[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15426-H15438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 859, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the United States Government, the Community 
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 
Disability System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the conference report 
is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 6, 2007, at page H14462.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last week was a remarkable week in the intelligence community. It was 
the best of times and the worst of times.
  First, the good news. The week began with a release of a new National 
Intelligence Estimate on Iran. That estimate was a careful, meaningful 
review of the intelligence on Iran, which many of us hope will bring 
about a significant change in our approach to Iran, which is still a 
significant concern to all of us.
  Then came the bad news. We ended the week with the revelation that 
the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of interrogations. 
This is also a subject of great concern to all of us in this House. The 
committee had a briefing on it just yesterday, and we will continue to 
investigate the issue thoroughly.
  Both the good news and the bad news have one thing in common. They 
show that careful oversight of the Intelligence Community is absolutely 
essential and absolutely critical. The authorization process is where 
we do much of our oversight and it's where we can address problem 
areas.
  Madam Speaker, today, for the first time in 3 years, the House will 
vote on a conference report on an intelligence authorization bill. I am 
proud of it, and I hope my colleagues are too. This is the largest 
intelligence authorization in the history of our country. It is the 
result of 11 months of work done by our committee.
  The conference process was a challenge. The Senate bill and the House 
bill were substantially different, but we worked hard to arrive at a 
middle ground. In conference, we further improved the bill. The 
conference adopted amendments offered by Members from both Chambers and 
both parties. This includes an amendment by the distinguished ranking 
member of the intelligence committee.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill that will strengthen our 
intelligence community and our Nation's security. It adds significant 
funds to most of the Nation's satellite architecture. It reduces 
funding for nonperforming intelligence activities in Iraq, while 
robustly funding activities against al Qaeda and terrorism in 
Afghanistan and around the globe.
  I am particularly proud of the fact that it also includes funding for 
counterterrorism, human intelligence collection, analysis, training and 
languages. We have carefully tailored provisions to enhance the 
diversity of the intelligence community, which is a critical investment 
for the future of the intelligence community.
  In another investment for the future, we've added significant funding 
for advanced research and development. This will also maintain our 
technical edge over our adversaries. We have also provided money to 
repair and replace aging infrastructure and to train and equip 
linguists and intelligence collectors, so vital and important in the 
global war on terrorism.
  This bill promotes accountability within the intelligence community, 
and it puts the intelligence committee back in the business of 
oversight. It requires reporting to Congress on several issues of major 
concern to all of us, including a report on compliance with the 
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and related provisions of the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 regarding detentions and interrogations, as 
well as Justice Department legal opinions related to all of these 
activities. It includes provisions to strengthen oversight by the 
Inspector General in the intelligence community, including a provision 
establishing a confirmed communitywide Inspector General armed with 
essential authorities.
  The conference report also provides for Senate confirmation of the 
Directors of the National Security Agency and the National 
Reconnaissance Office. For agencies with such significant budgets and 
acquisition authority and the potential to impact American privacy 
rights, we think the Congress ought to have a say in their Directors 
through Senate confirmation.
  In short, Madam Speaker, the conference report is a result of a 
bipartisan, bicameral effort to strengthen both the intelligence 
community and congressional oversight. I will be proud to vote for it, 
and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The 
process and the substance of the bill fall sadly short. As one of the 
crossover Members who serves on both the Select Intelligence and the 
House Armed Services

[[Page H15427]]

Committees, it's critical that the House Armed Services Committee and 
Select Committee on Intelligence work together on national security 
programs that serve both the military and national intelligence. 
Regretfully, the Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Republican, 
Mr. Hunter of California, was denied any input into the joint programs 
that are shared by both committees.
  On substance, I had hoped the bill would have improved from the 
House-passed measure in May. That didn't happen. The conference report 
includes even more politically charged provisions from the Senate bill 
that micromanage and politicize the interrogation techniques of the 
intelligence community.
  In case anyone in the Chamber has forgotten, we're at war with 
terrorists. Should we really be publishing our interrogation manuals 
for the entire world and for terrorists to see?
  On a positive note, I would like to mention two specific program 
areas that are important to both the military and intelligence 
communities: the U-2 aircraft and space radar programs. The conference 
report language keeps the U-2 and its critical intelligence 
capabilities flying until we are truly transitioned over to the Global 
Hawk.
  And I am also pleased that the bill authorizes funding for space 
radar capabilities, though at a lower funding level than I would like. 
This is an essential capability that combat commanders and service 
intelligence chiefs have continuously requested.
  Madam Speaker, we can do better than this, and I urge all my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I just want to note for the record that Mr. 
Skelton was not available to provide input to the conference group, and 
Mr. Hunter was there but had to leave, so that is the reason they did 
not provide input.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, this bill, our first in 3 years, will 
strengthen the oversight of the intelligence community, require reports 
on the administration's compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act, and 
reduce the overall number of contractors employed by intelligence 
agencies.
  But for me, the most important element of this bill, the main reason 
I am supporting this conference report, was added just 1 week ago 
during conference. When the intelligence oversight committees gathered 
to consider the conference report, we inserted an amendment that would 
require all intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field 
Manual on interrogations. This would mean no more torture and no more 
questions about what the CIA is allowed to do behind closed doors. The 
Army Field Manual is unclassified, and explicitly prohibits 
waterboarding, use of hoods, electric shocks and mock executions. The 
military has voluntarily imposed these restrictions upon itself, and 
now we must impose the same rules on the intelligence community.
  I'm a new member of the Intelligence Committee. The Speaker called me 
at the beginning of this session and asked if I would serve my country 
by joining this important and distinguished group, and I consider my 
work on this bill to be just that.
  The intelligence agencies we oversee operate in the shadows, and on 
the Intelligence Committee, we learn about policies and priorities and 
problems that no one in the broader public will ever see. Some of these 
issues are very troubling. Some of them keep me up at night.
  The question of interrogation techniques is one of the most important 
I've dealt with on the committee, and I'm gratified we're having this 
debate today in a public forum.
  My colleagues in the minority complain that the inclusion of this 
provision will make it impossible for our intelligence officers to 
protect the American people from terrorists. As a member of the 
Intelligence Committee, I assure you that those claims are false. But 
don't take my word for it. Please consider the advice of General David 
Petraeus, who said in a May 10 memo to the members of the Armed Forces 
that the Army Field Manual allowed intelligence officials to get the 
information they need. Among the things he said is, quote, ``our 
experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army 
Field Manual on human intelligence collector operations that was 
published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work 
effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''
  If we don't pass this bill with this provision, how can we assume the 
moral authority to criticize Burma or any other nation for its 
treatment of prisoners?
  In the end, we have hurt our own country and undermined the real 
source of our strength, the rule of law and the sanctity of our 
Constitution. We're fighting for the soul of our country today. I urge 
the adoption of this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes 
to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in disappointment, really, of 
this bill. There is no doubt that there are a number of good provisions 
in it, thanks to the work of the chairman, ranking member and others. 
But I believe that we could and we should have done better. And I'll 
say this, Madam Speaker, in the context of the intelligence issues of 
the moment.
  As the chairman noted, there is a great deal of turmoil about the 
product of the intelligence community on specific issues today, and I 
would recommend that all our colleagues read two editorials in today's 
Washington Post, one by Dr. Henry Kissinger that talks about the 
politicization of intelligence and the other by Mr. Ignatius that talks 
about the congressional oversight of intelligence, which has broken. We 
need to do things to improve that oversight, to increase the 
credibility of the community and congressional responsibilities in 
overseeing the intelligence community, but, unfortunately, this bill 
does not do the things, many of the things that could help improve our 
credibility and improve the community. For example, just a few days 
ago, this body voted for a motion to instruct to remove all earmarks in 
this bill and to increase human intelligence collection.
  Now, part of the reason I believe we should have done that is to 
increase the credibility of Congress in overseeing the intelligence 
community because there have been problems in this area. But, 
unfortunately, the conference report that comes back to us today did 
not follow the clear bipartisan vote of the House in removing earmarks 
and in maximizing human intelligence collection, which is very 
critical. And it is a missed opportunity to improve the community and 
to improve ourselves in our responsibilities. And I don't think we can 
emphasize enough the importance of human intelligence collection in the 
face of the threats we face today. Much of the intelligence that will 
keep Americans safe is not going to come from satellites or other sorts 
of technical collection. It's going to come from human beings who 
understand the capabilities and the intention of another small group of 
human beings hidden in a cave or in a compound somewhere. And that's 
where we have to put the emphasis. Unfortunately, this bill does not do 
as much as it should.

                              {time}  1145

  Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would say that I believe it's a mistake to 
telegraph to al Qaeda or other potential enemies exactly what we're 
going to do when we capture you. And I believe that that provision of 
this bill that basically gives your playbook to our enemies increases 
the danger to American lives. As the gentlelady from Illinois said, it 
does not eliminate our ability to protect this country, but it 
increases the danger; and for that reason, the bill should be rejected.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a fellow Vietnam veteran and a valued member of our 
House Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  Our intelligence professionals are on the front lines of a critically 
important campaign, a campaign against a determined enemy, an enemy 
that's ruthless, cunning, and does not abide by the rules.
  In my past, I served our Nation on the front lines in a different 
campaign

[[Page H15428]]

against another determined enemy. My experience in Vietnam taught me a 
lot about what our Nation needs to do when it sends its best and 
brightest off to protect itself from threats abroad.
  It taught me that a Nation needs to invest in its national security 
professionals to ensure that its men and women on the front lines have 
the best and most effective training possible. One of the principles of 
war is intelligence. You cannot have a successful strategy without 
knowing your enemy. Absolutely essential, saves lives.
  I'm proud to say that the conference report does, in fact, invest in 
our intelligence professionals.
  It increases spending on language training at the DNI level, 
Department of National Intelligence, so languages can be leveraged 
across the intelligence community. Because of bipartisan concerns about 
language skills, it also requires an annual report on language 
proficiency.
  It fully funds our Nation's counterterrorism effort to ensure that 
our human intelligence officers have what they need to collect against 
our Nation's most important intelligence targets.
  It increases training and funding for analysts to ensure that when 
our intelligence collectors gather important information on the front 
lines that we have trained and qualified professionals back home that 
can piece the information together and inform policymakers about the 
important issues of our time.
  Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to highlight one provision of the 
conference report that I worked hard to include. It will require 
significant and critical reporting on the nuclear programs of Iran and 
North Korea, once in the 2008 fiscal year and twice in 2009. Last 
week's National Intelligence Estimate showed us that the intelligence 
can change significantly over time and that we have to constantly 
reassess our beliefs. I don't want us to forget about the threats that 
are a little further down the road while we're focused on today. That's 
why I've been pushing this provision for 2 years, and I'm glad it's in 
the conference report.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report today. 
I'm disappointed. I do compliment the chairman in an effort to move in 
a bipartisan direction. I think it's something that both he and I feel 
is essential, that at a time of risk, whether we're facing radical 
jihadists or whether we're facing the threat from China, North Korea, 
Iran, or other threats around the globe, it would be to the betterment 
of the country if we could reach a position on a bipartisan basis where 
we could come to the floor in support of a reauthorization or an 
authorization of the intelligence community. I can't do that today. I 
don't believe that this bill moves us in the direction that we need to 
go.
  Earlier, a colleague talked a little bit about interrogation methods 
and these types of things. One of the problems that has happened over 
the last number of years, it's talked about in the editorial that my 
colleague from Texas referenced, the administration on a bipartisan 
basis reaching out to Congress, briefing Members of Congress on various 
programs that they felt were essential to keeping America safe and 
actually have kept the homeland safe ever since 9/11, have enabled us 
to put together the strategies and the tactics that have ensured that 
we have not been attacked again.
  The problem is these programs have leaked out, whether it's from the 
community, whether it's perhaps from Congress, or wherever they have 
leaked out, even though Congress has been involved in the process and 
has reviewed these processes at their inception. These Members who were 
briefed and at one time said, yeah, we support these programs, have 
moved away from them and now that they're public said, well, yeah, we 
never had all the information; there's nothing that we could do about 
that. These programs need to be done in secret.
  There are problems with this bill. I will detail more of these as we 
go through.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who serves as the chairman 
of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the conference report in front of us today, 
imperfect as it is, addresses several key issues facing our 
intelligence community today: attracting and retaining people with 
foreign languages and cultures; bringing speed to security clearance 
processes for new hires; the provision directing the Director of 
National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance 
process; and a number of other things.
  But as the person appointed by Speaker Pelosi to chair the Select 
Intelligence Oversight Panel, I'm especially interested and supportive 
of the provisions of this legislation that will improve the ability of 
Congress to exert oversight of the intelligence activities of this 
country, such as requirements that the intelligence community report to 
Congress and requirements that strengthen the Inspectors General in the 
intelligence community.
  Intelligence is among the most important functions of our government 
because intelligence can save lives, prevent war, and assist our 
soldiers and protect Americans. But it is also among the most 
dangerous, dangerous because of the damage of intelligence poorly done, 
the damage that can be done to American interests and America's 
reputation and the freedoms and humane behavior that Americans hold 
dear. So these oversight provisions are particularly important.
  Another provision of this legislation that I'm pleased to see is the 
requirement that the DNI produce National Intelligence Estimates on 
Iran and North Korea. I'm pleased to see that it seems that some 
reforms are now reflected in the way that the intelligence community 
does these National Intelligence Estimates. The recent Iran report 
appears to be a product of a reformed intelligence process.
  Now, I've argued for years that we should have only one policy on how 
to handle detainees, and this bill addresses that issue head-on by 
requiring that the U.S. Government personnel and contractors, anyone 
involved in detainee operations, adhere to the Army Field Manual.
  The bottom line is this: no torture of detainees, period. I'm 
thankful that we're finally taking that issue straight on; and in light 
of last week's news involving the CIA's detainee operations, I think 
it's clear that we still have more work to do.
  The revelations surrounding and the ongoing investigations of the 
CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations only 
underscore why Congress must establish clear policies for the video 
recording of detainee interrogations. I'm offering legislation in 
addition to what we're dealing with today that will deal with this, and 
I look forward to working with Chairman Reyes and the House leadership 
to bring that measure to the floor for a vote very soon.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New 
York (Mr. McHugh), a member of the committee.
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Like my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), I rise today in 
disappointment, and I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman. 
But in his opening comments, the chairman spoke about last week's NIE 
on Iran as the best of times; and, clearly, we all take heart in the 
possibility that Iran has put aside its program to develop nuclear 
power for weapons systems. It's an opening we need to vigorously pursue 
and cautiously monitor.
  But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, this is hardly all good news because 
it also, in a less noted part of the report, talked about what we 
missed. It confirmed that they had an active program. It confirmed that 
that was going forward, and it confirmed that it happened without our 
knowledge, and many of the shortcomings that made that reality come 
about are contained in this bill.
  There were a number of reasons for that failure, but some, sadly, are 
reflected starkly in this bill. And, indeed, for all of its good 
intentions, for all of its considerable effort, this legislation is 
sadly an example of high rhetoric that clouds stark reality.
  As Mr. Thornberry and as the distinguished ranking member have said, 
there are a number of deficiencies,

[[Page H15429]]

things that threaten the viability of our intelligence services. In my 
opinion, most importantly, the failure again to provide adequate 
resources for human intelligence collection, whether we're talking 
about Iran or any other highly denied theater, it is that ability to 
get on the ground, to find the intelligence that would have helped us 
not have incorrect NIEs in places like Iran in the past and protect 
each and every American there.
  As also has been noted, this bill really does fail to provide key 
surveillance authorities the kind of legislation authority that is 
necessary to streamline surveillance of foreign terrorist targets in 
foreign countries, again harkening up the issue that we're clouding the 
reality of today's world with high rhetoric and ideals.
  On that point, let me make another observation. Mr. Thornberry spoke 
of not telegraphing our interrogation techniques to our enemy. I would 
disagree with Mr. Thornberry a little bit there in that I think we're 
not just telegraphing; we are actually giving them the entire playbook. 
None of us, none of us in this government, none of us in this Chamber 
support torture. We have made that clear. But to give the clear 
playbook to our enemies, those that would do the greatest harm, as we 
saw on September 11, through our interrogation techniques, I think, is 
a very unwise step to make.
  For those reasons, I would urge we take this bill, defeat it here 
today and rework it in a way which better serves the interests of each 
and every American citizen.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), who serves as our subcommittee chairman 
of our Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. We all should be proud of the bipartisan, bicameral product. I 
want to thank Chairman Reyes and also Ranking Member Hoekstra for your 
leadership in helping us put this together. It's very important for our 
country and our national security.
  It has been 3 years since an intelligence authorization bill has been 
in front of the President for signature. We worked across the aisle 
with our Republican counterparts to put America first. We must pass 
this conference report.
  We are the most powerful country in the world because we control the 
skies. Our country faces serious threat from China and Russia. These 
countries are working continuously to outpace our security efforts, 
particularly in space.
  This intelligence authorization addresses those, as well as other 
critical national security issues. This past year, we have scrutinized 
all aspects of the intelligence community and insisted upon 
accountability and results.
  My congressional district includes the National Security Agency. The 
men and women of the NSA work tirelessly to keep our soldiers and our 
civilians on the the front lines safe. They're fighting the war on 
terrorism 24 hours a day all over the globe. I'm proud that this 
conference report gives NSA the infrastructure and tools they need to 
protect our country.
  This conference report also addresses some critical satellite issues. 
I assure you this Congress is looking into the problems associated with 
the space industry. We have made hard decisions. We've recommended 
changes, and we look to hold the administration accountable in the days 
ahead.
  I support this conference report, and I recommend its passage.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the 
State of Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today a bit disappointed but unfortunately not 
surprised. On December 4, just a week ago, the House of Representatives 
passed a motion to instruct conferees to remove the earmarks from this 
authorization.

                              {time}  1200

  That vote passed by a margin of 249-160.
  Now, I have a little bit of experience with amendments trying to 
strike earmarks, and I don't think I've ever come close to 249. That's 
a significant number of votes. That was a bipartisan total, in that 60 
Democrats joined Republicans to oppose these earmarks; yet these 
earmarks remain in the conference report. Every House earmark that was 
added remain in the conference report.
  Simply put, if controversial earmarks like these can remain in a 
report and aren't eliminated, what earmark will ever be eliminated? 
When will we ever get around to eliminating these?
  Let me just remind you that procedural irregularities surrounded the 
consideration of this bill when it came to the House. The earmark list 
required by the House rules was not submitted with the House report. 
The amendment review procedure was flawed. Members didn't have the 
critical time necessary to review these earmarks. In fact, the earmark 
list, when we finally got it, was submitted after the deadline to go to 
the Rules Committee to offer the amendments that would be considered. 
So we got the list of earmarks after the deadline to oppose them. So we 
had considerable irregularities going into this. And then we have a 
vote where the majority of this House, a clear majority, 249 Members, 
60 Members of the majority party, said please remove these earmarks; 
yet they remain. They're still here. Why are we doing that? Why are we 
doing that? If we can't remove these controversial earmarks, when will 
we ever remove any earmarks?
  Let me remind you as well there have been numerous, numerous 
newspaper articles, media accounts since that time about these same 
earmarks; some of the private companies they are going to, what kind of 
consideration or scrutiny was given. I can tell you, very little, if we 
don't even get the list in time to be able to offer amendments to 
strike them and then we're presented with a conference report where we 
have no opportunity to strike individual earmarks after a majority of 
the House has said let's remove them all. Why are we bringing this bill 
up? Why are we being urged to vote ``yes'' on this? I would ask the 
majority, please tell us.
  As mentioned, I attempted before to convene a secret session to 
provide a review of the classified earmarks in the bill. That was 
defeated. But I would ask my colleagues who are associated with the 23 
House earmarks in this bill to please voluntarily give them up. Concede 
that no proper scrutiny was given. And I will offer legislation in the 
next session to actually defund each of these earmarks in this 
authorization bill.
  And I would encourage all of those, and I look forward to having all 
of the 249 Members who voted to remove these earmarks, to join me in 
pushing that legislation.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The gentleman from Texas has 
15\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Michigan has 18 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. With that, I will reserve my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 
2 minutes.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
conference report on the 2008 intelligence authorization bill. I think 
that this report does move us in the wrong direction and sets some of 
the wrong priorities.
  It rejects the bipartisan approach for congressional authorization of 
the intelligence community at a time when we really do need to be 
working together. There were efforts to do this on a bipartisan basis. 
The end result of the product is that it is not a bipartisan bill. As 
my colleague from Arizona just stated, last week we had an overwhelming 
vote to remove earmarks from a national security bill. It went to 
conference. All the earmarks were maintained in the bill.
  When we were at conference, my colleague from the Armed Services 
Committee Duncan Hunter wanted to share his concerns about the bill. 
Ranking Member Hunter was denied an opportunity to speak at the 
conference. It is why today Duncan Hunter, the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, is opposed to this intelligence bill. At a 
time when intelligence and defense ought to be integrated and seamless, 
the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is opposed to this 
bill.
  One of the strategies that the President outlined in his reform for 
the intelligence community was to increase

[[Page H15430]]

HUMINT, to significantly increase the size of the HUMINT individuals, 
people collecting human intelligence, put us on a glide path to 
significantly increase that critical asset. This bill falls far short 
of funding that glide path that I thought we had agreed upon on a 
bipartisan basis, saying if we are going to be effective, we need to 
have more human intelligence.
  For these and other reasons, I oppose this intelligence bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am pleased that this 
conference report will improve our security and protect the freedoms 
that make this country so great. It includes critical funding for 
counterterrorism, human intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, 
as well as making strong progress in improving our overhead 
architecture. And on that point in particular, I commend not only 
Chairman Reyes but also Congressman Ruppersberger, as well as the staff 
for their hard work in this area, and I was proud to be a part of that 
effort.
  Furthermore, as my colleagues have discussed, it brings the 
intelligence community in line with the rest of our national security 
professionals by requiring it to abide by the Army Field Manual when 
conducting interrogations. As a member of the Intelligence Committee 
and, in general, members of the Intelligence Committee, we devote many 
hours behind closed doors addressing some of the most important 
national security issues facing our Nation. This conference report 
reflects the high priority that the committee, led by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), places on congressional oversight of the 
intelligence community. And I commend the chairman for his stepped-up 
efforts to ensure that oversight is a greater priority for the 
Intelligence Committee.
  We have included a number of provisions to restore a greater role for 
the Congress and to ensure that our intelligence activities are not 
subject to political influence. This measure requires the Central 
Intelligence Agency's Inspector General to audit all covert action 
programs every 3 years, for example. It also requires the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence to provide Congress with a 
comprehensive listing of all special access programs to ensure that the 
intelligence community is keeping us fully informed of these 
activities.
  It requires a report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 
2005 and provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 regarding 
detentions and interrogations and mandates that the administration 
provide Congress with the Justice Department's legal opinions related 
to these activities. And it requires semi-annual reports on what we 
know about nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea to make sure that 
we have accurate and timely information.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, strong oversight is essential to effective 
government and to the ability of our intelligence community to respond 
to the threats that we face today. This conference report will demand 
accountability and give our intelligence professionals the resources 
that they need to keep Americans safe.
  I want to thank, again, the chairman for his hard work, as well as 
the ranking member on this bill and as well as Members of the Senate 
for their hard work on this conference report.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 
2 minutes.
  As we continue to talk about the various weaknesses in this bill, let 
me highlight a few more.
  The report fails to provide for long-term authorities to streamline 
the surveillance of foreign terrorist targets, foreign countries. We 
need this capability to detect and prevent potential attacks to the 
United States.
  It has been talked a little bit about that this bill prohibits 
torture. Torture is already prohibited. The insinuation is that the 
Members of Congress who were briefed on the interrogation methods back 
in 2002, 2003, as they were briefed by the administration, that these 
Members signed off on interrogation methods that constituted torture. I 
don't believe that the current Speaker of the House signed off on those 
types of methods. The current Speaker of the House was one of the 
people that was briefed back in 2002 and 2003, along with other 
Members. Congress participated fully and had the opportunity to review 
the interrogation methods.
  As we capture individuals and decide to determine exactly what 
information, I don't think we should treat them as outlined in the Army 
Field Manual. These are not normal enemy combatants, they don't wear a 
uniform, and we shouldn't be applying military rules to the 
intelligence community.
  We talked about priorities. The report on Iran perhaps last week was 
a significant improvement over the National Intelligence Estimates that 
we had gotten from the community in previous years. We hope it was 
better. The one in 2005 the community now says was totally wrong. The 
conclusions they reached were very, very different.
  We need to improve our intelligence capabilities. What this report 
says is one of the key National Intelligence Estimates that we need to 
develop over the next year is on global warming. We've got lots more 
important targets and resources. Number one is rebuilding the 
capability of actually doing estimates and doing assessments before we 
start moving on to those targets. As we improve that process, let's 
focus on hard targets, not global warming, which is being discussed in 
just about every other committee on the Hill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman.
  As I said in my opening comments, this is the first time in 3 years 
that we've had an authorization bill. It's not a perfect bill and I 
think all of us acknowledge that, but the concept of democracy is that 
we work together. There are provisions in this bill by both Democrats 
and Republicans, and just because you don't like every aspect of it, 
you don't gather up your marbles and go home. It's about protecting our 
country. That's what we are trying to do. And I urge all Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman), who is the chairwoman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Intelligence and is the former ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank Chairman Reyes for yielding, and I'm proud to be 
part of this debate along with him, Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra and 
other friends from my long service on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee for 8 years, the last 4 as 
ranking member, I remain passionate about intelligence issues and very 
proud of the thousands of my constituents who comprise the industrial 
base that builds our intelligence satellites.
  As we have heard, this is the first intelligence authorization 
conference report in 3 years. It is the House's main tool for setting 
directions and conducting oversight of our intelligence community. It 
includes new tools, record funding, investments in language training, 
and a provision I have pushed for years: multilevel clearances.
  I honor and support the work of the brave women and men of our 
intelligence community around the world. Often their families cannot 
accompany them on their assignments and in many cases don't even know 
what they do. I visit them often, and if they are tuning in, let me say 
thank you again on behalf of a grateful Nation.
  Two items. First, interrogations policy. For years I have urged a 
clear legal framework around detention and interrogation policy in the 
post-9/11 world. The scandal over destruction of the interrogations 
tapes was avoidable. As ranking member in 2003, I urged in writing that 
planned destruction of tapes was ill advised. The committee was not 
advised in 2005 that the tapes

[[Page H15431]]

were destroyed, and the thorough hearings now in progress may reveal 
that the committee was deliberately misled. That would be disgraceful. 
There should not be a separate interrogations program. That's why I 
support the Senate language requiring all interrogation procedures to 
conform to the Army Field Manual.

                              {time}  1215

  Second, the Iran NIE. I've read it in its entirety, and I'm proud of 
those who wrote it. They did careful work, and they spoke truth to 
power.
  Intelligence is not policy. It is a tool which helps wise 
policymakers develop policy. Instead of blaming the messenger, policy 
experts and security experts should use the conclusions in the NIE to 
support tough sanctions, which we need, and diplomacy, which we lack. 
They should also understand that this NIE identifies gaps in what we 
know.
  This policymaker is wary of Iran's possession of advanced missiles, 
its work on many dual-use technologies that could be part of a 
restarted nuclear weapons program, and its ongoing sponsorship of 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, on balance, this conference report is responsible and it 
is needed. Vote ``aye.''
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As we continue to talk about this bill, and I agree with my 
colleague, the chairman of the committee, that as we go through this 
process, it is a democratic process, that you're not going to get 
everything that you would like to have. I appreciate the chairman's 
support on the amendment that we put in place in conference that said 
if the administration doesn't fully brief both intelligence committees 
on what happened and what we knew and what we didn't know about the 
attacks in Syria on September 6 by Israel, that we would fence off 
funds and they would not be available to the community to spend, 
because I believe that's an instance where the committee's being fully 
informed will enable us to better do our jobs because oversight is 
absolutely essential.
  But when I take a look at the totality of the bill, I don't believe 
that it moves us in the right direction. As my other colleague from 
California just stated, in 2005, when the National Intelligence 
Estimate came out and talked about their weapons programs, we both, 
together, voiced skepticism about the quality of the intelligence, not 
the quality of the analysis, but do we really have in place the sources 
and methods to make the kinds of conclusions that were made in that 
National Intelligence Estimate. And I think we both concluded that back 
in 2005, reaching those conclusions with high confidence, we weren't 
sure you could do that.
  Now, in 2007, we find out that in 2005 we were right and the 
community was wrong. We share some of those same concerns today. It is 
why it is so important that we build an intelligence community and 
where I think that this bill comes up short.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes; the 
gentleman from Michigan has 12 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. With that, I will reserve my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  As we talk about the totality of the bill and why this bill comes up 
short, let me highlight a couple of other areas.
  The conference report would subject four key positions, including the 
head of the NSA, the NRO, to the politicized Senate and confirmation 
process. If there is one thing that we've recognized through this 
process and through what's happened over the last few years, it is that 
the less politics, the less politicalization that we have in the 
intelligence arena, the better off we are. Creating four new confirmed 
positions in the Senate takes us in exactly the wrong direction.
  The conference report would create a duplicate of a cumbersome new 
DNI Inspector General that would provide little significant new 
oversight. This is not about whether there should be an Inspector 
General with very clear powers in the Office of the DNI, but let's make 
sure that those responsibilities are clearly aligned with the 
accountabilities and the responsibilities of the Inspector General in 
the Department of Defense.
  A number of these agencies in the community are dual functioned. What 
does that mean? It means that they have reporting responsibilities to 
the Director of National Intelligence, and they have responsibilities 
to the Secretary of Defense. And if we're going to create an Inspector 
General in the DNI, let's make sure that that Inspector General is 
coordinated with the activities in the Department of Defense. This bill 
fails to do that.
  This bill also takes the DNI in a couple of other directions. It 
grows the staff on a bipartisan basis in the House in a very different 
position than from where the Senate is. We want to cap the size of the 
DNI. It's not a doing function. This bill not only grows the size of 
the DNI; it gives them new responsibilities in terms of science and 
technology. The DNI was never intended to be a doing function; it was 
intended to be a coordinating function. This moves it again in the 
wrong direction.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is an important bill with an important objective, and the 
objective is to protect our country and to protect our Constitution.
  Ironically, the ranking member has just said that by having 
oversight, by having checks and balance on the intelligence community, 
somehow we politicize it. Our Founding Fathers, in the best sense of 
politicalization, wanted the civil sector to be involved. That's the 
purposes of this committee, I suggest to my friend.
  The fact of the matter is the intelligence community conducts 
critically important activities that we want them to conduct. But we 
give them extraordinary powers, and because of that, we need to make 
sure that they're not politicized. In fact, the irony is that I think 
most objective observers would say two things: first of all, that the 
defense establishment of our country has been probably the most 
politicized it's been in my 26 years in the Congress of the United 
States. That is not true, in my opinion, with the present Secretary, by 
the way, or with the present Deputy Secretary.
  Secondly, they have abandoned oversight. I have said many times that 
the previous Congress and the Congress before that and the Congress 
before that exercised less oversight than any previous Congress in 
which I've served. In fact, there was much more oversight by the 
Democratic Congress of the Clinton administration, in terms of 
oversight hearings, numbers, depth, than there was in the entire 
framework of the last 6 years under Republicans in the House, the 
Senate, and in the White House. This is a serious piece of legislation; 
it requires serious consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, my good friend, Congressman Reyes of Texas, and Mr. Hoekstra 
as well, who I think brings experience and judgment to this issue, 
although we have significant disagreements.
  This, as the chairman has said, is the first authorization bill in 3 
years to come to this floor. This authorization bill ought to come to 
the floor every year. Let me say briefly that this conference report 
enhances oversight. The reason, in my opinion, authorization bills 
didn't come to the floor in the last Congress is because oversight was 
not, as I said, as important. I've been disappointed with the oversight 
that's been exercised not only by this committee, but by others.
  This conference report comes to the floor to enhance oversight and 
effective management of the intelligence community and expects and 
requires accountability. It enhances the management authority and 
flexibility of the Director of National Intelligence. Why? Because we 
want to have a more effective intelligence organization. And it 
authorizes new funding to improve the effectiveness of intelligence 
programs and activities. I would think all of us support those two 
efforts.

[[Page H15432]]

  This legislation also includes an important provision, added in 
conference, that I want to talk about. It requires all American 
intelligence agencies and those under contract or subcontract with 
intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on 
interrogations. Some find fault with that. I want to speak to that.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take 
decisive action to detect, disrupt and, yes, eliminate terrorists who 
have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass 
killings of innocent men and women and children in an effort to advance 
their twisted aims. No one on this floor should gainsay that that is 
not the objective of every Member of this body.
  We can and we will act to prevail in the war on terror. However, in 
the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the 
very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and 
destruction. Yet, under the current administration, we have seen that 
line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and 
torture. And there is no doubt our international reputation has 
suffered and been stained as a result. Who said that? That's not a 
quote, but who said that essentially? Secretary Colin Powell, former 
four-star Army general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
Secretary of State in this administration.
  The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as are the 
administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is 
``quaint,'' and the Vice President's persistent effort to undermine the 
ban on torture championed by whom? Senator John McCain of Arizona, 
Republican candidate for President.
  Just last week we learned that the Central Intelligence Agency 
destroyed, perhaps illegally, videotapes or interrogations conducted by 
American agents. These incidents unfortunately sully our great Nation's 
well-deserved good reputation. They raise questions about our 
commitment to human rights and the rule of law. And they allow our 
enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred.
  This provision requires all intelligence agencies to comply with the 
Army Field Manual on interrogations. It is an attempt by this Congress 
to repair the damage that has already been done.
  Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have 
been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as 
both effective and consistent with our international commitments, and 
very importantly, with the safety of our members of the Armed Forces.
  At this time I will include a letter in the Record. The letter is 
signed by, and I will not take the time to read all of the generals, 
but there are four four-star generals. A four-star general is as high 
as you can go in the Armed Forces of the United States, except when 
we're in a world war, in which we accord a fifth-star.

                                                December 12, 2007.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Silvestre Reyes,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Reyes and Chairman Rockefeller: As retired 
     military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to 
     express our strong support for Section 327 of the Conference 
     Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2008, H.R. 2082. Section 327 would require intelligence 
     agents of the U.S. government to adhere to the standards of 
     prisoner treatment and interrogation contained in the U.S. 
     Army Field Manual on Human Collector Operations (the Army 
     Field Manual).
       We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women 
     in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of 
     interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted 
     by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle, 
     embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of 
     American military personnel in combat. The current situation, 
     in which the military operates under one set of interrogation 
     rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, 
     secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to 
     ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of 
     the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the 
     humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we 
     believe that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian--
     should be held to a single standard of humane treatment 
     reflected in the Army Field Manual.
       The Field Manual is the product of decades of practical 
     experience and was updated last year to reflect lessons 
     learned from the current conflict. Interrogation methods 
     authorized by the Field Manual have proven effective in 
     eliciting vital intelligence from dangerous enemy prisoners. 
     Some have argued that the Field Manual rules are too 
     simplistic for civilian interrogators. We reject that 
     argument. Interrogation methods authorized in the Field 
     Manual are sophisticated and flexible. And the principles 
     reflected in the Field Manual are values that no U.S. agency 
     should violate.
       General David Petraeus underscored this point in an open 
     letter to the troops in May in which he cautioned against the 
     use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the Field 
     Manual:
       What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . . . is 
     how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the 
     standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants 
     and detainees with dignity and respect. . . . Some may argue 
     that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or 
     other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. 
     They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions 
     are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently 
     neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical 
     action can make someone ``talk;'' however, what the 
     individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our 
     experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out 
     in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence 
     Collector Operations that was published last year shows that 
     the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in 
     eliciting information from detainees.
       Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field 
     Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks. 
     These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance 
     upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover, 
     revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage 
     to the reputation and moral authority of the United States 
     essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.
       This is a defining issue for America. We urge you to 
     support the adoption of Section 327 of the Conference Report 
     and thereby send a clear message--to U.S. personnel and to 
     the world--that the United States will not engage in or 
     condone the abuse of prisoners and will honor its commitments 
     to uphold the Geneva Conventions.
           Sincerely,
       General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.).
       General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.).
       General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.).
       General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.).
       General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.).
       Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.).
       Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.).
       Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.).
       Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.).
       Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.).
       Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.).
       Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.).
       Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.).
       Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.).
       Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.).
       Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.).
       Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.).
       Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.).
       Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.).
       Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.).
       Major General Antonio ``Tony'' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.).
       Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

  There are many lieutenant generals, admirals, vice admirals, 
brigadier generals, major generals, all of whom are concerned about 
defeating terrorism. And this is what they say:
  ``As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to 
express,'' on December 12, 2007, just a few days ago, ``we write to 
express our strong support for section 327 of the conference report on 
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.''
  And then this paragraph, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to listen to this paragraph from those who have worn the 
uniform of the United States of America, who have themselves, before 
they became generals, fought in the battles that America has sent them 
to, and fought for the freedom of this country, and

[[Page H15433]]

confronted the terrorists of their day and today. Hear this paragraph 
from those who have been at war and who want to protect their troops, 
our troops, American men and women.

                              {time}  1230

  They say this: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and 
women in uniform for the United States not to sanction the use of 
interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the 
enemy against captured Americans.'' That is the critical point.
  We are a nation that believes in the premise of doing unto others 
what we would have them do to us. Our own enemies do not accept that 
premise. Our enemies do not accept that value. Our enemies are 
different than we are. We must not become what we confront. The 
techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual, as I say, are endorsed 
by all of these generals. General Krulak in particular wrote a very 
compelling op-ed piece on this issue in the Washington Post. General 
Krulak is probably known as one of the toughest commandants the Marine 
Corps has ever had. I served with him on the Board of Visitors to the 
United States Naval Academy. He is as tough as they come. And he says, 
Protect our people, adopt this sanction.
  Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the 
Armed Forces in Iraq in May, just a few months ago, General Petraeus, 
four-star general, heading our effort to confront, supposedly, 
terrorism and, I believe, terrorism in Iraq. ``Some may argue that we 
would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient 
methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. 
Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal,'' Petraeus's 
words, General Petraeus's word, ``history shows that they also are 
frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' General Petraeus continued, 
``Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone `talk'; however, 
what the individual says may be of questionable value. Our experience 
in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual 
shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely 
in eliciting information from detainees.''
  This is General Petraeus who wants to keep his troops safe and wants 
to prevent terrorist attacks on his people under his command.
  Inexplicably, the administration has issued a veto threat on this 
conference report because it would require all intelligence agencies to 
abide by the Army Field Manual. I believe that the administration's 
position is indefensible. This is not a question of whether we must 
combat and defeat terrorists. Of course, we must. However, we must 
never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced 
to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant, that 
we stooped to the depths of the dictator.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not for party but for 
country, not for partisanship but for a reverence for the 
constitutional oath we took, I urge us all, let's demonstrate our 
commitment to the values that make us Americans. Let's begin to repair 
and restore this Nation's reputation. Let's adopt this conference 
report.
  I thank the chairman for the time. I thank him for his leadership. I 
thank Mr. Hoekstra, as well.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, defeating the threat from radical jihadists is a 
difficult job. It requires input from the legislative branch. It 
requires leadership from the executive branch. After 9/11, the 
administration outlined a series of initiatives. It didn't outline it 
to the entire Congress because the threat was so new, or some thought 
so new. The decision to respond to it was very different than what 
happened in the 1990s, but we recognized we needed to take different 
steps. The administration brought in people from Congress, the people 
that the leadership and our colleagues had entrusted with the 
responsibility to shape an intelligence community.
  Everyone talks about the President's terrorist surveillance program, 
the President's financial tracking system, and now, it is the 
President's interrogation system. What they forget to note, as pointed 
out in the editorial today, is that in each of those cases, membership 
from the House and the Senate were involved in the process, in 
reviewing and setting the direction and implementing the strategies and 
the tactics that they thought needed to be put in place to keep America 
safe. Some of those Members that were briefed have moved on to other 
careers and they are no longer in Congress. Some of those who were 
briefed back in 2002 and 2003 specifically on the terrorist 
surveillance program, specifically on interrogation, are still Members 
of the House. Some are still members of the committee. Others are 
serving on other committees. Some have moved into leadership positions 
in the House of Representatives.
  It is interesting, as the majority leader is speaking and laying out 
his arguments, it is the Speaker of the House, elected by the entire 
House, today, who serves the entire House, who is briefed on these 
programs. Some who have looked at, who have remarked on those meetings 
said, not only did the people that were in those meetings support the 
techniques and the methods that were put in place, some actually even 
asked the question, Is it enough? These things were decided in a 
process that the House and the Senate and the administration 
participated in and decided jointly that these were the things that 
were necessary to keep America safe. Only when they became public, all 
of a sudden did some of these individuals get cold feet, feet of clay 
and say, Oh, well, I really didn't know. But when the rubber hit the 
road in terms of what we needed to do to keep America safe, these 
people said these are the techniques and the processes, and these are 
the programs that we need to have in place.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my good friend from Michigan 
that this bill, the funding level is above the President's request, and 
it makes an investment in human intelligence of historic proportions.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who 
serves as the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to affirm 
America's values and our respect for the rule of law. This bill 
includes language drawn from the American Anti-Torture Act, introduced 
by myself and Representative Delahunt, that would extend the 
interrogation standards in the U.S. Army Field Manual to all 
interrogations conducted on persons in the custody or effective control 
of any element of the intelligence community. This will ensure a 
single, uniform baseline standard for interrogations. That means no 
more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever word play, no more 
evasive answers, no more dishonesty.
  People in nations do terrible things in war, but civilized nations 
long ago recognized that there must be limits on their conduct even 
during military conflict. Our Army Field Manual is an outstanding 
example of a modern military dedicated to observing international norms 
of conduct while waging war effectively. It is a credit to our men and 
women in uniform that they continue to abide by these rules. It is 
unforgivable that some civilians here in Washington seem to think that 
they know better and we must be more brutal than our military and 
professional interrogators.
  I understand the critical role that intelligence plays in protecting 
ourselves, but torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, 
besides being contrary to American values and traditions, have proven 
not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.
  Current and former members of the military have made this clear. 
General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recently 
wrote in an open letter to U.S. troops that the standards in the Army 
Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information 
from detainees.''
  Lieutenant General Kimmons, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence 
similarly stated ``no good intelligence is going to come from abusive 
practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress 
through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable 
credibility.''
  The Bush administration has long argued that it does not torture but 
it does waterboard. And we prosecuted, we sent to jail Japanese 
officers for waterboarding prisoners after World

[[Page H15434]]

War II. We knew then that waterboarding was torture, and despite 
statements from the Bush administration or the nonstatements, we know 
now that it is torture. Torture places our servicemen and women and our 
allies at grave risk. We must accept that whatever we authorize and use 
against our enemies will be turned against our own men and women.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore the honor of the United States. It 
is time to restore the good name of the United States in a world that 
has been so sullied by the conduct of this administration. It is time 
to compel the administration to act in a manner consistent with the 
Constitution of the United States.
  I applaud the leadership of the conferees in including the 
antitorture language in this bill. I urge support for the conference 
report. I hope this will begin the process of restoring the honor and 
the integrity of the United States.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As we talk about this authorization bill, I think it is also 
important to talk about it in the larger context in terms of some of 
the other things that are going on that I believe are weakening our 
ability to effectively combat the threat from radical jihadists. What 
are some of these things? Policies that are being advocated by 
individuals on the other side who are committed to defeating terrorism. 
I just think they have the wrong strategy.
  Terrorist phone calls cannot be monitored without court warrants even 
when all parties are outside of the United States or if the lives of 
American soldiers are at risk. They want to provide habeas corpus 
rights for foreign terrorists. Terrorists when captured overseas shall 
have the right to challenge their captivity in U.S. courts. The right 
of terrorists to incarceration in the United States. Foreign terrorists 
being held in facilities outside the United States, including 
Guantanamo Bay, will be removed from detention abroad and brought into 
American communities, ending the distinction between lawful versus 
unlawful combatants.
  The United States henceforth will recognize al Qaeda terrorists as 
legitimate combatants and grant them the rights of lawful combatants 
under the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists shall be afforded due process, 
attorneys, and protection from self-incrimination. Terrorists will also 
be protected from enhanced interrogation, even when they have 
information on pending terrorist attacks.
  In terms of priorities, funds shall be diverted from tough 
antiterrorism intelligence programs targeted at apprehending and 
killing terrorists through intelligence analysis in connection against 
global warming because some folks from the other side may have implied 
or said that individuals join terrorist groups not because of radical 
Islam or hatred of the United States, but because they are unhappy 
about rising global temperatures and sea levels. Extend Fourth 
Amendment rights barring unreasonable search and seizures to 
terrorists. The rights of radical jihadists to avoid searches and 
seizures shall be protected, even if they are granted more protection 
than American citizens.
  Some believe that terrorists have the rights to intelligence leaks. 
Terrorists have the right to read about classified and antiterrorist 
intelligence programs in the press because there has not been a 
vigorous effort either through this committee or through the 
intelligence community to stop the leaks. And then actually when 
corporations may help us like the telecommunications companies may 
have, people who agree to help us will not be protected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to 
close. I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close and 
would ask the gentleman if he is prepared to close.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't all that long ago that this House voted 249-
160, a difference of 89 votes, to instruct House conferees to eliminate 
all earmarks from the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence authorization bill 
and to fully fund human intelligence collection. The vote was clear, 
overwhelming, and bipartisan, and 62 Democrats supported the motion to 
instruct. It appears, however, that my colleagues on the other side 
have said one thing and done another on earmarks, as the conference 
refused to eliminate earmark projects from the classified annex to this 
bill.
  Today, we are going to offer a motion to recommit that provides all 
Members, including those 62 Democrats who supported the motion to 
instruct, to take a decisive step to eliminate earmarks in national 
security bills. If you are for that motion to instruct, you shouldn't 
be against this motion to recommit. Putting it in the positive, you 
should be for this motion to recommit because you were for eliminating 
earmarks a week ago.
  This motion would make our priorities clear by eliminating provisions 
providing for earmarks to allow those funds to be directed to improve 
intelligence collection. As I explained on the floor last week, and as 
the bipartisan support for the motion indicated, I believe that a 
consensus is developing among Members that programatic authorizations 
should be determined solely on their national security merits, absent 
other compelling circumstances.
  This motion is clearly about priorities. America is at war. We are 
engaged in a struggle against radical jihadists, as well as facing 
threats from China, North Korea, Iran, drug cartels, and those types of 
things. Taxpayer dollars that are currently slated to be earmarked to 
individual Member projects should be applied to our most critical areas 
of need and should serve our Nation as a whole during this crucial 
time.
  It is clear that the earmarks that are in the bill generally have not 
gone through the same rigorous substantive review and evaluation that 
intelligence programs receive in the formulation of the President's 
budget. It is critical to our world position that we fully understand 
the military capability of, and threat posed by, other nations. It is 
essential that human intelligence activities are fully funded so that 
we may make fully informed decisions concerning our national interest.
  Our dedication of resources to human intelligence is a direct 
investment in the security of this Nation as a whole and the safety of 
the men and women serving on our behalf. It is also a direct investment 
in those areas that we know we are weakest in: human intelligence. This 
motion would eliminate all earmarks. It shouldn't be controversial. But 
these funds could be put to far better use in human intelligence and 
other programs. These are programs that we need.
  Some of these earmarks have been described clearly as wasteful 
government spending. This bill has not provided adequate support to the 
intelligence community activity at the forefront of the ability to 
protect our national security.
  It is not possible to describe all of these programs. Many of them 
are classified in their nature. But I can't emphasize enough the 
importance of these programs and the funding and the necessity to fund 
these programs at this time.
  We are a Nation locked in a struggle, facing continued uncertainty 
and other threats around the globe. The men and women of the front 
lines of this struggle rely heavily on human intelligence for their own 
safety every day. The House should not diminish its support for a 
robust, empowered, and capable intelligence community that provides our 
first line of defense. It is time to properly focus our priorities.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this motion to 
recommit and will support me in my opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman and others are concerned 
about the presence of earmarks in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, 
I wish I could take them seriously with those concerns. My colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have now ``seen the light'' on earmarks, 
now that they are in the minority. But we all know that the most 
heavily earmarked bills in history were passed in the last few 
Congresses, when my colleagues controlled the Chamber.

[[Page H15435]]

  The fact of the matter is that never, never in the history of this 
institution have we had the kind of process and transparency on 
earmarks that we have had in this bill, in this Congress. We have 
validated every single earmark in this bill to ensure that we believe 
that it is a good use of the taxpayer money. We take that seriously, 
and as something that will help the intelligence community. These 
earmarks have been vetted through the intelligence community.
  In terms of the arguments about the motion to recommit, there has 
never been an intelligence authorization bill with this level of 
earmark process, with this level of transparency, and with this level 
of accountability. Every earmark in this bill has been vetted, as I 
mentioned, to make certain that the activity that the earmark proposes 
and the funds going to that activity are ones that make our country 
safer. Each earmark has been fully disclosed with the name of the 
requesting Member, the purpose, the amount. In previous Congresses, no 
such disclosures were ever required. For each earmark, a public record 
has been established, which is available for review; and they have been 
reviewed.
  As chairman, along with my colleague, the distinguished ranking 
member, I have personally reviewed each and every earmark. These 
earmarks improve the bill and will help our intelligence community to 
keep this country safe. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is a motion to recommit on this bill, as the 
gentleman has indicated, it will kill this bill. It will also kill this 
bipartisan process. It will kill our oversight, and it will kill our 
funding so desperately needed to keep our country safe and to provide 
the resources to our brave intelligence professionals. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose such a motion to recommit.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides 
the aisle who have spoken in favor of this conference report. As I said 
at the outset, I am proud of this conference report. A lot of hard work 
has gone into this process on a bipartisan basis, and I want to thank 
the staff on a bipartisan basis as well. It is a bipartisan, bicameral 
product. It strengthens the intelligence community and congressional 
oversight.
  I would just remind every Member that this authorization is above the 
President's budget request for human intelligence funding. No 
authorization bill is perfect. No one gets everything that they want in 
this legislative process. But at the end of the day, this conference 
report reflects a bipartisan process that will make our country safer, 
that will give our intelligence professionals the resources and the 
tools that they need to keep us safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2082, the 
conference agreement on the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization 
Act.
  As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I 
believe it is vital that we provide the United States intelligence 
agencies with the tools and resources necessary to ensure our security. 
Therefore, I strongly support funding in this bill for human 
intelligence activities, intelligence analysis, and training, 
infrastructure, and global intelligence improvements. I also support 
the authorization in the bill providing emergency funding for 
counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Furthermore, I support language in the agreement prohibiting the use 
of any interrogation techniques not authorized by the U.S. Army Field 
Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations against any 
individual in the custody or effective control of any element of the 
intelligence community. Our soldiers and interrogators need to know 
exactly where the line is when engaging prisoners and there should be 
absolutely no question about what is acceptable behavior and what is 
not. In fact, I recently cosponsored legislation to require the anti-
torture provisions included in this conference agreement.
  Nevertheless, I will oppose this bill because it fails to implement 
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for reforming congressional 
oversight of intelligence funding. In its final report, the 9/11 
Commission concluded that: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening 
congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. 
So long as oversight is governed by the current congressional rules and 
resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security 
they want and need.''
  Earlier this year, the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a 
``Band-Aid'' to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence 
Oversight Panel that has very little control over actual funding 
decisions. This is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In 
fact, its report plainly states that ``tinkering with the existing 
committee structure is not sufficient.'' In May, I offered a simple 
amendment to the bill before us, calling for Congress to implement 
these crucial recommendations--but it was prevented from being 
considered for inclusion in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all 
of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--even those that are difficult. 
We will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an 
effective committee structure capable of giving our national 
intelligence agencies the oversight, support, and leadership they need.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report and, in particular, in support of Section 327 of the 
report, which prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized by the 
Army Field Manual on Interrogation.
  Despite White House claims that the United States does not torture 
prisoners, we continue to learn about administration actions that seem 
to condone the use of coercive techniques in questioning prisoners.
  A few months ago, we learned about a classified Justice Department 
memo from February 2005 allowing waterboarding and other coercive 
techniques. Then there was the Executive Order signed in July of this 
year that effectively opened a loophole for the CIA to practice 
interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed by the U.S. 
military.
  Reports this week of destroyed interrogation tapes showing CIA 
operatives using waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' techniques are 
deeply disturbing, and suggest a double standard, whereby these 
techniques are approved for use by the CIA but not by the Department of 
Defense and its intelligence agencies. All this points to the need for 
a common standard for humane and effective interrogation techniques 
across the Government, which is what this conference report provision 
calls for.
  Senator John McCain has called the Army Field Manual techniques 
``humane and yet effective,'' and has argued for a policy by which ``we 
will never allow torture to take place in the United States of 
America.'' In May 2007, General Petraeus wrote to U.S. troops serving 
in Iraq that ``our experience in applying the interrogation standards 
laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . published last year shows that 
the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting 
information from detainees.''
  There is no reason why interrogation techniques that work effectively 
and humanely for our military interrogators cannot also work 
effectively and humanely for CIA and other intelligence agency 
interrogators. Section 327 of the Intelligence Authorization report 
sends a message that the United States believes no part of its 
government is above the law, and that no interrogation method is 
acceptable that could not also be used on Americans in enemy custody.
  I strongly urge passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 2082, the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence 
Authorization Act. I share many of the concerns raised by Ranking 
Member Hoekstra, but my primary purpose in speaking today is to express 
my distaste for the bloated bureaucracy created by this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 short years ago the House voted to create a Director 
of National Intelligence: a small, agile intelligence shop meant 
primarily to improve coordination and information analysis among and 
between the various intelligence--gathering agencies.
  At that time, Democrats fought hard to turn the new agency into a 
large bureaucracy, replete with a chief information officer, a chief 
human capital officer, a chief financial officer, an out-of-control 
inspector general, a comptroller, an ombudsman, multiple privacy 
officers, and a civil liberties board with unlimited subpoena power--
layer upon layer upon layer.
  But we remained focused on creating better government rather than 
bigger government, and efforts to create more redundant bureaucracy 
were ultimately defeated.
  For better or for worse, the party of smaller government is no longer 
in control, and this legislation is a perfect example.
  Evidence of bureaucratic creep is marbled throughout this 
legislation, from the creation of new offices to forcing even more 
officials through the cumbersome and slow Senate confirmation process.
  But nowhere is the problem more prevalent than in the creation of an 
inspector general for the intelligence community.

[[Page H15436]]

  On the surface, no one can argue against the need for a robust 
inspector general within the disparate intelligence community. In fact, 
the creation of one, unified and cohesive IG to oversee all 
intelligence activities of the Federal Government would probably be a 
step in the right direction.
  But that's not what this legislation does.
  Instead, this bill creates a new IG and places that office awkwardly 
on top of the many existing IGs at the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
  As if creating another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy within the 
intelligence oversight community was not enough, the legislation goes 
the extra step of elevating the IGs at the National Security Agency, 
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, 
and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

  It's inevitable the existence of six separate IGs within the 
intelligence community will lead to duplication of effort and turf 
battles between them. The conferees admit it. Conceding they're 
creating more problems than they're solving, they direct the IGs to 
``expeditiously resolve'' any disputes or turf battles that may arise 
between them.
  After spending years trying to find ways to make the intelligence 
gathering and analysis more streamlined and efficient, this legislation 
does an about-face, loading up the intelligence community with more 
bureaucracy and bigger government.
  Which leads me to my next concern with the legislation: H.R. 2082 
represents a significant step backwards in our efforts to modernize our 
security clearance process.
  Several years ago, the 9/11 Commission recommended an overhaul of the 
government's woefully backlogged security clearance process, proposing 
uniform application, investigation and adjudication procedures as well 
as a single database to store clearance information. In 2004 Congress 
responded by enacting the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act, which placed a single Federal agency in charge of security 
clearance processes Government-wide and established a unified database 
for information related to security clearances.
  Rather than assisting that ongoing effort, H.R. 2082 compounds past 
problems by allowing the intelligence community to continue to operate 
in isolated stovepipes.
  The conference report does this in two ways. First, it places the 
Director of National Intelligence in charge of developing a ``multi-
level security clearance approach'' only for the intelligence 
community. Separate from the otherwise ``government-wide'' system now 
being developed, the mandated multi-level system would somehow allow 
the intelligence community to clear foreign- born applicants better and 
faster than everyone else. It's not clear how. It's not even clear what 
this mythical ``multi-level'' approach would do differently in terms of 
current clearance levels: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and SCI. But 
it is painfully clear this is an effort to keep the intelligence 
agencies from taking part in the larger reform effort. Second, as if to 
underscore the drive to make sure there are no uniform clearance 
standards, the bill specifically exempts the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency from the Government-wide system so they can 
duplicate the whole process on their own.
  As the primary sponsor of the 2004 legislation calling for a 
modernized, uniform security clearance process for the Federal 
Government, I fear these supposed ``reforms'' will do nothing to help 
improve the security clearance backlog and will likely exacerbate the 
problems of inconsistent standards, slow processing and a lack of 
clearance reciprocity.
  As the former Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I invested 
considerable time and energy into highlighting overlap and duplication 
in Government and finding ways to streamline federal programs and 
processes. And I think we made some progress in that regard.
  But H.R. 2082 represents a stark contrast to our efforts to 
streamline Government. It expands the Federal bureaucracy and 
propagates the existing stovepipes that have long hindered our efforts 
to bring the federal government into the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that after failing to 
reauthorize our Intelligence programs for the past 2 years under 
Republican leadership, the Democratic majority has taken the health of 
our Nation's intelligence community seriously. I support the critical 
improvements to this bill: strengthening the offices of the Inspector 
Generals, authorizing increased attention to climate change, and 
strengthening contractor oversight.
  Most importantly, I support this bill because of its torture 
prohibition. Torture violates not only the laws and values of our 
country, but all standards of decent human conduct. I have consistently 
spoken out against the stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this 
administration's ``interrogation'' of prisoners. It is clear that the 
American people will not get satisfactory answers from the 
administration, and that it is now Congress's duty to set interrogation 
standards worthy of our great Nation.
  Extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to intelligence 
personnel is a significant step. I am proud that Congress will send the 
message to our Nation and the world at large that Americans do not 
approve of, and will not stand for, torture.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``nay'' on the motion to 
recommit H.R. 2082 with instructions to conference committee because 
such a vote would have killed the bill. H.R. 2082 includes a provision 
to ban torture and authorizes the intelligence activities of the United 
States. While I would have strongly preferred for the Conference 
Committee to follow the instructions adopted by the House, I believe 
the intelligence programs and ban on torture included in this bill are 
too important to the national security of the United States to endanger 
it by returning it to conference.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoekstra moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2082 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House, to the 
     maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, 
     to--
       (1) eliminate any House or Senate provisions providing for 
     earmarks as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) insist on provisions authorizing the maximum level of 
     funding permissible for human intelligence collection 
     activities in the classified annex.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 215, not voting 11, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1159]

                               YEAS--205

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston

[[Page H15437]]


     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--215

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Cubin
     Heller
     Hooley
     Jindal
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1318

  Messrs. KIND, McDERMOTT, RUPPERSBERGER, COSTA, Ms. McCOLLUM of 
Minnesota, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MEEK of Florida, GENE GREEN of Texas, 
RUSH, HINCHEY, BERMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of 
California, and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. GINGREY, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. FEENEY, LAMBORN, ROSKAM, Mrs. 
MUSGRAVE, Messrs. WALBERG, SHUSTER, GOODE, PICKERING, WILSON of South 
Carolina, KING of New York, and McINTYRE changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 199, not voting 10, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1160]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)

[[Page H15438]]


     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Carson
     Cubin
     Heller
     Hooley
     Jindal
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1327

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________