the speaker pro tempore: on this

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 168. the nays are 243. the motion is not agreed to. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman oppose to the bill? mr. lewis: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk will suspend. members, please clear the well. the clerk may proceed.

the clerk: motion to recommit offered by mr. lewis of california. on page 22, line 8, insert increased by $1 million, decrease by $1 million. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: may i have unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from wisconsin objects? the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: on page 22, line 14, insert increased by $1 million. decreased by $1 million. on page 32, line 21, insert increase by $1 million, decrease by $1 million. on page 32, line 22, insert increase by $1 million, decrease by $1 million. the gentleman will be is recognized. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. we have i think the most important decision we are going

to make in the years ahead on how we look at the war on terror. prior to 9/11, look at the events, the 1993 twin tower bombings, the u.s.s. cole, the east africa bombings, after the 1993 bombings, we decided to continue our effort to treat the war on terror as a law enforcement exercise. and it led all the way through to 9/11. and this body collectively said we have a very important decision to make now after the 9/11 attacks. we said that's going to either be a crime or it's going to be an act of war. and this body, in overwhelming numbers, decided it was an act of of war. and we aggressively pursued our counterterrorism efforts around the world and we pursued those who attacked us with absolute vigilance. and it has been successful. no one can argue it has not been

successful. and think of what happened right after that. we policed up khalid muhammad. because he had been schooled in the united states, the very first thing he told those who grabbed him was, i want a lawyer. thank goodness. thank the good lord above, they said sorry, pal, you are not a united states citizen. have a seat. you bet. those interrogations between k.s.m. and the other two very senior members of al qaeda, our intelligence services tell us that 60% to 70% of what we know about al qaeda and how it functions came from just those interrogations. 60% to 70%. that's by the understanding of our intelligence community. from there we pursued globally the effort to aggressively pursue those who attacked us and the network of al qaeda.

imagine our shock after the president said he would not propose reading miranda rights as if they were shoplifters, that we find that they had sat down with the justice department and others and cooked up a plan called the global justice initiative. to change the priority from intelligence gathering on the field to law enforcement on the field. what does that mean? it means when they were picking up somebody on the battlefield in afghanistan after attacking say the 82nd airborne or putting i.e.d. to kill civilians or afghans or u.s. soldiers we are bringing back to a detention facility and they said we might want to prosecute that person in the future. sir, you have the right to remain silent. i cannot tell you how dangerous that is to our national security. it is not a law enforcement event. it's an enemy combatant event. the information that that

individual has is perishable. maybe they are making those i.e.d.'s. maybe they are financing the networks that make those i.e.d.'s. maybe they are the ones planning the very next attack on u.s. soldiers. we need them to talk. we don't need to treat them as united states citizens. the ones they have been doing aren't even afghan citizens. they are from around the world. directly and intentionally coming to afghanistan to kill u.s. soldiers. this is a serious shift in policy and how we pursue our counterterrorism efforts. the most important, i think, that we will debate here. this is our chance to send a message. a very clear message. as a senior f.b.i. official told us, the reason they are going to do this and are going to do this is because, quote, they wanted to err on the side of prosecution. i said, mr. speaker, they err on the side of the safety of the men and women in our united states military and the people right here at home.

if you don't think it's happening, it is. even with the letter from the f.b.i. director dated june 12, it says, the proposal would also ensure when possible that the intelligence is gathered in a manner that best preserves future option vis-a-vis the individual terrorist at issue, including gathering evidence in a manner that ensures its integrity in the event of prosecution becomes the most desirable approach, which is f.b.i. legal yeast speak listen we are going to treat them all like we are going to prosecute them. imagine the tension between the c.i.a. and the d.i.a. and the other law enforcement community efforts when this enemy combatant comes in, somebody reads them their rights, the c.i.a. knows they have information that may save the life of a soldier, the confusion

we interject into the battlefield is wrong and it's dangerous. mr. speaker, this is our chance. this is our chance together in unified way, the same way we stood up after 9/11 and said it's not a crime, it's an act of war to say enough is enough. don't give them the rights of the united states citizen. give them the rights of an enemy combatant and all that comes with it. we hope the 101st airborne division. with that, sir, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: mr. speaker, that's a very interesting speech. i wish it had something to do with anything in this amendment. let me simply read the amendment. what it says is on page 22, line

8 on page 22, line 14, on page 32, line 21, and on page 32, line 22 insert increase by $1 million, decrease by $1 million. that's all the amendment says. so what does it do? you know what it does? it don't do nothing. all it does is give one of our friends on that side of the aisle a chance to talk about an issue. i want to congratulate him. that's the least destructive thing they have done today. i simply want to say that if this amendment passes, there is no way it can be interpreted by the implementing agency to have anything whatsoever to do with

the issue that the gentleman just talked about. because the amendment has no effect on it. mr. speaker, we sat here for eight hours and gone through this elaborate charade today. other committees brought veterans to town to talk about the problems of veterans. they brought little kids to town to talk about the problem of children's hospitals. that comment says more about you than it says about anything i say. we brought american citizens to town to appear at hearing after hearing today about their real life human problems, and instead we watch the other side of the aisle walk around in circles in this well changing their votes on paper ballots, pretending they are doing something useful for the country.

this language -- i'm going to accept this amendment because as i say it don't do nothing to nobody or for nobody. and as i said that's the least destructive thing you managed to do today. congratulations, maybe there's hope for you yet. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion -- the ayes have it. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, record vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20,

the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 312, the nays are 103. the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the

gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i move for reconsideration of the vote. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to reconsider. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. broun: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. long leong. this will be -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]