this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 176. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. reyes: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2701. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. chairman.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1105 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2701. the chair will appoint the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2701, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2701, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government, the community management account, and the central intelligence agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. hoekstra, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, to include extraneous material on

the bill h.r. 2701. the chair: general leaf was granted in the house. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reyes: madam chair, i'm proud to rise today in support of h.r. 2701, the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2010. this is an unusual time of the year for us to be considering this legislation, however, it is and remains a very important bill which addresses critical national security issues and one that we ultimately need to see enacted. as chairman of the permanent select committee on intelligence, my most important job is to guide the committee in providing appropriate tools, resources and authorities to aid the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community in keeping our nation safe. i believe that h.r. 2701 -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i believe that h.r. 2701 does just that. first and foremost, this bill authorizes the activities and the funds for the 16 agencies of the intelligence community. it's difficult to talk about their roles and their missions in the open, but in some ways it's probably one of the most important things that we do on the intelligence committee. in addition to providing authorization for intelligence activities, this bill takes the initial important steps to improve congressional oversight of that intelligence community. i want to highlight two legislative provisions from this year's bill that i believe will significantly improve oversight. when this bill was marked up in committee, we made significant changes to the so-called gang of eight procedures. as members know, the president has had the statutory authority to limit briefings to the gang

of eight when they involve very sensitive, covert actions. it was the sense of the committee that the gang of eight statutory authority had been overused and that on matters of critical importance the committee as a whole should have been informed. for that reason that earlier version of the bill removed the statutory authority for limiting briefings to the gang of eight. last july the administration issued a statement of policy on h.r. 2701 that included a veto threat with respect to the provisions that would modify the gang of eight notification procedures. i believe that some level of concern at that point was justified, and i have been working with the administration over the past several months to address those differences. since july there have already been notable improvements in the way the administration and

the intelligence community are briefing congress. accordingly, the manager's amendment i will offer includes a revised provision on the gang of eight reform. i know that many members have strong feelings about this issue on both sides of the aisle. the provision that is in the manager's amendment is intended to be a strong and significant step towards better oversight, which still respects the constitutional authorities of the president. it recognizes that both the elected -- that both elected branches have a role in national security. i fully expect that once we pass this bill we will then revisit this issue during conference between the house and the senate, and i'm happy to work with members to seek improvements at that time. through this process we will be able to find a workable solution to a problem that has been persistent over the past several years, if not longer.

another provision that i think is absolutely critical establishes a statutory inspector general for the intelligence community. this provision will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and it will also help keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of americans. this year's bill is truly a product of many hands. the inspector general provision, which i just spoke about, in large part is due to the efforts of ms. eshoo, the chair of the intelligence community management subcommittee. the vice chairman of the full committee, mr. hastings, has offered an amendment to include critical provisions on our shared interests in promoting diversity as a mission imperative. he's been working at this long and hard for many, many years. our newest majority member, mr. boren, has worked hard to develop a pilot program to improve language capability in

african languages. the chairman of the tactical and technical subcommittee, mr. ruppersberger, has worked hard on the classified annex to make sure that our approach to acquisition and our most technical programs make good sense. he's been a pivotal part of the committee's oversight process in these very important areas. the bill includes several provisions offered by ms. schakowsky, the chairwoman of the oversight and investigation subcommittee, which relate to her longstanding interest in appropriately monitoring and managing contractors in the intelligence community. mr. holt, the chairman of the select intelligence oversight panel, advocated for a panel of interrogation and the health risk faced by desert storm veterans. mr. thompson of california, another subcommittee chairman,

has worked hard on this bill as well. he pushed successfully for the inclusion of a provision to study the benefits paid for the men and women of the intelligence community who have made the ultimate sacrifice. i'm proud to support that as well. we also received important input from the committee's minority members, mr. kleine of minnesota offered an -- mr. kl ein of minnesota offered an amendment to rewrite its charter to rewrite its important missions. mr. conaway and his personal interests in audible -- auditable financial statements led to a provision in the bill that requires the intelligence community to focus on its internal financial management and to provide a system that achieves auditibility. madam chair, i believe this

bill will provide the resources and the tools that the intelligence community needs to do its important work in keeping our nation safe. that includes collection and analysis of human intelligence, signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence. it includes funds to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to provide for intelligence support for the war fighters in iraq and afghanistan and improves the recruitment and training of a diverse and capable work force. during my time on this committee, i've had the good fortune to be able to travel and to meet the brave men and women of the intelligence community. both uniformed and civilian. and i am continually impressed and in awe of the great work that they do and the great morale that they have. they are dedicated, professional and highly skilled patriots and i'm proud to offer a bill that supports them and all that they do for our great

nation. this past december we lost seven of those brave men and women in the attack in khost, afghanistan. it for them and for those who carry on their mission that i proudly submit this bill today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. hoekstra. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, annual intelligence authorization bills should be bipartisan legislation designed to address critical national security issues and deal in a deliberate and considered way with legislation affecting the intelligence community, the personnel within the intelligence community. unfortunately this bill does neither. i'm forced to rise in strong opposition. when this bill was first reported almost eight months ago the bill failed to address critical national security issues such as guantanamo

detainees. attempts by this administration to convert intelligence and counterterrorism in matters of criminal law and meaningful reforms to the congressional notification process. in the nearly eight months since this bill was reported out of committee, our country has suffered two major terrorist attacks and a significant number of near misses. during that time the majority took no time and no action to bring this bill to the floor. in eight months nothing was done to fix the flaws in our intelligence committee that were apparent to every american in the wake of the first attack at fort hood and later the christmas bombing attack on an american airliner. in eight months nothing was done to clarify who was in charge of interrogation of high-value terrorist detainees. these people that are captured around the world who want to do harm to america. in eight months nothing was done to provide a long-term renewal of our critical intelligence

authorities under the austin patriot act. in eight months nothing was done to once and for all stop hard core radical jihadist terrorists from being brought to the united states despite the clear opposition that has arisen to this ill-considered idea from average americans across the country. in eight months nothing has been done to clarify how covert actions, how covert actions should be conducted or authorized when they could have deadly effects on american citizens. nothing has been done. then you go through and you take a look at the amendments that we wanted to provide that would dreap -- that would address these issues and all of these were -- propose that would address these issues and all of these were thrown out by the majority. an amendment that would direct the d.n. toimplet establish a panel to review the -- d.n.i. to establish a panel to review weapons of mass destruction of

iran. our intelligence community is now to the left of the united nations as to our assessment of what iran's capabilities are. to the left. the ill-fated national intelligence estimate that came out under the previous administration. we've asked for an independent panel of experts to give us a red team review. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, no, that's not necessary. we asked for an amendment that would require the c.i.a. to release publicly unclassified versions of documents relating to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. this controversial background as to who knew what when, including some of the leading members of this body. we asked for those documents to be released. the majority said no. we asked for the prohibition of funds -- we asked for the

prohibition of funds to bring guantanamo detake auto -- detainees into the united states. the majority said, we won't even debate it, we won't consider it, we won't allow for an amendment that would do just that. we asked for a report requiring the d.n.i. to submit a report detailing steps taken to fix problems identified in the president's fort hood intelligence review prior to december 25. why? because the incident on november 5 had striking parallels to what happened on december 25. and we thought it was fair to ask the question and ask the director of national intelligence, would the information that you gained on november 5, what actions did you take that might have helped

prevent what happened on christmas day? and the answer was, no, we don't think that would be a worth while effort to ask the intelligence community those kinds of tough and difficult questions and be held accountable to this body. and then we said, had another amendment that said, don't we think it would be appropriate that we actually establish a process for the authorization and the notification of covert actions that may result in the death of a targeted u.s. citizen? doesn't get into a debate as to whether or not that is appropriate, an appropriate course of action. it just says, don't we think that the intelligence community and the executive branch should have in place a detailed process of how these decisions are made,

how they are authorized and when congress would be notified? and the answer from the majority was no. a process that would give us an idea as to how the administration would authorize and notify congress when they took actions that might result in the death of a targeted u.s. citizen. a targeted u.s. citizen. and these are just the amendments that were not considered substantive, serious issues that the majority is unwilling to debate, to discuss and to address. later on as we go through the day and as we take a look at the manager's amendment and the other amendments, we'll take a look at the striking contrast between what the majority is willing to debate and discuss

and to act on and what they are unwilling to debate and discuss and it has a direct impact on the safety of each and every american. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. now it's my privilege to yield three minutes to my good friend and chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, who actually has jurisdiction over some of the issues that the ranking member mentioned just a couple minutes ago, mr. skelton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. skelton: madam chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from texas, chairman reyes, for the hard work that he did on this bill. so i rise today in strong support of the intelligence authorization act. from my perspective as chairman of the armed services committee,

it's a good bill, one that will support the intelligence needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. every day american men and women who are deployed in harm's way depend on the intelligence capabilities authorized by this bill to achieve their missions. i cannot state strongly enough about how those in uniform who are in harm's way depend upon the intelligence that they receive. this legislation ensures continued deliver of -- delivery of quality intelligence products and capabilities to our war fighters, it will lead to important improvements in the future. as i've said before, the relationship between the intelligence community and department of defense is fundamental to the success on theefield. this bill strengthens the relationship by expanding the intelligence community's technical and human collection capabilities.

it adds significant resources to modernize single intelligence capabilities and other cunning technologies that are the foundation for intelligence support for our war fighters in afghanistan. the bill also adds resources for human action against terrorists and other endure and emerging global security issues in asia, africa and as well as in latin america. this measure will improve oversight of the intelligence community by creating a statutory and independent intelligence communitywide inspector general. and finally this bill enhances cyber security which is becoming very, very important. cyber security -- cybersecurity efforts by authorizing significant investments to support the president's comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. i congratulate chairman reyes on bringing this bill to the floor. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very, very important measure.

i might add, madam chairman, that we on the armed services committee have dealt with some and have the jurisdiction of dealing with some matters that my friend from michigan mentioned a few moments ago, they're within our jurisdiction. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i yield to mr. thornberry from texas who will talk about the continued efforts by this administration in what appears to be a war on the intelligence community, a legal war on our intelligence community, the brave men and women in that community. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you. i appreciate the distinguished ranking member for yielding to me. in a way this bill is a tale two of bills. part of this bill is the classified annex where specific

dollar amounts are allocated to various programs. and the classified anne ex, i'm happy to report, is a bipartisan product and i appreciate the chairman of this committee, subcommittee chairman ruppersberger and others, working with republicans to have -- compromising from both sides, but having a bipartisan product that has the support, i believe, of the full intelligence committee and should have the support of the full house. unfortunately that is not the case with the other provisions of this bill, the policy provisions of this bill, which are deeply disturbing. as a ranking member has indicated, a number of key issues whether it's from guantanamo to reading miranda rights, have not even been allowed to be debated and voted on the floor of the house. those issues have been shut aside. instead what we have in the

underlying bill are 41 new reports plus an additional 17 more reports that would be required of the intelligence community are in the manager's amendment. the deeply -- but deeply buried in all those reporting requirements is something that is deeply disturbing and that is a new criminal part of the statute that would apply only to the intelligence community when they tried to enlessity information from a terrorist that can prevent future terrorist attacks. and i think it would be helpful for all our members to just remember a bit of the history -- history here. last year the obama administration released a number of classified memos detailing interrogation technique -- techniques despite the appeal of five former c.i.a. directors not to do it because doing so would harm our efforts against the

terrorists. they did it anyway. then, secondly, last year the administration decided that they would re-investigate c.i.a. personnel who were involved in interrogations, even though it had been thoroughly investigated and there was no basis found for any sort of prosecution. instead the obama administration decided they wanted to appoint a special prosecutor to go after those people again. third, there's an effort to bring lawyers up on ethics charged because some people disagree with the legal important that they -- opinion that they reached. just recently we found that that effort has failed. fourth, last year the speaker under pressure from questions about what she knew about these interrogations alleged that the c.i.a. lies all the time. despite the considerable evidence that she had been fully briefed about the interrogations.

and the speaker's charge was so indefensible that this bill got postpone -- postponed for seven months and couldn't even come to the floor to protect her. so you see that string of going after the intelligence community, of making accusations against them and then what we find in the manager's amendment is this provision that creates new crimes only for the intelligence community when they try to illicit -- elicit information. it is rather remarkable. anywhere in america if a prison guard tries to wake a prisoner up it's ok, it's part of the prison routine. under this provision, if a terrorist does not get a proper amount of sleep the intelligence community can be prosecuted and sent to jail for 15 years. anywhere in america there is an interrogation of a criminal suspect and it may be said -- would the gentleman yield an additional two minutes?

mr. hoekstra: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. thornberry: anywhere in america there is a criminal investigation and it might be pointed out to a criminal suspect that it would be better to cooperate or the death penalty could be a potential punishment for his crime. it is against the law under this mcdermott provision for an intelligence professional to in any way threaten physical harm or coercion against a terrorist in order to get information. in other words, what goes on every day all across america in the criminal justice system would be prohibited in this provision that's in the manager's amendment. it is in many ways unthinkable, in many ways it's topsy turfy land where we forget who the good guys are, who the guys trying to keep us safe are, and who the bad guys are. it's all turned upside down. week of all -- we all remember photos of abuses from abu ghraib in iraq, they were deplorable,

the people responsible were prosecuted under the criminal law as they should have been. but to extrapolate from that the source of restrictions here in starting on page 33 of the manager's amendment is, i think, indefensible. intelligence is a serious business. the people who are involved in it risked their lives to keep us safe and to threaten, this law would, to put them in jail for 15 years if they don't give somebody whatever they -- the terrorist says is part of their individual religious beliefs i think is dangerous, irresponsible and it tells the intelligence community that we talk so much about, we're not going to back up our words, in fact, we're going to prosecute you. that's a mistake. i am deeply disturbed by some of the trends in this bill and i hope the manager's amendment will not be adopted. and if it is this bill should

certainly be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chairman. it's now my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my good friend and former member of the house intelligence committee who still is a valued resource for us, mr. boswell from iowa. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. boswell: madam chair, may i engage the chairman of the intelligence committee for purposes of a colloquy? the chair: without objection. mr. reyes: madam chair, i'm happy to oblige my good friend, mr. boswell. mr. boswell: i'd like to clarify the intent of section 312 of h.r. 2701 regarding the officer training program. as i understand it, this section will the authorize of

the national director of intelligence to provide grants to institutions of higher learning to develop among other things innovative methods of teaching high priority foreign language skills. it's my understanding that -- it is my understand this provision is correct? mr. reyes: you are correct, mr. boswell. mr. boswell: it's my understanding that drake university in iowa has a highly innovative foreign language skills program. under that drake students work with foreign people three times a week. such students may take a strategies course which has several goals including helping students approach the culture they are studying through a lens. they go on to teach in china, become full-fledge scholars, become full-fledge scholars, perform translation services, providing missionary work in el salvador, excel in the corporate world more generally.

is drake university's language program the type of program the intelligence community believe could be a good candidate to receive a grant under odni under section 312 under h.r. 2701? mr. reyes: having the opportunity to visit drake university with you, you are correct. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. boswell: ask i have another 30 seconds? mr. reyes: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. boswell: thank you, chairman reyes, for that comment and your visit. that is correct. i want to thank you for that clarification. i yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i would at this point like to yield four minutes to my colleague from michigan, a strong defender of the intelligence community, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: thank you very much, madam chair. i can't tell you how disappointed i am in this bill

for all that's at stake in the country. when there was a switch in debate about how we approached the war on terror, that's a legitimate argument, a legitimate debate to have and we should do it under the light of day with all of the sets of consequences that come with any change in policy about how we go after terrorists overseas. and the notion that was drought out that, gee, if we just treat this -- brought out that, gee, if we treat it the way we treat the average american citizen and extend the rights and the privileges to foreign-trained terrorists, the world will like us, the world will be a better place, we'll have no more problems, they're going to go away, we'll get them in the courtrooms of america. but there's a fundamental flaw with doing this. in order to fully function as a law enforcement effort, the administration has sent f.b.i. agents overseas into the

battlefield to read mirandaa rights, to treat foreign-trained terrorists who probably couldn't find america on a map that you have the right to remain silent. can't afford a lawyer, the united states will appoint one for you, we'll pay for it. ok. the fact that if they get to the airport and stand in line with an explosive device next to you or your children or a family member or some other american citizen, we'll catch them then. and we'll put them to trial and read them their miranda rights even though they were overseas and trained overseas and moved to different parts of the country in order to get every aspect of their training and they are taught they are on a combat mission. that's what they're taught. that you're goal in this event is to go cause harm and casualties and chaos to the

americans on american soil or to our allies on their soil. so they look at this as they have when they've declared war numerous times. they have declared war on the united states. and they're ready to kill americans to prove their point. so some notion that by the time they get to the airport or board the plane we've been successful because we've had the opportunity to read them the miranda rights is fundamentally flawed and that is a fight that we will lose. we're going to lose that fight. you can't hire enough t.s.a. agents, you can't hire enough domestic f.b.i. agents, you can't send enough f.b.i. agents into the battlefields to read miranda rights, to stop their effort. when you treat them like a criminal and read them their rights, you allow a defense attorney to start the negotiations about how much

they will or will not cooperate. that starts. that happens. clearly the christmas day bomber enjoyed that same benefit. i tell you that first 24, 48 hours is critically important in the intelligence community because the small thing. this guy isn't going to be able to give you all of the layout of al qaeda and all their financing and all their logistical movements. but he could have given us incredibly valuable information . maybe the name of another airline that may have been targeted on that day that we didn't know about. maybe the name or the description of a bad guy who trained in how to use that explosive device or a place or a town or a person that they may have seen in their training camp. to most people wouldn't mean a lot. to train professionals in the intelligence business it means the difference between stopping them and them being successful. that little, small piece of information can save lives. this administration has made a

fundamental shift. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoekstra: i yield my colleague one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: they made a fundamental shift from proactive training overseas, to where they train, to where they finance, to where they recruit. a law enforcement effort to bring them back to the united states. we're bringing foreign-trained terrorists to the united states and putting them in main street courtrooms. we're prosecuting c.i.a. officers for following legal advice from the department of justice in interrogation. so we're treating c.i.a. officers like criminals and we're treating foreign-trained terrorists like americans with all the benefits and the privileges they're in. you almost couldn't make this up. you couldn't come to this conclusion. and with it we have consequences. when you look at the series of events from the fort hood shooting, to the christmas day

bombing, and the loss of opportunity for discorruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and -- disruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and put the interests of americans first versus the interests of the rights of terrorism before the safety and security of the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: i strongly urge the rejection of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: madam chairman, i don't quibble with the comments my friends on the other side of the aisle have. it's just facts that don't support -- that i don't support. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to a new member of my committee and the gentleman from oklahoma, a valued member of our committee, mr. boren. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. boren: madam chair, i rise today in support of h.r. 2701, the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2010. this bill makes an excellent product and much-needed

investment in many critical areas, including those that have been previously underresourced. one of the most important investments in this bill -- is this bill's commitment to developing foreign language capability. specifically in african languages that have historically been underrepresented within the intelligence community. the bill creates a pilot program under the national security education program or the nsef. it requires the director of national intelligence to identify five high priority african languages for which language education programs do not currently exist. it will have implementation in both the united states and in countries where those languages are spoken. let's not forget that 10 years ago we didn't anticipate the conflicts along the afghanistan-pakistan border and the need for speakers of the local languages and dialects.

when the need arose, we couldn't meet the capabilities and today we're playing catch-up. certainly we can't predict where the next crisis will occur, but by recognizing the current instability in the horn of africa, sudan and congo, we can anticipate crises that will -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. boren: will the chairman yield 15 seconds? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. boren: we should be training the linguists and the translators in the languages now so we are not reactive in our efforts but proactive in our actions. i urge support for this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. hoekstra: at this time i yield two minutes to my colleague, mr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the ranking member for yielding. madam speaker, this is a very

unfortunate bill but i think this side of the aisle has laid out abundant reasons why this should be fixed. the intelligence community is too important to our national security to allow a bill with as many concerns as this one to pass. however, i'm here also to discuss what i see as a fatal flaw in the way information is disseminated to members of the house who are not committee members. nothing is more critical to the role each of us plays in representing our districts and this country than for us to have every relevant piece of information available to us prior to casting an important vote, certainly prior to casting a vote as important on one updating the authorizations for the way our government gathers intelligence. yet, many members of this house have been denied access to key pieces of information simply by virtue of the fact they don't sit on the intelligence committee. i recognize membership on any given committee means that one is given access to many things. i respect that.

and i know not being a member of the committee should not translate in having access to nothing that falls under the jurisdiction of this committee. certainly there's some pieces of information that are so important, of such importance as national security, that every member of this body should they so desire have access. last summer there was photographs alleging abuse at guantanamo. i formally asked access to these photos. i thought it would be a simple request. in 2005 photos from abu ghraib was made readily available by every member of the house under the leadership of chairman hoekstra. i was informed that the committee did not retain the photos and could not or would not allow nonmembers of the intelligence committee access. at the same time, as my request to view these photos, i requested tory view the classified c.i.a. inspector general report entitled "counterterrorism detention and interrogation activities."

after waiting months -- could i have an additional minute? choip the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoekstra: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. burgess: for months i was denied my request. i hardly believe a crit issue like this i should not have been denied access. finally, on the shooting at fort hood, i asked to have attendance at the briefing that was being given. but because a business meeting had to occur before i be granted permission and none was scheduled i simply could not attend. madam speaker, this bill has plobs on many, many levels -- problems on many, many levels but it's impossible for me to vote in the affirmative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: just so we're clear, it doesn't mean how important rules are and rules of the

house apply to everyone on a bipartisan basis. the information he sought was denied from our committee because he didn't fit the criteria and the rules of the house. with that i now yield two minutes to my friend from the armed services committee, a chairman of the readiness subcommittee, and a new member of our house intelligence committee this year, mr. smith from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you very much. i certainly think there are a lot of very good things in this bill. our intelligence community is a critical piece of fighting terrorism. their counterterrorism efforts are absolutely at the top of the list of what the intel committee does. we are supporting all of our agents in the c.i.a. and throughout the intelligence community and we thank them for their brave efforts. we are aware that they're putting their lives on the line to prosecute this war every single day. this bill supports them across the board. it has the resource and the support they need to do their job. i could say a lot more about

that, but i really want to take issue about some of the things that the minority has said in particular with niece alleged massive changes to our approach -- with these alleged massive changes to our approach. we heard about miranda. it would surprise people that this administration has not changed the policy on when or when not to give miranda to people in the field. under the bush administration, the justice department went through the same set of issues. if you are looking at a domestic u.s. prosecution of that individual, then you give miranda. if not you don't. there is no blanket order across the justice department right now telling the f.b.i. to give miranda to everybody it has captured throughout the world. it does not exist. it did not happen despite what the minority has said. you have to make that decision. in addition, we continue under the obama administration to hold people right now without miranda, without trial, without those rights, terrorists from foreign places that we cannot

do anything else with but we understand they are threats. that policy has not changed. what we have attempted to do is clarify those policies in the field so they know what they're supposed to do and, yes, prevent things like abu ghraib and guantanamo, which every single member of the armed forces, in the intelligence community has told us was a crushing blow to our effort in the counterterrorism efforts. to do that, to make those changes is necessary. but to listen to the minority, you would think that we've given up prosecuting terrorists outside of civilian courts. we haven't. you would any that we would read miranda to absolutely everybody. we don't. we're trying to make intelligence decision -- tenlt decisions. -- intelligent decisions. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. reyes: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: we need to better coordinate that intelligence. that's what i think we learned a lot from the christmas day attack. there are stuff in this bill that tries to do that. we need to do oversight better. we need to have a better idea

from the intelligence community of what they're going to do and when and a record in this bill so no one can later dispute what they were or were not told. the minority has a critical role in making that happen. instead they make these charges that we are not supporting the intelligence community. that is absolutely untrue. majority and minority strongly support our intelligence community and we are absolutely committed to prosecuting this war to the fullest extent possible. . mr. hoekstra: how much time do we have remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 13 1/2 minutes. mr. hoekstra: i would like to reserve my time until we are more equal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: i now yield two minutes to the chairman of the

terrorism and humint analysis and counterintelligence subcommittee, my good friend from california, mr. thompson. the chair: for how long? mr. reyes: for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam chair. thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i'm pleased that this legislation supports critical u.s. intelligence capabilities at a level higher than we ever have in past years. this bill improves the intelligence community's ability to understand hard targets. those countries that pose the greatest strategic threat to u.s. interest. but it also increases funds for intelligence collections that will support u.s. policy decisions in other important regions such as africa, latin america, and asia. we must continue to focus our resources and our priority targets, but we can't neglect emerging threats. this bill does both.

the bill also includes an amendment that i introduced in committee in conjunction with our colleague, david price from north carolina, to improve the effectiveness of interrogations and prevent a return to past abuses. it calls on the director of national intelligence to evaluate scientific research on interrogations and assess how to improve our u.s. interrogators training. it also requires the d.n.i. to assess the ethics training provided to interrogators so they understand the boundaries within which they can operate. finally, the bill contains a provision that i sponsored that requires the newly created inspector general of the intelligence community to study the intelligence community's electronic waste disposal procedures. this provision was designed to protect not just our environment but also our security. the inspector general must

assess both the environmental impact of these practices and the steps taken to ensure that discarded devices do not contain sensitive information that our adversaries would be able to exploit. madam chair, this legislation will strengthen the capabilities of our intelligence communities and makes our nation safer. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoekstra: i hope that as we have the general debate on this bill right now that we have at least one person who will come up on the other side and explain exactly what is in the mcdermott amendment, what it means, and what the implication will be to our men and women in the intelligence community. we hear over and over again how we support the intelligence community without a single

hearing and perhaps with about one minute of debate on the manager's amendment that has been allotted to that mcdermott amendment. we will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community. how they work and how they operate by creating new criminal statutes. not a minute of hearings in this committee and all of a sudden it appears out of nowhere in a manager's amendment. would someone on the other side please explain the rationale for bringing that in this bill with having no hearing when it will have a fundamental impact on the intelligence community. what is the rationale and why was the majority unwilling to have hearings on this issue? why were they unwilling to debate this issue? and why did they bury it into a manager's amendment with 22 other amendments? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i now am pleased to yield two minutes to the chair of the

homeland security subcommittee on intelligence and our former ranking member of the house intelligence committee, ms. harman, from california, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. harman: i thank the chairman for yielding to me and hope that what i'm about to discuss is supported by the current ranking member. i rise in strong support of the manager's amendment which includes two provisions which i authored and which address problems continuing to impede our efforts to keep our country safe. first, it requires the inspector general of the intelligence community to report to congress in 180 days on overclassification of intelligence. stamping documents secret or top secret for the wrong reasons interferes with accurate actionable, and timely information sharing within the federal government and with state and local law enforcement. protecting sources and methods is the right reason to classify information, but protecting turf or personal embearsment is not. d.c. police chief kathy lanier says she hesitates to share

information with the federal government for fear it will be immediately classified and rendered useless because she can't tell her officers in the field what to look for when on patrol. a variety of civil liberties and good government groups support our amendment and i'm glad it's in the manager's amendment. second, madam speaker, the managers' -- manager's amendment requires the director of intelligence to assess intelligence on harmful radiological materials, including highly disperseable substances. it's not possible in this open setting to describe the threat posed by the unsecured materials, but a range of experts including the defense science board have warned about the danger posed by medical equipment that uses this material. these machines are in hospitals across the country. in every major town and city they are not tamper proof. the departments of energy and homeland security arearding short-term hardening measures to these machines and the nuclear regulatory commission is investigating alternatives.

they need more support. my thanks to the rules committee and to chairman reyes for including my provisions in the manager's amendment. i'm see pleased -- very pleased that after four long years we will probably pass an intelligence authorization bill today. i urge an aye vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yield back her time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i thank my colleague from california for coming down and explaining her amendments and these are issues we talked about in the past and congratulations for having them included in the manager's amendment. i support those kinds of limits because they have been discussed and they have broad bipartisan support. there are other parts of the manager's amendment to which i am strongly opposed to because they haven't even had any dialogue, debate, or hearings on that to discuss one of those is my colleague from texas, mr. thornberry. i would like to yield him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, madam speaker. i agree with much of what's been said on the other side of the aisle about the good provisions in this bill. i'm last disappointed as the

ranking member talked about that a number of substantive issues were not even allowed to be discussed an voted on. -- and voted on. but in my mind all of that is dwarfed by the provisions in the last section of the manager's amendment beginning on page 32. i would recommend every republican and democrat in this house read for him or herself this language because it is a devastating blow to the professionals in our intelligence community who we ask to help keep us safe. this language delineates a number of specific acts that it says by law are cruel and degrading treatment. one of those acts is prolonged isolation. and as i mentioned earlier, any prison or county jail, anywhere around the country, sometimes has to put a prisoner into solitary confinement. but under this law if an intelligence community

professional does that, he is libel for up to 15 or more years in jail for prolonged isolation. if he does anything that would blasphemy a terrorist religious beliefs or cause him to participate in acts intended to violate his individual religious beliefs, he is guilty of violating a criminal statute and that intelligence professional whom we count on to keep us safe goes to the -- goes to jail. not the terrorists but the guy that we are or lady we are counting on to keep us safe. there are provision after provision whether it's depravation of sleep, even threatening to use force, the religious provisions as i mentioned, or any act that is the equivalent of this laundry list, you can't -- the

terrorists who would be captured would be treated more gingerly than any criminal in any county jail or any prison across the country. this is wrong. i urge you to reject the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: i yield two minutes to the chairwoman on the subcommittee of community management, valued member of my committee, ms. eshoo from california, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mitts eshoo: i thank the chairwoman and i thank our distinguished chairman for his wonderful and dedicated leadership of the house intelligence committee. it's been far too long since we have had intelligence authorization bill enacted. because congress has the responsibility to set guidance for the intelligence community, to venten our national security -- strengthen our national security, which is really our

highest obligation here in congress, i'm really pleased this crital legislation is on the floor -- critical legislation is on the floor today. this bill takes some very important steps to increase congressional oversight of the intelligence community which is very much needed. i'd like to address two in particular that came out of the subcommittee that i'm proud to chair. first, the bill creates an independent intelligence community inspector general. so many of the issues in the intelligence community cut across multiple agencies. and today there's no one who can look at all sides of these issues. this inspector general will have the dual responsibility to report to congress and not just of the director of national intelligence, increasing our oversight. second, the bill allows the g.a.o. to conduct audits and reviews of the intelligence community. we all know the value of the g.a.o.'s assessments firsthand. their reputation for objective,

thorough reviews are second to none. but today the intelligence community refuses to allow g.a.o. in the door. even when congress has asked them to investigate. so this is not going to stand because the bill corrects it. finally, the bill increases oversight of the security clearance process and it takes steps to improve information sharing. both high priorities of my subcommittee and we have had numerous hearings on these topics and will continue to do so. . finally, my colleagues, we all take this responsibility to oversee the intelligence community very seriously. we're the eyes and ears of the american people. this bill strengthens our ability to do just that. and i urge my colleagues to support it. figely, i'd like to say in -- finally, i'd like to say in response to -- mr. chairman, can i have 15 seconds?

mr. reyes: i yield 15 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. eshoo: there was a terrible charge made by one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this bill weakens the intelligence community, that it's an attack on the intelligence community. we can't let that stand. there isn't anything farther from the truth. this is singularly the largest intel authorization with its base budget in the history of the united states of america. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. escher we are going to give the intelligence -- ms. eshoo: we are going to give the intelligence community the very tools required. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i like to yield two minutes to my colleague from michigan, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i want to bring to the attention of this body just how

dangerous the amendment that says this. and i quote. any officer or employee of the intelligence community who in the course or in anticipation of a n -- an interrogation that is involved in cruel humane treatment. and it talks about lack of sleep. the interrogators are probably getting a lot less sleep than the terrorists they are interrogating because they process the information before and after the interrogation. you have created a whole new direction to make -- to go after the very people who are interrogating people trying to kill americans, and you're saying we are going to put new jail -- you in jail if you push

your limit. torture is already against the law. nobody, and i mean nobody is pushing torture. what we're saying is you cannot make this so unreasonable that they won't do it. and if you don't think that this will have an impact on an agent making the determination should i or shouldn't i, you know what, i was hoping to turn around and find 300 screaming cheering americans saying, thank you for your patriotism and your service, not 25 justice department lawyers with subpoenas. you will absolutely freeze the intelligence community's ability to go out and get information that they need. and it is absolutely naive to believe that they're going to do it anyway. i'm sorry. that's not the way it works. these folks want to follow the law. they want to follow the constitution and, guess what, at the end of the day they're willing to risk their lives to protect their country and their fellow americans. and this is the treatment that we give them. this one provision alone will disrupt i can't tell you how

many operations worldwide and is worthy of our rejection of this direction for the intelligence committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: madam chair, it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence, the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ruppersberger: i'd like to focus on two of the most important provisions. first, cybersecurity and number two face. the bill makes significant investments in the variety of critical cybersecurity programs, a need highlighted by the repeated attacks on the information technology systems of the federal government and private industry over the past year. as cybersecurity evolves and intensifies, our intelligence community must be able to respond quickly and with the latest technologies available. the national security agency, which i'm proud to say is in my

district, has developed a number of technologies that are already helping to protect us against these threats. but we need to ensure that n.s.a. and other intelligence agencies have the resources they need to develop and deploy the defenses that will keep our networks running and information secure. this bill helps do that. second, this bill makes important investments in space. it supports the president's request to develop a new imagery capability. in addition, it supports the senate proposal which must start funding to continue building upon our known capabilities. these are critical investments and we are prepared to see them through. we must keep major space acquisitions on budget and on schedule. we don't have unlimited resources and can't afford to have these critical acquisitions spend out of control. i'm also pleased that the bill encourages the d.n.a. and director of the n.r.o. to leverage commercial capabilities to the fullest extent possible. commercial tools have significantly improved in recent years. using these capabilities to

compliment government efforts will not only provide a cost-effective way of meeting our needs, it will support the revitalization of long struggling commercial space industry. i also want to make just some response to my peers on the other side. the intelligence committee is a very important committee. national security is at stake. we must come together as citizens first. there are a lot of allegations, we understand, some politics in whatever we do. but when it comes to national security intelligence we have got to find a way to make sure we focus on the priorities. those priorities are in this budget. there are some things that we might not all agree with but in the end we vote on the bill that we feel is right for our nation. believe me, there's nothing either side will do to help terrorists. we will go after the terrorists. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: madam chairman, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoekstra: there were a lot of things that was not made in order when we went through this process. one of them is how we're going

to deal with the detainees at guantanamo. you know, at one time they were going to be moved into kansas. the people in kansas stood up and said, no. they then were going to be moved to michigan and the people in michigan stood up and said no. they then were going to be moved to south carolina, and the leadership in south carolina said no. and now it's the people in illinois that are fighting the vial yant battle and saying, no, -- valiant battle and saying, no, we don't want them in our state either. there has been a fundamental problem in each case where the administration has proposed moving these individuals into a state. there's been absolutely no transparency. you know, people in michigan, people in illinois, people in south carolina and kansas have all asked for the fundamental information. who are these individuals? why are they in guantanamo, what did they do to at the serve to get to be there, what has their behavior been while in guantanamo? and in each of those case we said before the states make up their mind as to whether they are going to accept these

individuals or not, share these individuals with the policymakers and the decisionmakers in that state. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: madam chair, it's probably a good point that the ranking member makes that there should be a debate on guantanamo. unfortunately this is not the right bill to have that debate on. and i yield two minutes to the chairman of the select panel of intelligence and oversight and a member of the house intelligence committee, a valued member, mr. holt from new jersey. mr. holt: madam chair -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i want to thank the chairman of the select committee for bringing this bill to the floor. on balance we need it and i support it. and i'm pleased that the bill includes language that i developed that mandates video recording of detainee interrogations by the central intelligence agency. this provision's purpose is simple, to improve the

intelligence operations of the c.i.a. and enhance our national security by ensuring that video recording of each detainee interrogation. it requires the director of the c.i.a. to promulgate and require to congress the guidelines under which video recording shall be done and it requires that the video recordings have to be maintained and so forth. i note that this provision is extremely similar to the one that was included in last year's national defense authorization act and that now serves as the legal basis for video recording within the department of defense. the benefits of video recording and electronically recording interrogations are evident and law enforcement organizations across the united states routinely use the practice to both protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the interrogations and, importantly, to get better, more useful information. clearly the c.i.a. itself valued this tool as well. otherwise it would not have made the recordings that it did of interrogations of high-value

detainees that were captured in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. it -- the amendment will allow the c.i.a. director to determine how to conduct the recordings in a way that protects the identity of interrogators and protects other material that must be kept secret. finally, the bill also advances some of my other priorities including a sustained emphasis on improving foreign language capability, expanding g.a.o.'s ability to conduct investigations of intelligence community activities and a long overdo declassification review, requirement for gulf war illness-related records at the c.i.a. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield my colleague from texas a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.

mr. thornberry: thank you, madam chair. our colleague on the intelligence committee from new jersey talked about the importance of intelligence information. and it's true, much of the information that the united states has received since 9/11 which has prevented further terrorist -- successful terrorist attacks on our homeland has come from interrogations. and that's why it is so important that we maintain that tool done by professionals in the right way absolutely, but to tie their hands and allow those professionals conducting interrogations of terrorists, even less latitude than the county sheriff or the f.b.i. investigating a bank robbery have just seems to me to be madness. and yet the manager's amendment, which has traditionally been used for technical type of corrections, less controversial sorts of

issues, the manager's amendment in this bill includes an amazing expansion of criminal liability only for those in the intelligence community. and it seems to me that before we start prosecuting, members of the intelligence community for not giving terrorists the amount of sleep that they ask for, or to doing something that may violate whatever they describe as their religious beliefs, we ought to think twice about it. and it's important to say, this -- there's no reasonable standard to say what is reasonably your intelligence belief or a reasonable amount of sleep. this is all at the discretion of the terrorist. we are jumping to their fine under this language. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. thornberry: it is dangerous. it should be rejected. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: madam chair, could i inquire of the time remaining on both sides? the chair: 3 1/4 for the

gentleman from texas and 3 1/2 for the gentleman from michigan. mr. reyes: madam chair, i'll reserve the time at this point. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i'm going to be the last speaker so we only have one speaker left. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the chairwoman of the oversight and investigation subcommittee, ms. schakowsky from illinois. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. schakowsky: i'm proud to support this legislation because it will provide the men and women of our intelligence community with the tools they need to protect the nation while implementing vital provisions to promote accountability and oversight. as the chair of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation, i worked to limit the intelligence community's dangerous overreliance on private military contractors -- on

private contractors. to that end, i worked hard to include section 338 in this bill, which requires the director of national intelligence to provide a comprehensive report to the congress on the intelligence community's use of personal services contract. it's my hope that this report will finally give us a clear picture of how of our national security has been dold out to the lowest bit -- doled out to the lowest bidder. i want to talk about the issue of torture. i think it's so important to underscore that the manager's amendment includes language originally proprosed by mr. mcdermott that reiterates existing law on torture and provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment. what i'm hearing from the republicans is that somehow we are sacrificing our national security by allowing the torture of our enemies. in fact, i think we are enhancing our national security

by saying that we will eliminate provisions that allow for terrorists to be empowered, to recruit more people, that we stick to our values, we enhance our national security. these are already in law. right now. and that's all that this bill does, is underscore the lawfulness of the new rule. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. now i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a valued member of our committee, mr. schiff. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise in support of the intelligence authorization bill. as a member of the committee, i'm confident it provides our intelligence community with the tools it needs to keep our country safe. there are two aspects of the bill i'd like to highlight. first the bill includes the most substantial reform to the oversight relationship between congress and the executive branch in a generation.

. it requires the president to inform all members of the intelligent committees when a gang of eight briefing is conducted giving members who are not in the gang of eight to be aware. and requires the president to open up the briefing to the full committee after 180 days unless the director of national intelligence recertifies that the standards in the statute are still met. second, the bill makes critical investments in our overhead infrastructure and architecture. this is essential to our intelligence capability and wouldn't be possible without the work of some of the most brilliant minds in the country like the scientists at the jet propulsion laboratory. we are not giving the administration a blank check. it's imperative our major acquisitions stay on budget and schedule. resources are scarce and we can't allow a handful to go out of control. the government will keep a close eye on the programs.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. hoekstra: my colleague on the other side of the aisle, chairman reyes, has said now is not the time to talk about gtmo. obviously the majority has also said now is not the time to talk about getting an independent assessment of what's going on in iron. now is not the time to talk about the release of unclassified versions of documents related to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. now is not the time to talk about bringing the gtmo folks here. now is not the time to talk about the time lapse between fort hood and christmas day and what did and did not happen during that period of time. now is not the time to talk about a process for the authorization and notification of covert action that may result in the death of a targeted u.s. citizen.

so it's not time to talk about any of those or debate any of those issues which are absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our intelligence community and keeping america safe. but interestingly enough it is the day not to talk about but to bury into a manager's amendment 22 different amendments, including one that will fundamentally change the way our intelligence community has to do business. no hearings. no discussions. no debate. buried in there is the mcdermott amendment. we are now limited to at most 10 minutes per side to talk about 22 amendments in the manager's amendment which will come up immediately following this general debate, but it's interesting that in the discussion of general debate not one person on the other

side was willing to defend this amendment. and the process by which it was included, the process by which it was included, meaning no discussion, no debate, or defend the content of what is included in the manager's amendment. is this what the process in the house has now come down to? we bury these amendments between 22 other amendments. and if we split up the time equally, 22 amendments divided by 20 minutes, we will maybe have one amendment -- one minute of debate, one amendment -- one minute of debate on this amendment? it will be interesting to see how our friends on the other side of the aisle who talk about how they so strongly defend our intelligence community when they go visit them in the field, when our folks in the intelligence community see what they have done to them today, i would guess that they are going to get a very cold reception.

and the other thing that they are going to do is they are going to have questions and they are going to expect the majority to explain how they did this with no hearings and they are going to have to explain exactly -- what does this amendment do? and how does it impact us? and what does it mean? and how is it operational? i assume you knew that before you voted on it on the floor of the house. my answer is going to be i don't think they do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoekstra: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chairwoman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/4. mr. reyes: i understand the frustration on the minority side. as an army veteran, as a veteran of federal law enforcement for 26 1/2 years, i understand and value the united states constitution. i understand and value that we have to live by the rules. i understand and value the fact that we are a global leader that is much respected.

the gentleman talks about one amendment and the amendment simply says, follow the rules. follow the law. follow the principles that have made this country great. i understand that. apparently the minority does not understand that. and i feel for them. because in the final analysis i have been with members of the intelligence community in the far away places around the world. i have been with them and their families at bethesda when they are recuperating from the attack. i have been to the ceremony at the c.i.a. i understand what they go through. this is a good bill. it deserves everybody's support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in house report 111-419. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report 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 opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i have a desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 111-419. offered by mr. reyes of texas. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 1105, the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reyes: the manager's amendment, madam chair, includes a number of revisions to h.r. 2701 along with a number of technical changes. i would like to highlight several. the manager's amendment makes significant changes to the underlying bill as reforms to the process for notifying congress on sensitive covert actions. as my colleagues know, the national security act requires that the president inform congress through the intelligence committees about all significant intelligence activities, including covert actions. in my very limited circumstances, it allows -- in very limited circumstances it allows the president to limit briefings to unseven highly -- uncertainly sensitive actions to the gang of eight, the leadership of the intelligence

committees and leadership of both houses. over the past several months we have carefully considered the administration's objections to the reforms that the committee included in the underlying bill. the manager's amendment is a product of that work. the bill as amended would require the president to maintain a record of all gang of eight briefings. it also requires that the full committee be notified every time that a gang of eight briefing is conducted and provided with general information regarding the briefings. in the event the president decides that a briefing must be limited to the gang of eight, the managers' amendment also requires that he submit a certification stating that extraordinary circumstances require the briefing to be limited. in the days of a limited briefing, they will have to re-issue that certification every 180 days. or open the briefings to all members of our committee. this reform is a substantial improvement over the language we included in previous authorization bills and which some of my colleagues still

support. this earlier language would have actually expanded the president's authority to conduct restricted briefings going so far as to include all intelligence activities not just covert actions. it would also result in more restricted briefings and not fewer. i am interested in passing laws that reform the notification process not as some would say sending political messages. the manager's amendment also includes a number of provisions proposed by my colleagues. these include an amendment by mr. bishop which would require the d.n.i. and attorney general to provide congress with a strategy on balancing intelligence collection needs with the interest of the united states and prosecuting terrorist subjects. the questioning and prosecution of terrorism subjects has been the subject of some controversy in recent weeks and i believe that the congress could benefit from understanding how the administration plans to handle such cases in the future. a second provision included in

the manager's amendment was proposed by mr. marshal of georgia. it requires that the d.n.i. shouldy the best practices of other foreign governments to combat violent domestic extremism. a number of our allies including the united kingdom and the netherlands have established programs to stop individuals from turning to terrorism. this is a growing problem here in the united states and we could benefit from learning how our friends and allies have dealt with this problem. madam chair, i urge passage of the manager's amendment and at this point reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoekstra: i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as you may consume. mr. hoekstra: since the other side doesn't want to talk about this amendment i find myself having to come back to once again bring up the mcdermott

amendment. i would just appreciate since there has been no hearings on this and it slipped into this in the dead of night just some questions that maybe someone on the majority can answer. remember, we are in a community now where the people at the frontlines realize that when they have been asked by congress and the president to do something that three or four years later they may be prosecuted for those very activities by following the request of this congress. we are talking about enhanced interrogation techniques. the record indicates that even people as high as the speaker of the house, this house, knew about it and yet this house is supporting those efforts to go back and prosecute this. now we open up a whole new set of legal risk for our people in the intelligence community. i wish this thing just said follow the rules, but it doesn't. it's 11 pages of legalees --

legal yeast franting all times -- legalese granting all types of rules. would someone answer the question why did we never have any hearings on this? why no discussion? why no debate? why does this amendment define a criminal offense that only intelligence community personnel would be guilty of? this only applies to intelligence community personnel. answer the question. the amendment would make it a crime for depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care. how does the bill define necessary? how will we explain that to the people in the intelligence community? the amendment would make it a crime to require someone to participate in acts intended to violate the individual's religious beliefs. is there any objective standard to define that that term or the subjective standard, is there any requirement of reasonableness? the amendment would make it a crime to exploitphobias of the individual. phobias?

could you explain why this would be a criminal offense for a member of the intelligence community but not a criminal offense for a prosecutor who threatens a do tainee with increased time if he does not cooperate? just some simple questions. questions that i would think people in the intelligence community would ask the next time someone from this body comes and visits with them and tells them how much we support them and how great of a job we think they are doing. i would think they'll hold this amendment up and say, sir, madam, did you vote for this? did you understand what it meant when you voted for it? could you explain it to me? somebody please answer these questions. we sure didn't have the opportunity to ask this in committee to get any briefings on this, to have any hearings. someone explain it to us. no, if the other side has its way, soon this will be law. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode

island, valued member of our committee, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the intelligence committee. madam chair, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2701. this bill before us today funds critical intelligence activities that are vital to our national security. of particular interest to me it provides the resources for the foundational capabilities of a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. as the recent cyberattacks against google and u.s. networks have demonstrated, our information infrastructure is far more vulnerable than many realize. . it is important that the u.s. ensure critical government and functions are protected and improve our ability to hold aagreesers accountable. the -- aagreesors accountable. the president is committed to

developing a broad strategy to secure u.s. information networks. applaud those networks. now, in order for us to foster cyber readiness, i offered an amendment requiring the committee to submit to congress in determining whether we have the work force we need to secure this vital part of cyberspace as well as recruit and retain the best and the brightest in this field. i'm surely grateful this provision has been included in the manager's amendment that we're debating today. another issue of great importance is congressional oversight of our intelligence community. i'm pleased that this bill modifies the gang of eight notification process currently used to brief congress on intelligence communities. we saw the danger of giving the executive too much leeway in engaging activities outside of congressional review. now, reforming the mechanism governing notification will restore congress' ability to conduct effective oversight on our intelligence activities. so with that i just want to

thank chairman reyes for his leadership in crafting this bill as well as his general leadership of the intelligence committee itself and the attention he paid to cybersecurity. i support the bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. just to further again tell you how dangerous the amendment is making it a criminal act for c.i.a. officers to try to conduct interrogations, again, i want to read the -- this goes after specifically any intelligence officer, an employee of the intelligence community. so saying we're restating law isn't true. interrogation, conspires to attempt inhumane treatment or degrading, which is undefined. but think of this.

it says -- and it goes on to explain one further portion in their language, if you seek to blass -- blasphemy his or her beliefs. it says if you are caught by the united states allege abuse. it shuts the system down. does that mean a jewish official goes to conduct the interview we shut them down? i don't know. but we made it easier to make the allegation, haven't we? we have made it almost impossible for them to do what we have to have them do and that's extract information, they are going to save lives. you can go on to any sector of any religion that has become radicalize and understand it's impossible to meet that standard, impossible. we are hugely restricting and

handcuffing our intelligence community from doing what they need to do and that's get information without torture that keeps americans safe and alive. and, again, al qaeda, madam chair, uses the technique, and we know this through a whole series of sources to allege abuse. they use it in their media campaign, and they know it makes us chase our tail for weeks on end. this only enhances. this only strengthens their cause in al qaeda's operational tactic to slow us down in obtaining that information. i can't tell you how serious this amendment is with no debate and no discussion. it's dangerous. i urge the ajex on this alone. -- rejection on this alone. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: it's now my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson, who is a member of the homeland security subcommittee on emerging threats.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. richardson: i rise for a colloquy. i'm concerned that the members of the homeland security committee have not consistently and were not adequately briefed by the administration on the events surrounding the failed christmas day terrorist attack. the homeland security committee has a role in congressional oversight of agencies within its jurisdiction. do you agree with me and chairman thompson that the homeland security committee should be briefed in a timely manner on national security matters that play a central role in homeland security? mr. reyes: i believe that the homeland security committee has an important role to play in congressional oversight of national security matters and that the committee should be briefed on national security matters that fall within its jurisdiction. ms. richardson: i thank the chairman for his response and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield to my

colleague from texas one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: it says that the mcdermott statement is already in law. i want some member to tell me where in current law that says any officer or employee of the intelligence community who forces an individual to be naked goes to jail f for 15 years. sometimes there's a good reason to ask someone to take their clothes off to make sure they don't have bombs strapped around their waist. and yet an intelligence officer who does that under the mcdermott language is liable for 15 years in jail. the mcdermott language says an officer or employee in the intelligence community who deprives an individual of necessary sleep goes to jail for 15 years. now, i cannot believe the many good members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about prosecuting terrorists

about keeping the country safe have thought through the implications of this language and to have it included in a manager's amendment, along with 20 other amendments, is just amazing to me. i strongly encourage every member of the house to read this language and be careful before you vote on it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. the manager's amendment includes language originally proposed by mr. mcdetermine olt and has statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment. torture is a reprehensible and counterpro duckive practice. us, as we all know, has no business in engaging in it. -- the u.s., as we all know, has no business in engaging in it. executive order 13491 prohibits

interrogators from engaging any of the activities highlighted in the manager's amendment language. it limits interrogation to the interrogation techniques that is authorized by the army field manual. it spells out the terms of common article 3 and relevant provisions of the convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment as the minimum standard for the united states to follow. the language in the manager's amendment restates the existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the detainee treatment act and clearly establishes that the united states will adhere to the rule of law. it provides a specific criminal penalty for those who knowingly cause the death of a detainee. it is already a crime for an interrogator to knowingly murder a detainee. this provision merely adds a concrete statutory penalty to that conduct. this language does not, does not give terrorists greater rights than ordinary criminals.

we cannot afford another abu ghraib, and the language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts these important provisions already codified in law. plain and simple. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoekstra: you know, i wish they were plain and simple. it's 11 pages. 11 pages dropped in in the middle of the night, no debate, no discussion, just inserted. if it's already a crime, why are you putting it in here? you know, we haven't answered all the questions that we asked before. i notice that the sponsor of the amendment, who is here for an extended period of time, i'm not sure if he wanted to speak on the amendment or not but obviously wasn't given the opportunity to speak on the amendment if you wanted to. it's too bad. because i think there's a legitimate need for discussion

and debate, because i don't think it's all clear that this is just a restatement of current law. you know, answer the questions. the amendment would make it a crime to ex the chair: two minutes remaining. mr. reyes: i now yield one minute to mr. barrow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: i rise for my amendment, the competitive grant program that will encourage the u.s. intelligence community to partner with historically black colleges and universities, to recruit, train and retain a

diverse intelligence work force. we face a diverse and growing array of threats aren't the globe. as the means used by our enemies becomes more advanced, so do our defenses. it affects the quality of the intelligence we can gather and it's critical that our intelligence community have the assets to overcome these barriers. the area of georgia is home to several areas that engage these centers of the academic excellence, it will provide more sophisticated intelligence officers who will in turn make our country more secure. i want to thank chairman reyes for his work on this legislation and i urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i like to yield one minute to my colleague from michigan a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rogers: it's the fact that you're extending foreign

terrorists, northern nationals, foreign trained individuals the same rights as americans. it's wrong. they are enemy combatants. you say, well, we can't have abu ghraib. you're right. torture is illegal. it was illegal then. it was investigated and they have been prosecuted, rightly so. they abused people, wrong. they go to jail. that's what happens in the system. what you're doing now is interswrecting mass confusion into the people who are going to trying to conduct harm in the world. and guess what, you've engaged one of the worse parts of the al qaeda plabe that says, remember -- playbook that says, remember, when americans are shooting at themselves and chasing their tail they are not shooting at us. allege abuse. you just put 11 confusing pages right into the hands of our enemy that says, make it really hard on the folks who are risking their lives to save americans so that we can

continue to do what we do and that's plan, train, recruit and we will send people to america to kill american civilians. this is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous step that you take. no debate. no discussion. lots of confusion. don't do this to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the united states of america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: madam chair, i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from michigan has the right to close. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. how much time do i have? the chair: one minute. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. i rise to inform my colleagues on the other side that the men and women protecting this country are clear about their

duties. they're focused on keeping us safe. they're not concerned about the political spin here. they're not concerned about the rhetoric that they hear, but they do appreciate actions more than rhetoric. i know because i've been around the world visiting them. i've been to talk to various different groups in the intelligence community. they know that we appreciate the work that they do each and every day to keep us safe. and they're not going to be fooled like the american people are not going to be fooled by the rhetoric that comes up, the spin that they try to put on the manager's amendment. and in particular, the reiteration of something that's fundamentally american. and that is we have a constitution, we have rules that we all have to live by. we understand the law and we have to have respect for that

law. it does not undermine any of that. it's a good manager's amendment and i urge adoption of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. my colleague on the other side of the aisle is exactly right. the people in the intelligence community are watching exactly what we're doing and actions do speak louder than words. the actions that they've seen, their colleagues were asked by this congress, including the record shows the leadership of this house and the former administration to do things on their behalf to keep america safe and they sigh their colleagues now being prshted because the -- f --ported because the rules have changed. and they see a global justice initiative coming out of the

f.b.i. where we are reading miranda rights to our enemies on the battlefield in afghanistan. they see the actions and they see the actions are very, very different. they see that we are moving k.s.m. from gitmo to trial in new york city. thankfully the people in new york city are saying, no way, we're not doing it and at the same time that k.s.m. is being promised a trial in civilian courts in the united states they're seeing 11 pages of new vulnerabilities being placed on them after no hearings and no debate. yes, our men and women in the field are seeing a real difference. they're seeing a real difference in action by this congress and by this administration. they see that they've become kind of a target of this administration. that this is now not about keeping america safe, it's about putting them into a legal framework, a legal sign, an ugly legal net.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker. i ask for a recorded vote. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the motion to consider houk -- mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i'd like to claim time in favor of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have -- does the gentleman have an amendment to offer? mr. hoekstra: i have an amendment, yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. hoekstra of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman from michigan, mr. hoekstra, and a member opposed each will

control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, this is a very straight forward amendment. i thank the rules committee for making it in order. it basically says that not late that are than 30 days after the enact -- late -- no later than 30 days after this, there should be an unclassified version of the report regarding the procedures used in narcotics air bridge denial program in peru. many of you may remember that this was a very tragic incident where with the assistance of our intelligence community two of my constituents were tragically killed in peru. shot down by the peruvian air force. we need an unclassified version of this report being made available to the public and more importantly to the families. the families of those who were killed. you know, it wasn't that long

ago, it was in the last month, that there was a discussion of accountability review. almost nine years after that tragic shootdown there was an accountability board that had been convened and its results have been made or were reported to our committee. four weeks ago, roughly four weeks ago, i asked the director of the c.i.a. whether the families of those killed would be briefed on what was found in the accountability board and whether -- and the accountabilities that were put in order. to date i'm yet waiting for an answer. this has been unfair to these families, it's been unfair to the american public that when we've had such a tragic failing in the intelligence community which included from my perspective an attempted coverup by the previous administration or by the intelligence community as to exactly what happened, how to happened and how these americans were killed, that we

have been so closed in sharing that information with the american public and the families. with that i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: i rise to claim the time in opposition even though i'm not opposed to it. the chair: the gentleman recognized, without objection. mr. reyes: with that i would yield to my friend, ms. harman from california, such time as she may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. harman: i recognize the chairman for yielding and surely hope he will accept this amendment. i recall during my years as ranking member on the committee when we were in, quote, briefed on this incident. i am very disappointed by the way it was handled and i personally think the gentleman from michigan is correct and i want to applaud what he's doing. i also want as we debate this bill to absolute against the

thousands -- salute against the thousands of patriotic women and men who are serving in our intelligence community around the world. as i so often say, a grateful nation salutes them and thanks them for their efforts to keep us safe and our nation also remembers and honors those who have lost their lives, most recently at forward operating base chapman in afghanistan. madam speaker, in addition to this excellent amendment, i applaud the underlying bill's provisions to reform the way congress is notified of sensitive covert programs. briefings that for too long were limited to the so-called gang of eight. during my years as ranking member it was clear that effective oversight required providing the entire committee with information previously limited to its leadership alone. and so this bill rightly provided for -- provides for full committee notice of gang for eight meetings, a record of those briefings, something we sorely lack, and it entitles the full committee to receive the

full briefings from the gang of eight within 180 days. these changes go a long way in -- we should not have been put in the position of on the one hand upholding our oath of secrecy while on the other hand being starved for information to conduct necessary oversight. just last week, pursuant to a request, memoranda discussing some of our briefings were declassified. the documents which are available to the public show repeated pushback from intelligence committee members surely including me about the failure to brief us or to provide documents or other timely information. madam speaker, last time i checked congress was an independent branch of government. we must assert our prerogative to monitor and rectify problems that surface in the programs we oversee. in the intelligence world some of these problems affect our core values as well as our

constitution. security and liberty are not a zero sum game. it is our sworn duty to protect both and the language in the underlying bill and this amendment offered by mr. hoekstra go a long way to rectify long-existing problems. i urge support for the bill, support for this amendment and yield to the chairman of the committee. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. reyes: thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan has the right to close. mr. reyes: madam chairwoman, i'm prepared to accept the amendment and let the record to reflect that ms. schakowsky from illinois was very much in agreement with mr. hoekstra and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i'd like to yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the chairman, for accepting the amendment, my colleague from california for the kind words she had to say. we worked on this program for a number of years together and it's taken us, you know, such a long period of time to get the answers, to get the answers that help understand but do not explain what happened. this is information -- this amendment is intended to get more information to the american people, more information to the families. i do hope that over the coming days that the director of the c.i.a., that the people on the intelligence -- in the intelligence community decide to give the families full access to the accountability board. i appreciate the support of the chairwoman of the subcommittee, ms. schakowsky from illinois. this is a case where we have

worked uniquely in a bipartisan way to address failings within the intelligence community, to try to right those wrongs and to try to move us forward in a constructive and positive way. i thank my colleagues who have enabled that process to work and to work effectively. with that, madam chairwoman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is -- the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise seek recognition? mr. hastings: madam speaker, i'm pleased to offer an amendment to this act and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-419

offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida is now recognized. mr. hastings: madam chair, i'd like to correct some things because i've been here all day listening to our colleagues complain about the process. this is the beginning of the process and it's an important one, one that has not been undertaken in four years such that we have not had an authorization bill for all that time. now, i'm sure that my colleagues know that when this measure is completed and on the other side of the other body that we will have a conference and many of the discussions that are being heard here today are likely to be addressed in that conference

report. now i've stated time and again that the intelligence community is not diverse enough to do its job of obtaining and analyzing foreign countries' secrets. diversity is a mission imperative. we need people who blend in, speak the language and understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting. the intelligence community is our nation's first line of defense against the increasing dangers and threats we face around the world. from the scourge of terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to hostile governments, intelligence work is often unseen and mostly thankless. now i keep hearing all this talk about mir an diesing people on the -- mirandizing people on the

battlefield. i don't know that that is a methodology that is being employed with any regulator. i've had the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals during my oversight travel as a member of the intelligence committee to more than 50 countries. i cannot overstate how much all of us, democrats and republicans, every member of this house and every president that i've known, appreciative and humble by their service and, yes, i will stand and say that when this authorization measure passes that i do support the men and women in the 16 elements of the intelligence services and appreciate them very much. i'm proud to support this measure for several reasons. it substantially increases funding for human intelligence collection and counterintelligence activities. tools that have been underroared in the past year. the bill -- underresourced in the past year. the bill supports the critical

efforts of war fighters in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan and provides additional funding to address significantly emerging issues in of a can, latin america and elsewhere and i would -- issues in africa, latin america and elsewhere and there's no place we should focus as much attention as we have with iran, as yemen. it is going to be critical for us to pay attention to that area of the world. this bill also adds fund and authorities for language programs. chairman reyes and i and countless other members on this committee have brought this issue repeatedly for to us make progress in languages and i might add we have been successful. if you see the new people entering the service, if you visit our operational activities, you begin to see more and more people that are in the service. i do have something to crawl about and that is the gays in the military provision that allows among other things that

we are putting people out of the service who are farsi and arabic speakers because they're gay and i think that's ridiculous. in the environment that we are operating in. but we still don't have enough women. we still don't have enough arabs, we still don't have enough north koreans and i could go on and on. while the intelligence community has made some progress in hiring people with diverse backgrounds, education and experience, including indeed more women and minorities, this progress has been at a glacial speed. the intelligence community has been historically slow to recognize the wealth and abundance of talent and skills that reside in first, second and even third generation americans. we still don't have an intelligence work force that looks like our country. we are -- aren't even close. the bottom line is that we, until we have every segment of society participating in the intelligence community, our

capabilities will not rise to the level needed to defeat terrorism. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chairperson of the intelligence committee and thank the members of the democrat and republican staff on the house intelligence select committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. reyes: thank you. i just want to thank the vice chair of our intelligence committee for his hard work. i know he's worked ever since he's been on the committee on this very important issue that keeps i think the face of the intelligence community reflect the face of this nation. so thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the time has expired. does any member seek recognition? mr. hoekstra: i'd like to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, without objection, for five minutes. mr. hoekstra: thank you. i'd like to yield to my colleague from texas for one

minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: the gentleman has been a forceful and eloquent person for greater diversity in the intelligence community. he is exactly right, we will be more effective when we will have greater diversity in the intelligence community. we are more effective human collectors if we -- and if we have greater language talent including dialects. all of that is exactly true. my point in addition, however, is that it's not just getting them into the intelligence community, it's how we treat them once they're hired. and some of the repeat actions over the last year, whether it's a special prosecutor to go after again or whether it's releasing classified memos even though five c.i.a. directors recommend not having it done, that cuts against the ability to keep these qualified people in government service after we

have them hired. and i can think of nothing worse than to threaten these people with 15 years of prison if they stray across the line in interrogation as far as encouraging our intelligence professionals to stay with the government. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoekstra: thank you, madam speaker. i will not oppose the amendment. i support the amendment. i think the report on highlighting the progress that we have made or that we may not have made toward our objectives of increasing the diversity within the intelligence community is something that is needed. it's something that my colleague has been championing all the years that we have served on the committee together. i support the amendment, urge my colleagues to support it as well. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chair. on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote and pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now time to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. rogers from michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman

from michigan, mr. rogers, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: the director of the f.b.i. implemented a new policy, and the policy was designed to try to get a different talent pool of individuals to come to washington, d.c., to be supervisors in their new bureaucracy of the intelligence community, if you will. they're having a difficult time doing it. so what they ended up doing is they forced supervisors in the field. these are f.b.i. experts in a whole variety of fields. it could be white collar crime. it could be organized crime. it could be foreign counterintelligence. it could be counterterrorism efforts. and arbitrarily said after five years you're done. you'd have to step down. you have to come to washington, d.c., and apply to be -- to another job. can you step down, go to a brick agent in the f.b.i. five years ago we said this is really unfair to a lot of agents.

you're going to lose agents. unfortunately they implemented it. we lost agents. seep yor agents. talented -- senior agents. talented agents. we heard stories from after stories about good, quality, talented, seasoned f.b.i. agents being forced to make decisions based on their families. some were just not in a position to come back to washington, d.c. so their reward for all that honorable service is get out. well, the director cut a deal with this congress five years ago, i will fix this problem for the agents that are harmed. we are still waiting today. this is called the up and out policy of the f.b.i. it is wrong, mr. director. it is absolutely unconscionable that this continues to be a problem after they've given the congress of the united states your word it would be fixed. i -- i just implore to the

director to fix this problem. the only way for us to join together to get this fixed for the men and women who have risked their lives, who moved their families, who make the difficult choices to be an agent of the f.b.i. is to offer this amendment and say no more. we're not playing anymore. fix this problem. it's wrong to treat the men and women of the f.b.i. with this blatant disregard for what has been harmful to them and their families. in some cases their pensions as well. it's wrong. i know it has been bipartisan in the past. i hope it continues to be a bipartisan effort. and, madam chair, i can't strongly enough say i support it but also i have a letter here from the f.b.i. -- the federal bureau of investigation agents association representing literally tens of thousands of former and current agents all across the country who have stood up and said this is the right thing. they support this amendment

unconditionally. let us stand with those men and women who are doing so much to keep us safe today. this is the one thing we can do and send a message to this director for all the good and all the bad that happens since 9/11, and he's been part of a lot of good things. this could be a horrible black mark on what could otherwise be a great career there if you don't take care of the people who have been taking care of america. i would yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields or the gentleman reserves? mr. rogers: i'll reserve. excuse me. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. does any member seek time? the gentleman from michigan mr. rogers: seeing no further speakers, i urge the body's quick support and hopefully we can stand with the men and women who have stood with us in difficult times across the country. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: i have an amendment at the desk, madam chair woman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-419 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i thank the chairperson and i rise to offer an important amendment to the intelligence authorization act. madam chair person, many of the provisions i offered is already in the legislation that was reported out of the committee. today i'm offering this amendment to address that problem that arose after our consideration of the bill last year. earlier this month we

discovered that intelligence community employees have been starting businesses to sell private companies the very tools. for example, a number of c.i.a. employees launched a company to sell deception detection services to hedge funds and ran this company while they were federal employees. i'm very troubled by this. i question the director of national intelligence about this at the worldwide hearing and he said he would look into it. while waiting for a formal answer i discovered to my great surprise that this activity had already been approved by their agencies. clearly we need to tighten up that process. all federal agencies are required to have conflict of interest guidelines that set limits on employees outside employment. now, these guidelines are developed jointly by the agency and by the office of government ethics. but the d.n.i. has not issued

intelligence communitywide policy guidance on conflicts of interest for outside employees. so this amendment does two things. first, it requires the d.n.i. to establish an opportunity communitywide conflict of interest regulation working in connection with and in conjunction with the office of government ethics to establish a communitywide process for checking outside employment for conflicts of interest. and also to submit an annual report to the intelligence committee on all outside employment activities that were approved in the last year. second, it would prohibit employees from owning companies that sells skills that are related to their government service. i think the government employees and especially those in the intelligence community should adhere to the highest ethical standards. the american people have to have confidence that government employees are working in the best interest of the nation and

not in just a personal self-interest. i want to thank my colleagues from the hipse, tierney, boren, schakowsky, thompson, holt, rogers and myrick for co-sponsoring it. i don't know how much time i have left, madam chairman -- the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. eshoo: i yield to the gentleman from michigan for a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rogers: i want to thank the gentlelady from california. sometimes we get ahead of the problem. we don't do that often in congress. i think it's a great way to get ahead of the proven. given the fact that these individuals who have -- who are doing great things for this country we're thankful for it takes sometimes a piece of comblectual property that really belongs -- intellectual

property that really belongs to the people of the united states. sometimes it's compartmentalized. it's an incredible responsibility. for us to not have a policy on how we make sure that those people don't use that information for personal gain on the outside of that community, especially intelligence community, i think is wrong. i think this is a good measure that puts some really basic protections, not only for them but for the intelligence community and the people of america. i want to commend the gentlelady for her work and effort on this. i wholeheartedly support this effort. i'd yield back the remainder of my time. ms. eshoo: this is a bipartisan amendment. i just want to add, madam chair woman, that this is in no way a ban across the entire federal government and federal workers. there are some teach at universities at night. there are others that make really very low salaries,

gs-1's in the $17,000 range, that do have some outside employment. this goes directly to the skillset that the american people train these c.i.a. officers and others in the intelligence community to do their work relative to national security. that shouldn't be sold off in bits and parts by moonlighting. so i think that we've done this respectfully, and i think we've done it thoughtfully. and i'd like to thank the chairman, again, for this, mr. rogers, and the members that have supported it. i think it's a good amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. who seeks time in opposition? no one seeking time in opposition, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. speaker, to speak on the amendment. the chair: do you have an amendment at the desk? mr. conaway: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. conaway from texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 105, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment is about good governance, it's about protecting the assets as utilized by the intelligence community. this bill came out of the committee eight months ago. we've learned things in the last eight months that we didn't know then. this would substitute a new paragraph a for an old practice

a. it would say it's an important -- old paragraph a. it would say that it's an important thing to work to get audited financial statements across all of the entities. it took a lot of effort to make that happen. i'd like to call the chair's attention to the only entity within the intelligence community that has in fact achieved an unqualified audit be to -- opinion on their financial statements. under dr. scott large's leadership that hard work was done and the chief financial officer, the director of the financial management led a credible team to do an awful lot of hard work to make that happen. i don't discount how hard that is from my professional experience, i know that's hard. they ought to be commended as the agency and chief clean audited financial statements. as important as that is, it's an ongoing effort and i hope that general bruce carlsson will continue the efforts needed to make that happen.

this is a topdown version. it has to have the initiative of the leadership, the office of directive intelligence has to make this a priority and this amendment would seek to recognize that priority and continue to draw attention to it from my body so that the executive branch body in fact knows that we believe it is important to get this done. so pretty straight forward amendment, madam chair, recognizing the hard wok of -- work of some folks is kind of a pat on the back for having done it correctly, shown us how it can be done, an incredible amount of hard work done by the team led by mrs. landry. so with that, madam speaker, i would yield -- i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thanks, madam chairwoman. i encourage my colleagues on the floor today to support this good governance amendment that would further the hard efforts being done across the community to achieve unqualified opinions on their financial statements and all of the internal controls

that go behind that. one final comment, there are some tough decisions ahead for director blair and others to make this happen. and i encourage them to make those decisions sooner than later and i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. arcuri: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. arcuri of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman from new york, mr. arcuri, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: the threat of cyberattack on our computer and internet infrastructure as well as the threat of cyberwarfare cannot be overstated. the need for congressional action to assure adequate funding is in place to guarantee that our country is prepared for any contingency that may arise in this relatively new area of warfare is critical. i believe as a nation our investment in cybersecurity will be the manhattan project for our generation. h.r. 2701 authorizes the funding to make this investment a reality. cyberthreats and attacks are real and they threaten our financial and defense networks every day. nearly every aspect of every day -- everyday life in our global society is dependent on the security of our cybernetworks. we rely on these systems to carry virtually all our business

transactions, control our electric grid, emergency communications systems and even traffic lights. the most troubling cyberthreat may be the very real prospect of state-sponsored cyberattacks against sensitive national security information. we must take steps to protect our cyberinfrastructure but to do that in such a way that we do not infringe on individuals' rights to privacy. we have a number of organizations in government that work on cybersecurity and we in congress need to ensure that these organizations are sharing this information with each other in an effective, reliable and safe manner. this must be one of our top priorities. over the next few years the administration and the intelligence community will begin new and unprecedented cybersecurity programs to combat these threats with cutting edge technologies. these new programs will present new legal and privacy challenges, to ensure that congress can properly oversee these programs my amendment

requires the president to submit detailed notifications to congress on current and newly created cybersecurity programs so that congress may perform the oversight that the constitution requires. my amendment sets a preliminary framework for the administration and congressional oversight to ensure that the government's national cybersecurity programs are consistent with legal authorities and preserve individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy. it requires the president to notify congress of new and existing cybersecurity programs and provide congress with the programs' legal description and describe how it impacts privacy and protects sensitive data and to detail any plan for independent audit or review of this program. this amendment is a reasonable and responsible continuation of this effort. earlier this month the house approved a cybersecurity enhancement act to expand programs to strengthen our nation's cybersecurity and to require cybersecurity work force

assessment to give us a clear picture of our current cybercapabilities in both the federal government and the private sector to combat future attacks. given the increasing number of sophistication of cyberattacks that we -- that are being aimed at our networks in the degree to which we must expand our cybercapabilities we must also ensure that we maintain our oversight abilities. my amendment is similar to the oversight provisions included in the senate legislation and i ask that all members support these important safeguards. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i seek to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam chair, i don't think anyone in this house can deny the importance of cybersecurity. certainly the intelligence committee is devoting a great deal of time and effort to understanding the threat to our

potential responses and how we can go about it. i am perhaps, however, a lonely voice expressing caution about the number of reports that accumulate on top of one another year after year after year and way down our intelligence community -- weigh down our intelligence community. i mentioned earlier that there are 41 new reports of one kind or another that are in the underlying bill. the manager's amendment, which we've debated, has at least 17 more reports on top of that. and i believe if you look at all of the 20, 21 provisions of the manager's amendment there are at least two reports on cybersecurity plus a task force. now, the issue is important but surely to goodness we have some

responsibility in congress to pay attention to the cost in terms of dollars, the cost this terms of man power to do all of these reports that get added on top of the intelligence community but often never go away. that just stack on top of each other year after year. so i appreciate the gentleman's interest in cybersecurity. i share that, by the way. i think the gentleman's right on the importance of it. but i would just encourage him and all members, before you come demanding another report of one sort or another, maybe it would be good to inquire as to what it would take to actually complete that report. how much money that costs the taxpayers. if we do i think we're going to be a little more hesitant to stack report upon report upon report. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentleman for his comments and i think he is right. i mean, i think clearly the fact

that a report is requested simply for the sake of requesting a report is redundant and is taxing on our intelligence community. but i think when we look at what happened during 9/11 and the fact that some of the intelligence branches of government were not sharing information, i think we need to learn something from that. in my district i have a air force research lab that really focuses a great deal on cybersecurity. i want to make sure that the information that they're developing and the technology that they're developing are being shared with other branches of the military and the intelligence community. and i think that it's very important that we allow congressional oversight and that we ensure that the -- that these, in our role as congressmen, we're making sure that they're doing that, that they're sharing the information that they should. i certainly appreciate your point but i think this is one of the places where it's critically important that we ensure that the information sharing is being done.

thank you and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. arcuri: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. barton: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. burton of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, and a member who is opposed is recognized for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. burton: first of all, madam chairman, i want to thank the rules committee for making this

amendment in order. it's a very straight forward amendment and it's one that i think is very, very important because the c.i.a. has been under such intense criticism over the last several months and maybe the last few years that it's time to let them know and the people of this country know that we really appreciate what they're doing to secure the safety of this country. and what the bill does, it honors the central intelligence agency for its contributions to the security of the united states and our allies. it recognizes the central intelligence agency's unique role in combating terrorism. it praises the central intelligence agency for its success in foiling recent terrorist plots and capturing senior members of al qaeda, it thanks the central intelligence agency for its crucial support of u.s. military operations in afghanistan and iraq, it commends the men and women who gave their lives to defending the u.s. named and unnamed and finally it urges the central

intelligence agency to continue its dedicated work in the field of intelligence gathering in order to protect the people of the united states. i believe that all of us would agree with everything that's in this amendment. but i'd like to add just a couple of things that i've been watching during this debate that really concerns me. there is language in here that is going to, i think, have an adverse impact on the central intelligence agency's agents who are out in the field and doing their job and are trying to protect us against the terrorists. you know, some of the things that they say may be abrasive or objectionable to some of the people they're interrogating and the way this language reads it could be interrupted to mean -- interpreted to mean that they're guilty of not following the intent of the law in dealing with the terrorists. also, there's prison sentences for people who are involved in

terrorist or torture activities such as, quote-unquote, water boarding. water boarding has been a technique that's been used in the training of u.s. navy seals and our special forces people over the years. now, let me say that one more time. water boarding and other techniques have been used in the training of our navy seals so they would know how to deal with an enemy if they were captured and it's been used by a special forces military personnel in their training. so it has never been considered torture by our own military personnel. now, we have three navy seals right now that are being court marshaled and they're being court marshaled because they captured an al qaeda terrorist in fallujah in iraq and this al qaeda terrorist took four

american contractors, tortured them, dragged them through the streets, burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge. he also cut off the head of a leading person that was over there gathering news and information for the news media. and this guy is really an out and out horrible terrorist. when he was captured he was turned over to the iraqi military for two days and he came back and he said that he had been hit in the stomach and they split his lip and because of that these three navy seals are being prosecuted. they're being prosecuted in a court martial. what message does that send to the people fighting against these people? and we're sending the same message to the c.i.a. operatives who are out there trying to get information that will protect this country and protect the american people

around the world against these people who want to destroy us and want to destroy our way of life. and so it really bothers me that -- and i do appreciate the house approving this amendment that i've introduced. obviously it's something that i think is very important. but in addition to that, i don't believe we ought to be sending a message to the c.i.a. or the navy seals or our special forces men and women in the field that we are not going to back them up when they go out and get a terrorist or extract information from them that is vital in securing the safety of the people of this country. one of the al qaeda terrorists are going to new york, the main al qaeda terrorist that was involved in the 9/11 attack after he was waterboarded about 80 times and he wouldn't give up information, he finally did and he said -- he said that there was an attempt going to made to fly an airplane into a

building in los angeles. it seems silly and crazy to me that we are not going to allow our intelligence gathering operatives to do their job. we ought to be supporting them completely day and night and anything they do to protect this nation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. reyes: i seek time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, madam chair. and i want to tell the gentleman that i appreciate his wanting to honor the personnel of the central intelligence agency. as i have said many times on this floor, i have had the privilege of visiting with members of the c.i.a. and members of their family, members of the c.i.a.

throughout the world under probably the most difficult of circumstances. so i understand the hardships that they face. most recently i was with family members and survives of the khost bombing which illustrates the danger they put themselves in willingly to protect our country. and i will also remind the gentleman that, let's not mix and compare apples to oranges. there's a big difference between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding and waterboarding an individual for 183 times. that's a huge difference. the other thing i'd point out is that when the last administration decided to take us down that road that enhanced interrogation techniques would be authorized and approved,

there has been, as you know, a great amount of disagreement in terms of the authorization by attorneys that these kinds of techniques that are considered torture by people, most anybody's standards, yet were authorized. and i'd also remind us that the c.i.a. did not have any expertise in waterboarding. they had to actually go out and contract d.o.d. personnel to be able to acquire that technique. it puts them in a tough situation. and i will tell you what i hear from the men and women of the central intelligence agency. they understand the difference between politics and bad policy. they understand the difference between doing the kinds of

things that they're expected to do to keep our country safe and responding to the kind of political spin that unfortunately we hear in terms of their work. but the one thing that comes across that i hear from them is they appreciate the support that they receive from the congress. i appreciate the fact that regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on we respect the work that they do. mr. burton: will the gentleman yield? mr. reyes: despite all the arguments that are proffered here in this great chamber, in the final analysis they know they have a job to do. mr. burton: will the gentleman yield? mr. reyes: they know they have a duty to perform. they know that they are committed professionals and that they expect and deserve

the support of everyone member of this chamber. that's why i appreciate the gentleman's sponsoring this amendment. that's why i think we ought to accept it. i accept it. and i think we ought to leave it at that. mr. burton: would the gentleman yield? mr. reyes: leave the rhetoric and remind ourselves that the message we need to send them is that we support their work. mr. burton: will the gentleman yield? mr. reyes: the message we send them -- mr. burton: i got it. mr. reyes: we honor the service to this great country and the message we deliver to the families of the victims of the khost bombing is we support them. and we will have our differences politically. we will articulate those differences, but we will never stop supporting the great work that the men and women of the central intelligence agency do for us.

with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. burton: will the gentleman yield? thank you very much. i appreciate it. the chair: all time being yielded, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member who opposes this amendment, is now in control of five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. mr. holt: madam chair, as you know, the federal bureau of

investigation announced last week that it is formally closing its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, a major bioterrorist attack on america. those attacks are believed to have originated from a post box in new jersey disrupting the lives and livelihoods of many of my constituents and yours. we already know that the f.b.i. too quickly jumped to conclusions about the nature and profile of the culprit or culprits and quickly zeroed in on one individual who later received a multimillion dollar settlement and apology for mistaken accusations. subsequently, the investigators focused on another individual who then killed himself and although the f.b.i. never produced any physical evidence tying that individual specifically to the attacks, they closed the case. indeed, this investigation was botched at multiple points which is why re-examining if is so important. given that the samples of the strain of anthrax that was used

any attacks may have been supplied to foreign laboratories, we think it's prudent to have the inspector general of the intelligence community examine whether or not evidence of a potential foreign connection to the attacks was overlooked, ignored or simply passed along to the f.b.i. mr. bartlett and i are offering an amendment that would require the inspector general to examine whether or not evidence of a potential foreign connection to the attacks was overlooked, ignored or simply not passed along. the report would be unclassified with a classified annex and would go to intelligence, foreign affairs, judiciary and homeland security committees. to date, there's been no independent comprehensive review of this investigation, and a number of important questions remain unanswered. i reserve the balance of my time and ask how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. the gentleman reserves.

who seeks time in opposition? no one seeking time, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: at this point i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: -- mr. bartlett: thank you for yielding. i want to thank the gentleman very much for his initiative in this effort. dr. ivans was my constituent. the laboratory in which he worked is in my district so i was very much involved in this case. his colleagues say that he would not have done it, and the f.b.i. said early on that he could not have done it because the supports were weaponized and he had no ability to do that -- because the spores were weaponized and he had no ability to do that.

lately they have been saying something differently than that. i have some quotes that i think would be relevant. the former -- former is important here because they would not let the current scientists at fort deed rick talk to me. he just left so he could -- the former chief of technology for the u.s. army medical research in frederick, maryland, said the serious misgivings about the f.b.i. findings that he sent the deadly letters that killed five and sickened 17 in 2001. the evidence is very circumstancial and unconvincing as a whole. he wrote, i am why they closed the case while the academies of sciences is still ongoing. his death came about a month after the justice department agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement valued at $5.85

million. steven hatfield had been the key suspect in this. he sent the justice department -- he aledges the federal government went on a sneer campaign and leaked information that was damaging to his reputation. apparently they had. they paid him $5.85 million. they subsequently agreed, could see he was not involved in the case. gary andrews, another former chief bacteriaologist said it wouldn't be odd for him to work odd hours because he was working with animals and more convenient to do it then. he says that bruce did not -- didn't have the skill to make spores like that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. bartlett: thank you very much for your lead in this. this has been devastating to my constituents and the scientists

at the laboratory. the f.b.i. said later on he couldn't have done it. thank you very much for your lead on this. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: madam chair, it is beyond question that the f.b.i. jumped to conclusions at least once, perhaps more than once, and many questions remain. this amendment would address one of those questions. beyond this amendment we still need a more complete examination of our government's response to these attacks. the most serious bioterrorist attack against the united states. this will look at whether there is a foreign connection to those attacks that has been overlooked, ignored or not pursued. i yield back the balance of my time asking the support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek recognition? mr. castle: madam chair woman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-419 offered by mr. castle of delaware. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1105, the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle, and a member who's opposed to his amendment, will have five minutes to control. the chair recognizes the gentleman from delaware for five minutes. mr. castle: thank you. i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. castle: this amendment offered with mr. lynch would require the president through the secretary of the treasury to submit to congress a

comprehensive report on terrorism financing that was first mandated by the intelligence reform bill 2004 but has yet to be submitted. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our government acted quickly to combat terrorist financing. however, post-9/11 terrorist financing has become more decentralized and they are using less sophisticated means of funding. they are exploring new technology to transfer money electronically and employ money laundering schemes to cover up their activities. in response to 9/11 commission recommendations, they passed the terrorist financing prevention act of 2004. it requires the president to submit to congress a comprehensive report evaluating and making recommendations on the current state of u.s. efforts to fight terror financing. this was due in september of 2005 but was never completed. multiple agencies are involved

in the efforts to combat terrorist financing, including the state department and the c.i.a. these agencies are to be commended for their efforts to track and disrupt terrorist financing schemes since 2001. still, with so many involved in terrorist financing, it's critical we undertake a thorough assessment of our progress. the amendment i'm offering today with congressman lynch requires that the president undertake a thorough evaluation of our efforts to disrupt terrorist financing, including the ability to keep pace with evolving trends. the bottom line is, the terrorists need money to operate and we need to be fully prepared and adaptable. there is no room for delay in this endeavor especially as they have the likelihood of another attack on the united states sometime in the relative near future.

i look forward to working with members of the committee on these important members -- matters and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? >> may i claim time knopp sigs? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: i rise to support my colleague's amendment. i, too, am well aware of the effect -- that having an effective strategy on targeting the sources of terrorists in financing their operations is a very important part of our strategy this straightforward amendment offered by my friend, mr. castle, of delaware, simply restates the basic requirement that the president, through the treasury department, report to congress on the current status of u.s. efforts to combat terrorism financing.

this reporting requirement is not new. in fact, it was mandated in the intelligence reform and terrorist prevention act of 2004. it was a report that was due out in 2005 but here today it has yet to be submitted. i've had an opportunity, as co-chair of the task force, spend a lot of time with our treasury employees. very brave, courageous state department employees in afghanistan, pakistan, jordan, and north africa and they're doing wonderful and courageous work. however, that much being said, congress retains its oversight responsibility and without this report, we are not able to be certain, i think, that we have an accurate picture of the entire anti-terrorist financing protocol. we are not fully informed as to whether or not we are operating

as effectively as we could be. only by understanding where we commonly stand, what our strengths are and what our weaknesses are can we ensure that the best possible strategy for cutting out terrorist financing is ultimately accomplished. again, i want to thank congressman castle, the gentleman from delaware, for his support of this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from delaware. mr. castle: thank you, madam chair. the amendment allows for 180 days more from this time in order to submit it, we've been in touch with the administration we know they're aware of this, hopefully it can be completed, we hope it will help with the safety of our country, we look forward to it and i appreciate the support and i appreciate all words in

support of -- and support of mr. lynch in getting to this point. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, offered by mr. walls of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is from minnesota. i'm delighted to acknowledge the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz and a member opposed will each control five minutes.

mr. walz: the amendment i'm offering, madam chair, serves a two-fold purpose. it allows people coming back into civilian life and recognizes the skill sets they have that are suited for intelligence and national security work. what i'm asking for in this amendment is to make sure there's a level playing field for these warriors. a large number of our troops are coming back and either through a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding, the security adjudicators are revolting or denying security clearances for wounds received, physical or mental, ptsd or other, that they received while serving. it requires the community to educate security clearance adjews kators on the nature of

these wounds so they have the best knowledge available to make the best decision and give our returning warriors the opportunity to receive their clearances, retain their clearances and go on to further serve this nation in critical capacities. i thank the committee for their work, the intelligence committee, the armed services and veterans affairs committee all are in support of this. i think it will go a long way to leveling the playing field and allowing this nation to use the incredible skills and resources those wounded warriors bring bang but still have the capacity to serve. with that, madam chair, i reserve my time. the chair: who seeks time in opposition in the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: i agree with what the gentleman said about our wounded warriors, but the reason i took this time in opposition is because the chairman and i couldn't reach an agreement to discuss one of

the provisions in the bill. i sincerely feel, mr. chairman, that we are endangering our capability of getting information from terrorists because we're limiting our c.i.a. and our intelligence officials with this legislation in these procedures that they can use to elicit that information. i know there are differences of opinion and i know we have in our hearts the best security that we can think of for the american people. but the one thick that really, really bothers me, we're telling c.i.a. officials and some of our military people in the field, not with this bill, but we're telling a lot of our intelligence officials and people in the field that they have to be very, very careful and walk on eggs when they're trying to get information from a terrorist, al qaeda, or taliban terrorist to make sure we aren't violating or

torturing them in any way. the american people certainly don't want torture. there's a big difference of opinion on whether or not water boarding, for instance, is torture but the fact of the matter is, if we have another major attack like the one we had on 9/11, the american people are going to come down like a ton of bricks on the people in this house that put restrictions on our intelligence gathering capability. nair going to to say, why didn't you -- they're going to say, why didn't you do whatever it took to secure the safety of our clint? and because we're few ping this language in the bill, we are saying to the c.i.a. and other agencies, you've got to be real careful, got to be sure you don't do something that might get you in trouble and might put you in jail. when you say things like this to people out there in the field risking their lives, you intimidate them. maybe not intentionally but you intimidate them and stop the possibility of getting all the information that we need to protect this country.

now i know there's a disagreement, i talked to people on the other side, khalid chic moment was water -- khalid sheikh mohammed was water boarded many times. at first he said, you'll find out what's going to happen. later, he said there would be a plane that's going to fly into a building in los angeles. the only reason i came here is to say, let's don't break the legs of our intelligence officers who are trying to protect this country. it's just too important. we ought to be doing everything we can to back them up to make sure this country is safe. our intelligence people are telling us right now, we're likely to have another attack within the next six months or a year. we ought to be giving every intelligence agency and every officer we possibly can all the support they need to stop that. with that, i thank you very much for yielding.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. barton: i yield back -- mr. burton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. walz: i hope i have the gentleman's support on this bill. we're asking that our adjews kators be clearly informed what these combat veterans have gone through, making sure we're able to bring them back, place them in their positions if they choose to continue to serve this nation and i ask for the support of this body on this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-419. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-419, offered by mr. schauer of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. schauer and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan five minutes. mr. schauer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schauer: i believe it's critical for the director of national intelligence to submit to congress a report on the attempted bombing of northwest flight 253. the failed christmas day attack over detroit reinforces the notion that the threat of al qaeda is real and our intelligence community, whether under a democratic or republican administration must improve the way it protects the united states against terrorist attacks. people in michigan want answers. my amendment says that not

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the act, the director of national intelligence shall submit to congress a report on the attempt to detonate an explosive device aboard northwest arables flight 253 on december 25, 2009 -- on december 25, 2009. this will require the director of national intelligence to report to congress any failures to share or analyze intelligence within or between elements of the federal government related to this failed terrorist attack. more important, the director of national intelligence also must submit a description of the measures that the intelligence community has taken or will take to prevent such failures from occurring again this would include information on how the government intends to improve the interoperability of terrorist screening databases and improve airline watch listing procedures. these tools are critical in preventing terrorists from getting an opportunity to kill

innocent civilians. it's imperative that congress be fully inform sod it may conduct rigorous oversight on this important national security concern. i appreciate president obama's candor and openness when speaking to the american people about the improvements needed to our intelligence community and applaud the president for taking swift action in ordering a thorough review of the incident. president obama stated his willingness to work with congress to solve this problem and this amendment will help ensure that congress if fully briefed, will be fully briefed on the results of that review. i urge full support of this amendment and i would like to now yield one minute to mr. reyes of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reyes: i appreciate the gentleman's amendment. this would require the director of national intelligence to

submit a report on the bombing of flight 253, it would highlight any failures to share information within or between any part of the federal government and will show the steps to be taken to prevent such failures in the future. it also includes watch list procedures, technical deficiencies, training, database management and does many of the elements of this report mirror many of the reports of the d.n.i. which they're currently doing. requiring the d.n.i. to provide this report will allow the intelligence committees to conduct rigorous oversight on this national security concern. additionally this amendment requires them to submit responses to any find organization recommendations made by the intelligence committees. with that, madam chair, i fully support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time in opposition. >> madam speaker, i'd like to claim the time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. hoekstra: i will not oppose the amendment and i hope my colleague from michigan would agree that perhaps when we're talking about the scope of this amendment, it is broader than just what is written here. one of the things we are very concerned about that i believe should be included in this, because like you, i believe that if the intelligence community had worked properly, perhaps we could have stopped this attack. this is not just a matter of connecting data bases, but also missing clues that we had that were highlighted before christmas day. and what am i talking about? we have known for quite some time that alaki was a concern. we saw a mirror image of what happened on christmas day a

couple of months ago at fort hood where soldiers died linked to alaki and the real question that we have -- and i had an amendment that wept along those lines, but was not accepted by the majority but may fall within the scope of the amendment that mr. schauer that you are offering, which says, you know, if we had these insights into al qaeda on the arabian peninsula and had insights as to alaki's involvement with major hassan and had insights into the communications, the communications, the emails, what did we do between november 5 and christmas day to target al qaeda

on the arabian peninsula and use this information that these individuals and this group might be targeting the u.s. and whether we missed opportunities in those two months to identify the threat and respond to it. are those the kipeds of questions that you might seek -- kinds of questions that you might seek to be addressed in this or is this outside the scope? i yield to my colleague from michigan. mr. schauer: thank you, mr. hoekstra and your leadership. absolutely, my amendment deals directly with having the director of national intelligence describe failures to share or analyze intelligence or other information within or between elements of the united states government. so i think it is clearly my intent that the dots be connected. mr. hoekstra: reclaiming my time. i thank my colleague for that clarification, because i think that is probably the bigger untold story here of how much and how many insights we might

have had into al qaeda on the arabian peninsula and how we failed to act on that intelligence and how we failed -- as we have now been saying for a long period of time, to connect those dots and to be able to have put in preventive measures and to have actually stopped alaki and al qaeda on the arabian peninsula on the city of detroit and the united states. i yield back my time. mr. schauer: how much time remains, madam chair? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. schauer: i yield to mr. peterson for 1:20. mr. peterson: i rise in support

of the schauer amendment. like many americans, on christmas day was interrupted by the news of the attempted northwest attack on northwest flight 253 to detroit. as a lifelong michigan resident whose family and friends regularly fly out of detroit airport, the christmas day amendment was especially chilling. while it was fortunate that no lives were lost in the christmas day attempt, the attack exposed serious and unbelievable shortcomings to connect the dots. i believe to protect the american people is congress's number one responsibility and the incident shows us that security officials need to work more closely with their counterparts overseas and within the intelligence community to ensure tougher and more coordinated screening. i appreciate my friend's leadership on this important issue and i'm proud to support

the schauer amendment because it will help ensure that we learn as much as possible about the failures that allowed the events of christmas day, 2009 to transpire and urge adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman returns his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoekstra: i will yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoekstra: i will not oppose the amendment. i will support the amendment in its larger context, recognizing that this report by the d.n.i. has to include the time prior to fort hood, the fort hood attack and then the time from fort hood until christmas day. that has been the area that we have been trying to get information on from the intelligence community over the last three or four months and it has been the area that they have been most reluctant to provide us information on. as a matter of fact, when i was in yemen on new year's day, less

than two months ago, i was specifically prohibited from getting information on exactly those kinds of questions as to what did the intelligence community know about al qaeda on the arabian peninsula and they were specifically against the individuals both in the intell community and from the ambassador. they were specifically instructed not to share that information, which tells me that there should be -- there is some information there and for some reason they haven't wanted to share that information with us. so with the understanding that that type of information will be shared with congress in this report also then recognizing that this may end up being a classified report, which you may not have access to unless the committee geez to provide you access to, i support the amendment and look forward to the d.n.i. completing this report and submitting it to the

committee. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, 15 seconds. mr. schauer: i urge members for support of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion -- mr. schauer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. schauer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. reyes: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly, the committee now rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 2701 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2701 and has come to know resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, for what purpose does the gentleman

from michigan rise? mr. conyers: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1109, i take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3961 with the senate amendments thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and report the senate amendments. the clerk: h.r. 3961, an act 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 of budget neutrality on new tax and spending legislation enforced by the threat of annual automatic sequestration. senate amendments. mr. conyers: mr. speaker -- the clerk: the house concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 3961. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to house resolution, the debate shall be controlled for one hour. mr. conyers and mr. smith each will control 30 minutes. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, insert extraneous material in this matter and further yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: mr. speaker and members, this measure before us will extend three provisions of our foreign intelligence surveillance laws for one year. the provisions are section 206 of the patriot act, governing roving wiretaps, 215, which addresses collection of business records and the so-called lone

surveillance law. without extension, these provisions, members, will expire on sunday coming. as we consider this short-term extension i make these observations. as one who has found that the u.s. patriot act needs a great deal of improvement and that there have been many excesses and sometimes abuses of these broad powers over the years, i have found that too little consideration of the impact of this type of surveillance on our civil liberties has been looked into. and that's why the judiciary committee has undergone an

extensive process over the past year and reported out a bill that attempts to reform these provisions and enhance congressional oversight. in the other body, the judiciary committee has also passed out a bill that improves, in my view, the patriot act. so we're very close to real reform. the house bill has new protections for library and book seller records. it clarifies the reach of roving authority to prevent blanket wiretaps. it tightens the standards for national security letters that have been abused in the past. it has extensive new reporting oversight and sunset provisions

to greatly strengthen congressional oversight and makes other changes to the related provisions of law. please understand, members, that this extension is not the final word on the patriot act. and what we will do is use the time between now and the year it will elapse, to improve and pass real reform. now while i would prefer to do this now, it is not strategically wise nor although gist particularically possible to accomplish this at this time. and with the provisions expiring in a matter of three days, the other body has sent us this extension bill.

and so there is no reasonable possibility that they could pass by broader measure such as the judiciary-passed bill at this time. in other words, we have no other choice but to go along with this extension because there isn't sufficient time -- well, tomorrow's the last day of the week. it's physically impossible. and so under these circumstances , it seems to me the best course is to merely maintain the status quo and work with the other body and the administration towards some improvements that i have in mind. .

i can announce we made progress toward reaching common ground and i believe an orderly path forward between now and the next year will lead us to a much better result. now, although this extension doesn't reform underlying law, we recognize there's some value in a process that brings us quickly to another sunset date. experience has taught there's nothing like an approaching sunset to bring both the executive branch and the other body to the table with a will to see this resolved. so while i'd rather pass the judiciary committee bill up and truly make the reforms that i think are necessary because of the time constraints, the --

the time constraints that we find, i recommend that we take the next year and continue the process. i urge your careful consideration of this very important measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. biggert: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> despite most terror attacks and a warning of an imminent terror attack from our national security experts, the best this congress can do is a one-year extension of our national security laws. on christmas day, he tried to murder 288 civilians by trying to blow up a flight.

he only failed because of his own ineptness and the quick thovebs passengers and crew. last november, in my home state of texas, major nadal hassan killed 13 and wounded 30 others when he opened fire at fort hood army base. in september, three terrorist plot were thwarted in new york city, springfield, illinois, and dallas, texas. now intelligence experts warn us another terrorist attack may be imminent. yet after all those near misses, the house majority refuses to pass a long-term extension of three essential patriot act provisions. the patriot act works. it has proven effective time and time again in preventing terrorist attacks and keeps us safe. the expiring provision to give permission to conduct woving

wiretaps, seek certain business records and get information on lone terrorists who are not associated with a particular terrorist group. we cannot afford to play dice with the security of the american people. we must continue the intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists. the obama administration recognized last year when it called for congress to authorize the expiring provisions without any changes that undermine their effectiveness. instead of working with the administration and listening to national security expert the house majority is only offering another short-term extension. the majority may think that by pushing re-authorization until after the election, they will then be able to pursue legislation to water down these provisions a year from now, but if so, they are playing with fire and innocent americans are the ones who will get burned. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. sylvester reyes who has -- mr. silvestre reyes who has served on this committee for 10 years and i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your work on this important and vital issue and also for the opportunity to speak on an issue that is of such great importance to our country and to our country's national security. it is important that we re-authorize the expiring tai pais trot act and the provisions that the brave men and women of the intelligence community continue to utilize and to have these tools that thy need to keep us all safe.

this one-year extension will provide congress the opportunity to examine important aspects of the patriot act and to make substantive changes that strike the right balance between protecting the rights of americans, and protecting our national security. recently, i introduced h.r. 3969, che counterterrorism authorities improvement act of 2009. this bill makes improvements to the patriot act which will strengthen the tools used to combat terrorism and to enhance at the same time the privacy and the rights of americans. additionally, both the house and senate judiciary committees have passed patriot act re-authorization bills that would make important improvements in the law that will increase oversight while at the same time preserving

critical intelligence authorities. some of the more important changes proposed by the house and the senate include, one, modifying the fisa standard for obtaining business records to ensure the government is required to show a connection to terrorism. two, requiring a higher standard to obtain library or book seller records. three, increasing public reporting on the use of national security letters and fisa, including their impact on the privacy of americans. a right that we all cherish. and finally, number four, requiring the inspector general of the department of justice to conduct regular audits of the use of these authorities. i am confident that a one-year extension will provide congress with sufficient time to make these important changes.

as always, mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you and especially in the coming year as we look at ways to make sure that we draw that balance between giving the men and women that keep us safe the ability to utilize essential and vital tools and also at the same time ensuring that the rights and the privacy of all americans are protected. with that, i thank you for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to the chairman emeritus of the committee, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sensesen brenner: i rise in support of -- mr. sensenbrenner: i rise in support of this bill. the attacks of september 11, 2001, tragically affirmed the

urgency of updating our laws to address the clear and present danger provided by clear and present danger. though the memory of this day may have faded in the minds of some, including some of my colleagues, the threat has not lessened. we continue to face an imminent danger, made clear by the christmas day attack those provisions set to expire are the rove wiring tap provision, section 215rk the business record provisions of the patriot act and third, section 6001, the lone wolf provision of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. of particular importance is the lone wolf provision which closes a gap in the foreign intelligence surveillance act that, if i a loued to expire, could allow an individual terrorist to slip through the

cracks and endanger thousands of innocent lives. when fisa was originally enacted in the 1970's, terrorists were believed to be members of an identified group. that's not the case today and we need to respond accordingly. many modern day terrorists may subscribe to a movement or certain belief bus not -- do not belong to or identify themselves with a specific terrorist group. allowing the lone wolf provision to expire could impede our ability to gather information about the most dangerous terrorists working today. regarding the lone wolf provision, f.b.i. director mueller sated -- stated, while we have not used it with regard to an indictment, it continues to be available for whom we lack evidence to put with a particular terrorist group but does present a threat as an international terrorist, unquote. the close call we had on christmas day demonstrates the need for tough lays like the

patriot act. they appear to be stepping up their efforts against us. our national security is at stake and so are the lives of thousands of innocent people, both americans and visitors to our country. our law enforcement officials must be provided with the needed tools to keep us safe and we in congress cannot drop the ball on our national security. we must re-authorize these provisions now. for too long, opponents of the patriot act have transformed it into a grossly distorted caricature that bears no relationship whatsoever to the legislation itself. the patriot act has been misused by some as a spring board to launch limitless allegations that are not only unsubstantiated but are also false and irresponsible. the fact remains that the u.s.a. patriot act is vital to maintaining america's safety. the white house and attorney general called for extension of the three expiring provisions

of the patriot act and i commend the administration for recognizing the value of these important national security cools -- tools and for rightly urging the congress to re-authorize each of them. this is your administration, mr. speaker, and majority democrats. not our administration. and they have recognized the reason for that. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of re-authorizing these provisions before they expire and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i recognize the chair of the constitution subcommittee on the house judiciary, the gentleman from new york, jerry nadler, and i'm pleased to yield him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this motion to concur in the senate amendment which would extend for a period of one year the sunset of three

provisions of the u.s.a. patriot act. i very much regret that we have to be here today in this situation and that i have to oppose this legislation. i understand that we are facing a deadline of this weekend but i believe we have an obligation to do more than punt. that is effectively what we are doing today, punting this question to the next congress. both the house and senate worked hard to examine not just these three provisions but the entire patriot act and to craft legislation that would improve its effectiveness and better protect the civil liberties of all americans. today with this vote, that process effectively ends. the patriot act was passed in a time of panic and in an extremely rushed manner. many of the provisions were not well thought out, which is why congress thought some parts should be be enacted on a temporary basis. the original passage of the bill in 2001 was hijacked at the last minute in a way that

should have stood as an embarrassment to the house. the judiciary committee back then reported the bill unanimously with support from the most conservative to the most liberal members. we did business the way the american people said they always wanted us to do business, through negotiation and compromise in open committee meetings. that was the high point. the low point came in the dead of night. then-attorney general ashcroft objected to the bill so with the cooperation of then-republican leadership that bill was junk and the bill that came to the floor was an entirely new bill written behind closed doors and not seen until shortly before we voted on it on the floor. the bill that recently passed the judiciary committee would have extended the provisions but would have improved them. with the -- with respect to roving wire strap taps, the committee extended the provision until 2013 and added lang twooge clarify

congressional intent that the government must describe its roving target with a sufficient degree of particularity to allow information concerning -- wrong page. to allow a judge to be able to distinguish the target from're potential users of places or facilities to be surveiled. . this provision allows the issueance of a fisa warrant with no connection to a foreign power, entity or to a terrorist group. that is not the purpose of fisa and in fact the deputy attorney general from the national security division testified before the hearing in front of my subcommittee that this provision has never been used in the eight years in which it has been enforced. there's no reason why so-called lone wolf undetect connected, not connected to a foreign power, not connected to a terrorist group, otherwise he

wouldn't be a lope wolf, no reason why the person couldn't be is subjected to a title 3 wiretap. we had procedural protections to section 215, which allow the government to seize all sorts of information concerning what an individual has been reading without a warrant. the bill would have required the president to report to congress on whether the procedures and sensitive collections could be modified to enhance civil liberties protections without undermining national security provisions. this was extended to the end of byjdiciary committee. n reported my bill controlling the use of the much abused national security letters was included in this bill as well. these letters issued with no court oversight have been used to obtain all sorts of material and have enjoyed gag orders, which were recently struck down as unconstitutional.

the inspector germ has issued some damning reports on the misuse of these letters and the section is in dire need of reform. these reforms, which were part of the bill reported by the judiciary committee, should be part of any legislative action extending these provisions of the patriot act. i regret that we aren't going to continue this process of improving the patriot act. i regret we do not have a short-term extension dined to give us more time to finish this work in the balance of this congress. but we are punting to the next congress which for all practical purposes means we are extending the patriot act unchanged for the indefinite future. our nation and civil liberties will suffer. i hope this vote, contrary to what i expect, will not stop my colleagues from continuing to improve intelligence-gathering laws and examine and improve the patriot act in a timely manner. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield to a member of the judiciary committee and homeland security security, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, probably the highest honor in my life is to serve in this house. and as a part of that, to serve on the judiciary committee. and i have great respect for the members of that committee and the work that we do. but in some ways i would echo the comments of the gentleman from new york, although i would not agree with his conclusions, of the disappointment that this primary obligation of the judiciary committee, that is to deal with legislation that goes to the common defense of this nation would be viewed in the legislative agenda as an after thought. i'm the author of the sunset provision from the 2005 extension of the patriot act. i put those sunset provisions in

or i offered them and got the support from members on both sides of the aisle precisely because i understood there was some controversy about those three and there was a need for us to take a serious look at it. unfortunately, while we have established other priorities in this congress in this house, it does not appear that the patriot act has been one of them, because if it were otherwise, we would be spending hours, if not days on this floor, talking about the implications of the patriot act. and in the context of that debate, jm absolutely assured that the vast majority of this house would support the continuation of these provisions as is the conclusion of this administration. these three provisions provide tools for our intelligence community to not only connect

the dots, but gather the dots. there seems to be a misunderstanding at times that if we were to take some of these provisions and establish a higher degree of proof or a higher degree of suspicion that somehow that would make these tools more available. that, i believe, is a misunderstanding of some of these tools. these tools allow us to start the search. you don't know if someone is involved with a terrorist group under some circumstances. someone like abdullah, having his father coming to the embassy and reporting suspicions wouldn't be sufficient for us to believe he was connect todd a terrorist group. in fact by the terms of the lope wolf provision, he would be squarely in that provision. and yet, what did our committee

do? our committee decided that because it had not been used before, we should reject it. well, you know, we were never hit by airplanes with unbelievable amounts of fuel and human beings into towers in new york until it happened. the argument, well, it never happened before so we shouldn't have been prepared for it doesn't ring true. and so while i believe that we did take a look at these three provisions in our committee, i was extremely disappointed by the resolution of that review. and we could, it seems to me, if we had this as a priority, bring this bill to the floor, look at it and say, if it is important to have these tools against al qaeda in similarly-situated terrorist groups and individuals, then maybe we ought to extend it for more than a year.

does anybody on this floor, does anybody within the reach of my voice believe that al qaeda is going to stop one year the 28th of this month? maybe we have a new 72-hour rule. we have been talking about a 72-hour rule meaning we should have bills on the floor for 72 hours. here, wait 72 hours of the expiration of key parts of the law that protects us against terrorists before we act. the american people must be scratching their heads and saying, this is the leadership we look for, these are the people who take an oath to the constitution and to give us the ability to defend ourselves against enemies? mr. speaker, i guess i would say, as proud as i am of my service on the judiciary committee, i am profoundly disappointed that this bill is being brought forward with just a single year, within a 72-hour

space and we still have had an examination on this floor of the seriousness of the profound protections of civil liberties contained in these provisions of the law. this is, in fact, a good law. these are good provisions of that law being utilized by our intelligence community -- mr. smith: i yield an additional two minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for the additional time. so these are individual parts of a law that has served us well. ironic it is that on the very day that our committee considered the lope wolf provision and decided that because it had not been used before, we should withdraw it. i won't call it a tragedy, but a terrible terrorist attack at fort hood. within hours of us rejecting the notion that we needed a lone

wolf provision, we had a domestic lone wolf. the patriot act doesn't apply to someone who is an american citizen, but my point is, had we such an attack before that attack took place, doesn't it seem nonsensical to say because it hadn't happened before we ought not to have some tools at our disposal which would help us fight it? let me just underscore again, these provisions in the law allow our intelligence community to connect the dots -- excuse me, to collect the dots. the 9/11 commission criticized our government for failure to connect the dots. you need to first have the dots. you need to first have the information. and that's what these tools allow us to provide to our intelligence community so they can analyze those things. so, mr. speaker, i reluctantly

support this legislation pu because it is a mere a one-year extension. it deprives us of the debate that should be front and center of this representative body if we truly believe our first obligation is to protect the people we represent. we must provide for the common defense. the patriot act does this. these provisions do this. we should act on this with full knowledge, full debate and full confidence in our intelligence communities that we can move forward and protect the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i reserve my time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to a member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coble: thank you for

elevating me, although i'm not sure i deserve that. i don't want to be a prophet of gloom and doom, but there are many people in this world who every night prior to sleeping with one thought in mind, and that one thought is destroy america. the patriot act has served as a useful impediment to thwart that effort of destruction. and it must not be permitted to expire. the majority has had over a year to re-authorize the three expiring provisions, but we failed to do so. in 2005, mr. speaker, i chaired the crime subcommittee of judiciary and we oversaw nine hearings to thoroughly example all of the intelligence-gathering provisions of the patriot act. the republican-led judiciary committee completed these and

additional full committee hearings, a full committee markup and floor consideration to re-authorize nearly one dozen provisions all prior to the august recess. the current majority, mr. speaker, has conducted only one subcommittee a hearing, a markup, but still hasn't brought a commonsense bill to the full house floor. again, i don't want to promote gloom and doom, but time could be running out on us, because one of these days, one of these people who retire -- before they fall asleep with the one desire to destroy america may result in success. we need the impediment to stand thoroughly against this effort and that impediment, among others, is the patriot act.

i thank the gentleman from texas. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to yield to sheila jackson lee, a senior member on the judiciary committee who will be our closing speaker and i will yield to her as much time -- i'll yield the remaining time to her. can you tell me how much it is. the speaker pro tempore: 16 minutes. mr. conyers: i'll yield to her as much time as she may consume. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much. sometimes we come to the floor and there's not an understanding, mr. speaker. and i ask unanimous consent to address the house. but we don't understand the -- really the importance of the work that is being done here. to m