[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 26 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H936-H942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2701, INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
[[Page H937]]
call up House Resolution 1113 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1113
Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
1105, amendment number 1 printed in House Report 111-419
shall be considered as modified by striking the matter
proposed to be inserted as section 506.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of
H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The
rule modifies amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 111-419 by
striking the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506.
Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act provides much-needed
policy guidance for the 16 agencies that comprise the intelligence
community. At the same time, this bill improves accountability and
helps to prevent the often disastrous consequences that faulty
intelligence and misinformation to Congress can have on national
security. This bill is vitally important because it recognizes the
fundamental reality that solid intelligence is our Nation's first line
of defense against terrorists.
This Congress has not reauthorized the intelligence bill in 4 years.
The funding in this bill provides our intelligence agencies with tools,
resources, and authorities they need to keep us safe. For example, it
increases funding for human intelligence collection and
counterintelligence activities; it makes significant investments in
cybersecurity safety while also improving language capabilities in the
intelligence community. Furthermore, it fully authorizes the
President's budget request for the intelligence community programs and
operations.
The rule we are debating this morning is the second rule the House
has considered. Yesterday we heard impassioned arguments from both
sides of the aisle regarding an amendment from Mr. McDermott on actions
of the intelligence officers in the field and their criminal liability.
Today, we are moving ahead with the authorization bill without that
language because it's important to keep this bill moving forward.
The President has issued guidelines on this subject, and it deserves
to be considered by this body. However, we are 4 years overdue on
reauthorization, and our intelligence community cannot wait any longer.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can continue the
business of protecting America's families. No American should ever face
harm because this body could not do its job, and this bill needs to
move forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation for my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from
Atwater, and I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed
with our customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend has just gone through--as was the
case yesterday when Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale,
was managing the rule on his side--the importance of dealing with our
Nation's intelligence. And we obviously have, since this bill first
came to the forefront last year, been dealing with a wide range of
very, very serious challenges: the shooting at Fort Hood, which the
Speaker pro tem understands very well took place in his home State of
Texas; the great threat that existed on Christmas Day when Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab posed a threat, and thanks to the fact that his device
did not go off, and, even more important than that, the fact that we
were able to see these courageous passengers come forward and prevent
this man from posing a threat to all of those on board; and then, of
course, the arrests of those who posed a terrorist threat, Najibullah
Zazi and David Headley. And then of course there are many other
instances that have not been in the headlines.
But those three which I have just mentioned have developed since last
summer when this bill first came forward.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening today is, unfortunately, a very
disturbing trend. We have had some records set by this Congress and,
frankly, since Speaker Pelosi has been leading this Congress and the
last Congress.
Last year, we went through the entire--entire--calendar year, the
first session of the 111th Congress, without a single open rule. Not a
single open rule on even the appropriations bills. Never before in the
now 221-year history of the Republic have we had that take place. We,
in fact, in the last 3 years have saved the appropriations process, in
the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have had a grand
total, Mr. Speaker, of one open rule. And now, today, we seem to be
establishing another very disturbing and unfortunate record.
It seems to me that as we look at legislation in its first stage,
which is where we are right now, in its first stage, we are now
considering not the second rule, as my friend from Atwater has said in
his opening remarks, but in fact the third rule because this
legislation last July was reported out of the Rules Committee. We had a
rule. On July 3, we had a statement that came forward from the
administration that leveled a very, very harsh criticism of the bill
itself.
Now, we've gone through a wide range of measures that have been very
important and many that are less than important in the last 8 months,
and yet we have not considered this very important intelligence bill.
My friend from Atwater has just talked about how critically important
it is; and if that were the case in the eyes of the majority, it would
seem to me that last July we would have dealt with this bill, since
it's been 4 years since we have had an intelligence authorization
measure.
Now, the language which has just been stricken from this bill, it was
one of 21 amendments, Mr. Speaker, included in the manager's amendment.
And the message that comes through to me over and over and over again--
and my friend from Atwater just referred to it as a vigorous debate on
both sides as an attempt to continue to move the legislation forward--
this language was taken out.
Well, the bottom line is it meant that the votes weren't there on
either the Democratic or the Republican side to move ahead with the
intelligence authorization bill. Why? Because one of the most
outrageous amendments imaginable was incorporated in this measure, and
that's the McDermott language.
Yesterday, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Hoekstra and I, and
I know others during the debate throughout the bill, talked about this
language. And I think that probably this was best put when the special
election took place in Massachusetts and we saw our new colleague,
Scott Brown, elected to the United States Senate. And he gave an
entertaining and rather lengthy victory speech that night. But the
message that came through loud and clear was that when he got to
Washington, he was going to do everything within his power to make sure
that we expand our hard-earned taxpayer dollars ensuring that we defeat
the terrorists and not defend them.
And the language that was included--not allowed for debate on the
House floor, but actually included among the 20 other amendments all by
Democrats in the manager's amendment--the manager's amendment is
usually a relatively noncontroversial measure, Mr.
[[Page H938]]
Speaker, that comes to the floor and there is often a very brief 10-
minute debate and it sails through with bipartisan support--but the
manager's amendment included this McDermott amendment. And it provided
a circumstance which could have seriously jeopardized our men and women
who are courageously engaging in intelligence gathering.
Now, when we talk about, as now-Senator Brown mentioned, the rights
of those individuals who have perpetrated terrorist acts against us and
our interests around the world, the notion of using the word
``phobia,'' which was actually included in the McDermott amendment, it
would mean that an individual could be imprisoned and they could claim
that for religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a
knife with them at all times.
People can say, Well, that is silly. How can that possibly take
place? I mean, one has to scratch their head thinking that that could
happen. And yet there are individuals who've interpreted that language
which was included in the manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, as language
that would have allowed a prisoner to say that for religious reasons
it's absolutely essential that they have a knife in their possession,
obviously posing a threat to everyone around them.
And so, again, it's difficult to comprehend that that could take
place, but we know how ruthless these barbarians are who have been
perpetrating acts against us and other freedom-loving peoples around
the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, it to me is very disturbing that we are here dealing
with what has been once again a major management problem which has
taken place in this institution.
The American people want us to focus on job creation, economic
growth. We, of course yesterday, saw the 7-hour summit take place at
the White House on the issue of health care. But of paramount
importance is our security. It's the single most important thing that
we deal with. And to have it mishandled in the way that it has that has
led us at 9:25 Friday morning to be on the House floor with the third
rule dealing with the Intelligence authorization bill is, I think, a
sad commentary on where we are.
I have to say that this rule actually included several other
provisions which should not have been included at this point, and I
discussed this last night up in the Rules Committee when we met into
the evening. And that is we understand--I mean, I was privileged to
serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we understand that moving
the agenda and ensuring the process of getting that agenda passed is
very, very important. And yet, Mr. Speaker, what this rule did was it
put into place a so-called martial law rule.
Mr. Speaker, martial law basically means that something can move
immediately to the House floor, and it usually takes place--and I see
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my
friend, Mr. Obey, here. He knows very well that martial law rule
usually takes place at the end of a session when there are very, very
pressing needs that need to be addressed.
{time} 0930
When we are dealing with those issues we can see martial law imposed.
I understand that and recognize that sometimes it's necessary. But, Mr.
Speaker, we are in the second month of the second session of the 111th
Congress, and yet we have imposed a so-called martial law rule here.
So the most important thing is, of course, dealing with the
intelligence authorization bill. But underlying all of that are very,
very serious management flaws which have taken place. So I just want to
voice my concern, and I know we are going to have a number of my
colleagues who are going to want to speak and address the issue of the
intelligence authorization bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague from
California that we must get this legislation done. I agreed with him.
He agreed with me. This is very important legislation. It's critical to
the country.
Then he said, well, there is no real rush because you are doing a
martial law rule. I submit to you that we need to get this done. It's
very important for the country, and we have taken a long time. And I
would also submit that the majority of the Congress people speaking to
us all, Republicans and Democrats, as I said in my opening statement,
felt that that amendment wasn't appropriately included in the manager's
amendment. We agreed. That's why we are here today striking it out.
I realize that the gentleman is saying, well, it should have never
been in there to begin with, and that may be true, but the reality is
we are fixing and correcting that error today. That is why we are here,
and I appreciate the gentleman's statement.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, interestingly enough, the measure
that we are addressing here is not being considered under a martial law
rule. The martial law provision in this rule was to deal with any other
issue that would have come to the floor either yesterday or today. The
idea of including that in the rule----
Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is correct, and there are other measures,
like the jobs bill, which is critically important, critically important
to our home State.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. CARDOZA. Like my district, it has got 20 percent unemployment. So
there are other pressing matters that we have to get to, and that's
exactly the kind of point that I was making.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. CARDOZA. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that obviously job creation and
economic growth is a very, very important priority, but the notion of
saying that all of a sudden this has to be done under martial law,
which basically undermines the legislative process, is not only not
necessary, but we are all focusing on job creation. We want to do what
we can. We all have very strong feelings as to what should be done on
this and we are concerned about this dramatic expansion of government.
Let me at this point, Mr. Speaker, yield 4 minutes to the very
thoughtful, diligent, and hardworking gentleman from Clarendon, Texas,
the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr.
Thornberry.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, since a number of our colleagues were watching the
events or participating in the events at the White House yesterday,
like the gentleman from California, I think it's important to review
briefly the history of this legislation.
The Intelligence Committee referred or reported out H.R. 2701 out of
committee on June 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. The Rules
Committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on July 8,
2009, and from July 8, 2009, until February 24, 2010, it just sat
there, no action.
Meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrorist attacks or
plots for which arrests were made against our homeland. Meanwhile,
events changed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran. All around the
world things were changing, but we couldn't find time on the floor to
deal with the Intelligence authorization bill. We had important things
to do. We had post offices to name.
But then on February 24, 2010, the Rules Committee reported the
second rule out, which included the McDermott language as part of a
manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments combined into one.
That McDermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for
our intelligence professionals if they did things like deny terrorists
a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a
terrorist's religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define
those religious beliefs. There was no standard of reasonableness there
at all.
So throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events
in the White House, we argued against that provision; yet it was
defended on the other side of the aisle throughout
[[Page H939]]
the day. Some people said, Oh, it just restates current law. Mr.
McDermott answered that himself in a 1-minute last night. He said, My
amendment would have expanded on the President's Executive order to
define what constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation,
and it will create criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of
interrogations.
People over there who said that it just restates current law were
just mistaken. Somebody else said it reflects American values. I don't
know when it became American value to treat terrorists better than we
treat Americans in the criminal justice system. When it came time to
vote, the majority found that they didn't have enough votes to pass the
bill, and so they went back to Rules a third time on this bill. Now
this rule strips out that provision that the majority spent the whole
day yesterday defending.
Now, I heard what the gentleman from California said. I am not quite
clear that I have understood why we have had this amazing turn of
events, why the Rules Committee on Wednesday night would say this
provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment, but on
Thursday night they say, no, we are going to have a rule that does
nothing but strip it out. Maybe they didn't really know what the
McDermott language did. Maybe they just voted the way the Speaker's
office told them to vote.
As a matter of fact, there is a report in the Washington Times today
that says a House Democratic aid told the Washington Times leadership
supported the amendment and told the House Rules Committee to put it in
the provisions. Maybe they were just persuaded by our eloquence on the
floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and decided that it needed to be removed.
I don't know, but this provision is deplorable; it needs to be
scrapped. But it's a symptom, I would suggest, of a deeper sickness
that, in fact, some in this body, some in the administration, of how
they view our intelligence professionals. Their reflex action is to
blame the intelligence community first. We see it when special
prosecutors are appointed to go after our intelligence professionals.
We see it when classified interrogation memos are released, despite the
protestations of five former CIA directors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. THORNBERRY. We also see that ``blame the intelligence
professionals first'' mentality when someone as distinguished as the
Speaker of the House, under political pressure, just accuses them of
lying all the time. That's the sort of mentality that gets a provision
made in order that mixes up the good guys and the bad guys and goes
after the good guys and puts a higher standard on them than any county
sheriff or State trooper in the country would have.
Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. Terrorists are plotting and
planning to attack us every single day. It doesn't do our intelligence
professionals much good if we give them nice words and then enact new
crimes against them. What counts is our actions, standing up for them
and what they do to protect us, and I would suggest this bill needs to
go a long way further in doing that. But that strain that goes through
this House and some in the administration to attack them first must be
stopped at all costs.
Mr. CARDOZA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend from
Atwater has chosen to reserve his time, I am happy at this point to
yield 4 minutes to another hardworking member of the Select Committee
on Intelligence who brings his great experience, having served in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan
(Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you to my friend from California.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, was a very, very important symptom
for us to all understand, and it's easy to get confused, by the way, in
who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. When you take the fight
on the war on terror from a proactive intelligence approach to a law
enforcement approach, things get pretty murky in a hurry, and
everything slows down, and information exchanges slow down.
What we have done, what they have tried to do in the middle of the
night, is sneak in a provision that would actually, when you read the
entire thing, treat terrorists with a special carve-out that not even
white-collar criminals, organized crime members, extortionists as
American citizens would get, that your interrogator could be brought up
on charges for what you believed might be incidences that offend you.
Unbelievable. But that's exactly what happens when you are confused
about who the bad guys are.
This bill should be known for what it doesn't do. I mean, right now,
they are getting ready to bring, through the administration policy and
support of this Congress, hundreds of some of the most dangerous
terrorists in the world to the United States. Do you know that about
over a dozen times where these terrorists have been held overseas,
including places like Great Britain, that terrorists have tried to
break in to break them out? And guess what? Our policy is to bring them
to the United States, give them a special carve-out, and treat them
like American citizens at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
You know, we had the opportunity to do disruptive activities to al
Qaeda, and some speculate that between the Fort Hood shooting and the
Christmas Day bomber, there were methods and activities that we as a
Nation didn't engage in because we were confused about being proactive
on intelligence against terrorism or treating it like a law enforcement
matter. There is a lot to be accountable in that decision, but it can
happen when you get confused who the bad guys are.
We have never had a full vetting of what was known at one time as the
Global Justice Initiative where you send FBI agents around the world,
including to the battlefield, to Mirandize foreign-trained terrorists
who have declared war on the United States. That can happen when you
forget who the bad guys are. There is nothing in this bill that
protects the very courageous CIA interrogators for following Department
of Justice guidelines in the interrogation and the development of
information that will have saved lives in the United States.
And, by the way, it was brought to our attention that the same
interrogators who gave us about 70 percent of what we know about the
logistics and operations of al Qaeda are subject to criminal
investigations. You know why that happens? Because it's easy to do when
you are confused about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
Yesterday was that symptom, Mr. Speaker, that when you make that
decision, there are serious consequences. Now, folks want to say, oh,
that's just politics you are trying to interject.
This is serious business. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will come to New
York. Some estimate it as high as $200 million just for the security.
That city said, ``No.'' Michigan said, ``No.'' Kansas said, ``No.''
Americans are saying, ``No.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. We ought to stand together in this body and
say, ``No.''
This bill falls short of addressing the serious debate we better have
ongoing from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement
approach. This is not about you have the right to remain silent and if
you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you at the
expense of the U.S. taxpayers. This is about aggressively pursuing
terrorists where they live, where they train, where they operate.
If our whole new plan is a law enforcement approach and we are going
to catch them at the airport, we are going to lose this fight, and
that's exactly what this bill fails to address. You cannot let one
stand in the line with any American citizen and hope to God your last
defense works, and that's what happens when you go to a law enforcement
approach and you treat CIA officers like criminals and you treat
foreign terrorists like high-status American citizens. You could get
confused on who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in a hurry.
I would recommend strong rejection of this bill. We need to start
over, and we need to start asking hard questions
[[Page H940]]
about what this policy is doing to the national defense of the United
States.
{time} 0945
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of
this rule. It provides us with the opportunity to advance the
Intelligence Authorization Act to conference and then to the President.
This bill provides essential funding to the intelligence community,
improves and updates critical legal authorities, and enhances important
oversight authorities that will empower the congressional intelligence
committees to carry out their constitutional responsibility to monitor
the work of the intelligence agencies.
As everybody knows, I take this obligation very seriously. The work
of the intelligence community is of critical importance, but by its
nature must be done largely behind closed doors. As a result, the
intelligence committees exist to ensure that the work of the
intelligence agencies is being done in a manner that is effective, that
is legal, and that is without waste. H.R. 2701 provides the funding
authorities and the guidance necessary to that function.
First and foremost, this bill will dramatically improve the process
for congressional notification of covert actions. Over the past several
years, Democrats and Republicans have both had complaints about the
notification process. Provisions in the manager's amendment will
require notifications in writing, insist that the President certify the
need to restrict briefings to the Gang of Eight, and compel the
executive branch to provide the legal authority under which covert
action is being conducted.
As I have said before, this bill was truly a team effort. We received
input and drafting assistance from a variety of Members. The manager's
amendment also includes contributions from many of my colleagues.
Representative Giffords from Arizona crafted a provision that would
require the DNI to report on intelligence cooperation between the
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement.
Representative Boccieri asked for a report on the dissemination of
counterterrorism information from the intelligence community to local
law enforcement.
Representative Bishop introduced language to require the DNI to
submit to Congress a report describing the strategy of the United
States in balancing intelligence collection needs with the prosecution
of terrorist suspects.
Representative Harman, the former ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee, submitted an amendment that will require the Inspector
General of the intelligence community to report to Congress on the
problem of overclassification of intelligence and ways to address that
issue and those problems.
The manager's amendment also contains language from Representative
Hinchey requiring a report on previous intelligence community
activities in Argentina, an issue that has long been a concern of
Representative Hinchey.
Representative Langevin, a leader on the issue of cybersecurity,
drafted a provision that requires the President to submit a plan to
Congress to secure the networks of the Federal Government.
Finally, Representative Markey of Colorado drafted language that will
require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the
congressional Intelligence Committees assessing the threat posed to
allies and interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf by Iran's
missile arsenal.
Beyond the manager's amendment, the base text of the bill makes
several important improvements in oversight of intelligence activities.
First, it establishes an Inspector General for the entire intelligence
community. This provision will help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse,
and it will also keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of
Americans.
The bill will also require the DNI to establish a plan to increase
diversity within the intelligence community. As is very clear, this is
a measure that is important to all our Members, to me personally, and
to the committee's vice chairman, Mr. Hastings. For the intelligence
agencies, diversity is not just about virtue and equality, though both
are important ideals; it is about making sure that we have a clear and
complete understanding of the different languages and cultures around
the world. In the world of intelligence, diversity translates directly
into improved operational capability.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, it has
been a privilege to work with both sides of the aisle to craft this
bill. It is important to keep in mind that all of these issues are
vital and important components of making sure we do our work.
With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and enact
these critical provisions into law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to
congratulate the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, my good friend, for his service in the Border Patrol. And
we have worked together on a wide range of issues. I thank him for
that.
I have to say that I am very concerned, though, about the fact that
we, unfortunately, have not seen what is best described as a forward-
leaning policy when it comes to dealing with this threat of terrorism.
We all know that law enforcement by its nature is reactive, and we
need to have a policy that is more proactive. The inclusion of language
like the McDermott amendment in this measure in the manager's amendment
unfortunately creates a scenario whereby we are not focused on being
the forward-leaning entity that we should.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, my friend from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank Mr. Dreier from California for giving me the 5
minutes.
Here we go again. This bill could have been done in July, but it was
pulled. This is the third rule that we've had on one bill. It's almost
unprecedented; I'm not sure that I have ever seen this before. It was
pulled in July because of the controversy surrounding the Speaker's
remarks saying the CIA lies, the CIA lies all the time. So it sat
dormant as this country was under attack.
When we went to the Rules Committee this week, we had a lot of
amendments that we thought should have been put in order. An amendment
that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the
capabilities of Iran--it wasn't important enough to debate that when we
went through the debate on this bill yesterday. An amendment that would
require the CIA to release publicly unclassified versions of documents
relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques--that wasn't
important enough to debate. What we are going to do with the folks in
Guantanamo--that wasn't important enough to debate. What the
intelligence community did after Fort Hood and in between Fort Hood and
Christmas Day--that wasn't important enough to debate. The process for
authorization and notification of covert actions that may result in the
death of a targeted U.S. citizen--that wasn't important enough to
debate.
But then we see that there is an amendment to be offered by the
manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, 22 pages, including
an amendment from Mr. McDermott. And here's Mr. McDermott's own words:
``My amendment would have expanded upon the President's executive order
to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhumane, or degrading
interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are
unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use
those kinds of interrogations.'' Not a single minute of debate on this
amendment, not one hearing on this amendment, and we dump it into a
manager's amendment, along with 22 other amendments. Sloppy work.
And how do we know it's sloppy? Because we're back here today for a
third time with a third rule pulling it out. It's not because the
leadership on the other side believes that this is a bad amendment.
They believe it's the right
[[Page H941]]
amendment. That's why they put it into the manager's amendment. That's
why the chairman put this amendment into the manager's amendment,
because he agrees with it. He defended this yesterday, expansion of
criminal penalties only to the intelligence community; on the floor
defending this amendment, saying it was the good thing and the right
thing to do, and it was consistent with American values. If it's
consistent with American values, why are they pulling it out? Because
they know it's unfair to the intelligence community.
We asked the question yesterday, what are you going to say to the men
and women, the front lines in the intelligence community, when you go
and visit them and say you have created a special set of penalties only
for them? You know, these rules, this new criminal law, you wouldn't
even apply these to your county sheriff, you wouldn't even apply them
to your State trooper, but they wanted to sneak them in in the middle
of the night, with no debate, no hearing, saying this is the right way
to go. They're pulling it today because they recognize, their
leadership on this issue, that when they turned around, they had no
followers. They didn't have enough votes to pass this. It jeopardized
their bill. It was sloppy work to put this in in the first place, and
it's an indication of how this bill has gone through the process. This
amendment was put in without any consultation with the other side of
the aisle. This is a partisan bill. As my colleague said earlier, it
creates some real confusion as to whether we're in the law enforcement
business or whether we're in the fighting terrorism business.
I'm glad this is coming here today, but we could have dealt with this
yesterday. It should never have been in the manager's amendment to
begin with. If they wanted to put it up, put it up for a separate vote
as a separate amendment. But they knew they couldn't do that.
We asked questions yesterday that they didn't answer. Why does this
amendment define a criminal offense that only intelligence community
personnel would be guilty of? They wouldn't answer that, they wouldn't
engage in that debate. The amendment would make it a crime for
depriving an individual of necessary food, water, sleep. How does the
bill define ``necessary?'' Participate in acts intended to violate the
individual's religious beliefs. Is there an objective standard? Then it
gets into phobias. Exploit the phobias of the individual. We asked the
other side, please define this for us, and they didn't.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague.
They weren't willing to answer any of those questions or even have a
debate or a discussion on what the amendment meant. So that is why
we're back here today. But the bottom line is it's a symptom, it's a
symptom of the confusion on the other side, the sloppiness with which
they brought this bill to the floor. I am glad that they have taken
this lousy amendment and they are going to trash it today. It should
never have been in there. It jeopardized and attacked our men and women
on the front lines who are keeping us safe each and every day.
The McDermott amendment was an insult, an insult to American men and
women in the intelligence community.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza)
has 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to
the chairman of the committee, Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
You know, facts are pesky things, and sometimes we have to keep
reminding those on the other side of the aisle that they are entitled
to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
When the ranking member made reference to the Speaker and her comment
about being misled by the CIA, it is important to keep in perspective
that we are talking about the last administration, where the
policymakers repeatedly misled the Congress. He himself complained
bitterly many, many times about those kinds of issues. In fact, one of
the amendments, the amendment on the issue of Peru, is a direct result
of complaints voiced by the ranking member and others on the committee.
He asked a rhetorical question: What will we say to the men and women
of the intelligence community? My message has always been consistent:
We appreciate their work, we honor their professionalism, we depend on
them, and the safety of our country relies on them doing the job that
they need to do.
{time} 1000
It's interesting for me to note that, over the course of the last few
months, because of an issue that the minority has with Miranda
warnings, they have been repeatedly questioning the proficiency of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have 26\1/2\ years of experience in
Federal law enforcement. I've had an opportunity to work with the
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I know they are the
best we have.
Do you know why I say that?
Because they didn't need to resort to waterboarding. They didn't need
to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques. All they did was
conduct interrogations professionally and bring all the tools to bear
that they have traditionally relied on, and they got information from
the individual who tried to take down the airliner on Christmas Day.
I know it's a tough contrast, because some would like to take
shortcuts. Some would like to subscribe to the last administration's
policy of ``anything goes.'' Well, facts and rules are pesky things. I
know the Constitution, which they like to quote, is pesky because it
provides protection to anyone here in the United States, whether you
are here legally, illegally, whether you are in a car, on a plane or in
another type of conveyance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
understands that, and that's why, once they determined that there was a
violation, they gave the Miranda warnings.
The other side would like to mischaracterize that and say, ``We're in
favor of the FBI's going around the world, giving the Miranda warnings
to those who would seek to harm our country.'' Well, the difference
between us and the rest of the world should be that we are a Nation of
laws, that we don't seek to take shortcuts, that we don't think it's a
good idea to waterboard and to torture and do those kinds of things.
That's a basic and fundamental difference in political philosophy, I
think, here today.
Do you know what? As I go around the world and talk to members of the
intelligence community in the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the FBI, and
others, that's what they want to do. They want to be given the tools to
carry out their jobs and to do their jobs within the framework that we
are so proud of as Americans. That's what we should be doing. That's,
more than anything, what this debate is about.
Are we going to honor the traditions that our country stands for--the
reasons that we are held up as a model around the world--or are we
going to subscribe to the policies of the previous administration which
say, because people are intent on attacking us, that anything goes,
that we throw the rule book out the window, that we throw the
Constitution out the door and let people do whatever they want,
whenever they want, however they want? That is not who we are. That is
not what we should be about. Believe me, the men and women who are
charged with keeping us safe want those issues to be clear-cut and
understood.
I will close by saying it is very telling that, when the last
administration made a decision under enhanced interrogation, to
waterboard, two things happened. First of all, the CIA did not have
that expertise in-house. They had to go to the DOD to get it. Secondly,
when the FBI realized that that was part of the interrogation process,
they said, you know, that's not what we're about. We can get the job
done the right way without resorting to those kinds of techniques, and
they returned back to headquarters.
So, with that, I hope that we can have a substantive debate on issues
[[Page H942]]
that are important to our country, on issues that are relevant and,
most importantly, on issues that provide the men and women, the
professionals in whatever agency you're talking about, the tools and
the direction that we are a Nation of laws. We have to respect our
Constitution.
Mr. DREIER. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another
hardworking, thoughtful member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the gentleman from metropolitan Chumuckla, Florida (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my 2 minutes in a colloquy with the
chairman of the full committee.
If you believe what you've just said, why are we striking section 506
from your manager's amendment?
Mr. REYES. If the gentleman would yield, last night, we offered a
unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, why did you do that?
Mr. REYES. The issue, after reflecting on it, was, at least as I
understood from the comments that were being made by your side, there
were some misimpressions of what, actually, the amendment was intending
on doing, so I offered to withdraw that under unanimous consent, and
your side decided not to.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again,
please, I am going to continue the colloquy.
You are saying there are misimpressions on our side. It was your side
last night that blew up when this issue was brought forward, and you
didn't have the votes to do it. So my next question is: If you had
defended it all-day long, why did you allow it to be put in the bill in
the first place?
Mr. REYES. Well, we can only do so much to make sure that your side
understands that the concerns that you were raising were not, in fact,
what was meant by the amendment. That's the long and short of it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Thank you, sir.
Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what I am trying to put forth to
the public today.
You talk about our being entitled to our own opinions but not to our
own facts. Facts are facts. The facts are the chairman of the committee
had this put into the bill. The chairman of the committee is now having
it pulled out of the bill, which is the way they want to go.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Gold
River, California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I am sorry, I had to come over
here and just respond to what was said by the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
You said, in the previous administration, anything goes. Read the
memo that just came out of the Justice Department. Look at the actions
of the Justice Department. They suggest that anything did not go. To
say that now is to besmirch the reputations of good men and women who
have worked both career and political to save us from the threat of
terrorists since 9/11. To come here and to say ``anything goes'' is a
continuation of besmirching the reputations of good men and women.
Frankly, it ought not to stand. Look at the facts. Look at the recent
memo that reviewed those analyses. You will see that is not the case.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman such time as he may
consume.
Mr. REYES. First of all, in response to my friend from California's
comment, I will just give you one example.
The issue of waterboarding has been characterized as the equivalent
of a training exercise, that the SERE training does it to train our
pilots. Don't you think there is a big difference between categorizing
it in that way and waterboarding an individual 183 times?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would look at
the memo that just came out which reviews the legal analysis provided
by the Justice Department in terms of waterboarding, you would see that
there is not only a historic but a legal and substantial difference
between the waterboarding referenced in the complaints versus that
which we did.
Mr. REYES. Answer the question: Do you think there is a difference
between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to respond if
the gentleman would allow me to.
Mr. REYES. Please.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. There is no difference in the
application--the numbers, yes.
The fact of the matter is, after that individual was waterboarded
multiple times, we received actionable information from the
intelligence community, which allowed us to stop plots that were aimed
at killing Americans. That has been said under oath by the highest
levels of the intelligence community in the United States.
Mr. REYES. Reclaiming my time, that doesn't deserve a response.
What I will say is that the FBI and our interrogators, the
professionals that they are, have proven that you can get better
information by following the traditional interrogation procedures. You
don't have to resort to ``enhanced interrogation techniques.''
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The facts are difficult.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the White House, Speaker Pelosi
said that people sitting around the kitchen table don't care about
process; they care about results.
Well, the fact of the matter is this has been an extraordinarily
sloppy process. As we've just seen from the exchange that has taken
place, it looks like we had the potential for very, very serious, far-
reaching results which could have been devastating had we included the
McDermott language in this measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this pattern, it is unfortunate. I
think we have made history here today by having the third rule
considered for the first step of legislation. It has taken 8 months for
us to get here when we should have dealt with it last summer when it
was a priority for us.
I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, when you have bad process, you end up
with bad results, and that's exactly what has happened here. So I am
very, very troubled that we are at this point, but we are going to try
to do what we can to move forward.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I am pleased
we are removing the language today.
I want to remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we are helping to
prevent the disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and
misinformed Congresses can have on national security. I urge a ``yes''
vote on the rule and on the previous question.
I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________