[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6157-6168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5020, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 774 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 774

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,

[[Page 6158]]

     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 774 is a structured rule that 
provides for consideration of H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring this 
resolution to the floor for its consideration. This is the fifth 
intelligence authorization bill that this House has considered since 
the tragic events of September 11, which changed this institution's 
outlook on intelligence. It has certainly changed our intelligence 
community's approach to collection and analysis.
  H.R. 5020 is the first intelligence authorization that is based on a 
budget request fully determined by our new Director of National 
Intelligence, again reflecting the changes, reflecting the evolution, 
the progress of our approach to keeping America secure, protecting our 
citizens, protecting our forces abroad through an ever-changing 
architecture.
  The DNI, created in H.R. 10, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004, created this new Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, a responsible authority that would oversee and 
orchestrate a coordinated effort by the entire intelligence community 
composed of 15 different intelligence agencies. This legislation today 
continues the sustained effort and long-term strategy to achieve 
optimum performance in human intelligence, signals intelligence, 
imagery intelligence, open-source intelligence, analysis, 
counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterterrorism.
  This bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. In addition to 
funding these agency activities, the legislation contains other 
noncontroversial intelligence community housekeeping matters that will 
help create a more efficient and effective intelligence community. The 
legislation reflects recent administrative action and formally includes 
the Drug Enforcement Administration in the intelligence community and 
authorizes its activities conducted within the National Intelligence 
Program. It also requires the DNI, the Director of National 
Intelligence, to conduct a regular strategic review of intelligence 
capabilities against threats, similar to the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, and limits the DNI's authority to hire civilian personnel in 
excess of the specifically authorized numbers to no more than 2 percent 
of the authorized amount of employees.
  To more formally increase oversight, the bill specifically provides 
that reporting requirements contained in the classified annex will be 
considered as required by the underlying law. Additionally, it requires 
a comprehensive inventory of special access programs conducted within 
the National Intelligence Program to be provided to the committee in 
classified format. This provision was included in the House-passed bill 
for fiscal year 2006 as well.
  The underlying bill also contains language offered by the ranking 
member, Ms. Harman, that expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
DNI should promptly examine the need for establishing and overseeing 
the implementation of a multilevel security clearance system across the 
intelligence community to leverage the cultural and linguistic skills 
of subject matter experts and individuals proficient in foreign 
languages that are deemed critical to our Nation's security.
  I am pleased with the efforts of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence. Chairman Hoekstra and his ranking member, Ms. Harman, 
have done yeoman's work, with the assistance of their committee, on a 
bipartisan basis to produce this bill. It is a perfect example of how 
Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our 
Nation. I commend them for their hard work.
  I urge the Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007, deals with one of the most important aspects of our 
national security: our ability to gather and analyze intelligence 
effectively so that our policies are based on fact, not fantasy or 
obsessive desire, so that our Federal law enforcement agencies can 
defend us from the threat of attack, and so that our allies can rely on 
our resources for timely, coordinated operations in defense of freedom 
abroad.
  I want to commend Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman and 
members of the Intelligence Committee for authorizing 100 percent of 
the funding required for our counterterrorism operations. Regrettably, 
President Bush only included 78 percent of this funding in his budget 
request; so I thank the committee for correcting this dangerous 
shortfall.
  The Intelligence Authorization Act traditionally receives strong 
bipartisan support and will likely receive that same support this year. 
But despite its many attributes, this bill could have and should have 
been better. This bill could have and should have required a dedicated 
funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When 
Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 
December 2004 in response to the findings and recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission report, it created this board to serve as a civil 
liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional 
rights of the American people in a post-9/11 world.
  Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights 
to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and 
running. The President did not nominate the members of the board for 9 
months. The Senate took 5 months to confirm the chair and vice chair. 
And, once again, the President's budget failed to include a single 
penny for the board's operation in fiscal year 2007.
  This could have and should have been fixed in committee. Congressmen 
Hastings, Reyes, and Holt offered an amendment to provide $3 million in 
dedicated funding for the oversight board, an amendment that should 
have had bipartisan support. But the majority chose to reject this 
funding and abandon their promise to the American people to safeguard 
their most basic freedoms and rights. And last night in the Rules 
Committee, the Republican leadership compounded this mistake by denying 
Congressman Reyes the right to offer this same amendment for debate on 
the House floor.
  And then we have the issue of the National Security Agency's spying 
on U.S. citizens. In committee, Representative Eshoo offered a 
carefully crafted amendment to withhold 20 percent of the NSA's budget 
until the executive branch provided the Intelligence Committee with the 
total cost of its surveillance program. That is all: just inform the 
committee of this one number. The Eshoo amendment was not looking for 
more operational details. It was not passing judgment on whether the 
NSA's domestic spying program is legal or not, even though that is a 
controversial matter in this House. All it

[[Page 6159]]

was looking for is how many of our tax dollars are being spent on this 
surveillance program.
  This is a question that should concern every single Member of this 
body on both sides of the aisle. But with just one exception, the 
Republican majority found it too much to ask and rejected the Eshoo 
amendment.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership went even 
further. The Republican Rules Committee denied Representatives Schiff, 
Flake, Harman, and Inglis the right to offer their bipartisan amendment 
for debate. This amendment would have required a classified disclosure 
to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, the two committees with 
jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities over the NSA and the FISA 
process, on which U.S. citizens have been the subject of NSA electronic 
surveillance, and what criteria was used to target them. Such a 
classified report would allow Congress to understand the program and 
whether any current laws need to be amended to grant the President the 
authority he needs to carry out this program more effectively or make 
any changes to safeguard against abuse. In short, these two committees 
need this information in order to do their jobs, in order to carry out 
their oversight responsibilities.
  This bipartisan amendment should have received bipartisan support 
from the Rules Committee, but it did not; not from the Republican 
majority on this Rules Committee and certainly not from the Republican 
leadership of this House.
  It is outrageous, Madam Speaker. Many of us believe that when the 
President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the 
law, plain and simple. And when the Attorney General says that Congress 
somehow granted the authority for this program after September 11, he 
is just wrong.
  We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that 
protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not 
even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?
  I would ask my Republican friends to re-read their Constitution. 
Congress was not designed to be a rubber stamp for the President. 
Congress was not designed to protect Members from difficult votes on 
controversial issues. Congress was not designed to protect the 
President's political rear end. But under this leadership that is 
exactly what Congress has become.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that this 
President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant 
and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill 
and bring it to the floor. They should at least show that level of 
respect for this House and for this Constitution.
  I am willing to bet that the majority of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle believe that what the President is doing is wrong. But 
either way, the very least we could do is have a debate and a vote.
  Madam Speaker, 25 amendments were brought to the Rules Committee last 
night. They dealt with issues ranging from how the NSA carries out 
surveillance of American citizens to how the Intelligence Committee and 
other relevant committees are briefed about weapons of mass destruction 
or the situations in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other hot spots. They 
dealt with how information is classified or reclassified, how national 
security whistle-blowers are protected or punished, and whether and how 
the amount of funds requested and appropriated for various 
intelligence-related activities are reported to Congress.

                              {time}  1300

  These are not trivial matters, Madam Speaker. Yet only five 
amendments, five amendments, Madam Speaker, plus the manager's 
amendment, were made in order under this highly restrictive rule.
  Why is the Republican leadership so afraid to debate these issues? 
Why is it so afraid to debate, period? After nearly 4 months of a 
lackluster Congress, are we suddenly on some tight time clock so there 
is no time to debate matters affecting national security? Do we need to 
get out of town by Thursday afternoon? I am happy to stay in town on 
Friday if it means we can get a full debate on the Intelligence 
Authorization Act.
  I am tired of restrictive rules. I am tired of stifling debate. I am 
tired of ignoring or running away from the big issues. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and to support an 
open debate on important issues facing our national security and 
intelligence agencies.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman acknowledged in the 
beginning of his remarks that this is a bipartisan bill that enjoyed 
unanimous support coming out of committee. As we move forward on the 
other issues of contention, we certainly look forward to that debate.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to one of this 
institution's experts on national security, a member of the 
Intelligence Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson), a graduate of one of America's fine service academies.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, we have had the good fortune in this country for the 
last 4\1/2\ years to have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, 
and it is not because they haven't tried. The reason for that success 
boils down to two things: the courage of our soldiers and the quality 
of our intelligence. Exceptional intelligence is the first line of 
defense for America in the long war on terrorism.
  I intend to support this rule today, and I intend to support this 
bill. I think it is a good bill. It is one that moves us forward to 
restore our Nation's intelligence capabilities across the board, HUMINT 
intelligence, technical and tactical intelligence, and strengthens our 
global understanding and awareness and analysis of what is going on in 
the world. I intend to support it. I also think this rule is a pretty 
good rule, and I have to disagree on a couple of points with my 
colleague from Massachusetts.
  My colleague from Massachusetts has said we should debate here an 
amendment that was debated in our committee offered by Ms. Eshoo, one 
that I was a Republican Member who supported. It asked for the cost of 
the program that the President has acknowledged exists, the terrorist 
surveillance program.
  I believe that whenever a member of an oversight committee asks for 
the cost of a program, we should get that answer. That answer has now 
been provided to the committee in a classified letter that is available 
in the Intelligence Committee spaces.
  The reason that we didn't need to debate Ms. Eshoo's amendment on the 
floor today is because we have already gotten the answer to her 
question, and it doesn't make sense to me to continue to have that 
debate here on the floor, even though I supported that amendment in 
committee. So I think we have gone beyond that, and I don't think we 
have to have that debate and discussion here today on the floor.
  The second thing that he talks about is having a debate here on the 
floor on the Flake proposal with some of his colleagues from the 
Democratic side of the aisle on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. The question here for this body is how do we move forward with 
effective oversight of the National Security Agency program that the 
President has acknowledged exists.
  Now, I believe that the President and the Congress share the same 
goal: we want to keep America safe and free. We have different 
responsibilities under our Constitution. The President has the 
responsibility for conducting our foreign affairs. He is the Commander 
in Chief. He makes sure that agencies follow the law and execute the 
programs which we have authorized.
  The Congress appropriates funds. We establish agencies. We authorize 
programs, and we oversee implementation

[[Page 6160]]

of those programs. We spy on our enemies. But we also oversee these 
programs to ensure that those very powerful tools are used within the 
constraints of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is why I 
stood up and demanded that this Congress and our committees on 
intelligence conduct oversight of this program. That oversight is now 
under way.
  I think as a responsible body we have to start out by getting the 
facts. That means hard work that is done largely in secret in the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That oversight is under 
way, and, for the most part, the National Security Agency has been very 
forthcoming.
  We have to understand this program in its details before we make 
recommendations to this body about any changes in statute or continuing 
mechanisms for oversight. It would be premature to legislate today on 
changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  The reality is that technology is changing. The Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act was put in place in 1978, the same year that I 
graduated from high school. I was one of the last classes at the Air 
Force Academy to get issued a slide rule. In 1978, the words ``cell 
phone'' and ``Internet'' were not even in the dictionary.
  We may need to make some changes to the laws to continue to keep this 
country both safe and free, but we are not ready today to make those 
changes effectively. That debate on the floor today would be uninformed 
and premature.
  I would ask this House to support this rule today and to also support 
the work, the continuing work, of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence as we do our duty under the Constitution to oversee these 
vital programs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, 
whom I have a lot of respect for.
  First of all, the cost of the program that we were debating was only 
given to members of the committee that the President chose, not all 
members of the committee.
  Secondly, I find it scandalous, quite frankly, that this Congress is 
abdicating its responsibility to put in place checks and balances on 
the President's domestic spying program. When you talk about enforcing 
and abiding by the Constitution of the United States, that is one of 
our responsibilities. I think what the President is doing is illegal. 
We should have a debate on this. The White House should be more 
forthcoming. Quite frankly, it is an outrage.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking Democrat on the House 
Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, Americans awoke today to deadly terrorist bombings in 
Egypt and a threatening new tape from al-Zarqawi, and today is our 
chance to debate a bill that authorizes funds and sets new directions 
in the fight to protect America. But this rule stifles debate about 
critical issues and I strongly oppose it.
  Members of our committee offered responsible amendments to strengthen 
this bill, and we were shut out by the Rules Committee. As a result, 
Madam Speaker, there will be no amendments today about the unlawful 
eavesdropping on American citizens, the overhyping of Iran intelligence 
without adequate basis, and the double standard this administration 
applies to leaks.
  Two amendments were filed that dealt with the President's NSA 
program. Congresswoman Eshoo's amendment, which is different from her 
request in committee that the budget for the program be disclosed to 
our committee, would have expressed the sense of Congress that all 
electronic surveillance, all eavesdropping of U.S. persons inside the 
U.S., must comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and 
the fourth amendment.
  A bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Flake, Schiff, 
English and me states that FISA is the exclusive way to conduct 
surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil. FISA has been our policy since 
1978, until this NSA program was implemented by the White House.
  The American people want our government to track the communications 
of al Qaeda. Surely I do. But they also want our President to follow 
the law and the Constitution.
  I have been briefed on the President's NSA program several times, and 
no one has convinced me why FISA cannot cover the entire program. The 
two amendments, the Eshoo amendment and the Flake-Schiff amendment, 
should have been made in order.
  I am particularly outraged that Congressman Boswell's amendment to 
require quarterly classified assessments of Iran's nuclear program was 
rejected. What do we want to do in Iran? Do we want to repeat the 
mistakes of Iraq? Do we want to have intelligence that is totally wrong 
and base our national policy on totally wrong intelligence? I don't 
think so.
  Chairman Hoekstra, chairman of our committee, said just this weekend, 
``As decisions are being made on Iran, we don't have all the 
information that we would like to have.'' So why is it a bad idea to 
require our Intelligence community to update Congress every three 
months with accurate information so that at least Congress has 
information on which to base responsible decisions? The Rules Committee 
apparently thinks that is not a good idea.
  Congressman Reyes submitted an amendment to provide dedicated fund 
for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which we will all recall was 
a key part of the intelligence reform bill that we passed almost two 
years ago.
  Sure we want enhanced security, but we also want respect for American 
values and our Constitution. The whole idea was we would have this 
Board helping craft careful policy that enhanced security and also 
protected civil liberties. Well, that Board now has two confirmed 
members and no money, and in this bill we unfortunately do nothing 
about providing any money.
  Finally, Congressman Holt submitted an amendment to ensure that we 
don't have a double standard on leaks. None of us condones leaks of 
classified information. That is wrong. But why is it that people are 
prosecuted for leaks, unless you work in the White House, in which case 
the President or the Vice President can authorize you to leak 
classified information to favored reporters in order to discredit 
political enemies? A double standard is wrong.
  This rule is inadequate. Sadly, this bill is inadequate. I ask for a 
no vote on the rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to address three of the points that the 
distinguished ranking member made, and I would point out that we 
appreciate her bipartisan efforts in crafting this bill, the underlying 
bill that the rule addresses, that came out of the committee on a voice 
vote.
  First, the program that she categorized, that has been categorized, I 
apologize, Madam Speaker, the program that has been categorized as an 
``illegal eavesdropping program'' had in a previous press release been 
characterized in this way: ``As the ranking member on the House 
Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly 
classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted al Qaeda. I 
believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its 
disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.''
  That was the statement of the ranking member of the House 
Intelligence Committee as it relates to what has now been characterized 
by saying it is illegal eavesdropping.
  Secondly, this question of Iran reports, the Iran crisis scares the 
dickens out of me. It is a very serious issue for this entire Chamber, 
for this entire Nation. It is a country that is not only engaged in 
what could be a speculative threat against its neighbors and the United 
States and the world as a whole, but are bringing in cameras to show 
that they are breaking IAEA seals, along with their red-hot rhetoric

[[Page 6161]]

coming out of their President calling for the destruction of our ally, 
bragging about the uranium enrichment capabilities, talking about the 
difference between P-1 and P-2 centrifuges.
  It is a very serious issue, one that all Members of Congress should 
make themselves aware of. As chairman of the policy committee, I was 
joined by my Energy Subcommittee in going to New York on Monday to 
receive such a briefing, the kind of briefing that every Member of 
Congress is entitled to. As members of the House Intelligence 
Committee, they are entitled to even higher-level briefings on the 
Iranian situation at their request.
  So, the requirement, the responsibility, for us to engage the 
administration, to engage the Intelligence Community, to engage the 
appropriate persons who are tracking this crisis is on us. And it is 
not a mere every-90-day exercise. It should be an ongoing exercise as 
developments come in through the media and through other open sources 
that call on us to further update our awareness of what is a very 
dangerous situation.
  Thirdly, this idea of zero funding for the Civil Liberties Protection 
Board, that is an issue within the White House budget. It is not 
germane to the intelligence authorization bill, it is not an issue that 
we can fund, and it was ruled out of order for that reason. It is a 
matter for the appropriators who are dealing with the White House 
budget line, not for the Intelligence Community's overall budget.

                              {time}  1315

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is a member of the committee.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, today we will authorize the largest 
intelligence budget in our history. I am pleased to be part of this 
authorization, because I believe we have no higher purpose than to 
support the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and the civilian 
intelligence officers of the front lines of our national security.
  However, I am sad to say this. There is a lingering threat, spoken to 
by Ms. Harman, that we have not addressed, which we should have. Last 
night the Rules Committee dealt a blow to our ability to gather 
intelligence on Iran's nuclear and missile capability by denying an 
amendment that I had offered.
  Now, if somebody else would like to offer that amendment, it is okay 
with me. We have got to do what is right. I would ask you, Mr. 
Chairman, if you are listening, that you might even think about doing 
that. But it would require the Director of National Intelligence to 
provide us quarterly written reports.
  You know, people do best what we check. And if we were checking this, 
and they were coming to us in our committee, and it is a classified 
environment, it is safe, they could come there and we would have a 
chance to see if they are actually doing the job. We should have done 
that.
  So it appears to me, and I am very disappointed to say this, that it 
appears to me that it was pure politics that my amendment was denied. 
And I am disappointed. When I joined this committee 5 years ago, I was 
under the impression that politics would not interfere with our 
intelligence work. But, apparently, not so.
  If I might quote from the President's bipartisan, if you will, WMC 
Commission, cochaired by Judge Lawrence Silverman and former Senator 
Charles Robb: ``Across the board, the Intelligence Community knows 
disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's 
most dangerous actors. In some cases it knows less now than 5 or 10 
years ago.''
  I just came across this thing from the Washington Times that our 
chairman was quoted as: We really do not know. We really do not know 
the status of Iran's nukes. We are getting lots of different messages 
from their leadership.
  Well, maybe I should just rest my case there, but we may have lost 
the chance to offer this amendment. But I cannot overstate the 
seriousness of this threat to global security, which could come from a 
nuclear armed Iran. I wish we would have been able to address this 
issue in the bill, and I hope my colleagues will support my efforts to 
do so in the future.
  Maybe somebody over there would like to offer the amendment. I do not 
care. It needs to be done. It should. We in Congress must be a better 
consumer of intelligence. It is a lesson we learned the hard way with 
regard to Iraq. It is a sham that this amendment was denied. It is a 
good bill, but it could have been better.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the concern 
about Iran. As I said earlier, it is a huge issue and a major 
international crisis for all of us to be tracking on a very routine 
basis, especially those members of the Intelligence Committee who have 
access to a higher level of information than the rest of us.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of those who served 
in gathering intelligence to protect the American people. It is 
regrettable that intelligence is often reshaped to fit doctrine instead 
of doctrine being reshaped in the face of the facts of intelligence.
  This rule blocks several important amendments that the House should 
have had the opportunity to debate. I sponsored one of those amendments 
that would have resolved the concerns of media leaks by intelligence 
community agents.
  Several high-profile classified leaks to the media have emerged in 
the last few years. These leaks have led to considerable release of 
information about secret programs related to our intelligence agencies. 
From these media leaks, we became aware of the efforts to manipulate 
intelligence, to falsify a cause for war against Iraq.
  We became aware of the illegal NSA domestic wiretapping program 
without a court order. We became aware of the rumored CIA detention 
centers in Eastern Europe, and the CIA's extraordinary rendition 
program, used to transport suspects to other nations with less 
restrictive torture policies.
  The House Intelligence Committee report for this bill states that 
leaks to the media damage our national security. In response, the CIA 
fired an agent who had unapproved contacts with reporters last week. I 
understand the concerns raised when intelligence leaks are reported in 
the media.
  However, if this House had conducted effective oversight, we would 
not have been there in the first place. Our democracy was bolstered by 
these leaks, and the world is a safer place as a result. Absent these 
leaks, the current administration would see no limit to its dangerous 
policies and continue to inflict its failed war on terrorism without 
limitation.
  To resolve this conflict I proposed an amendment that would remove 
barriers to intelligence agency employees communicating with certain 
committees of Congress. The purpose was to provide intelligence 
employees a more appropriate outlet than the media and give Congress 
better oversight capability.
  This amendment provided an obstacle-free path for intelligence 
employees to report to key Members of Congress their concerns. By 
providing this outlet, the employees would not feel any need to leak 
information to the media. So we need to do everything we can to protect 
these who serve in intelligence who want to get information out to the 
American people.
  They should do it through the Congress, but there is no provision for 
that in this bill. We need to protect this Nation, but we need to 
protect it with the truth, not with manipulated intelligence.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue of leaks briefly. Before 
presenting this rule to the House, I took it

[[Page 6162]]

upon myself to read the bill. And because of the nature of the bill, it 
is only available in Intelligence Committee space. And all Members have 
the opportunity to review the material that we are going to be voting 
on later today.
  In the context of this discussion about leaks, I was reminded that at 
the beginning of every Congress, upon our election, we, all Members of 
this House, have to sign something saying that we recognize that House 
rules prevent us from disclosing classified information.
  In addition, when you go to read the bill that we are here today to 
consider, you sign another form reaffirming that you have taken this 
oath, this obligation to not disclose classified information. That is 
what Members of Congress have to do.
  When you join the CIA, you sign a standard secrecy agreement that 
says that you are going to keep the things that you are working on 
secret to protect the interests of our Nation. You are not going to go 
writing books about it, you are not going to make a movie about it, you 
are not going to cash in on this Nation's security.
  When you have access to sensitive compartmented information, you sign 
yet another nondisclosure agreement, again to drive home the point to 
the employees who are guarding the very secrets that keep us safe and 
free that you cannot capitalize on America's secrets.
  This was very clear to the leaker. This was made very clear to 
Members of Congress. There is no double standard. What the individual 
did was against the law, was a complete breach of the secrecy agreement 
that that individual signed upon becoming an employee and then having 
progressively higher levels of access to more and more sensitive 
information. It is abundantly clear that what she did was wrong.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I would ask my good friend from Florida 
a simple question, that is, what happens when Congress is given false 
information in these briefings, having signed something that then they 
cannot disclose what they are told?
  See, this is the problem here. I just wanted to respectfully share 
that with you. Thank you.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the 
gentleman's perspective.
  That is why this bill is so important, number one; and number two, it 
is why it is so vitally important that our representatives on that 
committee, that our House Members on both sides of the aisle on the 
House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence, ask the correct 
questions, are given the proper orientation, dig into these issues, 
make this committee a priority, because they are the rest of this 
House's eyes and ears on those very sensitive issues.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, that last discussion 
actually interested me. The question would be, what penalty would a 
Member of Congress face if, having left a classified briefing, that 
Member disclosed information that turned out to be false?
  You know, in libel, truth is a defense. Perhaps when it comes to 
disclosing classified information that comes from this administration, 
falsity would be a defense on the grounds that if it was not true, who 
is going to be hurt?
  The gentleman from Florida talked about oaths. I want to talk about 
one that I took, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, 
because the Rules Committee is interfering with my ability to do that. 
We have one of the most serious constitutional issues facing this 
country now that we have faced in a very long time: the assertion by 
the President of the United States that because of terrorism, he 
basically is freed from restraints.
  He has announced by the way, remember, it is not directly relevant to 
this bill, but he has announced that as President he may order the 
imprisonment for an indefinite period of time of an American citizen, 
and that citizen has no recourse to any tribunal to disprove any 
charges against him, and there may not be any charges lodged.
  That is one of the things he said. In that same breathtaking 
assertion of untrammeled power, he says he can order the wiretapping of 
any American citizen; and it has gone beyond, as was brought out in the 
questions by the Judiciary Committee of the Attorney General, even 
within America. I think that is a dangerous abuse of power.
  I believe we are able to protect ourselves against terrorists, and we 
should protect ourselves against these murderous fanatics, but I 
believe we are able to do that while still observing the Constitution. 
And I want to be very clear. I want to give law enforcement power. I 
believe law enforcement, they are the good guys, but they are not the 
perfect guys.
  You give the good guys power, but you give it to them in a series of 
balances and restraints. You do not give them untrammeled power. The 
President has announced that he has carried out a program of 
wiretapping invasion of the most private moments of any American, with 
nobody else given any involvement, no warrants.
  Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) presented to the Rules 
Committee a very thoughtful amendment that would reaffirm that we want 
to go by the law of 1978, that would repudiate one of the most 
outrageous and, I am going to use the technical term here, 
``cockamamie'' arguments I have ever heard; namely, that when all of us 
voted to justify, to authorize the force against the Taliban in 
Afghanistan, we were somehow authorizing warrantless wiretapping.
  You know, I want to say to the people who say that, follow one of my 
rules. In a political debate, no matter how convenient it seems to you, 
please do not say anything that no one believes. It will not be 
helpful. No one believes that. But we now this have situation where the 
bill that includes some of the money that carries out the warrantless 
wiretapping is before us.
  People may think warrantless wiretapping is fine. I think it is a 
violation of the Constitution. But they should not be controversial. 
Should not this House of Representative be able to vote on that 
subject?
  The gentleman from California presented a bipartisan amendment 
dealing with wireless wiretapping, reaffirming what some of us think; 
that there should be restraint, repudiating the outrageous argument 
that the Afghan resolution okayed it. And you have, Madam Speaker, and 
your party, refused to allow the House to vote on it. That is the 
disgrace. That is the abuse of the Constitution.
  We are not even going to be allowed to vote on an amendment that 
would deal with this central constitutional question. And I would just 
say in closing, we are now in the process of instructing the people of 
Iraq about how to ruin parliamentary democracy.
  As they see you deny us the right to vote on this central 
constitutional question, I say again what I have said before: if 
anybody from the Iraqi Parliament is watching our procedures, please do 
not try this at home.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, the cultural differences in this House are 
intriguing. Hailing from the South, we would label ``cockamamie'' a 
theory where the President would conspire to break the law and invite 
Members of the other party in on the deal. We would call that a pretty 
cockamamie theory.
  And so when the President, in an effort to keep America safe and to 
monitor members of al Qaeda who are communicating with people inside 
our borders, probably not checking the weather, probably not seeing how 
the Yankees or the Mets are doing, but plotting very dangerous, tragic, 
consequential events to destroy our way of life, to cause mayhem, to 
cause loss of life, we want to know what they are up to.
  And the President, under this cockamamie theory, conspired to protect 
us, in the gentleman's words illegally protect us; but he did so in a 
way

[[Page 6163]]

that brought in a team of lawyers, reviewed the program every 45 days, 
and invited members of leadership from both parties, from both Houses 
of the legislative branch, to be in on that discussion.

                              {time}  1330

  That is a cockamamie theory that he was conspiring to break the law 
in that regard. He was fulfilling his oath to protect this Nation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I guess I didn't know we would get 
in great detail about what was cockamamier than what; but when I used 
that phrase, I was referring specifically only to one argument: the 
argument that the Afghanistan force resolution authorizes. That is all 
I said.
  I repeat, anybody who makes that argument is, let's use a Southern 
expression, had too much moonshine. Beyond that, I understand the 
gentleman thinks it is okay for warrantless wiretapping. The question 
is not wiretapping, but warrantless.
  But my question is this: Why can't the House of Representatives vote 
on it? By what right does the Rules Committee arrogate to itself the 
right to extinguish debate? I expect that there will be differences.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the gentleman's use 
of ``cockamamie'' was directed at another aspect of this debate. But I 
stand by my comment that the President of the United States did not 
conspire to engage in any illegal, inappropriate activity by, first, 
calling a team of lawyers and, second, calling the leadership of the 
opposite party.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), another member of the House Intelligence 
Committee, another leader on national security issues for us.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding his time and his handling of this rule.
  Actually, there were a number of statements made by my colleague from 
Massachusetts with which I fully agree. As a matter of fact, one of the 
challenges, I think, of bringing this bill to the floor is that we are 
all, in an age of terrorism, attempting to find the right place where 
we are effective against the terrorists who are trying to kill as many 
of us as possible, but also not lose sight of our Constitution and our 
freedoms and the fundamental nature of this society.
  One of the key elements in trying to get that right is a whole area 
of government activity which we cannot talk about, and which the 
Intelligence Committee is charged with overseeing and helping shape. 
And so every year, our challenge is to bring a bill that oversees and 
helps shape those activities to this floor in a very public forum.
  A number of the issues that we talk about have been reported 
extensively in various newspaper articles. And we know that some of it 
is right and some of it is wrong, and yet you can't come here and 
correct the factual misstatements and the improper impressions which 
people have.
  I think it is important to affirm two things. Number one is that 
there is much in this bill which is largely agreed upon. Now, the 
nature of coming to the floor with this kind of bill is that we are 
going to spend most of our time talking about differences, or at least 
making up differences to talk about, when they didn't exist maybe a 
week or two ago. But the central direction, and most of the provisions 
of this bill, for the people who have taken the time to go read it, are 
largely agreed upon by both sides of the aisle.
  The second thing that I think it is important to emphasize is that 
the members of the Intelligence Committee take their responsibilities 
very seriously. If you have any doubt about that, just listen again to 
the comments, for example, of the gentlewoman from New Mexico who was, 
one, standing up to insist upon a much greater role by this Congress in 
oversight of the terrorist surveillance program.
  That oversight is under way. As she said, it is very important for us 
to understand the details and the procedures and the process and the 
specifics of this program before we come to the floor and decide about 
how various laws ought to be changed in different ways. But that is 
just one example.
  There are many, many issues before the Intelligence Committee on 
which we attempt to exercise our oversight in a very serious and 
responsible way. We may not agree on all the details or where things 
ought to go, but this committee is not a rubber stamp for any 
administration, or any President, and at the same time we take very 
seriously the recommendations which were in the Commission on Weapons 
of Mass Destruction that our oversight needs to be strategic; not just 
following the headlines of the day hither and yon as reporters may 
write stories, but to follow strategic oversight in a way that makes 
this country safer. That is always going to be our goal.
  Of course, any rule which brings an intelligence authorization bill 
to the floor has got to be somewhat restrictive, because there is so 
much that we simply cannot talk about on the floor without damaging the 
country's security.
  I think this is a good rule. It frames debate on key issues. I think 
it should be supported as well as the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who was also shut out of being able to offer an 
amendment in the Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to 
this rule. A number of amendments were denied to some very responsible 
Members of this body. One amendment would have required the President 
or the Vice President, if they intend to declassify intelligence 
documents, to inform the congressional Intelligence Committees and the 
originating agencies ahead of time.
  As we have learned in the last month through court filings, the 
President, without informing, much less consulting our committee, 
elected to secretly and selectively declassify portions of the 2002 
national intelligence assessment about Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction. Now, by sworn statement, we know that this was done to 
rebut critics of the administration who questioned the rationale for 
the war.
  The American people deserve to have the full facts. This amendment 
that I offered but we were denied the opportunity to debate on the 
floor would have ensured that any future classification efforts would 
have been disclosed. It would have exposed what the ranking member of 
our committee called the double standard of leaks.
  Another amendment that I would have offered would have required any 
inquiries about intelligence employees or contractors made by 
nonintelligence community government officials, such as the President, 
the Vice President, the White House staff, would be reported to the 
congressional Intelligence Committees together, so that the propriety 
of such an inquiry could be considered. Had my amendment passed, it 
would have given Congress the opportunity to say clearly whether outing 
a career intelligence officer for gratuitous reasons would be 
tolerated.
  Now, the gentleman from Florida said with regard to this bill before 
us, all Members will have the opportunity to review the material before 
us. No, not so. Even the cost of the unwarranted surveillance program 
will be provided only to a few Members.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico said that she has been informed, but 
I can tell you 425 other Members of this body have not been informed 
even about the cost of this program. And they cannot and they will not 
be informed, yet they are asked to vote on what is one of the most 
significant changes in intelligence collection in American history.
  The checks and balances spelled out in this document, which I refer 
to my friend from Florida, known as the Constitution of these United 
States, this hallowed document, those checks and balances, are eroded. 
The debate here, allowed by the Rules Committee, or the lack of it, 
makes a mockery of this hallowed document.

[[Page 6164]]

  Amendments by Representatives Boswell, Reyes, Eshoo, Harman, Flake, 
Frank, Kucinich, Maloney, Schiff, Shays and others have been denied. We 
have been denied the opportunity to debate significant issues on the 
floor.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is a very capable member of the 
Intelligence Committee, and surely he is not suggesting that covert 
actions of the United States Government should be made available to 
every single Member of Congress. Surely the gentleman is not suggesting 
that every classified program that this United States is engaged in 
should be available to every single Member.
  I would invite the gentleman to respond. Would the Manhattan Project 
have been available to every single Member who asked about its cost, 
the number of employees, where the activity was going on, how many 
people were involved? Would the gentleman have suggested that every 
Member of Congress would have been clued in on that, even when the Vice 
President wasn't?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I think it certainly would not be asking too 
much that every member of the Intelligence Committee had access to this 
and far from it, if I may complete the answer, just as the President 
has decided he can pick and choose which laws apply to him.
  These are significant issues that need to be debated here on the 
floor.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, by his answer, 
has answered the question that clearly we have an Intelligence 
Committee specifically for the purpose of being our eyes and ears, 
because we do not empower every single Senator and every single House 
Member with every single detail of every activity going on in the 
intelligence community, and there are very strong reasons for that. So, 
clearly, that would not be the proper course of action.
  Under longstanding committee tradition, the chair and the ranking 
member of both Houses were brought into a different level of awareness 
on certain activities that were going on. Under Democratic and 
Republican control, that was the case.
  As a result of the terrorist surveillance program, the Senate created 
an entire new subcommittee to deal with the issue, and the House 
expanded access to that information to 11 Members, an unprecedented 
number of Members going beyond the historical, under the Democratic 
model, four Members who had been given access to those types of 
programs and activities.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, the 
gentleman says unprecedented number. Yes, an unprecedentedly small 
number.
  We on the Intelligence Committee have a responsibility to review 
these issues on behalf of all 435 Members of the House of 
Representatives. I am not for a moment suggesting that all things need 
to be discussed here on the floor or in open. Of course, it is 
necessary so that we preserve national secrets.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman had 
suggested that the other 420 Members of the House had not had access to 
the information, and that is precisely how it is set up, that they 
would not have access to that information. That is why we have talented 
Members like yourself on the committee, and that is why we have 
expanded access to information about that program to more members of 
the committee than ever before.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), who also was shut off being able to offer an 
amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on the Rules Committee.
  As we can tell by the debate, there were a number of critical issues, 
the warrantless wiretaps and many others, that were denied by this 
restrictive rule.
  It has become clear to me that the Republican leadership of this 
House simply does not care about protecting the civil liberties of the 
American people.
  Last night, in a bipartisan effort, Congressman Shays and I went 
before the Rules Committee for the fifth time, seeking the opportunity 
to debate an amendment that would create the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Board as envisioned by the 9/11 Commission. This morning, we 
learned for the fifth time in a row that the Rules Committee has denied 
this House even the opportunity to debate this important amendment that 
is supported unanimously by the 9/11 Commission and by the 9/11 
families.
  This is just the latest in a series of actions by the Republican 
House leadership to deny us the opportunity to have a full debate on 
the protection of our civil liberties, and I want to make sure that 
people listening know the track record of this House.
  When we were considering the intelligence reform bill that enacted 
many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, it was this House that 
refused to include a committee-approved, bipartisan amendment to create 
this board in any legislation passed by the House of Representatives. 
It was this House that stripped the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board's subpoena power, bipartisan makeup, and qualifications 
requirements during conference negotiations. All of these provisions 
had passed the Senate, a vote of 96-2, but the House of Representatives 
struck it out.

                              {time}  1345

  It is this House that has refused amendments by members of the 
Intelligence Committee to require a budget line for this board and the 
authorization we are voting on today backing up the President's action 
to defund the board in his budget. And it is this House that denies our 
repeated attempt to even debate an amendment that would give the board 
the power and authority that it needs to do the job. I hope the 
American people are watching, because this House refuses to do anything 
to protect the civil liberties of the American people.
  And I would like to quote from the 9/11 Commission report where they 
said, ``If our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are 
struggling so hard to defend.''
  Again, they have spoken out many times in support of this Civil 
Liberties and Privacy Board that would provide balance and restraint to 
the National Intelligence Reform Act, and I urge my colleagues to have 
a strong ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that the amendment 
the gentlewoman refers to is not germane to this bill, I point out to 
the gentlewoman that the amendment that she refers to creates a 
commission that, A, already exists; and, B, the chair and vice chair 
have already been confirmed by the Senate, and the members have been 
appointed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member 
of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to help clear up a couple of confusing issues here. First of 
all, when we talk about the resolution of force that was passed by the 
House of Representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, we were 
talking about our response to the attacks on this country after 9/11. 
We were talking about morphing the force; being able to have liquidity 
and being able to take the capability of this country and go after 
terrorists, who don't confine themselves to the border of one country.
  You talk about the resolution of force, and you mention the country 
of Afghanistan as if it was only limited to the boundaries of 
Afghanistan. It is a falsehood to say so to the American people. It is 
not right. It is wrong. We took the resolution of force and said, you, 
the President, you have got to manage the intelligence, you have got to 
manage the Armed Forces, you have got to go after terrorists all around 
the

[[Page 6165]]

world like a cancer that metastasizes itself. You have to go where they 
are. You have to be able to listen to them calling into the United 
States. You have to break up their terrorist cells. The American people 
expect you to do so.
  There has been a lot of talk and a lot of rhetoric of people on this 
committee about a point that we debated ad nauseam in committee, which 
is that the President somehow didn't inform the committee. That is a 
falsehood. The President fully informed the committee to the letter of 
the law. The 1947 Intelligence Act established that the President shall 
inform the committee, but the establishment language of the act says 
that the President and the Congress shall establish the procedures.
  So what were the procedures established under Truman? That it was 
okay for the President to inform the Gang of Eight, the House and the 
Senate, and limit it to four on each side. It is okay to do that. And 
Truman did it, and Carter did it, and Reagan, and Clinton, and this 
President did it, and he abided by the law. And to say so otherwise is 
to ill inform the American people. It is misguided, and it is false.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, before I introduce our next 
speaker, let me just respond by saying what has the American people 
concerned is that we have a set of procedures in place, the so-called 
FISA procedures, which allow the President to put anybody under 
surveillance here in the United States providing that he gets a 
warrant. And he can even get a warrant after he puts somebody under 
surveillance. The question is why can't he follow the procedures in 
place? In my opinion, he is breaking the law.
  And I would also say that the other question is, why in the world, 
given the controversy on this issue, can't this Congress have an up-or-
down vote on this issue? If the majority thinks that the President 
should be able to put anybody under surveillance he wants without a 
warrant, fine. Then write the bill and bring it to the floor, let us 
debate it and pass it up or down.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank my friend on the Rules Committee, ranking 
member, for allowing me to interject in this discussion at this point, 
because I am stunned to hear now that there are people still defending 
the President's right to have illegal spying on Americans when actually 
we didn't know about it until the leaks occurred. He wasn't telling 
everybody regularly about it. What we are dealing with now is some 
spurious claims. And I am interested that the authorization for the use 
of military force was supposed to allow domestic wiretapping on 
Americans.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we already have a couple of systems dealing 
with terrorism surveillance. One is called the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act. There is plenty of room here for us to survey spying. 
If we want to take care of spying, let us do that, but we are talking 
about spying on Americans where there is no connection with foreign 
intelligence. No question about it at all.
  And so Sandra Day O'Connor declared to that kind of an argument that 
in the case of combatants captured in the battlefield, it is clear that 
a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to 
the rights of the Nation's citizens. So what we debate on the rule here 
today is whether or not there should have been an allowance for the 
Schiff amendment, and all we are saying is that there should have been.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Both sides have 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will 
amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Boswell amendment on 
Iran nuclear programs. This amendment was offered in the Rules 
Committee last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. 
It is yet another example of what I believe is the abuse of power by 
the Republican-dominated Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires the Director of National 
Intelligence to submit reports to Congress on Iran's weapons of mass 
destruction every 90 days. It requires these reports to include an 
assessment of Iran's nuclear programs, an evaluation of intelligence 
sources, a summary of new intelligence for any information that would 
increase confidence in overall assessment.
  Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned over the ominous situation in 
Iran with regard to the potential for nuclear weapons in that country, 
and I think most Members of this body would agree that it is absolutely 
critical that we continue to monitor the situation very closely and 
receive frequent updates on Iran. We need to have constant and accurate 
updates on this very serious situation. There is too much at stake here 
for us to do less.
  Have we learned nothing from what we experienced with regard to the 
misleading intelligence and the false intelligence on Iraq? Have we 
learned nothing from the fact that this Congress did not do its job; 
did not take its oversight responsibility seriously; did not ask the 
questions; did not hold the administration accountable?
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. Chairman 
Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman have worked in a bipartisan way. 
This should have been worked out in a bipartisan way. I cannot imagine 
why anybody would be opposed to this amendment.
  Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent 
consideration of the intelligence bill and will not affect any of the 
amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will 
allow us to add this important amendment that seeks to fully understand 
the depth of the nuclear situation in Iran.
  I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
for this. This should be a bipartisan vote. There is no reason, there 
is no reason to vote this down unless somehow you do not want to hear 
the information; unless somehow you do not want to demand this 
administration be accountable and inform the Members of this Congress.
  On the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran, it should be every Member of 
this Congress, quite frankly, who should have access to relevant 
material. We need to learn our lesson. We are in a mess right now in 
Iraq. We are involved in a quagmire that has cost over 2,500 lives, 
hundreds of billions of dollars, and we know the intelligence was 
wrong. Let us do it right this time. Let us not rush into a war 
unnecessarily. Let us demand from this administration some 
accountability and some truth.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts had me with 
Iran and lost me with Iraq. Everything that he said regarding the 
seriousness of the threat from Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran, is 
unacceptable to our interests. Everything he said is absolutely 
correct.
  And I can save him the vote on the previous question by asking him to 
turn to page 22 of the public version of the intelligence authorization 
bill, where it says, under the subheading Reporting Regarding Iran and 
North Korea, ``The committee has conducted regular and ongoing 
oversight of these efforts and expects the DNI to ensure that the 
Intelligence Community continues to provide timely, detailed, and 
frequent reporting on the current intentions and capabilities on Iran 
and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological, and 
missile programs, as well as the Intelligence Community's capabilities 
to understand and evaluate these programs. In particular, the committee 
is interested in

[[Page 6166]]

receiving, on an ongoing basis current assessments of Iran and North 
Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, and missile programs; 
information on new intelligence developed, including intelligence 
collected from both open and clandestine sources; and full discussion 
of any gaps in knowledge, dissents, caveats, and other information that 
would tend to reduce confidence in the overall assessment. The 
committee believes these reports will provide timely information to 
help better inform Congress as it is asked to make decisions regarding 
U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea.''
  The reporting requirement is in the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very 
important issue. I urge the gentleman, I urge the Congress to support 
the rule, support the underlying bill, and support the hardworking men 
and women.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 774--Rule on H.R. 5020, Intelligence 
                 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 6 in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Boswell of Iowa or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 5020, as Reported

  Offered by Mr. Boswell of Iowa
       At the end of title III (page 16, after line 10), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 308. IRAN INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Iran 
     Intelligence Oversight Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The development of nuclear weapons and the long-range 
     missiles capable of delivering them by the Islamic Republic 
     of Iran threatens the national security of the United States 
     and its allies.
       (2) Denying these capabilities to Iran is among the most 
     important national security interests of the United States.
       (3) Iran's avowed hostility towards the United States and 
     Israel, Iran's stated commitment to develop all elements of 
     the nuclear fuel cycle, Iran's continued defiance of 
     international efforts to account for its nuclear program, 
     Iran's development of long-range ballistic missile 
     technology, and Iran's three decades of support for 
     international terrorist organizations raise grave suspicions 
     about the purpose of its nuclear and missile programs.
       (4) The United States Government's current intelligence on 
     Iran may not be sufficient to assess the capabilities and 
     intentions of Iran with a high degree of certainty.
       (5) The bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence 
     Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction, co-chaired by Judge Lawrence Silberman and 
     former Senator Charles S. Robb, reported in 2005 that 
     ``across the board, the Intelligence Community knows 
     disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the 
     world's most dangerous actors. In some cases, it knows less 
     now than it did five or ten years ago''. This statement aptly 
     describes the challenge faced by policy-makers in the United 
     States with regard to Iran's weapons ambitions.
       (6) If the President and Congress are to develop an 
     effective policy to counter the weapons programs of Iran, 
     such a policy must be based on accurate and timely 
     intelligence to the extent that it is possible to collect 
     such intelligence.
       (7) Under section 502(a)(2) of the National Security Act of 
     1947 (50 U.S.C. 413a(a)(2)), the intelligence community must 
     ``furnish the congressional intelligence committees any 
     information or material concerning intelligence activities . 
     . . which is within their custody or control''.
       (8) Regular reports to Congress on the intentions and 
     capabilities of Iran with regard to Iran's nuclear program, 
     in addition to the continuing requirement to ensure that the 
     congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and 
     currently informed of all intelligence activities, will 
     assist Congress in the development of effective policy to 
     counter the weapons programs of Iran.
       (c) Quarterly Intelligence Briefings to Congress on Iran.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and at least every 90 days thereafter, 
     the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the 
     relevant committees a report, in classified form, on the 
     current intentions and capabilities of the Islamic Republic 
     of Iran with regard to the nuclear program of Iran, 
     including--
       (A) an assessment of nuclear weapons programs;
       (B) an evaluation, consistent with existing reporting 
     standards and practices, of the sources upon which the 
     intelligence is based, including the number of sources and 
     the reliability of each source;
       (C) a summary of any new intelligence gathered or developed 
     since the previous report, including intelligence collected 
     from both open and clandestine sources; and
       (D) a discussion of any dissents, caveats, gaps in 
     knowledge, or other information that would reduce confidence 
     in the overall assessment.
       (2) Access to report.--Each report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall be made available to all members of the 
     relevant committees and to all staff of the relevant 
     committees with appropriate security clearance. Other members 
     of the Senate or the House of Representatives may review the 
     reports by following security procedures established by each 
     of the relevant committees.
       (3) Relevant committees.--In this section, the term 
     ``relevant committees'' means the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page 6167]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Isn't it 
accurate that the language that the gentleman just referred to in the 
bill is discretionary, whereas what we are talking about is statutory 
language that would require reporting every 90 days so that we don't 
make the same mistake we did in Iraq?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to that inquiry. It 
is not the province of the Chair to interpret the substance of the 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 774 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House 
Resolution 774, if ordered; suspending the rules and adopting House 
Concurrent Resolution 365; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 
282.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 102]

                               YEAS--228

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

                               NAYS--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baca
     Evans
     Fattah
     Hastings (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Osborne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Scott (GA)
     Shuster

                              {time}  1419

  Mr. COOPER and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 102, I inadvertently cast a 
``yea'' vote when I intended to cast a ``nay'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 198, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)

[[Page 6168]]


     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bono
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Osborne
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1432

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________