host: you can watch it on c- span.org and hear it on c-span radio. thanks for being with us this thursday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 25, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable ed pastor to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: it the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god, our strength and our salvation, touch us with the flame of your love. let it burn our self-interest. let our heart-felt dedication to public service of your people may be transformed into deeper commitment. free this congress to be your sterile instrument, to heal this nation and restore its vitality. may our accomplishments give you and you alone, lord, all the glory both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman

from texas, congressman poe. mr. poe: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 10 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, the american people have demanded that congress begin working together to solve this nation's problems, and we have done just that. on monday, our friends across the capitol in the other body, as we say, passed their version of the jobs bill by a vote of 70-28. we in this house have already passed a different version, and yesterday we passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of

406-19, a long overdue elimination of the antitrust exemption that health insurers have enjoyed for decades. we hope our friends in the other body will join us in a similarly bipartisan vote to send that bill to the president. and today a bipartisan group of congressional leaders meets at the white house to discuss ways to bring down the cost of health care for every family and every business in america. while we're not yet finished and there's clearly much work yet to be done, congress this week has made great strides on moving forward on issues of great concern to the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. terry: i rise to recognize the importance that african-americans have made to our nation. we're especially proud of the people that continue to shape our community. the omaha area is blessed with thousands of successful and

talented african-americans, and today i'd like to recognize four individuals, frank, phyllis, dr. clinksdale. frank hayes is a c.p.a. who owns his own business. he is also a founding member and the first president of the 100 black men organization which is dedicated to improving the lives of youth. since 1967, phyllis hicks has run the stepping drill team and continues to be a volunteer and chief founder of this group. she has helped youth overcome many obstacles. and dr. clinksdale has planned, produced and directed more than 200 theatrical productions including a performance to the prelude of the tuss key gee airmen. -- tuskegee airmen. and in 1975 highlighted a successful african-americans who are leading the way in

business was featured in "ebony" magazine. i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the bill passed in november takes a leap forward in addressing the payment in the health care system. we waste hundreds of billions of dollars every year on test and procedures that do not improve patient health. we need to change the incentive system. we need doctors and hospitals to work together to coordinate care based around patient needs. in my district in southern minnesota, the mayo clinic has done exactly that. there are other institutions around the country who provide high-quality, low-cost efficient care. this is the one issues that both sides can agree on. yesterday in "roll call" led by the mayo clinic, the chamber of congress and others stated, reforming health care in america will not become easier

through the passage of time. we encourage all individuals work together to pass reforms that provide quality, affordable health care for all americans. this is the path to true health care reform that will strengthen our economy, take care of america's families and grow jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the canadian premere stuck into the united states for some stealth health care. now, why would he come to the united states for heart surgery? because his life depended upon it. my heart, my choice, my health, he proclaimed. when it came down to it he didn't trust his life to canada's government-run health care system. imagine that. the premiere said after the successful heart surgery, quote, i did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when i entered politics.

the american people said they don't want to be forced into signing their life away for health care. when life and death decisions are put into the hands of government bureaucrats, it's unhealthy to everybody. when it came down to the matter of his own life or death decision, the can nadeyeen premiere chose private health care and american heart surgeons over the canadian nationalized system. sounds like private health care for me but not for thee. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. pete strouse served on the cincinnati city council from 1981 to 1993 serving part of that time as the city's vice

mayor. he was the person who embodied the virtues of leadership. he sought from a desire to improve the lives of our community. he served cincinnati not with a political or partisan agenda but to get results for the people and city he represented. when i was a young man with a growing interest in government, i and many others like me looked up to pete strauss as a public servant. pete's character was beyond character and his bravery was clear when he fought parkinson's. he will be missed by his wife and sons and all of the city that he loved and served for so long. thank you, pete. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. murphy: in today's news, chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, says there is a risk for high

interest rates and high inflation. borrowing from china and buying huge amounts of oil from opec and we have to realize we have a mess in our hands but there is a solution. we can create jobs and grow our economy without raising taxes. it's a bipartisan american conservation and clean energy independence act, h.r. 2227. this bill uses the trillions of dollars from oil and gas exploration off or coasts, drive conservation and new technologies to improve energy efficiency, develop clean energy generation and infrastructure, rebuild america's independent transportation system and clean our air and water. and not only will we create a clean energy future but create good-paying jobs for years to come. the news tells us how they are but that's not how it has to be. join me in supporting the clean energy and conservation act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, despite the economic pain felt by so many american families, we've seen something truly amazing and the extent to which americans have come together to address the tragedy of our brothers and sisters in haiti. i'm proud to stand here this morning to highlight two organizations based in my district who have done wonderful work. save the children, west port, connecticut, run by charlie mccormak, have three people on the ground which has touched haitians. and another run by kurt welling. the earthquake just hit the ground and they pledged $50 million to rebuild the haitian health care system. i rise today to highlight, to honor and to thank these two wonderful organizations and to urge them to keep up the good work. thank you, save the children, thank you, americares, for all that you've done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. cao: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. cao: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate chaplain

philip andole jr., chaplain of the year award, and who is currently serving in my district. i also congratulate him and thank him for delivering the opening prayer here on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives on tuesday, february 9, 2010. his prayer was powerful and moving and reminded us that we are americans promoting freedom, responsible for our actions and dedicated to the principles that made us free. chaplain lee has always been a beacon of hope those facing immense tragedies. he rescued survivors off rooftops during hurricane katrina and prayed at ground zero with the victims of september 11. i am proud to have chaplain lee serving in my congressional district. i thank him for his leadership in the spiritual rebuilding of orleans and jefferson parishes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the people i represent in connecticut, those who buy their health insurance on the individual market, are bearing the burden of a 20% rate hike in a recession. who is getting this 20%? it's not the patients, it's not my doctors, it's not my hospitals. this fact screams for the need for national health insurance reform. reform that drives down health care costs for everyone and asking those who make the biggest bucks off the system to take a little bit less. today, president obama is going to convene members of both parties in a televised forum to sit down and try to fix our health insurance mess. and i'm hopeful that our republican friends will finally bring some ideas that will change this status quo for individuals in my district, seniors and small businesses across the nation. instead of empowering these insurance industry rate increases, they should work

with us to stop them. i'm not naive. this may not happen today. but i tell you this, people in connecticut will be watching. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. herger: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. herger: mr. speaker, the president continues to ignore the american people's fundamental rejection of this health care bill. he needs to listen to the american public when they say no to big government and no to government-run health care. yet, his proposal is more the same government intrusion and high taxes that have been the dominant themes of his health care plan since day one. by refusing to change his plan, the president is demonstrating that today's summit and his rhetoric about working with

republicans to find solutions are purely for show. mr. speaker, it's time to start over and allow the public to have a seat at the table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to share my deep sadness over the loss of a human prisoner of conscience. orlando was first arrested in march in 2003 for participating in a hunger strike. since his initial arrest, the regime consistently moved his prison term to 40 years.

on december 3, mr. zapata started a hunger right against the cuban authorities. after the hunger strike, he passed away on tuesday, february 23, 2010, with his mother at his side. in mourning the dive of orlando zapata, i urge my colleagues to listen to his message of freedom and respect for human life. as the astrossities he fought against remain the reality of cuba today, we must continue to fight for human rights and their release of all political prisoners. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. larsen: i rise to recognize the auto task force in combating vehicle theft in my district. recently the task force is recognized as the top auto theft recovery in my state.

so while vehicle thefts across the state decreased by 20% in 2009 and they led the way with a 29% decline, the auto theft task force is an example of law enforcement agencies working together to make a real difference in our local community. the team is made up of detectives from monroe, mariesville and the sonoma sheriff's office and most recently the tribes. through this partnership, the task force disrupted the chop shops tracking down stolen vehicles, arresting those responsible and making sure that the bad guys are convicted. the team has recovered 82 vehicles with an estimated value of $1.5 million with over $330,000 worth of stolen property. at a time when budgets are stretched thin, we must not ignore the need of law enforcement and make sure these folks are behind bars. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ."z >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> hall: for more than 65 years insurance companies have been able to play by a different set of rules and the result has been disastrous for my constituents and families across the country. americans deserve choices. they deserve the ability to pick the health plan they want at an affordable price, but because of this health antitrust, they were denied that choice. insurance companies have been shielded from legal liability for price fixing, sabotaging their competitors in order to drive them out of theoñ market. in most industries these behaviors would be unacceptable, but for the insurance industry just another play in the book. i have been a long and strong propoent of appealing this antitrust exemption. i'm thrilled the house acted in such a bipartisan fashion to do

so. i urge the senate to quickly pass this legislation so that all of our constituents can have a choice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, every year our service members across the country receive permanent change of station orders. having to relocate their families to meet the needs of our national defense. in the process, military spouses often have to put their careers on hold. my new legislation, the military families jobs continuity act, offers a $500 tax credit to any military spouse who has to renew or transfer a professional license when a permanent change of station order takes their family across state lines. this tax credit will ease the stress of transfers and help military spouses quickly re-enter the work force. i urge my colleagues to renew our commitment to our soldiers

and our soldiers' families by supporting the military families job continuity act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of national t. jag day. i introduced a bill to honor our nation's agricultural educators and support national t-jag day. on this day, february 25, 2010. at a time when there is a nationwide teacher shortage in ag education and many agricultural education programs are suffering from the lack of qualified teachers, i feel it's important to encourage students to explore a career as a teacher in agriculture. these teachers work heart to ensure that over a million american students receive an ag education as part of their curriculum. ag educators work hand in hand with community groups like f.f.a. to strengthen communities. our nation's food supply depends on our continued support of our entire

agricultural industry. encouraging students to pursue a career of ag education is one way to help secure our food supply. i urge you to join me and many of our colleagues as well as the naae on behalf of the national council for agricultural education in supporting america's agricultural educators and students on this day, national teach ag day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much. we all know that most of the political eyes and other eyes are focused down at the blair house right now as the health care summit has just gotten underway, and my friend from fort lauderdale and i are going to begin the floor management of the very, very important intelligence authorization bill focused on our nation's

security. but we can't forget what issue is the forefront in the minds of most americans and that is getting our economy back on track. focusing on job creation and economic growth. we just gotten the news this morning there has been an unfortunate 12% increase in the jobless claims and we continue to have mixed reports on where we are with the economy. it seems to me, mr. speaker, that it's/ absolutely imperativ for us to work in a bipartisan way to put into place true private sector job creation incentives. by that i mean utilizing the bipartisan effort that was in the last half century utilized by john f. kennedy in the early 1960's and ronald reagan in the 1980's. i believe if we were to implement those policies, mr. speaker, we would see the kind of job creation that the american people are seeking. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the -- report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1109, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendments to the bill h.r. 3961, to amend title 18 of the social security act to reform the medicare sgr payment system for physicians and reinstitute and update the pay-as-you-go requirement of budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending legislation enforced by the threat of annual automatic sequestration. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 1105 and ask for its

immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 163, house resolution 1105, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declares the house -- 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 the 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 21. 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 18. 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 21. 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. section 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 all after the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 3, after passage of h.r. 2701, it shall be in order to consider in the house senate 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 senate 1494 and request a conference with the senate thereon. section 4, requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 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. section 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 majority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for

consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of making an announcement to the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: 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 are set to expire at the end of the month. the house may consider a one-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 at the house visitor center, room 304. $ intelligence judiciary committee, as well as personnel from the justice

department and 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, my good friend, mr. dreier, and all time yielded doorg consideration -- during consideration of the rule is for debate only, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 1105 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized on the resolution. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks

and insert extraneous material into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: 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 aq",kñ structured rule. the resolution wavings all points of order against consideration -- waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule 21. the resolution provides for one 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 21. the resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, and provides that the chair may 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 insi on its amendment and requests 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 18 -- 13 for 2/3 vote for the 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 friday, february 26, and 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 my chair 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 guidelines for 16 agencies of the intelligence community. while also improving oversight and helping to prevent disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and the misinformed congress can have on national security. mr. speaker, i've had the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals in over 50 countries around the world during my oversight travels as a member of the intelligence committee. i cannot overstate how much i and the members of the committee and i'm sure all members of this body appreciate them and am humbled by their service, their dedication and commitment became more evident when seven americans made the ultimate sacrifice during a terrorist attack in cost,

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 re-enforces 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 the united states' national security. for the last four 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 sign 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 fault 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 -- as vice chairman of the committee, i've seen that process abused in the past, and i'm 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 g.a.o. investigations initiated by congress. g.a.o. can provide the congress with valuable expertise and assist with oversight function. especially in areas of auditing and security clearance reforms. i stated time and time again that the intelligence community is not diverse enough to do its job of stealing and analyzing other countries' secrets. it 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 samford bishop -- sanford bishop when he was on the committee. i, particularly chairman reyes, anna eshoo, and others through the years, jane harman included, we have fought to continue 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've offered an amendment on diversity in the intelligence committee 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 the 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. let me first express my appreciation to my friend from fort lauderdale, a member of both the rules committee and having been a distinguished

member of the select committee on intelligence, and i yield myself such time as i may consume and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, last christmas day, as we all know, when a passenger boarded northwest airlines flight number 253 headed for the detroit metro airport, the issue of national security once again came to the forefront, to really the top of the agenda for everyone in our country. it's, of course, never far from our minds but recent high-profile plots have been thwarted. at fort hood and in detroit, we know the threat of americans remains and remains a very real threat to us. what was so shocking about the

attempted attack on christmas day was not that al qaeda remains a threat, we all know this, but was the revelation that key information was available that could have prevented umar mutalub from boarding the flight in the first place. even 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 coordination that saved the people on the plane. it was luck and the quick thinking on the part of those very courageous passengers. now, 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 abu mutallub to board the plane. 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, and the continued items that obviously we don't hear about out there. now is the time to take, mr. speaker, these new insights and

reform our intelligence agencies and policies to better protect our homeland security and the american people and that has to remain the top priority. that's where all of the attention should be focused. we are considering a bill today that is nearly eight months old, this legislation was reported out of committee in june of last year. it was written before these 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 curiously flawed bill even back in june before 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, and i quote, the administration has serious concerns with a number of provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning of the intelligence community and would raise a number of policy management, legal and constitutional concerns, closed quote. and that's a 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 work force for the 21st century, the wasted resources. i mean, these were not the accusations, mr. speaker, of political adversaries. these were the serious criticisms of president obama. and they were leveled nearly eight 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 eight-month-old bill that wasn't even a good idea at the time and, as i say, was criticized hashly by president obama. the manner in which they're bringing this 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. .

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 1 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 in 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 cart planning to take -- casht blank

-- cart blank to take whatever legislation they shooze entirely absent of any accountability. when such -- i have to say that i was thinking about this last night when we were in the rules committee. to impose this kind of structure this early in the 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 is we need to take a hard look at the intelligence failures that have taken place. let's ask the hows and whies

and make the nessary reforms -- whys and make the necessary reforms to make sure we will never 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: you know, mr. speaker, i appreciate my good friend from california's desire to address flight 253. in my view his complaints that the bill is outdated ignore the rule. the rule makes in order an amendment by representative directed at the lesser of two

-- flight 253. listen, the intelligence community constituted of 16 elements is organic and it's constantly in a state of change and there is considerable coordination and collaboration regarding the goal, not just one airplane, not just one individual. and when you isolate on one individual like the person that was on flight 253, you do have that anomaly to show we are steadily being set upon. but that was mild by comparison to some of those incidents that never make it into the public realm. and i'm reminded of the constant saying that success has a thousand fathers, but failure evidently doesn't even have a mother because any time there is a failure, the whole

community is set upon while day after day after day, year after year, after year they are stopping countless attacks on this country that go unnoticed whether it be in the field of cyber whether it be on theg battlefield we are constantly in that position. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: certainly i'll yield. mr. dreier: i thank my friend. let me say i completely concur with my colleague about this notion of our recognizing the day after day, 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 what we need to focus on is that the fort hood shootings and the david headly

arrest these things have taken place since this bill had any kind of committee consideration, last year. and all we are arguing -- it's great some amendments have been made in order. unfortunately it's a partisan item to have 21 amendments included in the manager's amendment. ving worked so hard on that committee, a lot of work takes place in secrecy understandably dñ/ukw3ñ!ó situations, that should happen before bringing a measure of this nag any tude to the floor that even the president and so many others have acknowledged is flawed. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. hastings: 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 of restriction that is 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, the central players, the speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the committees chairs and ranking members. and that's who that small h pjá receive specific information. i hope the public at least@h÷k73 understands some aspect of that. the point that i was trying to make and will continue to make -- 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. and 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 commupet and -- community and to the president. nobody talks about that in the newspaper. nobody talks about that in this particular -- pick three incidents out of thousands of successes and point to a community's failures. i can't accept that. i watched for 10 years on this committee. these people work their hearts out. republicans and democrats under the leadership, 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 they have intelligence operations. what would happen in this world, what would happen with our allies if we did not have this? how would we be having the successes we are having in afghanistan today picking off leader of taliban, leaders of al qaeda all the time it seems to me that all that comes out as, is 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 is4 hñ a deserving as any other part of our bureaucracy that fail considerably, including this institution. mr. dreier:y7xf would the gentl yield? mr. hastings: i was going to yield my time. i ask the gentleman to take his time. i'll yield. mr. drei: i thank my friend. let me say i totally concur

with absolutely everything -- mr. hastings: i should take my time back now that you agree. mr. dreier: thank you very much. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'm very happy to yield four minutes to the very hardworking and diligent and thoughtful ranking member of the select committee on intelligence, our friend from texas, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 americans mustang act. we did find time to consider the chesapeake bay gateways and water trails network continuing authorization act. we found time to consider the castle new gent national historic -- newgent national historic site for st. croix. all under a rule. 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 seven 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 we stopped -- 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 practically -- 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. 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 around the country that are very central to the efforts of those intelligence professionals to keep usú?n] s. for example, the president said he was going to close guantanamo bay within a 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? should there be a complete record of the briefings that were made to congress about various anti-terrorism 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 those issues i just mentioned were filed before the rules committee, and yet none of those amendments was made in order.=éíñ why? we have these issues that are central to safeguarding the country and yet the majority does not make those in order. what does it make in order? a number of reports, as we have discussed, but in addition in the manager's amendment there is a section that i'm afraid

illuminates for us all the approach that at least some people in this house take to this fight against terrorism. i do not believe it represents a number of the members on the intelligence committee who see this every day, but in the manager's amendment are provisions that would -- that apply only to intelligence community professionals and says that they will go to jail for forcing someone to do something that is against their individual religious beliefs. does gentleman have another couple minutes? mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield two minutes. mr. thornberry: i appreciate the gentleman. we can't have debate on serious issues regarding guantanamo, miranda rights, other things.áq but what is hidden in this blizzard of reports are several pages that says our intelligence professionals, if they try to get information from a terrorist in order to prevent future terrorist

attacks and they don't give them 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, as long as the -- it's like if the terrorist says my religion requires me to have a big mack every day, if we don't give him that big mac we are violating this profession and our intelligence professionals are go to jail. there are provisions that say prolonged isolation will cause our intelligence professionals to go to jail if they do that with the terrorists. how many county jails and state prisons in the country could operate under this standard? i would say none. . this would treat terrorists more gingerly. unfortunately, mr. speaker,

what this bill does is avoids the debates on the substantive issues, but yet there is this thread which i don't believe the president seems to share. perhaps some in his administration do. a few people in this congress do. a thread of antagonism against our intelligence professionals that says we're going to prosecute them, as the justice department is investigating, that we are going to send them to jail if they don't coddle to jail if they don't coddle these terr appropriate way. i think that reflects a lack of seriousness with this measure and that is sufficient reason to reject this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i listen to my colleague who is an absolutely brilliant member of the intelligence community and has provided continuing and dedicated service for the period of time that he and i

served on the committee together. but one thing i think i know a little bit more about than he does and that is our prison system. and that's for the reason that i participated as a state and federal judge and then as a lawyer in dealing with circumstanceses -- circumstances in our prison. when our colleague suggests that detainees are treated in a certain way and that those particular things, for example, food or the length of the hair or religious convictions, all of those things have been litigateded a nawsyem in the united states -- litigated ad nauseum in the united states. and i know that they find themselves able to access to the food that comports with their religious requirements and also the other

circumstances. one thing that's good about us is that we value others. and other thing before they even consider us is that those values manifest themselves in the treatment of persons who are our enemies. now, i am going to try 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, that i filed and i would urge them to look at it and look at the detention criteria and 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. and i have no pride of authorship. i said to members on the other side and our side if they have something they can add or subtract, please do so. but what do you with people we hold and somehow or another the thought being that we can't try people in our federal system or , for that matter, we have a situation where every detainee must be tried in military commissions, according to some, well, let me tell you about some of the people that we hold in one prison today. the bureau of prison 80-x supermax in florence, colorado,

has a capacity of 490 inmates. there are currently 445 leaving 45 cells available. and i can assure you anyone in guantanamo could be transferred here with no threat to florence, colorado. no one has ever escaped supermax. supermax offers some of the best trained in the nation and current and former inmates include -- let me just give you some of these people. anthony coso, a mobster informer underboss of the lu cizzi crime family. and a co-conspirator in the 1998 united states embassy bombings is in this prison. matthew hale, a white supremacist leader. larry hoover, the leader of the gangster disciples nation based

in chicago is in this prison. jeff fort, the co-founder of the black peace stones gang in chicago. and founder of its el rucan faction. omar, the co-founder of the united blood nation. theodore kaczynski, the unibomber is in this prison in colorado. the drug trafficker co-conspirator in the enrique camaranna case. zacharias moussaoui, he was the co-conspirator in the 2001 attacks. guess where he is? in colorado in supermax. terry nichols, the oklahoma city bomber is in this prison. richard calvin reid, the islamic terrorist, nicknamed the shoe bomber, who also came

through our regular system. eric robert rudolph, convicted of the 1996 olympic park bombing. dwight york, ramiz yusef, the world trade center bombing is in center. we can hold these people. h. brown is in this prison. thomas silverstein -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: no, i will not yield. howard mason, a drug trafficker who ordered the murder of a police officer named burn, a leading member of the brotherhood. why are you telling me we can't hold people in supermax? 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. but what has happened in this institution is you've given the american public a chance to believe that they would be afraid if you held them in certain institutions in your neighborhood. well, they've come through your neighborhood an awful lot and you evidently didn't know about it because 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 dog career and that's 50 years as a lawyer. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: you have time. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me just say that my friend from goldriver, california, has been attempting to engage in a colloquy with my friend and i'd like to yield three minutes to

my friend from goldriver and i'm sure he'll yield to the gentleman from fort lauderdale if he'd lik t way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, the gentleman asked, why? well, you know, it's not just in my backyard. i don't want them in any american's backyard. and guess what, the american people agree with me. and 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 your infinity wisdom not to allow -- infinite wisdom not to allow us to debate it on the floor. it said 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 trial. 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. and 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 they would isolate them for too long period of time. neither one of them defined in the statute.

so what we have done is we will continue to ignore the american people who said loudly and clearly, we don't want khalid sheikh mohammed and his confed rates to come to new york, we don't want those in guantanamo to come to the united states. i find it -- i find it strange that the gentleman from florida would compare h. rap brown of a terrorist involved in a terrorist network. that he doesn't understand -- i know he does understand. i'm sure it was a rhetorical device that he was using. someone that is an american citizen and the rights they have versus someone who happens to be a noncitizen. in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. there is a distinction that's always been known in our courts, and the idea that we are going to extend the full constitutional rights to someone whose only connection to the united states is that that person was captured on the

battlefield attempting to kill americans is inconsistent with the history of this nation, inconsistent with all of the decisions of the supreme court. and so when the american people are aroused about this issue and wish us to address it -- can i have one minute? mr. dreier: can i inquire of the chair how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 minutes. the gentleman from florida has seven. mr. dreier: seven minutes? the speaker pro tempore: seven minutes. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield one minute to my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: and 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 and our effort against those who would wish to destroy us by terrorism. the way we act suggest the american people this is not on the top of our priority list but on the bottom. we are going to have a rule in

the patriot act. why? because three days from now three provisions will expire. monday we were in here. we had an extra day of voting. what did we do? rid the scourge of unnamed post offices. we were sure that we were here to make sure that, man, we got to find some more post offices to name. why couldn't we give additional time to allow amendmentes that are serious in nature, that the american people want us to deal with on this floor? once again the rules committee said, we are not going to allow that but we are going to incorporate the manager's amendment, an amendment which actually provides greater rights to those who are being held and put at jeopardy our intelligence community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, before yielding to my good friend that i serve on the rules committee, i just like to comment regarding my good friend, mr. lungren's, comments. mr. lungren, there have been three people that 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 in president obama's administration, more than 300 people have been convicted in our civilian courts. you are correct, i was using the people in the supermax to make the point no matter who they were, whether they were zacharias moussaoui, who certainly -- and others that we can hold them and can't escape. the fear of some would think is they think they'd escape. i'd yield one minute to my friend on the rules committee, mr. perlmutter.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: i'd say to my friend from california, colorado, we were asked to take over the trial of timothy mcveigh who had blown up an office building in oklahoma. didn't do it in colorado. but we said, ok, 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 we -- our judicial system, our federal judges handled that matter, i think, in a very fair, fine and proper manner. .

we have taken prisoners in our supermax who are terrorists by anybody's definition. and so we -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. perlmutter: if i could have a couple seconds. we take responsibility for those things that americans have to deal with. you don't like dealing with it. but we have to. so we are 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. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: the first thing i would say to my good friend from colorado the mr. lungren reminded me that the moment one of these individuals is on american soil, they have enhanced rights 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, will not have the opportunity to debate it other than in the context of the overall manager's amendment which includes 21, 21 amendments from our democratic colleagues, including the mcdermott amendment. 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 is my big mac, i have to say the fact is someone could actually claim that being denied a big mac would be cruel and unusual punishment? and i have to say that it is, as i look at the litany of items on here, including

exploiting phobias of the individual, i just don't understand it. i wonder if my friend might further enlighten us on this. i'm happy to yield. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 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 f.b.i. to interrogate someone accused of a crime, perhaps involving murder, to say, you 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. i yield back. 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, are expended on fighting against these terrorists rather than exspending our tax dollars defending these terrorists. and the mcdermott amendment takes and expends more time and

effort and energy into defending them. unfortunately the only discussion that we will have on this, mr. speaker, is during consideration of the rule because we are not going to have a chance to vote on this amendment. other than being included in the overall manager's amendment with 20 other amendments being included. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i continue to have to teach law here. i never wanted to do that. the language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibition 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, i would like at this time to yield one minute to the

distinguished lady from new hampshire, ms. carol shatter -- shea-porter. ms. shea-porter: 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 how important it is to focus on the vultnerblets in the global supply chain and i'm glad my amendment was included in the manager's amendment. it reviews global supply chain vulnerabilities to include the risk not only from counterfeit products but original products. considering the number of foreign state-owned or state-invested enterprideses in the technology industry that manufactures products for our markets, original products presents serious risk to our defense and intelligence systems. it also assesses the impact of 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 system.

i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the manager's amendment. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i would like to yield three 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 on to u.s. soil, my friend from peoria, mr. schock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. 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. in my short one year in this body it's amazed me how many amendments have come before this body and a straight up and down party vote, republican vote one way, 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 -- has not allowed the form debate in this body or not allowed the straight up or down vote for each member to cast his or her vote. 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. what is it that we wanted each member to be able to vote on? ladies and gentlemen, there's been much talk about moving all of these prisoners, close to 100 of them from gtmo to the septre 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 are 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? and 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, vote, not just in the state of illinois where these terrorists are supposed to be coming but every american -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from florida has three minutes. mr. dreier: i yield 30 seconds to my friend from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. schock: 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? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers. i'm the last speaker for this side and i'll reserve my time. mr. dreier: i'll say to my friend 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 i look forward to sitting patiently and listening to my friend. mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to a hardworking member of the intelligence committee, a veteran of the f.b.i., the gentleman from brighton, michigan, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, 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 fully have that debate on the policy of that switch.

why? because it has had tremendous consequences. think about this. the c.i.a. officers who given direction by department of justice interrogated and debriefed and got some 70% 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 the 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, many of the colleagues here 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 is a reason that happened because when you bring in law enforcement, it slows things down. they stop providing information until their lawyer can cut their best deal possible. this can't be about lawyers in the backroom 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. 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 and saudi arabia and the tribal areas of back stand and wherever else they train, they finance, and they commit themselves to an act of combat to kill u.s. citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: it appears that my friend wanted to yield time to someone else. i'm happy. mr. hastings: i certainly thank my friend. mr. mcdermott has foregone the right to do that. he said it would be ok. mr. dreier: i would say we would be happy -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. dreier: we all know where the eyes of the american people are focused right now and it's not here in 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's going.

we have been managing this debate on an issue that is of paramount importance. the five most important words in the pream many of the constitution i regularly say are provide for the common defense. we need to recognize this is priority number one, our nation's intelligence. i mean names like if a bruke -- faruke, david hedley, these are names that have come to the forefront because these individuals pose a threat to the united states of america. . mr. lungren said earlier, rather than having a six-hour debate on health care, which we all acknowledge is important and needs to be addressed, the attention should be focused on national security. and unfortunately it's not only not being focused on it, but what we're doing here today is taking a flawed bill from july

of last year, eight months ago, that was maligned from policy by president obama. what have we done? we've denied amendment after amendment. mr. schock's amendment 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, including my friend, mr. mcdermott, which dramatically enhances the power of those who -- individuals and provides them new defense? again, i mention scott brown earlier and what resonated from his acceptance speech when he won the election was, 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's 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 and let's do the right thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, this is a responsible bill that will enhance vital human intelligence collection, fill the critical gaps in our intelligence gathering activity, authorize significant investment in our nation's cybersecurity capability as well as provide much-needed reform by -- forbidding the c.i.a.'s practice of

outsourcing interrogation to private contractors operating outside the law. it's 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.

theres' going to be added general -- there's going to be added general debate, but when i listen to my colleague who is my good friend i kind of like feel like all of the labor on both sides, including speakers that i served with on that committee, mr. thornberry and mr. rogers, we've 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'm very proud of the fact that there's 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'm getting ready to leave here and go to a jobs task force which i believe is high on the mind 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 time. but i am going to say to you all one more time, enough of the business about not in my back yard. if i didn't dispel it today i'll 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 corlingdly. -- accordingly. with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested.

all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1109 and ask for its

immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 164, house resolution 1109, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speerble's table the bill, h.r. 3961, to amend title 18 of the social security act to reform the medicare s.g.r. payment system for physicians and to reinstitute and update the pay as you go requirement for budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending legislation enforced as read as auto sequestration with the senate amendments thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on the judiciary or his designee, that the house concur in the senate amendments. the senate amendments shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary.

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion without any intervening motion or demand of the question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house now consider the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, it is now in order to consider the resolution. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: all time for consideration during the rule is for debate only, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i also ask next that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1109. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. house resolution 1109 provides

for consideration of the senate amendments to h.r. 3961, extending expiring provisions of the u.s. patriot improvement and re-authorization act. the rule makes in order a single motion by the chair of the committee on the judiciary to concur in the senate amendments. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except clause 10 of rule 21 and provides that the senate amendments shall be considered as read. finally, the rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the senate amendments to h.r. 3961 extend for one year several expiring provisions essential to our fight against terrorism. one of these provisions allows authorities to seek court orders for business records or any intangible thing related to a terrorism investigation.

another expiring provision re-authorizes wiretaps on terrorism suspects so that law enforcement officials do not have to file multiple applications when a terrorist disposes of phone after phone or shifts from one communication device to another. otherwise, terrorists could use multiple devices or frequently change cell phone numbers or carriers with the aim of intervening surveillance efforts under fisa. the justice department has said that this provision is proven and important intelligence gathering tool in a small but silling subset of fisa electronic surveillance orders. the government cannot use this authority lightly. it must provide specific information that the suspect may employ countersurveillance activities. finally, in the senate amendments we are considering today will extend for one year a provision first enacted in 2004 that allows the government

to apply to the foreign intelligence surveillance court, the fisa court, for surveillance orders involving suspected lone wolf targets. these are suspects who are engaging in or preparing for international terrorism activities but don't necessarily have ties to a larger organization, such as a terrorist group or a foreign nation. the provision does not apply to any u.s. citizen or legal immigrant. these three programs are vital tools our nation cannot let expire, and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for yielding such time as i may consume, and ildo that now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the bill that is with us today. the safety of this nation,

protecting america from terrorists is of high and vital concern not only to this member but i think every single member as we have been reminded time after time that we cannot take our eye off the ball, that the security of this country is a job that must be done all day every day but a group of savvy professionals that i believe we presently have in this country. it's a combined effort of not only law enforcement, intelligence, but also involves bright minds from this body also. today, what we're here to do is to consider re-authorization of the u.s.a. patriot act. this act was done nine years ago. nine years ago when our nation was struck. it was crafted in such a way that there were provisions, ideas, thoughts that we did at the time where we said we need to make sure they're

re-authorized, that these ideas are looked at where we go through the processees and see what happens not only with our own effectiveness with the law but also how our intelligence agencies are nimble enough to adapt them self to make these changes. at the same time i say i'm for this, it's unfortunate that my friends in the rules committee, my democratic colleagues continue to deny the minority due process by not allowing us to offer a motion to recommit. time and time again republicans were shut out of the amendment process forcing us to simply accept what comes forward. i encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop restricting this process in the house. almost nine years ago, as i stated, congress passed this patriot act, bipartisan support . at the time it was very difficult, not only for us to

see that enemy that was at us but also for us to understand more clearly how we should respond, and this nation did respond. we responded with the patriot act that was specific in nature, that allowed intelligence agencies a chance to stand a chance to fight that was against us. this legislation was and still is vital to our intelligence capacity and our desire to show the enemy that we're willing to fight, that we're willing to stand up and protect this country, that we're willing to go and do the link -- to the links that -- to the lengths that are expected to anyone who wants to help our homeland. lamar smith of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from san antonio, texas, urged democrat leaders as we did not know whether or not this bill would come forward to extend those expiring provisions

stating, and i quote, congress has a duty to protect the american people. failing to re-authorize our national security laws in a time of heightened threat is reckless. these were the types of public comments that republicans are making about the need to make sure that we press this body, to get done its job with those processes. yesterday, up in the rules committee, the gentleman, mac thornberry, from texas, testified in the rules committee about the importance of extending the expiring patriot act provisions at the time we were debating the intelligence bill. i thought that mr. thornberry was well on point, was thoughtful, was articulate about the significance of providing the necessary debate on important issues and amendments. i think we just had a debate here on the floor where we went through how these issues need to be talked about in this body and every single member needs

to understand them as a result of their constitutional duty to protect and defend not just our constitution but this country. . yesterday the senate passed this legislation by a voice vote. confirming the importance of acting immediately. i'm just for getting it done. i'm just for getting it done. if the senate wants to do it by a voice vote, that's fine. toyed we are here on the floor to talk about the three provisions that were set to expire. they were set to expire because the previous congresses have said we needed to have an active debate on these issues. i would like to talk about them. allowing the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of

communication. mr. speaker, if there's one thing we learned that the enemy is smart and nimble and quick. they adapt themself to the way we do business. we need to give our intelligence agencies the ability to be nimble, quick, and adapt themselves also. glad this is being redone just in time. to allow investigators to obtain a foreign intelligence surveillance act court order to procure certain records and national security investigations. you have heard this said for a long time. people who are trying to protect this country are few in number and the case against them is very large. the number of people who are seeking to turn our country into another war zone, where civilians are killed, where planes are blown up out of the sky, where we have inundation of our national security efforts, as well as cybersecurity. we need to make sure our

investigators have a clear understanding about the rules and are able to receive information in a legal process. lastly, to allow the government to apply special court surveillance orders involving suspected, what are called lone wolf terrorists who do not necessarily have larger organizations. i think the gentleman, mr. rogers, made a point here from the intelligence committee, that our ability to be able to see this for what it is, whether it's a part of a larger terrorist group or whether it's a lone wolf acting on their own, that we need to be able to make sure that we can fully vet these individuals before shutting them down and allowing them just to be treated as a person who has committed a crime. we need to be able to see that which is named at this country and fully vet them. with people who are overseas terrorists come into this country by lying to us about why they would be coming and

their intents, we need to be smart enough, nimble enough to pick these up. each of these provisions are viewed by law enforcement officials and intelligence agents to prevent terrorist attacks. by re-authorizing these provisions which my party, the republican party, fully supports, we believe for an additional year, will provide the compropet defense and intelligence measures to protect americans for another event like 9/11. if i offered some comments, republicans would have been in favor of making these permanent in law. of course we need to make sure that we are re-evaluating these. but these should be made permanent law so that our law enforcement agencies set themself in a position to be nimble enough to see the attack against us. i think nine years' worth of effort has told us we need to give our law enforcement every single tool that we believe is reasonable. i think we have done it today.

i wish we have done it for more than a year because here we are. we'll be here a year from now perhaps struggling with the same issue. let's make these permanent additions to the homeland security patriot act. this country is under constant threat of violence and terrorism and that's why it's necessary to make sure that all of our intelligence and law enforcement have the appropriate tools to defeat those who would wish to do us harm. we don't need to look back very far to christmas day, but i would say to us that after that we still have warnings that came from our intelligence community that said, and expect more. and expect more. which is the reason why we should be making these issues that we talked about today not extending them for one more year but to make them permanent, to give our guys, our team, our men and women engaged in the professional aspect of protecting this country, the tools which they need to protect this country.

mr. speaker, at this time i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i am in agreement with my friend from texas that this rule ought to be passed and we ought to move forward right now. so i don't have any other speakers. i reserve the balance of my time. i'd ask my friend from texas how many people he expects to have speaking on his -- mr. sessions: i would appreciate that. in colloquy if the gentleman would allow me the time since he has indicated he has no further speakers i'll consume my knowledge with the fact he would end very quickly. i thank the gentleman very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to proceed. using up all tie time at this time with the knowledge he'll be through. mr. speaker, at this time we have the gentleman from gold river, california, the gentleman, mr. lungren, who has served as not only a member of this body, then went back to

california, served as the attorney general from the state of california. he's a very thoughtful member. he sees very clearly the laws of this country and the constitution of this country, but he also sees the need for us to be nimble enough to see the attack that's against us, to be able to respond, and give our men and women who are on the frontline all the aspects and resources only that are necessary but the laws and the underpinning of being able to make sure that we can fully protect this country. i will yield to the gentleman, six minutes, at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for the generous provision of time. mr. speaker, when we were re-authorizing the patriot act in 2005 or extending it, i offered in committee the suns is set provisions -- suns is set provision that is subjected

these three provisions of the patriot act to further consideration by the house. that suns is set was up -- sunset was up last year. so rather than seriously consider it and thoughtfully proceed as to whether or not it would be permanent or not, we kicked the can down the road by extending it here. and then we came just before christmas up against it once again and we extended it for two months. and now here we are three days before the expiration of these provisions and we are going to have a temporary extension. a year, not two months, but just a year. i would hope that we would consider an issue such as this as an important primary issue. it's almost as an after thought . just before we leave for christmas we extend it for two months. now we are within three days of it expiring we extend it for a year. forgive me but it almost sounds

like we are treating it like a burden of proof after a big meal. i'm embarrassed about it. something that happened sort of involuntarily as if we don't have control of this. i have said on this floor before that we are certainly making sure that no post office in america goes unnamed. or unrenamed. but at the same time we deal with this issue which is crucially important. our judiciary committee considered the re-authorization of these provisions, and we re-authorized by our bill, the business records section. we re-authorized the roving wiretap provision, although we made some changes in that from current law. which i did not support but nonetheless that was it. but we failed to extend the lone wolf provision. let me tell you the thinking on that. the argument was we didn't need the lone wolf provision because

it had never been used. what's the lone wolf provision? it allows us to apply the intelligence gathering authority that we have in the overall law to individuals that we cannot at that point in time determine are actually involved with a foreign country. that is associated with a foreign country, or with a known terrorist organization. so they said it had never come up before. so we failed to vote it out of judiciary committee. that was in the morning. about 12:30. probably just after noon. what happened later that day? the massacre at fort hood. a lone wolf. now, admittedly not someone who would be upped the patriot act because he's an american citizen, but my point is we have to be concerned about lone wolves. what about mr. abdul mutallah?

if we had had information and been able to connect some of the dots early on, we would have not been able to prove initially that he was necessarily associated with any other group, maybe inspired by another group, he would actually come under the definition of a lon wolf. and yet -- lone wolf. yet the judiciary committee said, well, we are going to deprive our intelligence community of the powers under the law for those who are lone wolves. that's why i say this needs full and vigorous debate. we need to consider the essence of these three provisions and we need to determine whether we believe it needs more than extension of a single year. does anybody on this floor truly believe that al qaeda would give up in a year? does anybody believe that those who are out there with the idea that they want to do harm to the united states utilizing terror and inspired by al qaeda

or others are going to quit after this year? i would hope they would. i would hope we would defeat each and every one of them before the year's out, but that's unrealistic. so why we are bringing this to the floor with only a single year provision is beyond me. if we take seriously our obligation to provide for the common defense in this environment of a nonconventional war, asymmetric as they like to say, undefined compared to previous conflicts, where the enemy does not seek territorial advancement but seeks distraction of who we are and what we are, our institutions and how we in fact act. this is a different world. i have said on this floor

before and i'll say it again. al qaeda doesn't hate us and attack us because of guantanamo . al qaeda hates us and attacks us because of the statue of liberty and everything it represents. so i would hope that at some point in time we would come to this floor and have serious full throated debate on these three provisions of the patriot act as to whether they ought to be extended as a matter of permanent law or at least for a reasonable period of time, five years or 10 years. no a single year. and not treat it as an accident of legislative action. so i rise in support of the bill and the rule that allows the bill but in great disappointment that we are not doing all we could do to advance the cause of freedom and protection of the american people. this is better than nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: but it's not good enough. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, we are talking about some real important today. we have been talking about things that are important and i think the point that's made today is that the republican party supports the extension of the patriot act that we are doing here today. these three provisions are very important. we are questioning why we have to move these on piecemeal basis. we should move them, they should become permanent law. we believe that the enemy that is at our doorstep, that is all around this world attacking our allies, our friends, people who love freedom, that this is not going to go away. we need to give our intelligence officials the ability to know that they are going to hard coat this in their books and training and what they do instead of exceptions to, well, we might not want to do this in the future. mr. speaker, we need to give our team who is protecting us all the tools that are

available. we are going to vote for this today because we think it's the right thing, but we think it ought to be made permanent. we think it ought to be a provision that all of our law enforcement, all of our intelligence officials understand why we are doing and we want to send them a strong signal protecting this country is not something that should be taken lightly from a perspective of what might expire. we want to give them all the tools that are necessary. we want to make it permanent. let's put it in their permanent training manual not an exception rule they have to follow up and retrain people about what the law is. protecting this country should not be something that is related to whether we have an expiring provision or not. let's make it permanent. let's get that done. it would be my hope that the intelligence committee of this house would move to get that done as soon as we pass this today. i yield back the balance of my time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleagues. this rule allows for the passage ultimately of an extension of time on three important surveillance tools that we now have within our arsenal. there's no disagreement between the sides at all as to the need for the passage of this rule and the need to move forward. so i would urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman moves the question. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. purr superintendent to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will

stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

because he's on medicare that his post operative trip is going to be limited to three years. after that he'll have to find some way to pay. this man was very emotional today. what we're doing here fixes that and i do believe that we ought to really be honest with the american people when we

talk about what we're doing with medicare, we're trying to make sure that medicare is there for that man and so many others who will find themselves in this position. with that i yield back, mr. president. >> ok. i think this is actually been very useful conversation. what i'm going to do is move on to the next topic but maybe after we break for lunch and come back i want to go through some areas where we decidedly agreed, i know abuse is a good example, some areas where we zill disagree. one thing, john, you shook your head when i said that people would be able to choose the better plan because the notion was, well, people are mandated. actually any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep. and so you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan. i could keep my acmy insurance, just a high deductible

catastrophic plan. i would not be required to get the better one. if i chose to get the better one it would be 14% to 20% cheaper than if i were going into the individual market. i just want to clarify that. >> mr. president, if i could clarify, that's for a very limited period of time, number one. secondly, the incentives are set up so that employers would drop you from their coverage because it's cheaper for them to pay the fine than to continue to pay the insurance, so they wouldn't be able to keep what they have and, third, there are still mandates in the legislation as to what you can do with what you have such that it doesn't end up being the same coverage. so with all due respect i disagree. it's just a fundamental disagreement between us. does washington know best about the coverage people should have or should people have that choice themselves? pay a little less, get a little less coverage or pay a little more and get a little more coverage. >> can i just say that any time the question is raised as does washington know better, i think we're kind of tipping the scales a little bit there since we all know that everybody is

angry at washington right now. i think -- so it's a good way of framing -- it's a good talking point, but it doesn't actually answer the underlying question which is, do we want to make sure that people have a baseline of protection? this topic of the insurance market reforms is a good additional example of what may be philosophical differences but what we may have in common. rather than go through the problem because i think everybody understands out there the people of -- the issue of people having pre-existing conditions not being able to get insurance, people bumping up against lifetime caps and suddenly thinking as a family i met in colorado, they thought their child was covered, suddenly they hit the lifetime cap and they started having to scramble to figure out how to pay the additional costs. we all are familiar with these examples. i just want to go through areas where i think we agree on

insurance reforms. or at least some republicans and some democrats agree. i think we agree on the notion that you can't just drop somebody if they've already purchased coverage, looking at your bill, john, the idea that you ban rescissions. we agree on the idea of extending dependent coverage to a certain age. some people say up to 25, some people say up to 26. but we basically agree on that concept. we agree on no annual or lifetime limits. we agree philosophically that we want to end the prohibition on pre-existing conditions. i think the thing we're going to have to talk about is how do you actually accomplish that? there may be a disagreement as to whether you can do that without making sure that everybody's covered. but that's something that we can talk about. in addition, though, there are some other insurance reforms that have been proposed by the

house and senate in their legislation that i think we should explore and maybe we can narrow the gaps there and come up with some -- even a longer list of areas that we agree on. so what i do is since -- i want to make sure that mitch doesn't give me a time clock tally again, let me first go to mitch and i don't know who wants to make a presentation with respect to insurance reform. >> mr. president, i'd like to yield to a doctor to have this conversation about insurance reform. >> thank you, leader boehner, and thank you, mr. president. i come at this as a physician, a cardiovascular surgeon with over 20 years of practice doing open heart surgery, dealing with patients who have come to me with very, very challenging cases and very difficult times in their lives. and along with my colleagues, dr. coburn and dr. brasso, we

bring a wealth of experience in dealing with insurance companies and all these everyday problems that so many american families face. we all agree, we all agree that we need insurance reform. there's no question about it. the question is, how do we do it? now, we've all been through a long year, town hall meetings, telephone calls, emails, it goes on and on. and one thing that has become very clear, the american people have spoken out very loudly and very clearly. they want to us take a step back and go step by step with a commonsense plan that really brings the cost down for american families and small business owners. they want insurance companies to treat them just like they treat the labor unions and large companies. it's been a resounding message, we've heard over and over. so how can we achieve all this? well, week of talked about some of it. i think one of the things we ought to look at is how do you

simplify streamline and standardize all the paperwork that's involved becauseky tell you as a doctor and my two colleagues who are physicians will now that it takes you away from patient care. it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. it runs up cost in medical practices and it's a real issue. so i think we can all agree on that. we need to address that issue. a second area is how do you really promote choice and competition? we've all talked about it and i think we've had a lot of discussion already on those issues. we put forth a plan earlier in the year during debate that actually the congressional budget office showed that it brings down the cost of premiums up to about 10% and actually for individuals seeking -- and families seeking insurance in the individual market, those cost savings could be -- even be higher.

as opposed to the bill we have here where we've had some discussion already and mr. camp has already outlined as well as mr. kyle that this bill would actually raise premium costs. week of talked about small business health plans. again, i ran a small business, it was a medical practice. and when i wanted insurance, when those premiums were going up in double digits every year, i'd call an insurance agent, they'd come in and we had very limited choice. very limited. and the cost kept going up. small business health plans is one way to really deal with this and allow for pooling and where our big disagreement is, frankly, it's with how you do it. and if you create a plan with exchanges that are overly restrictive it really doesn't -- it defeats the purpose. and i believe we can have faith in the american public to

figure out if the transparent enough, what's their best deal? what's the best deal for small business owner or family in this sort of arrangement? the same goes for purchasing insurance across state lines. i think -- i'm glad to hear our democratic colleagues agree that this is an approach that needs to be taken to promote choice and competition. but, again, we feel that this bill restricts those options too much. and we think we can do it in a responsible way. i believe we probably could come together on this. but i think the existing proposals restrict it far too much. health savings accounts, these are very, very popular amongst small business owners and families and i think the one you impediment today -- impediment today is the inability to save enough in these. there's ways we could promote these health savings accounts and promote real savings that would make a difference. it won't solve all the problems but it's an important insurance reform that i think small

businesses will really, really jump on if we could ex chand those saving -- expand those saving opportunities. the current bill has been stated adds some restrictions and tax provisions on these which make them less palatable. we all agree on prohibiting insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling insurance policies. that's a no brainer. there's strong agreement on both sides of the aisle there. with regard to pre-existing conditions this is an issue that is very difficult and many of us and our families may have been faced with. i can tell you i faced it when i closed my medical practice because i had a health condition, an arthritis condition and i went to the same insurance carrier that covered my small medical practice for 14 years and got the big red no. can't insure you or your family. now, that's frankly unacceptable. now, what we propose is using risk pools, expanding these

risk pools and re-insurance. it's an affordable way to do it, it creates certainty for a family that's faced with this very difficult set of circumstances. certainty is important. and our plan would not raise premium costs extravagantly. whereas the proposal here would raise those costs and it doesn't really create the kind of certainty a family needs because there are waiting lists and that proposal is only temporary to something else that we don't know what it's going to be. the other thing we do is we create a way for small business owners to actually shop and compare apples to apples, transparency. and this is critical. our plan does this without creating the kinds of restrictions that we see with the exchange process and we agree that we have to eliminate annual lifetime caps so we have broad agreement there. so again i think it's clear

that the american people have rejected the bills that have gone through so far because they see increases in premiums for families, they see that it raises taxes significantly on families and raids medicare to create new indictment. this doesn't really bring down the cost, this is really not the answer. when american families -- what american families want is a commonsense step by step approach that will really lower the cost for families and small businesses. i believe -- i believe we have a duty to reform health care but we have an obligation to get it right. >> thanks. we're going to go to george miller and if you want to respond to specific things that charles raised or make some more general points. we'll then go back to a republican. at some point this discussion we're going to have to be a little more disciplined in our time in order to stay on schedule on this section.

at some point i'd like secretariesy billous who is not only a former governor but also an insurance commissioner to address some of the issues that have been coming up around insurance and minimum pay. >> mr. president, i don't know if any of us were told what the time limits are. >> i'm trying to be flexible. >> i'm just curious. >> week of got about half an hour remaining for this session. so if people can keep their -- >> thank you. >> points brief. >> from the senate we have harkin and rock feller to respond for the democrats. >> i've got a list. >> thank you very much. this issue of insurance reform is i think where most families intersect with their insurance companies, with the health security of their families. let's start out with our commonalities in the bill that congressman boehner, leader boehner, offered on the floor. he agreed that lifetime caps should be abolished, that

annual caps should be abolished, that young people should be able to stay on their parents' plans, i think it was 25, i think your suggestion, mr. president, is 26. there's that kind of commonality there. we think that, in our bill goes further in some of the suggestions you've made in the interim since the house and the senate have passed these bills, is that clearly we think that preventative care should not carry a co-pay with it. we ought to encourage people to get that kind of preventive care for themselves, certainly for their children. we allow the health savings accounts to continue, that's a variation on -- as my colleague talked about what they think insurance reform should reflect. clearly now when we see the request in california for a 38% increase and michigan for a 56% increase, i think in maine it's 27% increase, you've suggested stronger language than we have in either the house or senate

bill, along the lines with senator feinstein has been talking about in terms of rate review, people are trapped in these systems. in one area where there still seems to bities agreement, it's not in the substitute offered by the republicans when we were on the floor and that is this question of pre-existing conditions. because this is a real trap for families. either because you find out that you need to go to get care for a disease or an illness and you may get a checkup and they may discover that you have arthritis but you didn't disclose you had arthritis to so now that's a pre-existing condition and you may lose that policy, you may have to provide more. and the fact of the matter is, you hate to admit this at my age, but i sit here with two artificial hips, a little bit of arthritis and i have a kidney stone. i'm dead in that insurance market if i have to switch policies or switch companies or look for another chance. now why should that be?

those hip replacements have been with me for 15 years. and i have no trouble. but it's the way of denying me care and if you have acne it's a way of denying you care. the fact that you see from one of the blue cross companies here there's three pages of things that will keep you out of care, will keep you from changing your jobs and it goes on understand on and on -- on and on and on. back pain will keep you, a pre-existing condition. a cleft pal at, we talked about earlier here. so what does that mean when you want to change jobs? what does that mean when you want to start your own company? it means you go without insurance. or you pay some policy that has a $5,000 deductible or $7,000 deductible. this is a real issue to american families. 56 million people right now have insurance policies where pre-existing conditions can knock them out at any given time. we know that 13 million people

were denied coverage over the last three years because of pre-existing conditions. and so now you're trapped, you have a pre-existing condition, you can continue maybe, maybe with that insurance company if you pay more but you can't go -- you can't shop in the marketplace for another insurance company, you can't go from blue shield to kaiser because you have a pre-existing condition. you start to see the economic trap and uncertainty that families are confronted with. now the interesting thing was, during these negotiations senator dodd and i worked very hard on these issues. most of the business community signed off on getting rid of these pre-existing conditions. and i think that that's important for us to understand, that that is what real insurance reform is about. should you still be able to charge women more than men? should you rate based upon gender? to what extent you can rate based upon ages? to -- where do you -- what's

the essential benefit that we're providing? we can all describe that plan, it's really inexpensive, it just doesn't have any benefits that go with it for families. and so i think this is a very important part of this discussion. i know when i go home, my district, i hear about this from the people i represent, i hear about this from my wife, she's talking about our kids and her friends and people she spends time with. how they struggle with these. and what we're really talking about is the manipulation to move people around within the insurance market and, yes, you can go to a high-risk pool so, yes, because you have a pre-existing condition, because i have two artificial hips, i can go to the most expensive insurance system in the country, i'm now in a high-risk pool and i'm trapped in that high-risk pool forever. you can make it a high-risk pool among states, you can make it a high-risk pool among small

businesses, you can make it among large businesses, i'm still trapped in the most expensive insurance because of something that happened to me that i have no control over. i have a cleft child with a cleft pallet, i have a child with acne. how can this possibly be? now, fortunately, in our discussions as i said a lot of the business organizations have agreed that these things should be phased out over time, some can be put in right away, it's not terribly expensive to cover people 18 to 26 and that can be done right away and we have that commonality. so i would just hope that we would focus on this issue of what real insurance reform looks like with respect to the impacts on families and individuals as they try to navigate this insurance market. >> thank you, george. >> mr. president. >> thank you, mr. president, thank you for doing this and i understand the four categories but there's a big category that

the people in my state and across this country are deeply concerned about and that's not just the product that we are examining today, the 2,400 pages, but the process we've gone through to reach that. now, both of us during the campaign promised change in washington. in fact, eight times you said that negotiations on health care reform would be conducted with the c-span cameras. i'm glad more than a year later that they are here. unfortunately this product was not produced in that fashion. it was produced behind closed doors, it was produced with unsavory, i say that with respect, deal making. the louisiana purchase funding of $300 million for one state, the corn husband ker kickback which is, i understand now, been done away with.

one of the things that as provisions of this legislation that was particularly offensive was the carveout for 800,000 florida seniors exempt from cuts in medicare advantage program. there's 330,000 seniors under medicare advantage in my home state of arizona. they're deeply concerned about that. they're deeply concerned about the carve-outs for vermont, massachusetts, hawaii, michigan, connecticut, $100 million for a hospital in connecticut. why should that happen? they don't understand it. and at the town hall meetings that i conduct all over my state people are angry. we promised them change in washington and what we got was a process that you and i both

said we would change in washington. so then we got into the special interests, whether it be the hospital association or the a.m.a. or others and one of them was particularly a griegeous and i won't go through the whole list, was phrma. phrma got an $8 billion deal and in return for which they ran $150 million worth of ads in favor of, quote, health reform. there are over 200 $2 million-a-year lobbyists and was reported to say a deal was a deal. and part of that deal was that there would not be competition amongst pharmaceutical companies for medicare patients, the other, among others, was that the administration would oppose

drug importation from canada. a proposal that you supported in the united states senate. >> john. can i just say -- >> can i just finish, please? and then christmas day, i believe it was christmas, the majority leader said, quote, a number of states are treated differently than other states, that's what legislation is all about. that's compromise. compromise is not the word for that. so, when my constituents and americans now who overwhelmingly reject this proposal say go back to the beginning, they want us to go back to the beginning. they want us not to do this kind of legislation -- legislating, they want to us sit down together and do what's -- best for all americans, not just for some people who live in florida or happen to live in other favored states. they want a uniform treatment of all americans. so i hope that that would be an argument for us to go through

this 2,400-page document, remove all the special deals for special interests and favored few and treat all americans the same under provisions in the law so they will know that geography does not dictate what kind of health care they would receive. i thank you, mr. president. >> let me just make this point. because we're not campaigning anymore. the election's over. >> i'm reminded of that every day. >> yeah. so, we can spend the remainder of the time with our respective talking points going back and forth of the we were supposed to be talking about insurance. obviously i'm sure that harry reid and chris dodd and others who went through an exhaustive process through both the house and the senate with the most

hearings, the most debates on the floor, the longest markup in 22 years on each and every one of these bills would have a response for you. my concern is that if we do that then we're essentially back on fox news or msnbc on the split screen just arguing back and forth. so, my hope would be that we can just focus on the issues of how we actually get a bill done. and this would probably be a good time to turn it over to secretariesy billous. >> could i just say, mr. president, the american people care about what we did and how we did it. that's a subject i think we should discuss and i thank you. >> they absolutely do care about it, john. and i think that the way you characterized it obviously would get some strong objections from the other side.

we can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about how we're going to help the american people at this point and i think that's the -- the latter debate is the one they care about a little bit more. so, kathleen, why don't you just address some of the issues related to insurance reform. there is some agreement here. but i know that on the republican side there are a couple of concerns about the issue of rate review, the issue of setting up some benchmark standards that insurance companies have to abide by, some people may think that those have been a little bit too aggressive. you've been both a governor as well as an insurance commissioner. maybe you can talk a little bit about what you've seen at all those different levels and how you think we can best move forward to protect american families. >> thank you, mr. president. i know there are lots of people who want to comment on theseñi topics but i don't think there's any question and i think there's a lot of agrenalt

that the current insurance market really fails way too many people. it is a system that is not a market for about 40 million americans who are either in an individual policy or in a small group policy, have no choice, there is no competition according to the american medical association and their study yesterday, 99% of the market in metropolitan areas, 75% of the markets across the country are very concentrated which means they're no noplies, they're not markets -- monopolies, they're not markets. so we got a trap. i think the rules allow people to be locked out from the front end, if you've got pre-existing conditions, and allow people to be thrown out with a stop on benefits during the course of a treatment or when your policy expires and you're supposed to renew, you're dumped out of the market, objecter to -- or to be priced out which is going on

across this country. there's been a highlight of a couple of rates but double-digit rates across the country on top of double-digit rates on top of double-digit rates and people have no choices. high risk pools. there are lots of states across the country running high risk pools. as an insurance commissioner we ran the high risk pool in kansas. it is a strategy that's been in place for almost 30 years in many states, 200,000 people total in the entire united states are in a high risk pool because they're so expensive that they really don't offer any -- when you put all the sick people together and you say, ok, you get to buy a policy and you get no help with that policy, it is a death spiral. will you always have the highest costs and on top of that the highest costs and you've got the sickest people who are already paying the highest cost for treatment. they don't work very well.

they are a stop gap measure that the house and senate have proposed to get people from here to a new market. i think what the exchanges have a lot in similarity with the health plans that have been talked about by the house and senate, there's a big difference and it's not a washington difference, it's a state difference. the state insurance commissioners across this country have unanimously opposed health plans for decades and they feel that it takes people, it isn't the pooling that's objectble, the fact that there is no consumer protection, that there is no ability to apply commonsense rules and we had the drive-by deliveries in kansas where people were being kicked out of the hospital 18 hours after having a baby to save money. only to be readmitted with jaundice and to be readmitted with dee hydration. it's not a particularly good idea.

so getting rid of pre-existing conditions, getting rid of caps on yearly benefits and long-time benefits, allowing kids to stay on plans are ideas that have been accepted by both, setting up a new marketplace, giving small business owners and individuals choice and competition in the private sector but making the private sector operate on a different set of rules, including having some loss benefit analysis. how many of those dollars, you've heard senator coburn eloquently talk about the 30 cents of every dollar that goes to pay for expenses other than medical costs. a loss benefit analysis, a medical ratio, would do just that. how many dollars are you actually spending on provider care, on prescriptions, on treatments, and how much is going to -- [inaudible] >> our day-long live coverage

of the summit continues on c-span 3 and c-span.org with your phone calls during the lunch break. going back live now to the house. members coming back in for a procedural vote dealing with intelligence programs. 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. waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 8 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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.]