[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1858-1866]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2701, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
 ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010, WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE 
    XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS, AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1105 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1105

       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. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair 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, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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. 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.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence or his designee. The Chair 
     may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words 
     of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 3.  After passage of H.R. 2701, it shall be in order 
     to consider in the House S. 1494. All points of order against 
     the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It 
     shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 2701 as passed by the House. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived. If the motion is 
     adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it 
     shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendment to S. 1494 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.
       Sec. 4.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of February 26, 2010.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of February 26, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hastings of Florida was allowed to speak 
out of order.)


             Announcement Regarding PATRIOT Act Authorities

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Members that 
the Intelligence Committee has received a classified document from the 
Department of Justice that is related to the PATRIOT Act authorities 
currently set to expire at the end of the month.
  The House may consider a 1-year extension of the PATRIOT Act today so 
the Intelligence Committee will be making this document available for 
Member review in the committee offices located in HVC-304. Staff from 
the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, as well as personnel from 
the Justice Department and with the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence, will be available to answer any questions that Members 
may have. Members who want to review the document should call the 
Intelligence Committee to schedule an appointment.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Dreier. 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution, as announced by our Clerk, provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising 
under clause 9 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on 
the bill, makes in order only those amendments printed in the rule, and 
the resolution waives all points of order against such amendments 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
  The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions and provides that the Chair may

[[Page 1859]]

entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the Chair of the 
Intelligence Committee or his designee and provides that the Chair may 
not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill.
  The resolution provides for a motion to consider the Senate bill and 
substitute its text with the text of H.R. 2701 as passed by the House. 
The resolution waives all points of order against the Senate bill and 
its consideration. It also makes in order a motion that the House 
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate and 
waives all points of order against such motion.
  The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote for same-day consideration of a report from the Rules 
Committee through the legislative day of Friday, February 26. It also 
permits the Speaker to consider motions to suspend the rules through 
the legislative day of Friday, February 26. The Speaker shall consult 
with the minority leader on the designation of any matter under this 
authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010.
  As vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I know that the intelligence community is the first line 
of defense against terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass 
destruction, and other rogue elements who wish to do us and our allies 
harm here at home and across the globe.
  This legislation provides policy guidance for 16 agencies of the 
intelligence community while also improving oversight and helping to 
prevent disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and a 
misinformed Congress can have on national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of meeting many of our 
intelligence professionals in over 50 countries around the world during 
my oversight travel as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I cannot 
overstate how much I and the members of the committee, and I am sure 
all Members of this body, appreciate them and are humbled by their 
service. Their dedication and commitment became more evident when seven 
Americans made the ultimate sacrifice during a terrorist attack in 
Khost, Afghanistan, this past December.
  But the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on 
Christmas Day was a startling reminder to all Americans that in spite 
of our best efforts we are still under attack, and we still have much 
work to do to get it right. The constant threat from violent extremists 
reinforces that now more than ever, and we must give the intelligence 
community the resources and flexibility it needs to thwart the 
continuing and emerging threats to United States national security.
  For the last 4 years, our country has gone without an intelligence 
authorization bill. I find it very distressing that the House 
Intelligence Committee, which was created to ensure proper oversight 
and accountability of our intelligence community, has worked diligently 
every year to pass a bill but has not seen one signed into law in 
recent years.
  As we have seen, the intelligence community is in dire need of 
independent oversight. Sadly, when we created the Director of National 
Intelligence, we did not create an independent Inspector General. This 
bill would remedy that flaw by making clear that the Inspector General 
does not serve at the whim of the Director of National Intelligence and 
also has an independent responsibility to keep Congress informed.
  Some of my colleagues on the other aisle have argued against the 
creation of a new Inspector General. I would respectfully disagree with 
their assessment. It is clear that this provision will help to 
streamline and coordinate oversight.
  This bill also contains a provision in the manager's amendment 
providing sensible reforms to the Gang of Eight process. As vice 
chairman of the committee, I have seen that process abused in the past, 
and I am glad that we are taking a careful step towards reform. I 
believe that the administration has a statutory and constitutional duty 
to keep members of the Intelligence Committee, all members of the 
Intelligence Committee, fully informed on certain intelligence matters. 
Therefore, by reforming this process, the bill enhances transparency 
and bolsters Congress' capacity to conduct important oversight.
  The bill also clarifies the responsibility of the Director of 
National Intelligence to cooperate with GAO investigations initiated by 
Congress. GAO can provide the Congress with valuable expertise and 
assist with oversight functions, especially in areas of auditing and 
security clearance reforms.
  I have stated time and time again that the intelligence community is 
not diverse enough to do its job of stealing and analyzing foreign 
countries' secrets. Diversity is a mission imperative. When I came on 
this committee, I came on after the legendary Lou Stokes, who served on 
this committee and advanced many measures that are in law today dealing 
with intelligence. My good friend and my good friend from California's 
good friend, Julian Dixon, who has departed life, carried that banner, 
as did Sanford Bishop when he was on this committee.
  I, along with many other members of the committee, particularly 
Chairman Reyes, Anna Eshoo and others countless throughout the years, 
Jane Harman included, we have fought for continuing diversity on this 
committee. We need people who blend in, speak the language, and 
understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting.
  As my colleagues on the committee and I have mentioned on many 
occasions, when the intelligence leadership comes to testify, we don't 
see a lot of diversity at the table. We don't see enough women at the 
table. It is time for the community to get serious about improving 
diversity for the sake of our national security.
  A real diversity effort means more than just staging recruitment 
drives at colleges with a lot of black students or Latino students. 
Diversity means hiring, hiring more Arab Americans. It means hiring 
more Iranian Americans, more Pakistani Americans, more Chinese 
Americans and more Korean Americans. If the intelligence community is 
to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.
  I have offered an amendment on diversity in the intelligence 
community to the underlying bill. My amendment contains a requirement 
for the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on a 
comprehensive plan to improve diversity in the intelligence community. 
It calls on the Director to report on specific implementation plans for 
each element agency in the community. It also requires information on 
plans to improve minority retention, not only at the junior and mid-
grade levels, but at the senior and management levels as well.
  Finally, it requires that the Director of National Intelligence 
report to the congressional Intelligence Committees on the efforts 
being made with diversity training and how improvement in diversity 
will be measured. This amendment, along with many other important 
provisions in this bill, will make our intelligence community more 
effective, more efficient, and more accountable.
  Given the immense security challenges facing our Nation, it is vital 
that Congress pass this legislation so that we may continue to fulfill 
our commitment to the safety and well-being of the great American 
people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first express my appreciation to my friend from 
Fort Lauderdale, a member of both the Rules Committee and a 
distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, last Christmas Day, as we all know, when a passenger 
boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 headed for the Detroit Metro 
Airport, the issue of national security once again came to the 
forefront, to the top of the agenda for everyone in our country. This 
is, of course, never, never far from our minds. But in recent months, 
as several high-profile terrorist plots have

[[Page 1860]]

been thwarted, the tragic shooting at Fort Hood had taken place and our 
troops continue to fight two wars, we know that the threat of attacks 
on Americans remains a very real threat to us.
  What was so shocking and revealing about the attempted attack on 
Christmas Day was not that al Qaeda remains a threat. This much we all 
know. What was most troubling to the American people was the revelation 
that key information was available that could have prevented Umar 
Farouk Abdulmutallab from ever boarding that plane in the first place.
  Last month, December 25, as everyone, including the President has 
acknowledged, the system failed us. If not for the perpetrator's 
failure to properly detonate the device and the heroic acts of his 
fellow passengers, this attempted attack would have become a horrible, 
horrible tragedy. It was not careful intelligence gathering, analysis, 
and coordination that saved the people on that plane; it was luck and 
the quick thinking on the part of those very courageous passengers.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people rightly began, immediately after 
Christmas, on Christmas Day and thereafter, to ask questions about what 
is being done to address this failure that allowed Abdulmutallab to 
board that plane. What exactly what wrong? How can we fix the system? 
What can we do to ensure that this kind of failure never, ever happens 
again.
  Now, in light of these questions, it would seem appropriate that 
today we would be considering our annual intelligence authorization 
bill. Now is the time to compile the lessons learned from the attempted 
attack on Flight 253, the Fort Hood shooting, the numerous arrests of 
would-be terrorists like Najibullah Zazi and David Headley and the 
continued items that obviously we don't hear about out there.

                              {time}  1045

  Now is the time to take, Mr. Speaker, these new insights and reform 
our intelligence agencies and policies to better protect our homeland 
and the American people, and that has to remain the top priority. That 
is where all of the attention should be focused. And yet, inexplicably, 
we are considering a bill today that is nearly 8 months old. This 
legislation was reported out of committee in June of last year. It was 
written before any of these recent attacks and attempted attacks took 
place, before any of these new revelations of flaws in our system and 
before any analysis was conducted on how to fix them.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Democratic majority's decision to 
bring up this hopelessly outdated bill is made all the more 
inexplicable by the fact that it was known to be a seriously flawed 
bill even back in June when it was being finalized. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, the Obama administration released a scathing criticism of this 
legislation and even issued a veto threat.
  According to the Statement of Administration Policy from July 8 of 
last year: ``The administration has serious concerns with a number of 
provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning of 
the intelligence community and that would raise a number of policy, 
management, legal and constitutional concerns.'' That is the Statement 
of Administration Policy.
  The statement went on to elaborate on the bill's flaws: the serious 
risk of compromising highly sensitive data, the new layers of 
bureaucracy, the impediments to building an intelligence workforce for 
the 21st century, the wasted resources. These were not the accusations, 
Mr. Speaker of political adversaries; these were the serious criticisms 
of President Obama. And they were leveled nearly 8 months ago before a 
whole host of new challenges made themselves apparent to us. If this 
was a flawed bill last July, as the President clearly defined it as 
being, it is now a flat-out dangerous bill.
  I believe that the American people will be stunned to learn that the 
Democratic majority has chosen, with this legislation, to simply ignore 
the grave new concerns that have been raised in recent months. No 
lessons have been learned and no new solutions have been contemplated. 
The Democratic majority's bold approach is to take up an 8-month-old 
bill that wasn't even a good idea at the time and, as I said, was 
criticized harshly by President Obama.
  The manner in which they are bringing this bill to the floor is just 
as troubling, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic majority will likely claim 
that a bipartisan amendment process has been allowed: five Democratic 
amendments were made in order, four Republican amendments, and three 
bipartisan amendments. But what these numbers mask is the fact that 21 
Democratic amendments were included in the manager's amendments. This 
not only skews the process in a very partisan way, but it denies the 
Members of this body representing all Americans, representing Democrats 
and Republicans alike, the opportunity to vote on these 21 amendments 
individually based on their merits. We are denied the opportunity for 
transparency and scrutiny.
  What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this rule has implications for 
legislation far beyond the intelligence bill at hand. This rule 
provides a blank check for the Democratic leadership to bring up any 
bill at any time today or tomorrow without a shred of transparency or 
even one moment of public scrutiny. This rule gives them carte blanche 
to take whatever legislative action they choose, entirely absent of any 
accountability.
  And I've got to say, I was thinking about this last night when we 
were in the Rules Committee, to impose this kind of structure this 
early in a Congress--the second month of the second session of the 
111th Congress--is beyond the pale. When such drastic and draconian 
measures are taken to shield their actions from all scrutiny, we can 
only ask ourselves, what exactly are they plotting? What exactly are 
they trying to hide from the American people?
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the security of our homeland and for the 
sake of a return to the often-promised accountability and transparency, 
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. What we need to do is we need 
to take a hard look at the intelligence failures that have taken place. 
Let's ask the hows and the whys and make the necessary reforms that 
will ensure that we never again have to rely on blind luck to protect 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps most important of all, we must reject this 
attempt to shield the Democratic majority's actions from public view.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from California's 
desire to address Flight 253; but in my view, his complaints that the 
bill is outdated ignores the rule. The rule makes in order an amendment 
by Representative Schauer directed at the lessons of Flight 253.
  Now, listen, the intelligence community, constituted of 16 elements, 
is organic. It is constantly in a state of change, and there is 
considerable coordination and collaboration regarding the globe, not 
just one airplane, not just one individual. And when you isolate one 
individual, like the person that was on Flight 253, you do have that 
anomaly to show that we are steadily being set upon. But that was mild 
by comparison to some of those incidents that never make it in the 
public realm.
  I am reminded of the constant saying that success has a thousand 
fathers, but failure evidently doesn't even have a mother because 
anytime there is a failure, the whole community is set upon, while day 
after day after day, year after year after year they're stopping 
countless attacks on this country that go unnoticed, whether it be in 
the field of cyber, whether it be on the battlefield. We are constantly 
in that position. There have been hundreds of successes to protect our 
homeland security.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Certainly I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page 1861]]

  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I completely concur with my colleague 
about this notion of our recognizing that day after day--and I had that 
in my opening remarks--day after day we are seeing the prevention of 
the kinds of attacks that we are all concerned about, and we 
congratulate and herald the intelligence community for that. I think 
that what we need to focus on is the Abdulmutallab situation, the Fort 
Hood shootings, and the Najibullah Zazi and David Headley arrests. 
These things have taken place since this bill had any kind of committee 
consideration last year. And all we are arguing is, yes, it's great 
that some amendments have been made in order--unfortunately, it's a 
very partisan item to have 21 amendments included in the manager's 
amendment--but we believe very strongly that the committee--and you 
know very well, having worked so hard on that committee, that a lot of 
work takes place in secrecy, understandably, that in dealing with these 
situations, that should happen before bringing a measure of this 
magnitude to the floor that even the President and so many others have 
acknowledged is flawed.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, when you speak of the President's 
directions, there were several principal matters that the President 
referenced in his, as you put it, threatened veto. But the veto, more 
specifically, the principal objection was to the Gang of Eight 
restriction that many of us in the committee supported for the reason 
that we think--and thought--that each of the intelligence members 
should be advised by the President the same as those of the Gang of 
Eight.
  You know, we use these terms around here. The Gang of Eight are the 
central players--the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, 
and the committee Chairs and ranking members. That is who that small 
kernel of people are who receive specific information. I hope the 
public at least understands some aspect of that.
  The point that I was trying to make and will continue to make is--let 
me give you a for example. In the last month, I have visited our 
intelligence operations in nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, 
Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Ukraine, Germany, just to mention a few. 
In each of those places--and there were others that will go 
unmentioned--in each of those places I learned of immense success and 
reporting of successes coming back here to the intelligence community 
and to the President. Nobody talks about that in the newspaper. Nobody 
talks about that in this particular setting. You pick three incidents 
out of thousands of successes and point to a community's failures. I 
can't accept that.
  For 10 years I have watched on this committee these people work their 
hearts out, Republicans and Democrats, under the leadership of--friends 
of mine and yours--Porter Goss, who led this committee, others long 
before Leon Panetta, and the other committees that don't even get 
mentioned at all because most people don't even know that they have 
intelligence operations. What would happen in this world, what would 
happen with our allies if we did not have the SIGNET? How would we be 
having the successes that we are having in Afghanistan today of picking 
off leaders of Taliban, leaders of al Qaeda?
  All the time it seems to me that all that comes out as is, oh, they 
just took out another one, but it doesn't get played up. If one of them 
managed to get to Canada and to the United States, then that would be 
the biggest talk that we would have here in Congress. It's not fair, 
and fairness to the intelligence community is as deserving as any other 
parts of our bureaucracy that fail considerably, including this 
institution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just 1 second?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I was going to yield my time, and I ask the 
gentleman to take his time, but I am more than happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And Mr. Speaker, let me 
just say that I totally concur with absolutely everything my friend 
just said.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, then, I will just take my time back, 
now that you agree with me.
  Mr. DREIER. All I want to do is agree with you. So thank you very 
much.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very, very happy to yield 
4 minutes to the very hardworking and diligent and thoughtful ranking 
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, our friend from 
Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding 
to me.
  I think it is important to step back and put this bill in a bit of 
context. The Intelligence Committee reported H.R. 2701 out of committee 
on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 12-9 and the Rules Committee first 
reported a rule for its consideration here on the floor on July 8, 
2009. And yet, from July 8, 2009, until today there has not been time 
found on the floor to consider this measure. Now, we did find time to 
consider the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, we did find time to 
consider the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing 
Authorization Act, we found time to consider the Castle Nugent National 
Historic Site Establishment Act for St. Croix, all under a rule--none 
of these even included suspensions--but we couldn't find time to have 
the Intelligence authorization bill in support of the very people that 
the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from California are 
talking about who keep us safe.
  What has happened over the past 7 months since this bill was reported 
out, as the gentleman from California mentioned, is that we have had a 
number of arrests and attempted attacks against our homeland; I count 
eight that have made the papers. Some of them we have stopped by the 
diligent work of our intelligence professionals. One of them at least 
was stopped by just pure luck. One of them was not stopped at all, and 
that was at Fort Hood, where a number of people tragically lost their 
lives.
  In addition, in the last several months, the situation in Afghanistan 
has changed tremendously. We have had increased terrorist threats 
emanating from Yemen and Somalia and other places around the world. And 
yet for some reason intelligence was not a high enough priority, with 
the leadership of this House at least, to bring this Intelligence 
authorization bill to the floor.
  In addition to that, I would say that a number of issues have been 
much discussed in the press and around the country that are very 
central to the efforts of those intelligence professionals to keep us 
safe. For example, the President said he was going to close Guantanamo 
Bay within 1 year; it hasn't happened. What's going to happen with 
those prisoners now? What happens if an American somehow joins a 
terrorist organization overseas? What are his rights and what are our 
responsibilities when we get into that situation?

                              {time}  1100

  Should there be a complete record of the briefings that were made to 
Congress about various antiterrorism matters or should those just be 
selectively leaked out as is happening now?
  Another question: Should we automatically give the Miranda warning 
that says you have the right to remain silent when a non-U.S. person is 
obtained here in the United States?
  Now, amendments on every one of these issues I've just mentioned were 
filed before the Rules Committee, and yet none of those amendments was 
made in order.
  Why? We have these issues that are central to safeguarding the 
country. Yet the majority does not make those in order. What does it 
make in order? A number of reports, as we have discussed.
  In addition, in the manager's amendment, there is a section that, I 
am afraid, illuminates for us all the approach that at least some 
people in this House are taking in this fight against terrorism. I do 
not believe it represents a number of the members of

[[Page 1862]]

the Intelligence Committee, who see this every day; but in the 
manager's amendment are provisions that apply only to intelligence 
community professionals. The provisions say that they will go to jail 
for forcing one to do something that is against one's individual 
religious beliefs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Now, remember, we can't have debates on serious issues regarding 
Guantanamo, Miranda rights and other things. What is hitting in this 
blizzard of reports are several pages which say, if our intelligence 
professionals try to get information from a terrorist in order to 
prevent future terrorist attacks and if they don't give him the proper 
amount of sleep, our intelligence professionals will go to jail.
  If they do anything that violates how the terrorist sees his 
religious rights, without any standard of reasonableness, without any 
standard to judge it by--it's like, if the terrorist says, My religion 
requires me to have a Big Mac every day. If we don't give him that Big 
Mac, we are violating this provision, and our intelligence 
professionals will go to jail.
  There are provisions which say subjecting a terrorist to prolonged 
isolation will cause our intelligence professionals to go to jail. How 
many county jails and State prisons in the country could operate under 
this standard? I would say none. This provision will treat terrorists 
more gingerly than those in our criminal defense system.
  So, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what this rule does is it avoids the 
debates on the substantive issues. Yet there is this thread, which I 
don't believe the President seems to share--perhaps some in his 
administration do, and perhaps a few people in this Congress do--a 
thread of antagonism against our intelligence professionals which says 
we are going to prosecute them, as the Justice Department is 
investigating, and that we are going to send them to jail if they don't 
coddle these terrorists in the appropriate way.
  I think that reflects a lack of seriousness with this measure, and 
that is sufficient reason to reject this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my 
colleague, who is an absolutely brilliant member of the intelligence 
community, and he has provided continuing and dedicated service for the 
period of time that he and I have served on the committee together. 
There is one thing, I think, I know a little bit more about than he 
does, and that is our prison system, and that is for the reason that I 
participated, as a State and a Federal judge and then as a lawyer, in 
dealing with circumstances in our prisons.
  Our colleague suggests that detainees are treated in a certain way, 
and those particular things--for example, food and the length of the 
hair or religious convictions--have been litigated ad nauseam in the 
United States. I can assure you that persons who are in custody in the 
United States find themselves able to access to the food that comports 
with their religious requirements and also the other circumstances.
  One thing that is great about America is that we do have values, and 
one thing that is great about us in handling others, even much better 
than they even ever consider us, is that those values manifest 
themselves in the treatment of persons who are our enemies.
  Now, I am going to try with this document here to put to rest this 
not-in-my-backyard argument that I continue to hear from my colleagues 
about Guantanamo.
  I first want to commend to my colleagues H.R. 3728, the Detainment 
Reform Act of 2009, which I filed, and I would urge them to look at it 
and to look at the detention criteria and at the ways to process 
detainees, as well as the reporting requirements that transpire. I will 
not take the time now to go into detail, but that measure is sitting 
here, and any one of them can join it. I have no pride of authorship, 
and I've said to Members on the other side and on our side that, if 
there is something they can add or detract, then please do so.
  Regarding where you put people whom we hold and somehow or another 
the thought being that we can't try people in our Federal system or, 
for that matter, if we have a situation where every detainee must be 
tried in military commissions, according to some, well, let me tell you 
some of the people whom we hold in one prison today.
  According to the Bureau of Prisons, ADX Supermax in Florence, 
Colorado, has a capacity of 490 inmates. There are currently 445, 
leaving 45 cells available. I can assure you anybody in Guantanamo 
could be transferred here with no threat to Florence, Colorado. No one 
has ever escaped Supermax. Supermax officers are some of the best 
trained in the Nation, and current and former inmates include--let me 
just give you some of these people:
  Anthony Casso, a mobster and former underboss of the Lucchese crime 
family, is at this prison. Wadih el-Hage, a coconspirator in the 1998 
United States Embassy bombings, is in this prison. Matthew Hale, a 
white supremacist leader convicted of soliciting the murder of a 
Federal judge, is in this prison. Larry Hoover, the leader of the 
Gangster Disciples Nation, based in Chicago, is in this prison. Jeff 
Fort, the cofounder of the Black P. Stones gang in Chicago and the 
founder of its El Rukn faction, is in this prison. Omar Portee, the 
cofounder of the United Blood Nation, is in this prison and has never 
escaped. Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, is in this prison in 
Colorado. Juan Matta-Ballesteros, the drug trafficker and coconspirator 
in the Enrique Camarena case, is in this prison. Zacarias Moussaoui--
remember him? He was tried in our regular system as a coconspirator in 
the September 11, 2001, attacks. Guess where he is? In Colorado, in 
Supermax. Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bomber, is in this prison. 
Richard Colvin Reid, the Islamic terrorist, nicknamed the ``Shoe 
Bomber,'' who also came through our regular system under the aegis of 
the previous President, is in this prison. Eric Robert Rudolph, 
convicted of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing, is in this prison. Dwight 
York is in this prison. Ramzi Yousef, of the World Trade Center 
bombing, is in this prison.
  Enough of this ``not in my backyard.'' We can hold these people.
  H. Rap Brown is in this prison. Thomas Silverstein, convicted of 
murdering a Federal correctional officer, is in this prison. Luis 
Felipe, founder of the Almighty Latin Kings and Queens Nation, is in 
this prison. Howard Mason, a drug trafficker, who ordered the murder of 
Police Officer Eddie Byrne, is in this prison. A leading member of the 
Aryan Brotherhood, Barry Mills, is in this prison.
  So what are you all talking about when you stand around and tell 
people that we can't hold people in this Supermax prison? We can hold 
them in Guantanamo. We can hold them in Supermax, and we can do 
everything that is required of us as a nation in order to protect 
ourselves in that regard.
  Yet what has happened in this institution is you have given the 
American people a chance to believe that they should be afraid if you 
hold them in certain institutions in your neighborhoods. Well, they 
come through your neighborhoods an awful lot, and you evidently don't 
know about it. I, personally, am just a little tired of your not-in-my-
backyard attitude about this particular system. We can hold terrorists, 
and we can hold criminals, and we've been doing it all of my adult 
career, and that's 50 years as a lawyer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from Gold 
River, California, has been attempting to engage in a colloquy with my 
friend.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren), and I am sure that he will yield to the gentleman 
from Fort Lauderdale if he would like to respond in any way.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
asked: Why?
  Well, you know, it's not just in my backyard. I don't want them in 
any

[[Page 1863]]

American's backyard. Guess what? The American people agree with me.
  That's why Mr. King and I went before your committee, to ask 
permission if we could possibly debate this issue on the floor. 
Everything you just said is part of a debate that could take place, and 
we could resolve it, but the Rules Committee decided, in their infinite 
wisdom, not to allow us to debate that on the floor.
  Mr. King's and my amendment did one simple thing. It said that those 
who are currently in or in the future will be in Guantanamo Bay will 
not be transferred to U.S. sovereign territory for any trials. That is, 
they will stay at Guantanamo with the specially created courtroom that 
we have there--absolutely secure--under the Military Tribunal Act, 
which we, the Congress, passed in 2005.
  I mean that's the answer to your question, but it must seem strange 
to the American people that the majority would be afraid, seemingly, to 
allow us to debate that with real consequence. You can allow us to 
debate that in the rule, knowing it has no consequence. The real 
consequence would be if we had an opportunity for the American people 
to actually be heard by way of legislation.
  It is interesting that you did make in order the manager's amendment, 
which will give newly established rights, by way of penalty, to our 
members of the intelligence community if they would dare deprive one of 
these individuals of sleep or if they would isolate them for too long a 
period of time--neither one of them defined in the statute.
  So what we have done is we have said we will continue to ignore the 
American people who have said loudly and clearly, We do not want Khalid 
Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates to come to New York. We do not 
want those in Guantanamo to come to the United States.
  I find it strange that the gentleman from Florida would compare H. 
Rap Brown to a terrorist involved in a terrorist network. He doesn't 
understand--I know he does understand. I'm sure it was a rhetorical 
device the gentleman was using--the difference between someone who is 
an American citizen and the rights that he has versus someone who 
happens to be a noncitizen--in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. There 
is a distinction that has always been known in our courts, and the idea 
that we are going to extend the full parity of constitutional rights to 
someone whose only connection with the United States is that that 
person was captured on the battlefield, attempting to kill Americans, 
is inconsistent with the history of this Nation and is inconsistent 
with all of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on 
both sides before I yield to my friend from Gold River?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield an additional 1 minute to my friend from Gold 
River, California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So we have right now, taking 
place across the street from the White House, a summit on health care. 
We should be having a summit today on the intelligence community, in 
our effort against those who would wish to destroy us by terrorism. The 
way we act suggests to the American people this is not on the top of 
our priority list but on the bottom.
  Later, we are going to have the rule on the PATRIOT Act. Why? 
Because, within a couple of days, three provisions of the PATRIOT Act 
are set to expire.
  Monday, we rushed in here. We had an extra day of voting. What did we 
do? We worked to rid the country of the scourge of unnamed post 
offices. We were here to make sure that--man, we've got to find some 
more post offices to name.
  Why couldn't we give additional time to allow amendments that are 
serious in nature and that the American people want us to deal with on 
this floor? But no. Once again, the Rules Committee has said we are not 
going to allow it, but we are going to incorporate in the manager's 
amendment an amendment which actually provides greater rights to those 
who are being held and put at jeopardy our intelligence community.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good 
friend on the Rules Committee, I would just like to comment regarding 
my good friend, Mr. Lungren's comments.
  Mr. Lungren, there have been three people who have been convicted in 
military commissions, and two of them are already free. During that 
same period of time, under President Bush's administration and under in 
President Obama's administration, more than 300 people have been 
convicted in our civilian courts.

                              {time}  1115

  And you're correct. I was using the people in the Supermax to make 
the point no matter who they were, whether they were Zacarias 
Moussaoui, who certainly isn't an American citizen, or countless 
others, that we can hold them and that they can't escape. The fear some 
seem to think is that they would escape.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague on the Rules Committee, 
the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I won't take the 1 minute.
  I'd say to my friend from California, in Colorado we were asked to 
take over the trial of Timothy McVeigh, who had blown up an office 
building in Oklahoma. He didn't do it in Colorado. But we said okay, 
we're part of this country. We're part of America. We have a 
responsibility. We don't know what kind of crazy people are going to 
come and try to disrupt or harm our judges, our people that worked in 
the prisons or the like, but we took that responsibility. We weren't 
afraid of that responsibility. And our judicial system, our Federal 
judges, handled that matter, I think, in a very fair, fine, and proper 
manner. We did it because that's who we are. And we've taken prisoners 
into our supermax who are terrorists by anybody's definition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. We take responsibility for those things that 
Americans have to deal with. We don't like dealing with it. You don't 
like dealing with it. But we have to. So we're prepared. In our court 
system in America, whether it's in New York or Colorado or Texas or 
California, we have good judges. We have good people that work in our 
Bureau of Prisons. We can handle this.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  I would first say in response to my good friend from Colorado, Mr. 
Lungren has just reminded me that the moment one of these individuals 
is on American soil, they have enhanced rights that they would not 
otherwise have.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy with the very distinguished 
ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss one 
of the amendments that unfortunately will not see the light of day, 
that we will not have the opportunity to debate other than in the 
context of the overall manager's amendment, which included 21 
amendments from our Democratic colleagues, including the McDermott 
amendment.
  Now, the McDermott amendment, which was discussed by my friend from 
Clarendon, is an amendment that provides basically carte blanche, an 
opportunity for any individual, one of these barbarians, to claim for 
religious reasons that they are being mistreated. The moment I heard 
the word ``Big Mac'' come forward from my friend Mac Thornberry, I have 
to say who's my Big Mac, but I thought, my gosh, someone could actually 
claim that being denied a Big Mac would be cruel and unusual 
punishment? And I've got to say as I look at the litany of items on 
here, including exploiting phobias of the individual, I just don't 
understand it. And I wonder if my friend might further enlighten us on 
this.
  I'm happy to yield.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page 1864]]

  Let's start with a bit of context. Remember, the Army field manual 
has been published so that terrorists all around the world know what we 
will and will not do to them. This will take it another step forward 
and actually give terrorists more rights, more consideration than 
ordinary criminals in our criminal justice system.
  For example, it is not unusual, I suspect, for the FBI to interrogate 
someone accused of a crime, perhaps involving murder, to say you'd 
better cooperate with us or you may get the death penalty. That would 
be illegal under this amendment. As a matter of fact, the intelligence 
professional who says that under this amendment would go to jail for 15 
years because you cannot threaten the use of force.
  The gentleman's correct; there is no standard of reasonableness for 
what they would classify as your religious practice, so I can classify 
as my religious practice anything I say. And the intelligence 
professionals have to coddle to that or they could go to jail. It is an 
outrageous inversion of our priorities, I think, Mr. Speaker, where we 
care more about coddling the terrorists than we do about protecting the 
American people.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution.
  He just reminded me that the speech that everyone heard, what was 
described as the ``Scott heard 'round the world'' when we saw Scott 
Brown elected to the United States Senate seat in Massachusetts, the 
line that came to the forefront was, I want to make sure that my tax 
dollars are expended on fighting against these terrorists rather than 
expending our tax dollars defending these terrorists. And the McDermott 
amendment takes and expends more time and effort and energy in 
defending them. And, unfortunately, the only discussion that we will 
have on this, Mr. Speaker, is during consideration of the rule because 
we're not going to have a chance to vote on this amendment other than 
its being included in the overall manager's amendment with 20 other 
amendments being included.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have to teach law 
here, and I never wanted to do that.
  The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal 
law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly 
establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law, and 
that's whether a person is in Guantanamo or whether they are in 
Colorado.
  That said, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for 
his hard work on the underlying bill.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know just how 
important it is to focus on vulnerabilities in the global supply chain, 
and I'm glad that my amendment was included in the manager's amendment.
  My amendment broadens review of global supply chain vulnerabilities 
to include the risks not only from counterfeit products but from 
original products. Considering the number of foreign state-owned or 
state-invested enterprises in the technology industry that manufacture 
products for our market, original products present serious risks to our 
defense and intelligence systems.
  The amended review also assesses the impact of the provision of 
services by foreign-owned companies, which also creates vulnerabilities 
in the supply of parts and equipment, causing increased vulnerability 
to cyberattack on our intelligence systems.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the manager's amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a very 
thoughtful new Member who has expended a great deal of time and energy 
trying to ensure that we can at least have a debate on the issue of 
bringing terrorists onto U.S. soil, my friend from Peoria, Mr. Schock.
  Mr. SCHOCK. I thank my good friend from California for the time.
  What a novel idea. The United States House of Representatives would 
debate the power of a good idea.
  You know, in my short 1 year in this body, it's amazed me how many 
amendments have come before this body at a straight up-or-down party 
vote. Republicans vote one way and Democrats vote another.
  We live within the confines of majority rule. It's something that our 
voters and taxpayers live with. It's something that we in this body 
live with. But I think there's something that almost everyone that I 
represent in my district abhors, and that is the notion that the power 
of a good idea is not allowed the form of debate in this body and is 
not allowed a straight up-or-down vote for each Member to cast his or 
her vote based on the best interests of their districts. And for that 
reason, Mr. Speaker, I offered three what I thought were thoughtful 
amendments specifically dealing with the proposal to move the much-
talked-about Guantanamo Bay detention facility to my State in Illinois.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this wasn't just an idea that I had, 
but rather, I was joined by every single member of the Illinois 
delegation on my side of the aisle. They felt this was important enough 
to allow both sides to be able to debate this issue, both sides, each 
individual Member, a straight up-or-down vote.
  Now, what is it that we wanted each Member to be able to vote on? 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, there's been much talk about moving all of 
these prisoners, close to 100 of them, from Gitmo to the center part of 
our country, in the Midwest, in Illinois, and the idea that somehow 
that will make us safer as a Nation by moving those terrorists to our 
country. Yet one of the questions that continually is asked of me, as 
well as my colleagues who represent the State of Illinois, is who are 
these people? What are their names? Why are they being held? What acts 
of terror have they attempted or committed against our country?
  So our amendment was very simple. It said this: The American people 
ought to know what we know. If the American people are supposed to 
weigh in to their elected representatives to say, yes, we think it's a 
great idea for Guantanamo Bay to come to Illinois, don't you think they 
should have the information to make an educated decision? After all, I 
sat in this front row a year ago and listened to the Speaker of this 
House talk about how I was going to be a part of the most transparent 
and open government in United States history. Imagine being a part of 
the most transparent and open government in United States history. And 
yet today, ladies and gentlemen, taxpayers, voters, not just in the 
State of Illinois where these terrorists are supposed to be coming, but 
every American----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you. I'll wrap up.
  Ladies and gentlemen, it's real simple. In the most transparent and 
open government in United States history, shouldn't the American people 
know what we know?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd inquire if my colleague has 
any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker for this side, and I will 
reserve my time until the gentleman closes.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me say to my friend that I anxiously look forward to 
his spellbinding closing remarks that I'm sure we'll all be able to 
benefit from, but I have one other speaker and then I'll close and look 
forward to sitting patiently and listening to my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
hardworking member of the Intelligence Committee, a veteran of the FBI, 
the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, something fundamentally 
different has happened in the last year. We have fundamentally changed 
the way we deal with terrorists in the United States. We should 
absolutely

[[Page 1865]]

fully have that debate on the policy of that switch. Why? Because it 
has had tremendous consequences.
  Think about this: The CIA officers who, given direction by the 
Department of Justice, interrogated and debriefed and got some 70 
percent of what we know about al Qaeda through their debriefings, are 
now being treated as criminals. Foreign-trained criminals are being 
brought to the United States and being treated as Americans.
  The fact that we would take a terrorist off a plane who had just 
attempted to kill some 300 people and the people on the ground and say 
you have the right to remain silent--wrong. You don't. I need to know 
if there's anybody else out there. I need to know where the training 
camp was. I need to know a name of an airline you may have heard while 
you were training in a place like Yemen to come to the United States on 
a combat mission and kill Americans. They should be treated as enemy 
combatants. That's exactly who they are. And when you make this 
fundamental switch from a proactive intelligence approach to keep them 
at bay to a law enforcement effort to bring them to the United States, 
it will have negative consequences for the national security of the 
United States.
  To not allow the amendments--I have had many and many of my 
colleagues here who had amendments to debate and talk about these very 
serious issues. There is a reason that they couldn't wrap up the fact 
that there was a shooting at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day bomber. 
There's a reason that happened. Because when you bring in law 
enforcement, it slows things down.

                              {time}  1130

  They stop providing information until their lawyer can cut their best 
deal possible. This can't be about lawyers in the back room cutting 
good deals for foreign-trained terrorists trying to kill Americans. It 
has to be about the protection of every citizen in the United States 
and our allies abroad. When we lose that focus, we will lose the 
ability to stop everyone that comes to these shores.
  And if our new program is we are going to catch them at the airport 
by spending lots more money, we are going to lose this fight. We need 
to get them in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, 
and wherever else they train, they finance, and they commit themselves 
to an act of combat to kill U.S. citizens.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we all know where the eyes of the American 
people are focused right now, and it is not here on the House of 
Representatives. They are focused down across the street from the White 
House at the Blair House, where the health care summit is taking place. 
I have no idea how it is going. We have been managing this debate on an 
issue that is of paramount importance.
  The five most important words in the middle of the preamble to the 
U.S. Constitution I regularly say are ``provide for the common 
defense.'' We need to recognize that this is priority number one, our 
Nation's intelligence. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Najibullah Zazi, 
David Headley, these are names that have come to the forefront because 
these individuals pose a threat to the United States of America.
  There is no issue that is more important for us to be focusing on. 
Mr. Lungren said earlier rather than having a 6-hour summit on the 
issue of health care, which we all acknowledge is important and needs 
to be addressed, the attention should be focused on national security. 
And unfortunately, it is not only not being focused on, but what we are 
doing here today is taking a flawed bill from July of last year, 8 
months old, that was maligned and criticized by the statement of 
administration policy from President Obama, and what is it we have 
done? We have denied amendment after amendment.
  Mr. Schock's very thoughtful amendment to deal with the issue of 
should we give enhanced rights to these people who have perpetrated 
terrible acts against us? Bring them onto U.S. soil, which would make 
that happen? We think we should have a chance to debate that issue. 
Should we take the 21 amendments that our Democratic colleagues have 
offered, including my friend, Mr. McDermott, who has an amendment that 
dramatically enhances the power of those individuals who have either 
tried or have perpetrated terrible acts against us and provides them 
new defense?
  Again I mentioned Scott Brown earlier. And what resonated from his 
acceptance speech when he won the election was that we shouldn't be 
expending our taxpayer dollars on defending these terrorists. We should 
be expending our taxpayer dollars to fight to make sure they never, 
ever pose a threat against us. This is a terrible rule. It is a 
terrible rule because it denies the opportunity for debate. And the 
bill itself needs to be reworked by the Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject it. 
Let's do the right thing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that 
will enhance vital human intelligence collection, fill the critical 
gaps in our intelligence-gathering activities, authorize significant 
investment in our Nation's cybersecurity capabilities, as well as 
provide much needed reform by forbidding the CIA's practice of 
outsourcing interrogation to private contractors operating outside the 
law.
  It is unfortunate that we live in a dangerous and different world, 
where we must always be vigilant of those who wish to cause harm to 
others. This bill is critical to addressing the many challenges we face 
within the intelligence community.
  I want to take this moment of personal privilege to thank Chairman 
Reyes and the staff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the 
Republican and Democratic staff, for their extraordinary hard work and 
dedication in helping to see this excellent bill to fruition.
  Four years is far too long for the intelligence community to go 
without guidance from its oversight committees. I believe we should get 
an authorization bill passed and on the President's desk for signature 
into law. There is going to be added general debate. But when I 
listened to my colleague, who is my good friend, I kind of feel like 
that all of the labor on both sides, including speakers that I served 
with on that committee, Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Rogers, we have worked 
very actively to get us to the position that we are in with reference 
to this authorization bill. There have been agreements and there have 
been disagreements. And there are always things that can be added.
  The responsibility of the Rules Committee is to move the agenda. I am 
very proud of the fact that there is a summit on health care going on 
at the White House at the same time that we are discussing the 
authorization bill, and that I am getting ready to leave here and go to 
a jobs task force, which I believe is high on the minds of the American 
agenda, which proves that we really can do legislation, prepare 
legislation, chew gum and walk at the same time. We are an incredible 
lot of people we are, and just like that we can also secure this 
Nation, as this bill does in high kind.
  But I am going to say to you all one more time, enough of the 
business about not in my backyard. If I didn't dispel it today, I will 
see you another time on the floor to have you understand just how 
extraordinary the Federal judiciary is, just how extraordinary the 
intelligence community is, and just how important it is to our Nation's 
security that we allow them to function accordingly.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 1866]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________