[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2052-2058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
    PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2701, INTELLIGENCE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1113 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1113

       Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 
     for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
     United States Government, the Community Management Account, 
     and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
     1105, amendment number 1 printed in House Report 111-419 
     shall be considered as modified by striking the matter 
     proposed to be inserted as section 506.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of 
H.R. 2701,

[[Page 2053]]

the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule 
modifies amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 111-419 by striking 
the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506.
  Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act provides much-needed 
policy guidance for the 16 agencies that comprise the intelligence 
community. At the same time, this bill improves accountability and 
helps to prevent the often disastrous consequences that faulty 
intelligence and misinformation to Congress can have on national 
security. This bill is vitally important because it recognizes the 
fundamental reality that solid intelligence is our Nation's first line 
of defense against terrorists.
  This Congress has not reauthorized the intelligence bill in 4 years. 
The funding in this bill provides our intelligence agencies with tools, 
resources, and authorities they need to keep us safe. For example, it 
increases funding for human intelligence collection and 
counterintelligence activities; it makes significant investments in 
cybersecurity safety while also improving language capabilities in the 
intelligence community. Furthermore, it fully authorizes the 
President's budget request for the intelligence community programs and 
operations.
  The rule we are debating this morning is the second rule the House 
has considered. Yesterday we heard impassioned arguments from both 
sides of the aisle regarding an amendment from Mr. McDermott on actions 
of the intelligence officers in the field and their criminal liability. 
Today, we are moving ahead with the authorization bill without that 
language because it's important to keep this bill moving forward.
  The President has issued guidelines on this subject, and it deserves 
to be considered by this body. However, we are 4 years overdue on 
reauthorization, and our intelligence community cannot wait any longer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can continue the 
business of protecting America's families. No American should ever face 
harm because this body could not do its job, and this bill needs to 
move forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation for my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from 
Atwater, and I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed 
with our customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend has just gone through--as was the case 
yesterday when Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale, was 
managing the rule on his side--the importance of dealing with our 
Nation's intelligence. And we obviously have, since this bill first 
came to the forefront last year, been dealing with a wide range of 
very, very serious challenges: the shooting at Fort Hood, which the 
Speaker pro tem understands very well took place in his home State of 
Texas; the great threat that existed on Christmas Day when Umar Farouk 
Abdulmutallab posed a threat, and thanks to the fact that his device 
did not go off, and, even more important than that, the fact that we 
were able to see these courageous passengers come forward and prevent 
this man from posing a threat to all of those on board; and then, of 
course, the arrests of those who posed a terrorist threat, Najibullah 
Zazi and David Headley. And then of course there are many other 
instances that have not been in the headlines.
  But those three which I have just mentioned have developed since last 
summer when this bill first came forward.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening today is, unfortunately, a very 
disturbing trend. We have had some records set by this Congress and, 
frankly, since Speaker Pelosi has been leading this Congress and the 
last Congress.
  Last year, we went through the entire--entire--calendar year, the 
first session of the 111th Congress, without a single open rule. Not a 
single open rule on even the appropriations bills. Never before in the 
now 221-year history of the Republic have we had that take place. We, 
in fact, in the last 3 years have saved the appropriations process, in 
the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have had a grand 
total, Mr. Speaker, of one open rule. And now, today, we seem to be 
establishing another very disturbing and unfortunate record.
  It seems to me that as we look at legislation in its first stage, 
which is where we are right now, in its first stage, we are now 
considering not the second rule, as my friend from Atwater has said in 
his opening remarks, but in fact the third rule because this 
legislation last July was reported out of the Rules Committee. We had a 
rule. On July 3, we had a statement that came forward from the 
administration that leveled a very, very harsh criticism of the bill 
itself.
  Now, we've gone through a wide range of measures that have been very 
important and many that are less than important in the last 8 months, 
and yet we have not considered this very important intelligence bill. 
My friend from Atwater has just talked about how critically important 
it is; and if that were the case in the eyes of the majority, it would 
seem to me that last July we would have dealt with this bill, since 
it's been 4 years since we have had an intelligence authorization 
measure.
  Now, the language which has just been stricken from this bill, it was 
one of 21 amendments, Mr. Speaker, included in the manager's amendment. 
And the message that comes through to me over and over and over again--
and my friend from Atwater just referred to it as a vigorous debate on 
both sides as an attempt to continue to move the legislation forward--
this language was taken out.
  Well, the bottom line is it meant that the votes weren't there on 
either the Democratic or the Republican side to move ahead with the 
intelligence authorization bill. Why? Because one of the most 
outrageous amendments imaginable was incorporated in this measure, and 
that's the McDermott language.
  Yesterday, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Hoekstra and I, and 
I know others during the debate throughout the bill, talked about this 
language. And I think that probably this was best put when the special 
election took place in Massachusetts and we saw our new colleague, 
Scott Brown, elected to the United States Senate. And he gave an 
entertaining and rather lengthy victory speech that night. But the 
message that came through loud and clear was that when he got to 
Washington, he was going to do everything within his power to make sure 
that we expand our hard-earned taxpayer dollars ensuring that we defeat 
the terrorists and not defend them.
  And the language that was included--not allowed for debate on the 
House floor, but actually included among the 20 other amendments all by 
Democrats in the manager's amendment--the manager's amendment is 
usually a relatively noncontroversial measure, Mr. Speaker, that comes 
to the floor and there is often a very brief 10-minute debate and it 
sails through with bipartisan support--but the manager's amendment 
included this McDermott amendment. And it provided a circumstance which 
could have seriously jeopardized our men and women who are courageously 
engaging in intelligence gathering.
  Now, when we talk about, as now-Senator Brown mentioned, the rights 
of those individuals who have perpetrated terrorist acts against us and 
our interests around the world, the notion of using the word 
``phobia,'' which was actually included in the McDermott amendment, it 
would mean that an individual could be imprisoned and they could claim 
that for religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a 
knife with them at all times.
  People can say, Well, that is silly. How can that possibly take 
place? I mean, one has to scratch their head thinking that that could 
happen. And yet there are individuals who've interpreted that language 
which was included in the manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, as language 
that would have allowed a prisoner to say that for

[[Page 2054]]

religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a knife in 
their possession, obviously posing a threat to everyone around them.
  And so, again, it's difficult to comprehend that that could take 
place, but we know how ruthless these barbarians are who have been 
perpetrating acts against us and other freedom-loving peoples around 
the world.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it to me is very disturbing that we are here dealing 
with what has been once again a major management problem which has 
taken place in this institution.
  The American people want us to focus on job creation, economic 
growth. We, of course yesterday, saw the 7-hour summit take place at 
the White House on the issue of health care. But of paramount 
importance is our security. It's the single most important thing that 
we deal with. And to have it mishandled in the way that it has that has 
led us at 9:25 Friday morning to be on the House floor with the third 
rule dealing with the Intelligence authorization bill is, I think, a 
sad commentary on where we are.
  I have to say that this rule actually included several other 
provisions which should not have been included at this point, and I 
discussed this last night up in the Rules Committee when we met into 
the evening. And that is we understand--I mean, I was privileged to 
serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we understand that moving 
the agenda and ensuring the process of getting that agenda passed is 
very, very important. And yet, Mr. Speaker, what this rule did was it 
put into place a so-called martial law rule.
  Mr. Speaker, martial law basically means that something can move 
immediately to the House floor, and it usually takes place--and I see 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my 
friend, Mr. Obey, here. He knows very well that martial law rule 
usually takes place at the end of a session when there are very, very 
pressing needs that need to be addressed.

                              {time}  0930

  When we are dealing with those issues we can see martial law imposed. 
I understand that and recognize that sometimes it's necessary. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we are in the second month of the second session of the 111th 
Congress, and yet we have imposed a so-called martial law rule here.
  So the most important thing is, of course, dealing with the 
intelligence authorization bill. But underlying all of that are very, 
very serious management flaws which have taken place. So I just want to 
voice my concern, and I know we are going to have a number of my 
colleagues who are going to want to speak and address the issue of the 
intelligence authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague from 
California that we must get this legislation done. I agreed with him. 
He agreed with me. This is very important legislation. It's critical to 
the country.
  Then he said, well, there is no real rush because you are doing a 
martial law rule. I submit to you that we need to get this done. It's 
very important for the country, and we have taken a long time. And I 
would also submit that the majority of the Congress people speaking to 
us all, Republicans and Democrats, as I said in my opening statement, 
felt that that amendment wasn't appropriately included in the manager's 
amendment. We agreed. That's why we are here today striking it out.
  I realize that the gentleman is saying, well, it should have never 
been in there to begin with, and that may be true, but the reality is 
we are fixing and correcting that error today. That is why we are here, 
and I appreciate the gentleman's statement.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, interestingly enough, the measure 
that we are addressing here is not being considered under a martial law 
rule. The martial law provision in this rule was to deal with any other 
issue that would have come to the floor either yesterday or today. The 
idea of including that in the rule----
  Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is correct, and there are other measures, 
like the jobs bill, which is critically important, critically important 
to our home State.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Like my district, it has got 20 percent unemployment. So 
there are other pressing matters that we have to get to, and that's 
exactly the kind of point that I was making.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that obviously job creation and 
economic growth is a very, very important priority, but the notion of 
saying that all of a sudden this has to be done under martial law, 
which basically undermines the legislative process, is not only not 
necessary, but we are all focusing on job creation. We want to do what 
we can. We all have very strong feelings as to what should be done on 
this and we are concerned about this dramatic expansion of government.
  Let me at this point, Mr. Speaker, yield 4 minutes to the very 
thoughtful, diligent, and hardworking gentleman from Clarendon, Texas, 
the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. 
Thornberry.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, since a number of our colleagues were watching the 
events or participating in the events at the White House yesterday, 
like the gentleman from California, I think it's important to review 
briefly the history of this legislation.
  The Intelligence Committee referred or reported out H.R. 2701 out of 
committee on June 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. The Rules 
Committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on July 8, 
2009, and from July 8, 2009, until February 24, 2010, it just sat 
there, no action.
  Meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrorist attacks or 
plots for which arrests were made against our homeland. Meanwhile, 
events changed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran. All around the 
world things were changing, but we couldn't find time on the floor to 
deal with the Intelligence authorization bill. We had important things 
to do. We had post offices to name.
  But then on February 24, 2010, the Rules Committee reported the 
second rule out, which included the McDermott language as part of a 
manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments combined into one. 
That McDermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for 
our intelligence professionals if they did things like deny terrorists 
a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a 
terrorist's religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define 
those religious beliefs. There was no standard of reasonableness there 
at all.
  So throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events 
in the White House, we argued against that provision; yet it was 
defended on the other side of the aisle throughout the day. Some people 
said, Oh, it just restates current law. Mr. McDermott answered that 
himself in a 1-minute last night. He said, My amendment would have 
expanded on the President's Executive order to define what constitutes 
cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation, and it will create 
criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations.
  People over there who said that it just restates current law were 
just mistaken. Somebody else said it reflects American values. I don't 
know when it became American value to treat terrorists better than we 
treat Americans in the criminal justice system. When it came time to 
vote, the majority found that they didn't have enough votes to pass the 
bill, and so they went back to Rules a third time on this bill. Now 
this rule strips out that provision that the majority spent the whole 
day yesterday defending.

[[Page 2055]]

  Now, I heard what the gentleman from California said. I am not quite 
clear that I have understood why we have had this amazing turn of 
events, why the Rules Committee on Wednesday night would say this 
provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment, but on 
Thursday night they say, no, we are going to have a rule that does 
nothing but strip it out. Maybe they didn't really know what the 
McDermott language did. Maybe they just voted the way the Speaker's 
office told them to vote.
  As a matter of fact, there is a report in the Washington Times today 
that says a House Democratic aid told the Washington Times leadership 
supported the amendment and told the House Rules Committee to put it in 
the provisions. Maybe they were just persuaded by our eloquence on the 
floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and decided that it needed to be removed. 
I don't know, but this provision is deplorable; it needs to be 
scrapped. But it's a symptom, I would suggest, of a deeper sickness 
that, in fact, some in this body, some in the administration, of how 
they view our intelligence professionals. Their reflex action is to 
blame the intelligence community first. We see it when special 
prosecutors are appointed to go after our intelligence professionals. 
We see it when classified interrogation memos are released, despite the 
protestations of five former CIA directors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. We also see that ``blame the intelligence 
professionals first'' mentality when someone as distinguished as the 
Speaker of the House, under political pressure, just accuses them of 
lying all the time. That's the sort of mentality that gets a provision 
made in order that mixes up the good guys and the bad guys and goes 
after the good guys and puts a higher standard on them than any county 
sheriff or State trooper in the country would have.
  Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. Terrorists are plotting and 
planning to attack us every single day. It doesn't do our intelligence 
professionals much good if we give them nice words and then enact new 
crimes against them. What counts is our actions, standing up for them 
and what they do to protect us, and I would suggest this bill needs to 
go a long way further in doing that. But that strain that goes through 
this House and some in the administration to attack them first must be 
stopped at all costs.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend from 
Atwater has chosen to reserve his time, I am happy at this point to 
yield 4 minutes to another hardworking member of the Select Committee 
on Intelligence who brings his great experience, having served in the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you to my friend from California.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, was a very, very important symptom 
for us to all understand, and it's easy to get confused, by the way, in 
who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. When you take the fight 
on the war on terror from a proactive intelligence approach to a law 
enforcement approach, things get pretty murky in a hurry, and 
everything slows down, and information exchanges slow down.
  What we have done, what they have tried to do in the middle of the 
night, is sneak in a provision that would actually, when you read the 
entire thing, treat terrorists with a special carve-out that not even 
white-collar criminals, organized crime members, extortionists as 
American citizens would get, that your interrogator could be brought up 
on charges for what you believed might be incidences that offend you. 
Unbelievable. But that's exactly what happens when you are confused 
about who the bad guys are.
  This bill should be known for what it doesn't do. I mean, right now, 
they are getting ready to bring, through the administration policy and 
support of this Congress, hundreds of some of the most dangerous 
terrorists in the world to the United States. Do you know that about 
over a dozen times where these terrorists have been held overseas, 
including places like Great Britain, that terrorists have tried to 
break in to break them out? And guess what? Our policy is to bring them 
to the United States, give them a special carve-out, and treat them 
like American citizens at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
  You know, we had the opportunity to do disruptive activities to al 
Qaeda, and some speculate that between the Fort Hood shooting and the 
Christmas Day bomber, there were methods and activities that we as a 
Nation didn't engage in because we were confused about being proactive 
on intelligence against terrorism or treating it like a law enforcement 
matter. There is a lot to be accountable in that decision, but it can 
happen when you get confused who the bad guys are.
  We have never had a full vetting of what was known at one time as the 
Global Justice Initiative where you send FBI agents around the world, 
including to the battlefield, to Mirandize foreign-trained terrorists 
who have declared war on the United States. That can happen when you 
forget who the bad guys are. There is nothing in this bill that 
protects the very courageous CIA interrogators for following Department 
of Justice guidelines in the interrogation and the development of 
information that will have saved lives in the United States.
  And, by the way, it was brought to our attention that the same 
interrogators who gave us about 70 percent of what we know about the 
logistics and operations of al Qaeda are subject to criminal 
investigations. You know why that happens? Because it's easy to do when 
you are confused about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
  Yesterday was that symptom, Mr. Speaker, that when you make that 
decision, there are serious consequences. Now, folks want to say, oh, 
that's just politics you are trying to interject.
  This is serious business. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will come to New 
York. Some estimate it as high as $200 million just for the security. 
That city said, ``No.'' Michigan said, ``No.'' Kansas said, ``No.'' 
Americans are saying, ``No.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. We ought to stand together in this body and 
say, ``No.''
  This bill falls short of addressing the serious debate we better have 
ongoing from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement 
approach. This is not about you have the right to remain silent and if 
you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you at the 
expense of the U.S. taxpayers. This is about aggressively pursuing 
terrorists where they live, where they train, where they operate.
  If our whole new plan is a law enforcement approach and we are going 
to catch them at the airport, we are going to lose this fight, and 
that's exactly what this bill fails to address. You cannot let one 
stand in the line with any American citizen and hope to God your last 
defense works, and that's what happens when you go to a law enforcement 
approach and you treat CIA officers like criminals and you treat 
foreign terrorists like high-status American citizens. You could get 
confused on who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in a hurry.
  I would recommend strong rejection of this bill. We need to start 
over, and we need to start asking hard questions about what this policy 
is doing to the national defense of the United States.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of 
this rule. It provides us with the opportunity to advance the 
Intelligence Authorization Act to conference and then to the President.

[[Page 2056]]

  This bill provides essential funding to the intelligence community, 
improves and updates critical legal authorities, and enhances important 
oversight authorities that will empower the congressional intelligence 
committees to carry out their constitutional responsibility to monitor 
the work of the intelligence agencies.
  As everybody knows, I take this obligation very seriously. The work 
of the intelligence community is of critical importance, but by its 
nature must be done largely behind closed doors. As a result, the 
intelligence committees exist to ensure that the work of the 
intelligence agencies is being done in a manner that is effective, that 
is legal, and that is without waste. H.R. 2701 provides the funding 
authorities and the guidance necessary to that function.
  First and foremost, this bill will dramatically improve the process 
for congressional notification of covert actions. Over the past several 
years, Democrats and Republicans have both had complaints about the 
notification process. Provisions in the manager's amendment will 
require notifications in writing, insist that the President certify the 
need to restrict briefings to the Gang of Eight, and compel the 
executive branch to provide the legal authority under which covert 
action is being conducted.
  As I have said before, this bill was truly a team effort. We received 
input and drafting assistance from a variety of Members. The manager's 
amendment also includes contributions from many of my colleagues.
  Representative Giffords from Arizona crafted a provision that would 
require the DNI to report on intelligence cooperation between the 
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement.
  Representative Boccieri asked for a report on the dissemination of 
counterterrorism information from the intelligence community to local 
law enforcement.
  Representative Bishop introduced language to require the DNI to 
submit to Congress a report describing the strategy of the United 
States in balancing intelligence collection needs with the prosecution 
of terrorist suspects.
  Representative Harman, the former ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee, submitted an amendment that will require the Inspector 
General of the intelligence community to report to Congress on the 
problem of overclassification of intelligence and ways to address that 
issue and those problems.
  The manager's amendment also contains language from Representative 
Hinchey requiring a report on previous intelligence community 
activities in Argentina, an issue that has long been a concern of 
Representative Hinchey.
  Representative Langevin, a leader on the issue of cybersecurity, 
drafted a provision that requires the President to submit a plan to 
Congress to secure the networks of the Federal Government.
  Finally, Representative Markey of Colorado drafted language that will 
require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the 
congressional Intelligence Committees assessing the threat posed to 
allies and interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf by Iran's 
missile arsenal.
  Beyond the manager's amendment, the base text of the bill makes 
several important improvements in oversight of intelligence activities. 
First, it establishes an Inspector General for the entire intelligence 
community. This provision will help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, 
and it will also keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of 
Americans.
  The bill will also require the DNI to establish a plan to increase 
diversity within the intelligence community. As is very clear, this is 
a measure that is important to all our Members, to me personally, and 
to the committee's vice chairman, Mr. Hastings. For the intelligence 
agencies, diversity is not just about virtue and equality, though both 
are important ideals; it is about making sure that we have a clear and 
complete understanding of the different languages and cultures around 
the world. In the world of intelligence, diversity translates directly 
into improved operational capability.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, it has 
been a privilege to work with both sides of the aisle to craft this 
bill. It is important to keep in mind that all of these issues are 
vital and important components of making sure we do our work.
  With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and enact 
these critical provisions into law.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to 
congratulate the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, my good friend, for his service in the Border Patrol. And 
we have worked together on a wide range of issues. I thank him for 
that.
  I have to say that I am very concerned, though, about the fact that 
we, unfortunately, have not seen what is best described as a forward-
leaning policy when it comes to dealing with this threat of terrorism.
  We all know that law enforcement by its nature is reactive, and we 
need to have a policy that is more proactive. The inclusion of language 
like the McDermott amendment in this measure in the manager's amendment 
unfortunately creates a scenario whereby we are not focused on being 
the forward-leaning entity that we should.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, my friend from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank Mr. Dreier from California for giving me the 5 
minutes.
  Here we go again. This bill could have been done in July, but it was 
pulled. This is the third rule that we've had on one bill. It's almost 
unprecedented; I'm not sure that I have ever seen this before. It was 
pulled in July because of the controversy surrounding the Speaker's 
remarks saying the CIA lies, the CIA lies all the time. So it sat 
dormant as this country was under attack.
  When we went to the Rules Committee this week, we had a lot of 
amendments that we thought should have been put in order. An amendment 
that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the 
capabilities of Iran--it wasn't important enough to debate that when we 
went through the debate on this bill yesterday. An amendment that would 
require the CIA to release publicly unclassified versions of documents 
relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques--that wasn't 
important enough to debate. What we are going to do with the folks in 
Guantanamo--that wasn't important enough to debate. What the 
intelligence community did after Fort Hood and in between Fort Hood and 
Christmas Day--that wasn't important enough to debate. The process for 
authorization and notification of covert actions that may result in the 
death of a targeted U.S. citizen--that wasn't important enough to 
debate.
  But then we see that there is an amendment to be offered by the 
manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, 22 pages, including 
an amendment from Mr. McDermott. And here's Mr. McDermott's own words: 
``My amendment would have expanded upon the President's executive order 
to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhumane, or degrading 
interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are 
unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use 
those kinds of interrogations.'' Not a single minute of debate on this 
amendment, not one hearing on this amendment, and we dump it into a 
manager's amendment, along with 22 other amendments. Sloppy work.
  And how do we know it's sloppy? Because we're back here today for a 
third time with a third rule pulling it out. It's not because the 
leadership on the other side believes that this is a bad amendment. 
They believe it's the right amendment. That's why they put it into the 
manager's amendment. That's why the chairman put this amendment into 
the manager's amendment, because he agrees with it. He defended this 
yesterday, expansion of criminal

[[Page 2057]]

penalties only to the intelligence community; on the floor defending 
this amendment, saying it was the good thing and the right thing to do, 
and it was consistent with American values. If it's consistent with 
American values, why are they pulling it out? Because they know it's 
unfair to the intelligence community.
  We asked the question yesterday, what are you going to say to the men 
and women, the front lines in the intelligence community, when you go 
and visit them and say you have created a special set of penalties only 
for them? You know, these rules, this new criminal law, you wouldn't 
even apply these to your county sheriff, you wouldn't even apply them 
to your State trooper, but they wanted to sneak them in in the middle 
of the night, with no debate, no hearing, saying this is the right way 
to go. They're pulling it today because they recognize, their 
leadership on this issue, that when they turned around, they had no 
followers. They didn't have enough votes to pass this. It jeopardized 
their bill. It was sloppy work to put this in in the first place, and 
it's an indication of how this bill has gone through the process. This 
amendment was put in without any consultation with the other side of 
the aisle. This is a partisan bill. As my colleague said earlier, it 
creates some real confusion as to whether we're in the law enforcement 
business or whether we're in the fighting terrorism business.
  I'm glad this is coming here today, but we could have dealt with this 
yesterday. It should never have been in the manager's amendment to 
begin with. If they wanted to put it up, put it up for a separate vote 
as a separate amendment. But they knew they couldn't do that.
  We asked questions yesterday that they didn't answer. Why does this 
amendment define a criminal offense that only intelligence community 
personnel would be guilty of? They wouldn't answer that, they wouldn't 
engage in that debate. The amendment would make it a crime for 
depriving an individual of necessary food, water, sleep. How does the 
bill define ``necessary?'' Participate in acts intended to violate the 
individual's religious beliefs. Is there an objective standard? Then it 
gets into phobias. Exploit the phobias of the individual. We asked the 
other side, please define this for us, and they didn't.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague.
  They weren't willing to answer any of those questions or even have a 
debate or a discussion on what the amendment meant. So that is why 
we're back here today. But the bottom line is it's a symptom, it's a 
symptom of the confusion on the other side, the sloppiness with which 
they brought this bill to the floor. I am glad that they have taken 
this lousy amendment and they are going to trash it today. It should 
never have been in there. It jeopardized and attacked our men and women 
on the front lines who are keeping us safe each and every day.
  The McDermott amendment was an insult, an insult to American men and 
women in the intelligence community.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
has 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to 
the chairman of the committee, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  You know, facts are pesky things, and sometimes we have to keep 
reminding those on the other side of the aisle that they are entitled 
to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
  When the ranking member made reference to the Speaker and her comment 
about being misled by the CIA, it is important to keep in perspective 
that we are talking about the last administration, where the 
policymakers repeatedly misled the Congress. He himself complained 
bitterly many, many times about those kinds of issues. In fact, one of 
the amendments, the amendment on the issue of Peru, is a direct result 
of complaints voiced by the ranking member and others on the committee.
  He asked a rhetorical question: What will we say to the men and women 
of the intelligence community? My message has always been consistent: 
We appreciate their work, we honor their professionalism, we depend on 
them, and the safety of our country relies on them doing the job that 
they need to do.

                              {time}  1000

  It's interesting for me to note that, over the course of the last few 
months, because of an issue that the minority has with Miranda 
warnings, they have been repeatedly questioning the proficiency of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have 26\1/2\ years of experience in 
Federal law enforcement. I've had an opportunity to work with the 
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I know they are the 
best we have.
  Do you know why I say that?
  Because they didn't need to resort to waterboarding. They didn't need 
to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques. All they did was 
conduct interrogations professionally and bring all the tools to bear 
that they have traditionally relied on, and they got information from 
the individual who tried to take down the airliner on Christmas Day.
  I know it's a tough contrast, because some would like to take 
shortcuts. Some would like to subscribe to the last administration's 
policy of ``anything goes.'' Well, facts and rules are pesky things. I 
know the Constitution, which they like to quote, is pesky because it 
provides protection to anyone here in the United States, whether you 
are here legally, illegally, whether you are in a car, on a plane or in 
another type of conveyance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation 
understands that, and that's why, once they determined that there was a 
violation, they gave the Miranda warnings.
  The other side would like to mischaracterize that and say, ``We're in 
favor of the FBI's going around the world, giving the Miranda warnings 
to those who would seek to harm our country.'' Well, the difference 
between us and the rest of the world should be that we are a Nation of 
laws, that we don't seek to take shortcuts, that we don't think it's a 
good idea to waterboard and to torture and do those kinds of things. 
That's a basic and fundamental difference in political philosophy, I 
think, here today.
  Do you know what? As I go around the world and talk to members of the 
intelligence community in the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the FBI, and 
others, that's what they want to do. They want to be given the tools to 
carry out their jobs and to do their jobs within the framework that we 
are so proud of as Americans. That's what we should be doing. That's, 
more than anything, what this debate is about.
  Are we going to honor the traditions that our country stands for--the 
reasons that we are held up as a model around the world--or are we 
going to subscribe to the policies of the previous administration which 
say, because people are intent on attacking us, that anything goes, 
that we throw the rule book out the window, that we throw the 
Constitution out the door and let people do whatever they want, 
whenever they want, however they want? That is not who we are. That is 
not what we should be about. Believe me, the men and women who are 
charged with keeping us safe want those issues to be clear-cut and 
understood.
  I will close by saying it is very telling that, when the last 
administration made a decision under enhanced interrogation, to 
waterboard, two things happened. First of all, the CIA did not have 
that expertise in-house. They had to go to the DOD to get it. Secondly, 
when the FBI realized that that was part of the interrogation process, 
they said, you know, that's not what we're about. We can get the job 
done the right way without resorting to those

[[Page 2058]]

kinds of techniques, and they returned back to headquarters.
  So, with that, I hope that we can have a substantive debate on issues 
that are important to our country, on issues that are relevant and, 
most importantly, on issues that provide the men and women, the 
professionals in whatever agency you're talking about, the tools and 
the direction that we are a Nation of laws. We have to respect our 
Constitution.
  Mr. DREIER. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another 
hardworking, thoughtful member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, the gentleman from metropolitan Chumuckla, Florida (Mr. 
Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my 2 minutes in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the full committee.
  If you believe what you've just said, why are we striking section 506 
from your manager's amendment?
  Mr. REYES. If the gentleman would yield, last night, we offered a 
unanimous consent to withdraw it.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, why did you do that?
  Mr. REYES. The issue, after reflecting on it, was, at least as I 
understood from the comments that were being made by your side, there 
were some misimpressions of what, actually, the amendment was intending 
on doing, so I offered to withdraw that under unanimous consent, and 
your side decided not to.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again, 
please, I am going to continue the colloquy.
  You are saying there are misimpressions on our side. It was your side 
last night that blew up when this issue was brought forward, and you 
didn't have the votes to do it. So my next question is: If you had 
defended it all-day long, why did you allow it to be put in the bill in 
the first place?
  Mr. REYES. Well, we can only do so much to make sure that your side 
understands that the concerns that you were raising were not, in fact, 
what was meant by the amendment. That's the long and short of it.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Thank you, sir.
  Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what I am trying to put forth to 
the public today.
  You talk about our being entitled to our own opinions but not to our 
own facts. Facts are facts. The facts are the chairman of the committee 
had this put into the bill. The chairman of the committee is now having 
it pulled out of the bill, which is the way they want to go.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Gold 
River, California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I am sorry, I had to come over 
here and just respond to what was said by the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  You said, in the previous administration, anything goes. Read the 
memo that just came out of the Justice Department. Look at the actions 
of the Justice Department. They suggest that anything did not go. To 
say that now is to besmirch the reputations of good men and women who 
have worked both career and political to save us from the threat of 
terrorists since 9/11. To come here and to say ``anything goes'' is a 
continuation of besmirching the reputations of good men and women. 
Frankly, it ought not to stand. Look at the facts. Look at the recent 
memo that reviewed those analyses. You will see that is not the case.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman such time as he may 
consume.
  Mr. REYES. First of all, in response to my friend from California's 
comment, I will just give you one example.
  The issue of waterboarding has been characterized as the equivalent 
of a training exercise, that the SERE training does it to train our 
pilots. Don't you think there is a big difference between categorizing 
it in that way and waterboarding an individual 183 times?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would look at 
the memo that just came out which reviews the legal analysis provided 
by the Justice Department in terms of waterboarding, you would see that 
there is not only a historic but a legal and substantial difference 
between the waterboarding referenced in the complaints versus that 
which we did.
  Mr. REYES. Answer the question: Do you think there is a difference 
between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to respond if 
the gentleman would allow me to.
  Mr. REYES. Please.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. There is no difference in the 
application--the numbers, yes.
  The fact of the matter is, after that individual was waterboarded 
multiple times, we received actionable information from the 
intelligence community, which allowed us to stop plots that were aimed 
at killing Americans. That has been said under oath by the highest 
levels of the intelligence community in the United States.
  Mr. REYES. Reclaiming my time, that doesn't deserve a response.
  What I will say is that the FBI and our interrogators, the 
professionals that they are, have proven that you can get better 
information by following the traditional interrogation procedures. You 
don't have to resort to ``enhanced interrogation techniques.''
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The facts are difficult.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the White House, Speaker Pelosi 
said that people sitting around the kitchen table don't care about 
process; they care about results.
  Well, the fact of the matter is this has been an extraordinarily 
sloppy process. As we've just seen from the exchange that has taken 
place, it looks like we had the potential for very, very serious, far-
reaching results which could have been devastating had we included the 
McDermott language in this measure.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this pattern, it is unfortunate. I 
think we have made history here today by having the third rule 
considered for the first step of legislation. It has taken 8 months for 
us to get here when we should have dealt with it last summer when it 
was a priority for us.
  I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, when you have bad process, you end up 
with bad results, and that's exactly what has happened here. So I am 
very, very troubled that we are at this point, but we are going to try 
to do what we can to move forward.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I am pleased 
we are removing the language today.
  I want to remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we are helping to 
prevent the disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and 
misinformed Congresses can have on national security. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________