what the rest of the world 
and our own community is up to. We put our faith in them to practice 
oversight and to produce a legislative product that addresses the needs 
of our intelligence community, and therefore our Nation.
  The committee does an outstanding job of working on a bipartisan 
basis to provide for our men and women who are fighting the war on 
terror on a variety of fronts.
  I want to take a moment to salute those men and women who are working 
around the globe in a variety of capacities doing so much in a quiet, 
discreet way for our security and liberty. Linguists, analysts, case 
officers, mathematicians, and engineers, some of the brightest minds 
that our Nation produces, work in the intelligence community taking, in 
many cases, an option that is not as generous as the private sector may 
be if they were to put that intellect and those talents and skills into 
some other capacity in the private sector.
  But they do it as a labor of love, as a part of public service 
identical to that which calls men and women into uniform in the armed 
services and which calls men and women into our firefighter and police 
and other first responding capacities. No differently than those 
uniformed members, the men and women in our intelligence community 
throughout the world are performing a huge public service for which we 
can never show enough gratitude and appreciation.

                              {time}  1300

  The Intelligence Committee has reported out a bill that continues the 
House's commitment to the global war on terrorism and to ensuring that 
intelligence resources are directed in a balanced way toward threats to 
our national security. This legislation authorizes more than last 
year's appropriated amount and more than the President's request to 
continue to fight the war on terror.
  The bill does an effective job of balancing our intelligence 
resources and strengthening human intelligence gathering by increasing 
the number of case officers and training and support infrastructure. A 
long-term counterterrorism program is established to reduce the 
dependence on supplemental appropriations. Additionally, it authorizes 
the full amount of funds expected for heightened operations for 
counterterrorism operations and the war in Iraq.
  H.R. 2475 enhances the analytic workforce by providing additional 
linguists and analysts as well as improved training and tools. 
Furthermore, the bill continues to invest in technical programs, 
funding systems end to end, investing in R&D and increased use of 
signature intelligence, and reflects the results of a comprehensive 
survey to review and rationalize technical collection programs.
  For the first time, the Intelligence Authorization Act funds the new 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence and allows for 
increased positions. The National Counterterrorism Center is enhanced 
through improved information sharing activities and collaboration 
provisions. The bill improves physical and technical infrastructure of 
intelligence agencies with new facilities.
  This authorization bill is a perfect example of how Congress can 
achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. Again, 
I thank Chairman Hoekstra, Ranking Member Harman, and the members of 
the committee for their admirable work. I urge Members to support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. First, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) for yielding me the time.

[[Page H4830]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the 
consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2006.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that Members who wish 
to do so can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the 
classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities 
of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national 
intelligence program. This includes authorizations for the CIA as well 
as the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence programs within, 
among other things, the Department of Defense, the National Security 
Agency, the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI. 
Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for 
the tactical intelligence and related activities and joint military 
intelligence program of the Department of Defense.
  Today more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and 
flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this 
body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the 
continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this 
legislation, and I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor 
before the July 4 recess.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this bill, it is not 
closed to improvements. As the Democrats noted in our additional views, 
this bill is the first authorization bill to be considered since the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law 
last December. The reforms undertaken last year, in the aftermath of 
two intelligence failures, created a Director of National Intelligence 
and dramatically reshaped the intelligence community. This 
authorization bill will therefore help define the authorities, 
priorities, and direction of the Director of National Intelligence and 
the entire intelligence community.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee rejected the President's 
paltry request for counterterrorism funding and, instead, fully funded 
the intelligence community's needs. Fully funding counterterrorism 
represents bipartisanship and good public policy. Of course, this does 
not seem to be the first time that this administration does not heed 
the advice of its own intelligence experts, but I digress.
  Let me speak also briefly about the fact that this bill and the 
report accompanying it are pretty much silent on one of the most 
salient issues of the day, our military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
The allegations of severe human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay are at 
best extremely disturbing and at worst unforgivable sins of our Nation, 
which has always led the fight for human rights. I do not work there, 
so I cannot speak to the veracity of every single allegation. But I do 
know that Guantanamo Bay is a stealth prison, an unrecognizable blip on 
the radar screen of domestic and international law. Surrounded by a 
world of laws, treaties, norms and practices, Guantanamo is an 
unrecognizable entity, a small space where the law simply does not 
penetrate.
  The prisoners are in judicial limbo, with limited access to lawyers 
and no legal recourse to profess their guilt or innocence or to protect 
themselves from abuse. In fact, many of them have now been jailed for 
more than 3 years without even having been charged with a crime. It 
sounds a bit Kafkaesque to me. Requests from objective outside 
observers to examine the condition of the prisoners have been rebuffed 
time and again. The Bush administration seems to trust in only itself 
to determine whether the prisoners are deserving of legal protections.
  I am disheartened by the intelligence authorization bill's silence on 
this matter. The Members of this body should be greatly concerned with 
the utter lack of respect for the law or adherence to international 
agreements that characterize Guantanamo Bay. Former Supreme Court 
Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``If the government becomes a 
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.''
  Congress has a responsibility to prevent Guantanamo Bay from becoming 
the personal prison of convenience for the Bush administration to stash 
people it does not want to suffer legal rights to. This body would be 
greatly remiss if we shucked that responsibility in favor of turning a 
blind eye to what very well might be the biggest terrorism recruitment 
tool since the attacks on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill provides authorizations and 
appropriations for some of the most important national security 
programs in this country. With the adoption of the manager's amendment, 
which we will hear about in much greater detail presently, I look 
forward to supporting the bill's ultimate passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague 
with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), 
the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, came before 
the Committee on Rules asking that two amendments be made in order. One 
amendment calls for a select committee to be established in Congress to 
investigate abuses of detainees held under U.S. military custody. The 
other amendment establishes an independent commission for the same 
purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, these are matters that merit the attention of this House 
and deserve to be debated and voted upon by the Members of this body. 
But the majority party on the Rules Committee feels otherwise. The 
Republican leadership believes it is better to sweep these matters 
under the rug, hide them, forget about them, but certainly not 
investigate them. It makes no difference whether such an inquiry takes 
place inside the Congress or outside the Congress, any form of 
independent investigation is out of the question.
  But questions about the abuse and torture of detainees simply will 
not go away, whether it is Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or the countless 
other prisons, jails and detention facilities under U.S. control in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Every week brings new revelations of abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not blame our soldiers for these abuses. It is 
their leaders who have failed. It is the leaders up and down the chain 
of command whose incompetence and arrogance have led to a systemic 
breakdown of standards and codes of conduct that our military has lived 
by since its creation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few lines from the June 13 
edition of Newsweek. The article is entitled ``Good Intentions Gone 
Bad.'' In it, Rod Nordland, Newsweek's Baghdad bureau chief, who is 
departing after 2 years in Iraq, shares a few final thoughts. He 
writes:
  ``Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling 
Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits. WMDs or 
no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and 
America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, 
but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 
2004, the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage 
control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath 
of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no 
evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single 
American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite 
claims by the military that the prison produced actionable 
intelligence. The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the 
behavior of U.S. troops but the incompetence of their leaders.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is why we should be debating the Waxman amendments. 
We cannot run and hide from this abuse. It haunts us, Mr. Speaker. It 
haunts us. If ever a matter needed the light of day, it is this one.
  Oppose this rule. Support debate on the Waxman amendments. Restore 
America's credibility on human rights and military conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record articles from Newsweek and from 
the Baltimore Sun.

                     [From Newsweek, Jun. 13, 2005]

                        Good Intentions Gone Bad

                            (By Rod Norland)

       Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in 
     toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous 
     visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely 
     be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry 
     the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning 
     point was the Abu Ghraib scandal.

[[Page H4831]]

     Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a 
     desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners 
     at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On 
     top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all 
     the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life 
     or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims 
     by the military that the prison produced ``actionable 
     intelligence.''
       The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the 
     behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their 
     leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the 
     Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of 
     Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. 
     A few soldiers will always do bad things. that's why you need 
     competent officers, who know what the men and women under 
     their command are capable of--and make sure it doesn't 
     happen.
       Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to 
     despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion 
     into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but 
     the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 
     percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. 
     contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic 
     services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up 
     to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a 
     country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees 
     Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable 
     electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, 
     it's only 4 percent.
       The most powerful army in human history can't even protect 
     a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both 
     the international airport and Baghdad's main American 
     military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night 
     U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they 
     close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. 
     More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole 
     country safe. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the 
     number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly 
     enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that 
     followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-
     defense at any cost--which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.
       The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad 
     where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of 
     American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave 
     is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. 
     The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to 
     fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the 
     worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green 
     Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi 
     ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and 
     behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub 
     bouncers--to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. 
     soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're 
     overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely 
     despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the 
     distant end of their tours--and in most cases, another tour 
     soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, 
     often face the wreckage of careers and family.
       I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected 
     government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who 
     give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that 
     the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. 
     Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and 
     equipped. But Iraqis have such along way to go, and there are 
     so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of 
     those who think America should pull out immediately. There's 
     no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. 
     The question isn't ``When will America pull out?''; it's 
     ``How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?'' All I can 
     say is this: last one out, please turn on the lights.
                                  ____


                 [From the Baltimore Sun, June 5, 2005]

                            Close Camp Delta

                          (By Michael Posner)

       For many around the world, the detention facility at the 
     U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has become one of 
     the most prominent, negative symbols of America's departure 
     from the rule of law since 9/11.
       Camp Delta, as the prison on Guantanamo is called, holds 
     more than 520 men from about 40 countries. Many of these 
     people have been detained there for more than three years; 
     none has been given any indication of when, or even if, he 
     will be released. The U.S. government has classified all of 
     the detainees as ``enemy combatants.''
       While the term is not recognized in international human 
     rights or humanitarian law, it has provided the U.S. 
     government with a rationale for denying detainees any rights 
     whatsoever, either under the Geneva Conventions (the laws of 
     war) or U.S. criminal law. This situation has prompted some 
     Bush administration officials to dub Guantanamo ``the legal 
     equivalent of outer space.'' This label would also apply to 
     the dozens of secret U.S. detention sites in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, Pakistan and Jordan and aboard ships at sea.
       But just as Guantanamo has become a powerful negative 
     symbol, it has the potential to be a positive one if the 
     United States is willing to take steps to recognize the 
     possibility. One step, and it is a bold one, would be to shut 
     down the Guantanamo prison--to close its doors and, in doing 
     so, open a public debate among members of Congress, military 
     officers and intelligence and law enforcement leaders on 
     interrogation and detention practices around the world.
       Shuttering Guantanamo not only would allow the United 
     States to broadcast to the world its commitment to the rule 
     of law--by moving all security detainees into an established 
     legal process--it also would serve America's security 
     interests. Those around the world who use the symbol of 
     Guantanamo to fuel anti-American sentiments would lose one of 
     their most potent rallying cries. And autocratic governments 
     no longer would be able to hide behind American's example, as 
     they do now, in justifying their own practices of indefinite 
     detention and abuse.
       The closing of Guantanamo would, by its very nature, 
     require an evaluation of all the locations where the United 
     States is holding security prisoners because Guantanamo 
     derives much of its infamy from what it has wrought: 
     Guantanamo was the testing ground for coercive interrogation 
     techniques. Torture was exported to other facilities from 
     there.
       In the spring of 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld 
     explicitly approved 24 interrogation techniques for 
     Guantanamo, including ``dietary manipulation,'' 
     ``environmental manipulation,'' ``sleep adjustment'' and 
     ``isolation,'' all of which has been previously prohibited by 
     U.S. law and explicit military policy. He did so despite 
     strenuous objections from senior military lawyers, the FBI 
     and others in the government. This policy is still in place.
       By mid-2003, the military extended the Guantanamo rules to 
     Iraq. In fact, in August 2003, the Pentagon sent the 
     Guantanamo commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, to Abu 
     Ghraib prison, reportedly with the instruction to ``Gitmo-
     ize'' the Iraqi prisons. The revelation of pictures from Abu 
     Ghraib last spring tells part of that story.
       But the story is much bigger--and more troubling--than what 
     those photos depict. Consider this: Since December 2002, 108 
     people have died in U.S. custody, according to Pentagon 
     figures. Of these deaths, no less than 28 were criminal 
     homicides, the Defense Department acknowledges. The victims 
     were tortured to death.
       An official investigation into the cases of two young men 
     who were beaten to death at a U.S.-run facility in Bagram, 
     Afghanistan, revealed that more than two dozen soldiers were 
     involved in these deaths. The interrogators, believe that 
     they could deviate from the well-tested rules because, as one 
     said, ``there was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners 
     of war, but nothing for terrorists.''
       Despite its benefits, the prospect of Guantanamo being 
     closed any time soon is unlikely. Last week, Vice President 
     Dick Cheney said of the prison: ``What we're doing down there 
     has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately.'' And yet, 
     the vice president's assertion files in the face of leaked 
     FBI and International Red Cross reports as well as comments 
     by a former U.S. military translator who published his 
     observations of detainee mistreatment and sexual humiliation.
       What can be done when there is such a discrepancy between 
     the facts and the official interpretation of them? In a 
     democracy, the best way to deal with this is openness: 
     Congress should authorize the creation of an independent, 
     bipartisan commission to conduct a thorough investigation of 
     U.S. detention and interrogation policies worldwide. This 
     would allow the United States to assess what went wrong and 
     why and to recommend corrective action.
       Until Congress does this, Guantanamo and the other U.S. 
     detention centers will continue to serve as the symbol of 
     America's tarnished reputation.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to 
yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his service both on the Rules Committee and on the 
Intelligence Committee, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) as well for his comments earlier in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so 
that we can have a debate on the Waxman amendment. Yesterday, we had an 
open rule for the Defense Appropriations Act which funds the 
intelligence community. I fail to see why we cannot have an open rule 
for the authorization bill for those same intelligence programs. I also 
think it is sad that the leadership scheduled consideration of this 
authorization bill after our vote on the appropriations bill. This 
makes little sense and erodes our ability to establish clear guidance 
for how money will be spent.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should have made in order all of the 
amendments

[[Page H4832]]

that were offered. Only 10 amendments were submitted to the Rules 
Committee. Of those, nine were offered by Democrats, and of those nine, 
only one was made in order. Each amendment was responsible. Each 
deserves full consideration on the House floor. Members on both sides 
of the aisle should have an opportunity to debate the important issues 
raised by these amendments, but as a result of this unnecessarily 
restrictive rule, neither Republicans nor Democrats will have that 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one amendment that the Rules 
Committee will not let us debate, the Waxman amendment to establish an 
independent commission on detainee issues. Detentions and 
interrogations are vital tools. We need those tools. But they must take 
place according to our laws and our values. To do anything less puts 
our own troops in harm's way and erodes our moral credibility in the 
world.
  Today, our intelligence professionals operate in what I call a ``fog 
of law,'' a confusing patchwork of laws, treaties, memos and policies. 
The Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee is conducting a 
serious bipartisan investigation into the practice of renditions and 
interrogations under the able leadership of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). But this 
investigation is largely classified. We also need a public unclassified 
investigation so that the public can have confidence that our 
Constitution and our laws are respected. A public bipartisan 
investigation will help us learn precisely what happened, who should be 
accountable at senior as well as operational levels, and how to fix the 
problems.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record an op-ed from the June 7 
Washington Post by civil rights attorney Floyd Abrams, former 
Representative Bob Barr, and Ambassador Tom Pickering, which called for 
the creation of an independent commission. They wrote: ``Only with such 
a commission are we likely to enact the reforms needed to restore our 
credibility among the nations of the world.''
  I agree. Shutting off the lights at Guantanamo will not solve the 
problem. Only Congress can solve the problem by addressing the policies 
underlying Guantanamo. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states 
that it is Congress's responsibility to make rules concerning captures 
on land and water, and that is why, in addition to calling for this 
independent commission, I believe we need bipartisan legislation. The 
safety of our troops and our moral credibility in the world are on the 
line.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to is as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 7, 2005]

                        Justice Before Politics

            (By Floyd Abrams, Bob Barr and Thomas Pickering)

       After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, came widespread shock 
     and horror--and some tough questions. Could the United States 
     have prevented this catastrophe? What corrective action might 
     we take to protect ourselves from other terrorist attacks?
       After political struggles and initial resistance by many 
     political leaders, Congress and the president created the 
     Sept. 11 commission in 2002. This bipartisan group of 10 
     prominent Americans was charged with conducting an 
     independent and complete investigation of the terrorist 
     attacks of Sept. 11 and with providing recommendations for 
     preventing such disasters. In July 2004 the commission 
     released its report, and in December Congress passed 
     legislation to implement many of its recommendations.
       In the spring of 2004, the scandal involving the abuse of 
     prisoners at Abu Ghraib became public. Additional allegations 
     of abuse surfaced in connection with prisoners detained by 
     the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. 
     Many Americans asked themselves the same painful questions 
     about these allegations: How could such terrible actions have 
     taken place? Who was responsible? What reforms might we 
     implement to prevent such problems? Once again, a year later, 
     these questions remain unanswered.
       We believe that the American public deserves answers. We 
     are members of the bipartisan Liberty and Security Initiative 
     of the Constitution Project, which is based at Georgetown 
     University's Public Policy Institute. We have joined with 
     other members of the initiative--Republicans and Democrats, 
     liberals and conservatives--to call for the establishment of 
     an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the issue 
     of abuse of terrorist suspects. We urge Congress and the 
     president to immediately create such a commission and to use 
     the Sept. 11 commission as a model.
       No investigation completed to date has included 
     recommendations on how mistreatment at detention facilities 
     might be avoided. Even the Pentagon's much-heralded report by 
     Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, completed in March, concluded 
     only that there were ``missed opportunities in the policy 
     development process'' and that these opportunities ``should 
     be considered in the development of future interrogation 
     policies.''
       Establishing an independent, bipartisan commission would 
     also be beneficial for U.S. relationships abroad. The abuse 
     of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody has undermined the 
     United States' position in the world. This is a time when we 
     should be making extra efforts to reach out to Muslims and to 
     ask them to work with us in the war against terrorism. 
     Instead, our failure to undertake a thorough and credible 
     investigation has created severe resentment of the United 
     States.
       An independent bipartisan investigation can generate 
     widespread acceptance and support for its findings. Only with 
     such a commission are we likely to enact the reforms needed 
     to restore our credibility among the nations of the world.
       We must move beyond the partisan battles of our highly 
     charged political climate. To provide a credible 
     investigation and a plan for corrective action, and to show 
     the world that the United States takes seriously its 
     obligations to uphold the rule of law, we urge Congress and 
     the president to establish a commission to investigate abuse 
     of terrorist suspects.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as it relates 
to these issues. It reflects a legitimate disagreement over the 
direction that this investigation should take, whether it should be 
based in the legislative branch or based in the executive branch or 
some combination, which has been the history.
  In fact, here in our own Congress, the Senate has had eight hearings 
on detainee abuse, and three on Abu Ghraib specifically. General Myers, 
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs; the Chief of Staff of the Army; the 
Secretary of Defense; and the Acting Secretary of the Army have all 
conducted independent reviews. There are 12 other Department of Defense 
reviews that have occurred, and the House Committee on Armed Services 
in this body has held three hearings and numerous briefings.
  The legislative branch has been diligent in their oversight 
responsibility. And I appreciate that there are differences on this, 
but I particularly appreciate the way that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have handled this. Unlike in the Senate where the 
detainee abuse was equated with the regime of Pol Pot and Hitler and 
Stalin, there is a measured approach to disagreement in this Chamber, 
and I think that that is the responsible approach, unlike the direction 
that the Senate has gone. To equate Guantanamo Bay with regimes that 
murdered millions of people is absurd, and it is dangerous, and it 
gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in this body 
pointed out, detainees in Guantanamo are provided their own prayer 
rugs. If that were done in the public school system, it would be 
against the law. They are called to prayer five times a day. If that 
were done on the average high school intercom system, it would be a 
violation of the law. They are fed three nutritious meals per day at an 
average of $12 per detainee per day. If we multiplied what we spend on 
the school lunch program times three meals, they would be receiving 
less than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.
  And because of the ongoing judicial review that our government is 
engaged in with those detainees, at the end of that process, 234 
detainees so far have been released from Guantanamo. And to show their 
great gratitude, at least a dozen of them have been identified as 
returning to the fight against American servicemen and -women.
  I think that it is important that we keep those facts in mind, as 
well, as we move through this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I 
would

[[Page H4833]]

just say to my friend from Florida that this judicial review that he 
talks about evidently is going to take place forever.
  It is not about food, Mr. Speaker. The detainees are properly fed. 
But they cannot see their relatives. Most of them cannot see a lawyer, 
and most of them have not been told what they are charged with. When I 
say it is Kafka-esque, Franz Kafka wrote the book ``The Trial'' that 
said how horrible it was to be in a situation where one does not know 
their accusers, they do not know what they are charged with, and they 
are convicted of something in sitting there. We cannot do that in this 
country. It is not about food. It is about rights. It is about human 
rights and dignity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since we saw the 
horrific photographs of the torture of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib 
prison in Iraq. Yet in Congress, we have ignored our fundamental 
responsibility to investigate this issue. And it is not just Abu 
Ghraib, but other prison camps as well where we are hearing more and 
more reports of instances of disrespect of the Koran and denial of 
human rights to detainees.
  Under our system of checks and balances, the House of Representatives 
has a constitutional duty to ensure proper oversight of the executive 
branch, and for this reason I submitted an amendment to this bill to 
create either a select committee of the House of Representatives to 
examine the matter or an independent commission to conduct such an 
investigation. But the Republican leadership blocked both amendments. 
They do not want an investigation inside the House or outside by an 
independent group. The independent commission, I believe, would have 
filled this huge oversight vacuum. It was denied, and that is why I am 
in opposition to the previous question on the rule and the rule itself.
  The reports of detainee abuse are undermining one of our Nation's 
most valuable assets, our reputation and respect for human rights. And 
they are endangering our Armed Forces and inciting hatred against the 
United States. As Senator Biden said, Guantanamo is the ``greatest 
propaganda tool for the recruitment of terrorists worldwide.''
  Some of the allegations that have been replayed over and over again 
around the world may not be true. President Bush calls them ``absurd.'' 
But we will not know what is true and what is not true unless we 
investigate. And when we refuse to conduct thorough, independent 
investigations, the rest of the world thinks we have something to hide. 
When we ignore our constitutional obligations, we are not doing the 
administration any favor. A lack of oversight leads to a lack of 
accountability, and no accountability breeds arrogance and abuse of 
power.
  Over the past year, more and more instances of detainee abuse from a 
growing number of locations around the world have come to light. In 
just the past few weeks, new evidence emerged of the desecration of the 
Koran at Guantanamo Bay; the involvement of Navy Seals in beating 
detainees in Iraq; and the gruesome, ultimately fatal torture of 
Afghans at the U.S. detention center at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. 
It is time for this House to put aside political calculations and 
fulfill our constitutional oversight responsibilities.
  Let me just point out to my colleagues that we have not had an 
investigation since Abu Ghraib. The House held only 5 hours of public 
hearings in the Committee on Armed Services to investigate the abuses. 
In contrast, the House spent 140 hours taking witness testimony to 
examine whether President Clinton mishandled his Christmas card list. 
What is more important for the use of oversight and investigative 
powers of the House?
  While the Senate review has been more extensive, it has not involved 
comprehensive public review of all relevant agencies and personnel, nor 
has it produced comprehensive conclusions regarding individual 
accountability and necessary corrective actions.
  We must do our job. We need to examine these allegations and take our 
oversight responsibilities seriously. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unquestionably, Congress's responsibility to properly oversee the 
activities of the entire Federal Government is preeminent, and that is 
why I am proud that, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter), they have had hearings. In the Senate 
they have had hearings. And today, as we speak, the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence also has an oversight subcommittee 
devoted to investigating all of these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of that 
committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. And before I move on to 
address some of the discussion that has been on the floor today, let me 
talk about some of the issues in the rule; and I think later on we will 
have an opportunity to talk about what may be unusual in this bill.
  But as my colleagues on the other side today may try to destroy, we 
have developed a bill that will set a direction for the intelligence 
community and we have done it in a bipartisan way. We have checked the 
issues as to whether the bill is sufficient in terms of the resources 
to have an effective intelligence community. We have made important 
decisions as to the relative balance between HUMINT and our technical 
capabilities. We have made important decisions about the direction of 
our technical capabilities, and we have done it on a bipartisan basis.
  This bill came out of committee with a voice vote. It shows the 
continued commitment of the House to support the global war on 
terrorism and our troops deployed abroad. We attempted this year to 
keep ancillary issues out of the bill, to focus the full attention of 
the committee on careful oversight and review of our Nation's 
intelligence programs. Our goal was to properly align the resources of 
those programs to counter the threats facing our Nation. I appreciate 
the efforts of the Committee on Rules to keep floor debate similarly 
focused on the programs that are authorized in the bill and related 
issues.
  Again, we are setting a strategic direction for where we think the 
intelligence community needs to go. There will be some changes that 
were made as a result of the rule that we will vote on in the next few 
minutes, and these again were an attempt to make sure that there was 
not confusion about what direction we wanted to go in, what we wanted 
to get done, and make sure that the underlying direction for the reform 
of the intelligence community was the bill that was signed into law by 
the President last December.
  I will say that I agree with some of my colleagues on the other side. 
My ranking member said it is the responsibility of Congress to do its 
work. Congress will do its work. We have been doing our work. We have 
had a bipartisan, constructive effort, led by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), to take a 
look at the allegations that are out there. We have been investigating 
these issues.
  My colleague here says we have not been doing any work. My colleague 
has not done the basics. He maybe could have asked, has the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence on the House side done anything to 
take a look at the alleged allegations or the abuses at Guantanamo, the 
intelligence community's relationships to Abu Ghraib? I think my 
ranking member on the other side has said that we have had a 
constructive, bipartisan effort to take a look at the allegations, to 
take a look at the role of the intelligence community, and to take a 
look at how we move forward on these types of things. But sometimes 
people do not even want to raise the basic questions and get the basic 
information that they need.
  These are serious issues. The information that the folks may have in 
Guantanamo may save American lives. It will make our war on terror more 
effective.
  Should these allegations be investigated? Absolutely. Are they being 
investigated? Absolutely. And members

[[Page H4834]]

on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence know that that work 
has been going on, and it has been going on in a very constructive and 
a very effective method.

                              {time}  1330

  I look forward to passing this bill today. I look forward to this 
committee continuing the work that Congress has asked it to do, and us 
going back and doing it in an effective way, to make sure that we will 
have an effective intelligence community. It is time to stop bashing 
our troops and our intelligence community. These people put their lives 
on the line every day. It is time to show them some support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to my friend and classmate, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this restrictive rule for 
not making in order the Waxman amendment to provide for an 
investigation by a bipartisan, independent commission of the detainee 
abuses alleged at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other sites.
  Let me say at the outset that the men and women in our armed services 
ought to be praised for their selfless sacrifices. They deserve not to 
have their names and their good works associated with the torture and 
abuse that has been alleged in newspapers and other reports. That is 
why it is so important to have a complete and full investigation and to 
receive assurances that torture and abuse are not standard operating 
procedure in our armed forces, even if torture was authorized by 
Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Gonzales. It is not authorized 
by Congress or by the American people who ultimately get to have the 
final say.
  It also bothers me that these detainees do not have any way of 
asserting their innocence. The President says they are all terrorists, 
but what if some of them were cases of mistaken identity? What if some 
of them had nothing to do with terrorism? What if they have a similar 
name or a similar appearance, but are indeed factually innocent of all 
charges?
  It seems to me that if the government is so sure that everyone we are 
holding is a terrorist, there should be no trouble convincing a court, 
a judge, or a military court. That would be preferable to having the 
government assert that all of these people are terrorists, just trust 
us. We cannot allow that type of abuse of power to continue in our 
name.
  This assertion of the right to hold people forever, with no specific 
evidence and no due process, has not been asserted in an English-
speaking country since before Magna Carta, 800 years ago, until this 
President had the nerve to besmirch the good name of the United States 
by making such an assertion. This is not how America became the Shining 
City on a Hill so admired by people the world over.
  No executive should be permitted the power to lock people up forever 
without ever having to prove their guilt. That is a power that I would 
trust to no man, no king, no dictator, and no President.
  Let me say one other thing. Torture and abuse of prisoners is not 
just a shameful violation of human rights, it does not work. People 
under torture will say anything. Intelligence professionals know better 
than to believe or to rely on information extracted under torture. 
Torture and abuse of detainees is wrong for so many reasons. It is a 
horrendous practice, it produces nothing but shame and more enemies for 
the United States, and anger from the rest of the world.
  We need to aggressively investigate these abuses and put safeguards 
and policies into place to prevent them from ever happening again.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Perhaps we should remind the gentleman of some of the 545 people who 
are being detained in Guantanamo; 545, by the way, is fewer people than 
are in my county's jail on a Saturday night.
  But of those 545 people who killed innocent women and children, they 
included a detainee named Katani who was stopped before he could board 
one of the planes used to strike the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon, or taking care of Osama bin Laden's body guards, other 
members of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks and members of the 
Taliban. These are not your average, run-of-the-mill pick-pockets and 
thieves. They are hardened terrorists who have pledged everything to 
destroy American service men and women, to come into our homeland and 
wreak havoc and cause mayhem and cause death and destruction within 
these borders of the United States of America. They are being 
monitored. They are under ongoing judicial review. The eyes of the 
world, as this debate has evidenced, are on Guantanamo.
  These are individuals who represent the very worst in our global 
society who would do anything to bring us harm. Yet we seem to lose all 
of that perspective in this very dramatic, theatrical debate that began 
in the Senate when there was an equation of Guantanamo with the regimes 
of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot which resulted in the torture and 
mutilation and death of millions of human beings. And for this similar 
equation to be made on the House floor that we, in our activities in 
Guantanamo, are even remotely close to those regimes is out of bounds.
  There have been numerous Department of Defense investigations into 
detainee abuse, numerous House Committee on Armed Services hearings on 
detainee abuse, Senate committee hearings on detainee abuse, and 
ongoing Intelligence subcommittee reviews of what is going on there.
  It is important that we step back and understand that this is an 
intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women the tools 
they need to fight people around the world that we would not invite 
over for dinner; people who would do everything in their power to bring 
down our society, our form of government, our cloak of safety. Let us 
keep those things in mind when we go forward with this debate about 
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Just one thing for my friend from Florida: Charge it and prove it. 
That is all. This is a great Nation. We can charge those folks with a 
crime, and we can prove that they did what the gentleman said.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this point to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this rule.
  We have been led to believe that the use of torture in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were isolated incidents; that 
murder, sexual assault, and physical abuse were the work of a few low-
ranking guards who are now being brought to justice.
  The new evidence indicates we have been misled.
  Recent news accounts have detailed the deaths of two detainees in 
2002 at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan during interrogation 
by military intelligence. One man was hung by his arms in his jail cell 
for days and beaten so severely in the legs that he died, even though, 
as the newspapers reported, soldiers involved in the detention believed 
that the man was innocent.
  Despite being ruled homicide by the coroners, the deaths were 
described by a military spokesman as resulting from natural causes. In 
the meantime, the officer was promoted and placed in charge of 
interrogations in Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison.
  But this story is not about low-ranking soldiers who independently 
ran afoul of the system; it is not a matter of a few bad apples. It is 
one tale in what is emerging to be a pattern of systematic abuse 
carried out with the knowledge and approval of senior military and 
civilian officials.
  How do we know that the Defense Department and senior military 
commanders knew what was going on? Because their own documents say so. 
Their own documents show that the general in charge of our troops in 
Afghanistan knew that unapproved techniques were being used in those 
interrogatories. So what did he do? He made

[[Page H4835]]

a list of these techniques and sent them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
who were looking for ways to alter interrogations in Guantanamo Bay.
  In fact, the only time the general in charge of U.S. forces in 
Afghanistan seems to have issued any written policy is when he 
recommended that the Geneva Convention techniques be removed for 
everyone, regardless of whether or not they were tied to al Qaeda or 
the Taliban.
  So let me sum it up. Advanced torture techniques were developed and 
used in Afghanistan and resulted in the deaths of multiple detainees. 
The deaths were covered up and the investigations were stalled. The 
techniques were shared with the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and 
then spread to Iraq where the same people responsible for the deaths in 
Afghanistan were put in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison.
  From Afghanistan to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, torture, lies, and 
coverup. This is not an accident, this is a pattern of abuse.
  I want to enter into the Record an editorial from my hometown paper 
on this.
  That is why I join my colleagues in calling for the creation of an 
independent commission on detainee abuse. The leadership in the House 
and, more specifically, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
have proven both negligent and incapable of dealing with this issue as 
they have looked the other way and led the country to continue to 
believe that this is only a few bad apples, a few malcontents that went 
about it the wrong way when, in fact, the evidence from our own Defense 
Department tells us differently and has irreparably damaged the 
reputation of the United States, and has cast doubt on our foreign 
policy, and it is a new recruitment tool, as so many have commented, 
both in the intelligence community and in the Congress, that raises the 
likelihood that U.S. troops captured by enemy combatants or terrorists 
will be killed or tortured. It gives the radical opponents of the 
United States and the insurgents the fuel to feed the insurgency 
against U.S. soldiers and the new Iraqi Government.
  The failure of this administration, which so often demands 
accountability of others to deal with this issue in an honest and 
forthright fashion, undermines our ability to implement the strategy 
for success in Iraq and Afghanistan and tears down our forces.

                          Suspicious Treatment

       First, there were the sickening photos smuggled out of Abu 
     Ghraib prison a year ago that shocked the world and fueled 
     anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. Then, 
     there were allegations from prisoners recently freed from 
     Guantanamo Bay that U.S. military guards had beaten false 
     confessions out of them and desecrated the Quran. Then. 
     earlier this month, the New York Times reported that military 
     interrogators at a U.S. prison in Afghanistan had killed 
     detainees during questioning, then tried to cover up the 
     cause of death. The interrogators didn't believe one of the 
     men was involved in terrorism, but had beaten him to death--
     allegedly by accident--anyway.
       Now, Amnesty International U.S.A. has released a scathing 
     report calling the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
     ``the gulag of our times.'' The report's authors accuse 
     Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto 
     Gonzales and other top U.S. officials of being ``architects 
     of torture.''
       The human rights watchdog organization called on foreign 
     governments to use international law to investigate U.S. 
     officials for their abuse of detainees accused of having 
     terrorist ties.
       Meanwhile, the Associated Press has obtained 1,000 pages of 
     U.S. government tribunal transcripts under a Freedom of 
     Information Act lawsuit that offers chilling, firsthand 
     accounts of alleged prisoner abuse. In one case, a Guantanamo 
     Bay prisoner told a military panel that American soldiers had 
     beaten him so badly, he now wets his pants.
       Vice President Dick Cheney insists that the prisoners are 
     ``peddling lies'' and that the Guantanamo detainees have been 
     ``well-treated, treated humanely and decently.'' President 
     Bush blasted the Amnesty report Tuesday, calling it 
     ``absurd.''
       Yet, It is quite unsettling that prisoners in Guantanamo, 
     Afghanistan and Iraq have told strikingly similar stories.
       Bush administration officials' unapolog- etic defense of 
     military conduct at Guantanamo and other U.S. military 
     prisons--in the face of mounting evidence of serious 
     problems--is symptomatic of its increasingly familiar refusal 
     to acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility. This 
     arrogant stonewalling must not be allowed, especially when so 
     much is at stake.
       The well-publicized mistreatment of Muslim detainees at 
     U.S.-run military prisons has severely damaged the United 
     States' reputation abroad. It is the height of hypocrisy to 
     talk of spreading democracy while our government tramples all 
     over individual civil liberties. In the United States, a 
     person is innocent until proven guilty, yet Muslim detainees 
     are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Nearly 600 
     people have been held without charges. Up until a year ago, 
     they could not even challenge their detentions in U.S. 
     courts. The U.S. government had argued that as foreigners on 
     foreign soil, they had no legal recourse, which is absurd as 
     well as un-American.
       It is high time that President Bush and Congress appoint a 
     bipartisan panel to investigate the allegations of abuse of 
     terrorist suspects. People on both sides of the ideological 
     spectrum have called for such a commission, ranging from 
     conservative former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., to the Center 
     for American Progress on the left.
       If, as Rumsfeld claims, released detainees are a bunch of 
     liars, the administration has nothing to hide.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Perhaps the gentleman, out of his concern for torture, would read 
into the Record the similar treatments, the abuse, the torture, the 
behavior shown Jessica Lynch. Perhaps the gentleman would also read 
into the Record the actions of the gentlemen who boarded American 
airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon. Perhaps, out of his sense of concern about torture, he would 
enter into the Record transcripts and videos of the beheadings that 
have been taking place in Iraq. Perhaps the gentleman, out of his sense 
of concern about torture, would cover those bad apples, those bad 
actors, and the actions that are being taken against them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to any further investigation of either what is 
taking place at Guantanamo Bay with our detainees or further 
investigation of Abu Ghraib.
  I want to speak about Guantanamo first, because I heard some of the 
reports when we first brought detainees there, and I went down and 
visited. I walked among the prisoners, I saw the housing, I saw how 
they were treated. I was asked what I thought when I saw the whole 
thing, and I want to use my quote here on the floor. I said, ``I 
thought it was too good for the bastards.''
  I stand here today appalled at my colleagues who, in fact, are 
concerned about the rights of mass murderers. And that is exactly what 
we have here. We have international mass murderers, enemy combatants. 
They had no consideration, in support of a regime, the al Qaeda regime 
and Osama bin Laden, who slaughtered thousands of people on our soil, 
and many of whom were both Americans and internationals.
  What right did they respect of Barbara Olson, who worked for our 
Committee on Government Reform, whose plane crashed into the Pentagon 
that morning? And I remember Barbara. What right did they respect of 
Neal Levin, who I met with at the World Trade Centers, who was trapped, 
along with everyone who helped me and our Subcommittee on Aviation, who 
were all murdered on the morning of September 11 when they were in the 
Windows on the World restaurant? What right did they defend of those 
people?
  How quickly we forget September 11. I am reading the book ``102 
Minutes.'' I wish everyone would read it, about the thousands of people 
who were left trapped in the World Trade Center. What rights did these 
people who supported that activity exercise?
  Abu Ghraib, if I hear one more thing about that and the actions of 
our military folks; someone described ``horrific torture.'' I saw worse 
things at fraternity houses in college than what our troops were 
involved in. And to continue the harassment.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) brought into the 
Committee on International Relations two prisoners; one, I recall, was 
from Abu Ghraib. I did not see anyone from the other side there, I did 
not see anyone from the press there when they described their treatment 
under Saddam Hussein. Do my colleagues know how he dealt with 
overcrowding? He took them out and slaughtered them. I did not see 
anyone from the other side concerned about the rights of those 
prisoners.

[[Page H4836]]

  One gentleman told us how he was taken from Abu Ghraib Prison; well, 
he described not only the beheadings, but the limb amputations, the 
pulling out of tongues, the electrical shocks. How dare anyone from the 
House or the other body compare the treatment our troops afforded this 
scum of the earth?
  What about an investigation of the 300,000 mass graves that our 
troops have uncovered and the treatment that those people received.
  Finally, again, that one prisoner, and no one here bothered on the 
other side to even attend the meeting with the prisoners to hear how 
Saddam Hussein treated them. He described how he was taken out, he and 
others, and they were all shot, and the bulldozer pushed over dirt on 
them; he was shot five times, and only managed to crawl away and 
somehow survive to tell how the other side truly tortures.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am convinced of some things: some of my 
colleagues just do not get it when it comes to human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule with a very simple question: 
What is the House Republican leadership afraid of? We say we want to 
promote democracy around the world. We say we want to set a good 
example to others, and yet the House leadership seeks to block a vote 
today. That is what this argument is about, a vote today on the Waxman 
amendment, which would simply create an independent, bipartisan 
commission to investigate abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and 
other places around the world.
  Unfortunately, the only example we seem to be setting these days is 
the example of the ostrich, to bury our heads in the sand, to ignore 
the facts, to ignore the truth.
  The Bush administration and my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say that the reports of human rights abuses at these facilities 
have been greatly exaggerated. Then what are they afraid of? The 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee just says these are serious 
issues. They are serious issues.
  We do not want quarter-truths; we do not want half-truths. Let us get 
at the full truth, the good, the bad and the ugly. People around the 
world look to the United States, not just for the statements we make, 
but for the actions we take. And Americans have been shocked at the 
reports of abuses because they know these actions do not reflect our 
values, and that is what this is about, our values.
  And they do not represent us as a people. The United States 
throughout its history has been a great beacon of human rights. And 
very sadly, that beacon has been dimmed by the abuses that have been 
taking place. And the best way to reclaim our credibility on this issue 
is to squarely face the facts and those abuses.
  We must lead by our example. We must show we will not run from the 
truth even when it is unpleasant. Only by confronting the truth can we 
learn from our mistakes. Only by examining our own conduct can we 
credibly talk about the misconduct of others. Let us show the world 
that a strong, competent Nation does not run from or hide from the 
truth. Let us once again lead by example.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the seeker of 
that truth, the chairman of the oversight subcommittee tasked with 
looking into alleged abuse.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding and commend him on the handling of this rule, but also in 
helping us put this whole issue into greater context.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to remind 
ourselves that this bill contains a number of things which try to help 
defend the country, try to help keep us all safer, try to prevent gross 
inhumane acts of slaughter by the terrorists, which we know they are 
intent upon committing.
  And so I think it is important as we focus down on some of these 
specific issues, and we should talk about them, to keep the larger 
context in mind. The gentleman from Florida has helped to do that. In a 
little bit, I want to talk in greater length about the oversight 
subcommittee, because I think it is important to say that the chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee, at the beginning of this Congress, decided to 
create a special oversight subcommittee of the House Intelligence 
Committee.
  And our charge is to focus at greater depth and with greater 
persistency on some of the key intelligence issues which we face. And 
we take that job very seriously. And I think we can do the job very 
seriously, in part because we usually do not do our job in front of the 
cameras. We do not do our job for partisanship.
  We do not come out on the floor, in press conferences or in other 
places, and try to bash the administration or to protect the 
administration. We try to be tough, but fair. And that is the way that 
real oversight, particularly in the area of national security, ought to 
be done, rather than posturing and other things that we have seen from 
time to time. The problem is the work you do in the Intelligence 
Committee cannot be talked about openly. And so there is very little 
one can say about the specifics.
  But just because we cannot come and detail all of our activities and 
some of what we found and what more we have to do, one should never 
take that to mean that there is not serious oversight and investigation 
ongoing, because there is.
  And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that worldwide terrorism 
presents a number of challenges to us. It is absolutely true, as many 
of the speakers have said, that we must maintain our American values, 
and at the same time try to prevent acts of terrorism.
  Our problem is, when we just focus on one part of that equation, when 
we forget that the purpose here is to prevent acts of terrorism, then I 
think we become unbalanced, our rhetoric becomes more sensational, and 
unfortunately I think the American people do not benefit from such 
talk.
  I can only say that with my partner, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer), and other members of the subcommittee, with our bipartisan 
staff, we take our job very seriously. And we will pursue that 
investigation very seriously. And we will try to make sure that 
American values are maintained, and at the same time our troops, our 
homeland security folks, our policemen and others, have the information 
they need to keep us safe. We will keep both goals in mind.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage today in a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And let me first thank the 
gentlewoman for her consistent leadership on so many national security 
issues.
  Let me just say briefly that I appreciate this opportunity to discuss 
an issue very briefly that is of critical importance, that is, making 
sure that the United States Government is not involved in violating the 
will of any people anywhere in the world which duly elects a government 
through democratic means.
  In 1982, Congress passed the Boland amendment, which prohibited the 
Federal Government from using taxpayer dollars for the purpose of 
overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua. I offered an amendment to 
this intelligence authorization bill that broadens this concept to 
ensure that our Federal intelligence dollars are not used to support 
groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically 
elected governments. Unfortunately it was not made in order.
  In an ideal world, we would not specifically stipulate this, but 
events in Haiti and more recently in Venezuela have led me to wonder 
whether we need to codify this straightforward, nonpartisan position. 
So I think that we must do all we can not only to support

[[Page H4837]]

the spirit of democracy throughout the world, but also to ensure that 
it is allowed to flourish and to grow.
  I would like to ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) if 
she has any thought about how we need to move forward, basically 
because I believe again, as I said earlier, that such actions fly in 
the face of our own democratic principles.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue. I want to assure her 
that I understand and support the general principle she has raised, and 
I believe that we should be mindful of that issue.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments and her attention to this issue. I look forward to working 
with her.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.)
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous 
speakers said we just do not get it. To him I would say, and to others, 
yes, we do get it.
  I came back to this body after 9/11 precisely because of the attack 
on Americans and the loss of three people that I knew personally. I 
came back here with the idea that we needed to fight for America and 
defend ourselves and not tear up the Constitution in the process.
  The suggestion made by some that we are engaged in wide-scale 
torture, that we are somehow morally equivalent with others is 
absolutely absurd. The proper way for us to respond to allegations is 
to do what the Congress is supposed to do, and what the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry) said we are about, which is the proper 
congressional oversight, not mock hearings like we had last week, not 
setting up independent commissions, not politicizing this, but doing it 
in the way the Constitution requires us to do it.
  If there is any problem, it is with the Congress not doing proper 
oversight. We have the commitment from the committees and the 
subcommittees to do it. Let us rise above partisanship. Let us do the 
right thing, and let us get rid of this nonsense of a moral equivalency 
between the United States and some of those terrible regimes around the 
world. It is not worthy of this body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such 
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this restrictive rule.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered a reasonable 
amendment, which was rejected by the Rules Committee, that would have 
put the House on record in support of a bipartisan, independent 
investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the 
facility at Guantanamo Bay.
  Because there are known cases of abuse, and there are more questions 
than answers about the extent of abuse on people held by or for the 
United States, we need to shine a very bright light on detainee 
treatment. Only when we know the full scale of the problem will we be 
able to stop, prevent, and correct any wrongs that have been done in 
our country's name.
  And if it is true, as Vice President Cheney says, that the prisoners 
are peddling lies, then let us investigate prisoner treatment so that 
we have evidence and not just assertions. The United States should be 
the standard bearer of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout 
the world. However, it has been over a year since the story broke about 
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and we have yet to conduct a through 
independent investigation.
  Opening the door to an independent investigation would be a major 
step toward returning our country's standing as a moral leader. And to 
those who would try to justify what we do by saying, well, it is not as 
bad as those unspeakable beheadings or other things, well, I should 
certainly hope not, because we are not like them. We are better than 
them. We are the United States of America.
  And now, those who call on our country to uphold the rule of law and 
who reject becoming debased ourselves by conducting torture, they 
become the object of relentless criticism. Those patriots who want to 
stand up to our values and our belief in the rule of law, we are a 
proud and a great Nation blessed with immense freedom and with military 
personnel who proudly defend us. We should not fear the truth; we 
should demand it with an independent investigation.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right when she 
says we are better than them. She is absolutely right when she says we 
are not equal to them. I hope she shares that thought with the senior 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with 
interest. And I rise in support of the rule and in support of a 
realistic foreign policy that some in this Chamber apparently 
misunderstand.
  The actions of September 11, 2001, were not criminal acts; they were 
acts of war against this Nation.

                              {time}  1400

  One of the fundamental problems when you separate all the venom and 
vitriol that we have heard in this debate and certainly from someone in 
the other body who compared American fighting men and women to the 
Soviets with their gulags and the Third Reich and Pol Pot's regime in 
Cambodia, one of the fundamental problems seems to be the willingness 
of many to equate this with some sort of law enforcement problem. It is 
not.
  And to those who are expending such efforts and such rhetoric on 
behalf of the alleged rights of enemies of this country, let me remind 
you that the Constitution's first three words are ``We the people,'' 
not ``they the terrorists,'' or ``they the insurgents,'' or ``they the 
accused.''
  In wartime the Constitution is a mechanism for the survival of the 
Republic. And as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out years ago, the 
Constitution is not a suicide pact. This need not be a partisan 
controversy. One look only so far as the History Channel as columnist 
Thomas Sowell pointed out 2 weeks ago. Do you know what happened at 
World War II to unfortunate combatants; that is, those without 
representing a nation state or wearing the uniform or insignia of a 
military nation or state during World War II?
  When those unlawful combatants were apprehended, they were lined up 
and shot. The Commander in Chief at that time was Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. That was in adherence with the Geneva Convention.
  We are in a war where people behead Americans. It would be nice to 
see one-tenth of the passion on behalf of American citizens that we see 
for the terrorists and their alleged rights. Vote in favor of the rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second to speak to my 
friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and he is my friend, but I think he 
is wrong when he says human rights issues are something that we just do 
not get.
  Well, that is wrong. I think we do get it. I think it is fairly clear 
to the Members of this body, it is fairly clear to the people of this 
country, that many of you Democrats are very interested in human rights 
of the prisoners down in Guantanamo Bay, people who would kill your 
children, who would kill your families and destroy your homes. And we 
are interested in getting information in a reasonable manner from 
prisoners or terrorists in order to save the lives of American people, 
to save the lives of our military.
  So it is a simple matter. It comes down to whose side are you really 
on?

[[Page H4838]]

Are you on the side of the terrorists so you can be against President 
Bush, or are you on the side of the American people and the American 
families?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I answer the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am 
on the side of the American people and I am on the side of the rights 
that I believe are principles inherent in our United States 
Constitution and throughout the United States Constitution.
  I do not have time to yield to the gentleman, otherwise I would.
  Make no mistake about it, most of us feel as strongly as most of you 
do, and I do not think that anybody here ought question our patriotism.
  This Nation is the greatest Nation on this Earth, and we do not have 
to have anything to fear. We do not have to have any worry about trying 
people who harm this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule 
so we can consider the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Waxman amendment has been 
explained. It would establish an independent commission, similar to the 
9/11 Commission, to conduct an extensive, bipartisan, and thorough 
investigation into the multiple accounts of prisoner abuse that have 
occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the shocking and 
humiliating photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib first became 
public. I doubt there is any Member of this Chamber who was not 
appalled at that disgraceful act. Yet, in spite of these events, the 
House has done very little of substance.
  Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to conclude by saying, a ``no'' vote 
will allow Members to vote on the Waxman amendment, so we can take 
immediate steps to fully investigate these very disturbing incidents of 
prisoner mistreatment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a vibrant, robust debate and a good solid 
beginning of the undeniable debate that will follow on the underlying 
bill.
  In case you missed it from the debate over the rule, there is a lot 
more to this rule than just Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is an 
important rule that allows us to consider the intelligence 
authorization bill that gives our men and women around the world the 
tools and skill and support they need to win the war against terrorism 
on our behalf, important new assets in terms of technical capabilities, 
and a tremendous investment in the most important piece that we have in 
intelligence, which is those hardworking men and women who were called 
to public service.
  This is a fair rule. It allows for a great deal more consideration of 
these issues that we have already begun to discuss in terms of 
detainees and the role of American intelligence in our society and the 
tools that they need around the world. I encourage everyone to support 
it and to support the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

   Previous Question on H. Res. 331--Rule for H.R. 2475 Intelligence 
                 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

       ``In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution 
     if offered by Representative Waxman of California or a 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order or demand for division of the question, shall 
     not be subject to amendment, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4)
       Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Waxman referred to 
     in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment to H.R. 2475, As Reported Offered by Mr. Waxman of California

       At the end, add the following new title:

    TITLE V--ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE 
                            DETAINEE ABUSES

     SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established in the legislative branch the 
     Independent Commission on the Investigation of Detainee 
     Abuses (in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 502. DUTIES.

       (a) Investigation.--The Commission shall conduct a full and 
     complete investigation of the abuses of detainees in 
     connection with intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 
     Freedom, or any operation within the Global War on Terrorism, 
     including but not limited to the following:
       (1) The extent of the abuses.
       (2) Why the abuses occurred.
       (3) Who is responsible for the abuses.
       (4) Whether any particular Department of Defense, 
     Department of State, Department of Justice, Central 
     Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, or White 
     House policies, procedures, or decisions facilitated the 
     detainee abuses.
       (5) What policies, procedures, or mechanisms failed to 
     prevent the abuses.
       (6) What legislative or executive actions should be taken 
     to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future.
       (7) The extent, if any, to which Guantanamo Detention 
     Center policies influenced policies at the Abu Ghraib prison 
     and other detention centers in and outside Iraq.
       (b) Assessment, Analysis, and Evaluation.--During the 
     course of its investigation under subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall assess, analyze, and evaluate relevant 
     persons, policies, procedures, reports, and events, including 
     but not limited to the following:
       (1) The Military Chain of Command.
       (2) The National Security Council.
       (3) The Department of Justice.
       (4) The Department of State.
       (5) The Office of the White House Counsel.
       (6) The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.
       (7) The approval process for interrogation techniques used 
     at detention facilities in Iraq, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
       (8) The integration of military police and military 
     intelligence operations to coordinate detainee interrogation.
       (9) The roles and actions of private civilian contractors 
     in the abuses and whether they violated the Military 
     Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act or any other United States 
     statutes and international treaties.
       (10) The role of nongovernmental organizations' warnings to 
     United States officials about the abuses.
       (11) The role of Congress and whether it was fully informed 
     throughout the process that uncovered these abuses.
       (12) The extent to which the United States complied with 
     the applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 
     and the extent to which the United States may have violated 
     international law by restricting the access of the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross to detainees.

     SEC. 503. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     members, of whom--
       (1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall 
     serve as chairman of the Commission;
       (2) 1 member shall be jointly appointed by the minority 
     leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives, who shall serve as vice chairman of the 
     Commission;
       (3) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate;
       (4) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (5) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate; and
       (6) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
       (1) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to 
     the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government or any State or local government.
       (2) Other qualifications.--Individuals that shall be 
     appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States 
     citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of 
     experience in such professions as governmental service, law 
     enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration, 
     intelligence gathering, human rights policy, and foreign 
     affairs.
       (3) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the 
     Commission shall be appointed within 45 days following the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet and begin the 
     operations of the Commission as soon as practicable. After 
     its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call 
     of the chairman or a majority of its members.
       (c) Quorum; Vacancies.--Six members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Conflicts of Interest.--Each member appointed to the 
     Commission shall submit a

[[Page H4839]]

     financial disclosure report pursuant to the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, notwithstanding the minimum required 
     rate of compensation or time period employed.

     SEC. 504. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the 
     authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this title--
       (A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths; and
       (B) subject to paragraph (2)(A), require, by subpoena or 
     otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
     the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
     memoranda, papers, and documents,

     as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or 
     designated member may determine advisable.
       (2) Subpoenas.--
       (A) Issuance.--
       (i) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this 
     subsection only--

       (I) by the agreement of the chairman and the vice chairman; 
     or
       (II) by the affirmative vote of 6 members of the 
     Commission.

       (ii) Signature.--Subject to clause (i), subpoenas issued 
     under this subsection may be issued under the signature of 
     the chairman or any member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission.
       (B) Enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under this subsection, the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or 
     where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear at any designated place to 
     testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       (ii) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of 
     any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when 
     summoned under authority of this subsection, the Commission 
     may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact 
     constituting such failure to the appropriate United States 
     attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for 
     its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures 
     as if the United States attorney had received a certification 
     under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
       (3) Scope.--In carrying out its duties under this Act, the 
     Commission may examine the actions and representations of the 
     current Administration as well as prior Administrations.
       (b) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties of this Act.
       (c) Information From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, 
     office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the 
     Federal Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and 
     statistics for the purposes of this Act. Each department, 
     bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 
     establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent 
     authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, 
     estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon 
     request made by the chairman, the chairman of any 
     subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any 
     member designated by a majority of the Commission.
       (2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
     Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and 
     disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff 
     consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and 
     Executive Orders.
       (d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis administrative support and other services 
     for the performance of the Commission's functions.
       (2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the 
     assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and 
     agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission 
     such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support 
     services as they may determine advisable and as may be 
     authorized by law.
       (e) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (f) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.

     SEC. 505. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
       (b) Public Meetings and Release of Public Versions of 
     Reports.--The Commission shall--
       (1) hold public hearings and meetings to the extent 
     appropriate; and
       (2) release public versions of the reports required under 
     section 509.
       (c) Public Hearings.--Any public hearings of the Commission 
     shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection 
     of information provided to or developed for or by the 
     Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, 
     or Executive order.

     SEC. 506. STAFF OF COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairman, in 
     consultation with vice chairman, in accordance with rules 
     agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as 
     may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its 
     functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no 
     rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the 
     equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The staff director and any personnel of 
     the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
       (B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be 
     detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the 
     Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, 
     status, and privileges of his or her regular employment 
     without interruption.
       (c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 507. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be 
     compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that 
     member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of 
     the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 508. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND 
                   STAFF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the appropriate 
     Federal agencies or departments shall cooperate with the 
     Commission in expeditiously providing to the Commission 
     members and staff appropriate security clearances to the 
     extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and 
     requirements.
       (b) Exception.--No person shall be provided with access to 
     classified information under this title without the 
     appropriate required security clearance access.

     SEC. 509. REPORTS OF COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

       (a) Interim Reports.--The Commission may submit to Congress 
     and the President interim reports containing such findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures as 
     have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress and the President a final report containing such 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective 
     measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission 
     members.
       (c) Form of Report.--Each report prepared under this 
     section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 
     contain a classified annex.
       (d) Recommendation to Make Public Certain Classified 
     Information.--If the Commission determines that it is in the 
     public interest that some or all of the information contained 
     in a classified annex of a report under this section be made 
     available to the public, the Commission shall make a 
     recommendation to the congressional intelligence committees 
     to make such information public, and the congressional 
     intelligence committees shall consider the recommendation 
     pursuant to the procedures under subsection (e).
       (e) Procedure for Declassifying Information.--
       (1) The procedures referred to in subsection (d) are the 
     procedures described in--
       (A) with respect to the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives, clause 11(g) of 
     Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, One 
     Hundred Ninth Congress; and
       (B) with respect to the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate, section 8 of

[[Page H4840]]

     Senate Resolution 400, Ninety-Fourth Congress.
       (2) In this section, the term ``congressional intelligence 
     committees'' means--
       (A) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

     SEC. 510. TERMINATION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this Act, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the 
     final report is submitted under section 509(b).
       (b) Administrative Activities Before Termination.--The 
     Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including 
     providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its 
     reports and disseminating the final report.

     SEC. 511. FUNDING.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated funds not to exceed $5,000,000 for 
     purposes of the activities of the Commission under this Act.
       (b) Duration of Availability.--Amounts made available to 
     the Commission under subsection (a) shall remain available 
     until the termination of the Commission.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carter
     Herseth
     Lewis (GA)
     Murphy
     Sessions
     Walden (OR)
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1431

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. ISTOOK changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________