Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

Madam Chairman, 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 8 months ago, the bill failed to address critical national security issues such as Guantanamo detainees, attempts by this administration to convert intelligence and counterterrorism into matters of criminal law and meaningful reforms to the congressional notification process.

In the nearly 8 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 8 months nothing was done to fix the flaws in our intelligence community 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 8 months, nothing was done to clarify who is 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 8 months, nothing was done to provide a long-term renewal of our critical intelligence authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act.

In 8 months, nothing was done to, once and for all, stop hard-core, radical jihadist terrorists from being brought into the United States, despite the clear opposition that has arisen to this ill-considered idea from average Americans across the country.

In 8 months, nothing has been done to clarify 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 propose that would have addressed these issues, and all of these were thrown out by the majority, an amendment that would direct the DNI to establish a panel to review the intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction programs of Iran. Politically speaking, 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 of 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 CIA 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 to bring Guantanamo 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 DNI 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: With 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 that would be a worthwhile effort to ask the intelligence community those kinds of tough and difficult questions and be held accountable to this body.

And then we said we 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? It doesn't get into a debate as to whether 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.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, 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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I would like to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Michigan, a strong defender of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers.

I yield my colleague 1 more minute.

At this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, how much time do we have remaining on each side?

I would like to reserve my time until we are more equal.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

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.

Perhaps with about 1 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?

I thank my colleague from California for coming down and explaining her amendments. These are issues that we have talked about in the past, and congratulations for having them included in the manager's amendment. I support those kinds of amendments, because they have been discussed and they have broad bipartisan support.

There are other parts of the manager's amendment which I am strongly opposed to because they haven't even had any dialogue, debate or hearings on that.

To discuss one of those, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

There are a lot of things in this bill that are not addressed, that were not

allowed to be put in order as we went through the rules process. One of those things is how we are going to deal with the detainees from 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 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. Now it is the people in Illinois that are fighting the 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 has been absolutely no transparency. 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 deserve to be there? What has their behavior been while they have been in Guantanamo? In each case, for each of those States we've 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 decision-makers in that State.

I yield my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chair, I am going to be the last speaker, so we only have one speaker left.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Chairman Reyes, has said now is not the time to talk about Gitmo. Obviously, the majority has also said now is not the time to talk about getting an independent assessment of what is going on in Iran. 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 Gitmo 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 actions that may result in the death of a targeted U.S. citizen.

So it is not time to talk about any of those or to debate any of those issues which are absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our intelligence community and to keeping America safe.

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. Yet it is 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--meaning no discussions, no debate--or to 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, that we bury these critical amendments between 22 other amendments? If we split up the time equally, let's see. We have 22 amendments divided by 20 minutes. We will, maybe, have 1 minute of debate. We will have 1 minute of debate on this amendment. It will be interesting when our folks in the intelligence community see what our friends on the other side of the aisle have done to them today, our friends on the other side who talk about how they so strongly defend our intelligence community. When they go visit them in the field, I would guess that they are going to get a very cold reception.

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. They are going to have to explain exactly, Now, what does this amendment do? How does it impact us? What does it mean? How is it operational?

I assume you knew that before you voted on it on the floor of the House, and my answer is going to be, I don't think they do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Since the other side doesn't want to talk about this amendment, I find myself having to come back and, once again, bring up the McDermott amendment. I would just appreciate, since there have been no hearings on this and it has slipped into this in the dead of night, just some answers to questions that maybe someone on the majority side can answer.

Remember, we are in a community now where the people at the front lines realize, when they have been asked by Congress and the President to do something, that, 3 or 4 years later, they may be prosecuted for those very activities by following the requests of this Congress.

We are talking about enhanced interrogation techniques. The record indicates that even people as high as the Speaker of this House knew about it. Yet this House is supporting those efforts to perhaps 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 legalese, creating all types of new and ambiguous rules for our people in the intelligence community.

Would someone please 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 term or is it a subjective standard? Is there any requirement of reasonableness?

The amendment would make it a crime to exploit phobias 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 detainee with increased jail time if he does not cooperate?

These are 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're doing. I would think they would 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, for someone to explain this to us. But, no, if the other side has its way, soon this will be law.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

I wish it 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?

We haven't answered all the questions that we asked before. I notice that the sponsor of the amendment, who was 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 he wanted to. It's too bad because I think there's legitimate need for discussion and debate because I don't think it's at all clear that this is just a restatement of current law.

Answer the questions. The amendment would make it a crime to exploit phobias of the individual. Why is this a criminal offense for a member of the intelligence community but for no one else, not a criminal offense for a prosecutor? Why didn't we ever talk about this in committee? Why didn't we ever debate it?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle is exactly right. The people in the intelligence community are watching exactly what we are doing. And actions do speak louder than words. The actions that they have 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 see their colleagues now potentially being prosecuted because the rules changed under this administration.

As they see the rules changed for them and perhaps their colleagues being prosecuted, they see a global justice initiative coming out of the FBI 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 KSM from Gitmo to trial in New York City. Thankfully, the people in New York City are saying no way, we are not doing it. And at the same time that KSM is being promised a trial in civilian courts in the United States, they are 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 are seeing a real difference in actions by this Congress and by this administration. They see that they have become kind of a target of this administration, that this is now not about keeping America safe, it is about putting them into a legal framework, an ugly legal net.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bloated Manager's Amendment. Its flaws powerfully demonstrate how the Intelligence Committee is failing to do its work and has in fact become counterproductive to the work of the intelligence community.

This amendment is everything that is wrong with intelligence policy in 2010. It is politicized, it fails to recognize or act on the serious threats that we continue to face as a nation, and it puts off the tough decisions indefinitely. Where it does take a substantive action, instead of taking meaningful steps to fix the problem it blames the men and women of the intelligence community for failing to follow a politically correct policy, even though that policy was ratified by Members of Congress at the highest levels. I think we have heard this story before.

The Managers Amendment contains the text of 22 Democratic amendments, and no Republican amendments. The Committee minority was not consulted on a single one of these amendments--in fact, one of them continues to reverse a bipartisan agreement on notification reform from last year.

Instead of taking meaningful steps to address critical national security problems such as the threat posed by bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States, the flaws revealed in our intelligence sharing by the Fort Hood and Christmas attacks, and the issues posed by American citizens who join terrorist groups abroad, it would require 16 new reports, to bring the total for the bill to at least 57 new reports. And instead of supporting the men and women of our intelligence community, it would create a new criminal offense that not only would duplicate an existing law--it would apply only to our intelligence personnel. How's that for gratitude?

Instead of trying to provide proper procedures are in place to govern the conduct of covert action activities that could impact American citizens, the Majority believes it is more important to order yet another duplicative report on foreign language proficiency when the Committee is already briefed regularly and repeatedly on the efforts that are ongoing in this area.

Instead of trying to fix the intelligence sharing problems that were laid bare at the Fort Hood shooting and shown to be critical during the Christmas bombing attack, the Majority has instead chosen to put its head in the sand and order up a report on events in Argentina between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s.

Instead of resolving the serious problems in coordinating the interrogation of the high-value detainees that became apparent when Miranda rights were read to a foreign radical jihadist, the Majority has chosen to require the intelligence community to write up not one, but two new reports and a ``Task Force'' on cybersecurity even though the Committee is in the middle of a series of comprehensive briefings and hearings on the subject and has conducted repeated oversight.

Madam Chair, I can't think of a single terrorist plot that has ever been disrupted by a report to Congress.

In addition to these more fundamental issues, I need to note for the record some specific serious problems with this amendment.

First, the amendment does even further damage to the bipartisan agreement that had been reached on reform of congressional notification. Instead of providing a mechanism that respects the separation of powers and the various equities of the President and the Congress, this amendment has ceded the decision of which Members of Congress will be briefed on sensitive covert actions entirely to the President, apparently to avoid the White House's veto threat on the bill. That is ironic for a majority who has claimed so long and so loud--despite clear records and the recollection of others to the contrary--that it was never briefed on intelligence policies that they explicitly helped to ratify on a bipartisan basis.

Second, the amendment does even further damage to years of carefully developed practice and procedure for how the congressional intelligence committees conduct oversight by attempting to cede its responsibility to the GAO. The original bill was flawed because it would have provided the GAO with virtually unfettered authority to insert itself into intelligence community matters without applying

the same rules that govern the congressional intelligence committees or limiting the dissemination of any work product to protect sources and methods.

It was so bad that even the Obama administration objected that the bill ``would fundamentally shift the longstanding relationship and information flow between the IC and intelligence committee members and staff.'' This Managers Amendment makes these problems even worse by allowing the Comptroller General to unilaterally develop procedures for handling of highly sensitive material with no requirement that it follow House or Committee rules, and in fact would allow committees other than the intelligence committees to request GAO review of the intelligence community.

This is contrary to the Rules of the House and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. How many times do we have to learn the simple lesson that intelligence oversight is most effective when it is conducted by the intelligence committees--at least when those committees do more than just require new reports.

Third, buried deep within the 22 amendments contained in this Managers Amendment is an extraordinary provision that would create a new criminal offense that would only apply to the men and women of the intelligence community. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 2340A, already gives effect to the Convention Against Torture and makes torture a criminal offense in the United States. Torture is already against the law.

Apparently, that's not enough for the Majority--it has to have a special offense that would apply only to the men and women of the Intelligence Community--just as Attorney General Holder has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate them. There is no legal reason to do this--it apparently exists only to make a political statement. The intelligence operatives on the front lines deserve our thanks and our support for doing hard things in hard places, like the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice this year in Khost, Afghanistan. They do not deserve to be singled out for special criminal offenses. I believe that this is wrong.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this is a very straightforward amendment. I thank the Rules Committee for making it in order. It basically says that for not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall make publicly available an unclassified version of the report of the Inspector General entitled ``Procedures Used in Narcotics Airbridge 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 within the last month that there was a discussion about an accountability review. Almost 9 years after that tragic shoot-down, there was an Accountability Board that had been convened. And its results have been made or were reported to our committee. Roughly 4 weeks ago I asked the Director of the CIA whether the families of those killed would be briefed on what was found in the Accountability Board and the accountabilities that were put in order. To date I am yet waiting for an answer.

This has been unfair to these families, it has been unfair to the American public that when we have 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 it happened, and how these Americans were killed, that we have been so closed in sharing that information with the American public and the families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the chairman for accepting the amendment, my colleague from California for the kind words that she had to say. We worked on this program for a number of years together. And it has taken us such a long period of time to get the answers that help understand but do not explain what happened.

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 CIA, that the people 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.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I'd like to claim the time in opposition, although I will not be opposed to the amendment.

I would like to recognize my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chairman, 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 and something that my colleague has been championing for all the years that we have served on the committee together. I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1105 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Members that the Intelligence Committee has received a classified document from the Department of Justice that is related to the PATRIOT Act authorities currently set to expire at the end of the month.

The House may consider a 1-year extension of the PATRIOT Act today so the Intelligence Committee will be making this document available for Member review in the committee offices located in HVC-304. Staff from the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, as well as personnel from the Justice Department and with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, will be available to answer any questions that Members may have. Members who want to review the document should call the Intelligence Committee to schedule an appointment.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution, as announced by our Clerk, provides for consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill, makes in order only those amendments printed in the rule, and the resolution waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the Chair of the Intelligence Committee or his designee and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill.

The resolution provides for a motion to consider the Senate bill and substitute its text with the text of H.R. 2701 as passed by the House. The resolution waives all points of order against the Senate bill and its consideration. It also makes in order a motion that the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate and waives all points of order against such motion.

The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote for same-day consideration of a report from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of Friday, February 26. It also permits the Speaker to consider motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Friday, February 26. The Speaker shall consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter under this authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

As vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know that the intelligence community is the first line of defense against terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, and other rogue elements who wish to do us and our allies harm here at home and across the globe.

This legislation provides policy guidance for 16 agencies of the intelligence community while also improving oversight and helping to prevent disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and a misinformed Congress can have on national security.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals in over 50 countries around the world during my oversight travel as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I cannot overstate how much I and the members of the committee, and I am sure all Members of this body, appreciate them and are humbled by their service. Their dedication and commitment became more evident when seven Americans made the ultimate sacrifice during a terrorist attack in Khost, Afghanistan, this past December.

But the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day was a startling reminder to all Americans that in spite of our best efforts we are still under attack, and we still have much work to do to get it right. The constant threat from violent extremists reinforces that now more than ever, and we must give the intelligence community the resources and flexibility it needs to thwart the continuing and emerging threats to United States national security.

For the last 4 years, our country has gone without an intelligence authorization bill. I find it very distressing that the House Intelligence Committee, which was created to ensure proper oversight and accountability of our intelligence community, has worked diligently every year to pass a bill but has not seen one signed into law in recent years.

As we have seen, the intelligence community is in dire need of independent oversight. Sadly, when we created the Director of National Intelligence, we did not create an independent Inspector General. This bill would remedy that flaw by making clear that the Inspector General does not serve at the whim of the Director of National Intelligence and also has an independent responsibility to keep Congress informed.

Some of my colleagues on the other aisle have argued against the creation of a new Inspector General. I would respectfully disagree with their assessment. It is clear that this provision will help to streamline and coordinate oversight.

This bill also contains a provision in the manager's amendment providing sensible reforms to the Gang of Eight process. As vice chairman of the committee, I have seen that process abused in the past, and I am glad that we are taking a careful step towards reform. I believe that the administration has a statutory and constitutional duty to keep members of the Intelligence Committee, all members of the Intelligence Committee, fully informed on certain intelligence matters. Therefore, by reforming this process, the bill enhances transparency and bolsters Congress' capacity to conduct important oversight.

The bill also clarifies the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence to cooperate with GAO investigations initiated by Congress. GAO can provide the Congress with valuable expertise and assist with oversight functions, especially in areas of auditing and security clearance reforms.

I have stated time and time again that the intelligence community is not diverse enough to do its job of stealing and analyzing foreign countries' secrets. Diversity is a mission imperative. When I came on this committee, I came on after the legendary Lou Stokes, who served on this committee and advanced many measures that are in law today dealing with intelligence. My good friend and my good friend from California's good friend, Julian Dixon, who has departed life, carried that banner, as did Sanford Bishop when he was on this committee.

I, along with many other members of the committee, particularly Chairman Reyes, Anna Eshoo and others countless throughout the years, Jane Harman included, we have fought for continuing diversity on this committee. We need people who blend in, speak the language, and understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting.

As my colleagues on the committee and I have mentioned on many occasions, when the intelligence leadership comes to testify, we don't see a lot of diversity at the table. We don't see enough women at the table. It is time for the community to get serious about improving diversity for the sake of our national security.

A real diversity effort means more than just staging recruitment drives at colleges with a lot of black students or Latino students. Diversity means hiring, hiring more Arab Americans. It means hiring more Iranian Americans, more Pakistani Americans, more Chinese Americans and more Korean Americans. If the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.

I have offered an amendment on diversity in the intelligence community to the underlying bill. My amendment contains a requirement for the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on a comprehensive plan to improve diversity in the intelligence community. It calls on the Director to report on specific implementation plans for each element agency in the community. It also requires information on plans to improve minority retention, not only at the junior and mid- grade levels, but at the senior and management levels as well.

Finally, it requires that the Director of National Intelligence report to the congressional Intelligence Committees on the efforts being made with diversity training and how improvement in diversity will be measured. This amendment, along with many other important provisions in this bill, will make our intelligence community more effective, more efficient, and more accountable.

Given the immense security challenges facing our Nation, it is vital that Congress pass this legislation so that we may continue to fulfill our commitment to the safety and well-being of the great American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from California's desire to address Flight 253; but in my view, his complaints that the bill is outdated ignores the rule. The rule makes in order an amendment by Representative Schauer directed at the lessons of Flight 253.

Now, listen, the intelligence community, constituted of 16 elements, is organic. It is constantly in a state of change, and there is considerable coordination and collaboration regarding the globe, not just one airplane, not just one individual. And when you isolate one individual, like the person that was on Flight 253, you do have that anomaly to show that we are steadily being set upon. But that was mild by comparison to some of those incidents that never make it in the public realm.

I am reminded of the constant saying that success has a thousand fathers, but failure evidently doesn't even have a mother because anytime there is a failure, the whole community is set upon, while day after day after day, year after year after year they're stopping countless attacks on this country that go unnoticed, whether it be in the field of cyber, whether it be on the battlefield. We are constantly in that position. There have been hundreds of successes to protect our homeland security.

Certainly I will yield to my friend.

Well, when you speak of the President's directions, there were several principal matters that the President referenced in his, as you put it, threatened veto. But the veto, more specifically, the principal objection was to the Gang of Eight restriction that many of us in the committee supported for the reason that we think--and thought--that each of the intelligence members should be advised by the President the same as those of the Gang of Eight.

You know, we use these terms around here. The Gang of Eight are the central players--the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the committee Chairs and ranking members. That is who that small kernel of people are who receive specific information. I hope the public at least understands some aspect of that.

The point that I was trying to make and will continue to make is--let me give you a for example. In the last month, I have visited our intelligence operations in nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Ukraine, Germany, just to mention a few. In each of those places--and there were others that will go unmentioned--in each of those places I learned of immense success and reporting of successes coming back here to the intelligence community and to the President. Nobody talks about that in the newspaper. Nobody talks about that in this particular setting. You pick three incidents out of thousands of successes and point to a community's failures. I can't accept that.

For 10 years I have watched on this committee these people work their hearts out, Republicans and Democrats, under the leadership of--friends of mine and yours--Porter Goss, who led this committee, others long before Leon Panetta, and the other committees that don't even get mentioned at all because most people don't even know that they have intelligence operations. What would happen in this world, what would happen with our allies if we did not have the SIGNET? How would we be having the successes that we are having in Afghanistan today of picking off leaders of Taliban, leaders of al Qaeda?

All the time it seems to me that all that comes out as is, oh, they just took out another one, but it doesn't get played up. If one of them managed to get to Canada and to the United States, then that would be the biggest talk that we would have here in Congress. It's not fair, and fairness to the intelligence community is as deserving as any other parts of our bureaucracy that fail considerably, including this institution.

I was going to yield my time, and I ask the gentleman to take his time, but I am more than happy to yield.

Well, then, I will just take my time back, now that you agree with me.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague, who is an absolutely brilliant member of the intelligence community, and he has provided continuing and dedicated service for the period of time that he and I have served on the committee together. There is one thing, I think, I know a little bit more about than he does, and that is our prison system, and that is for the reason that I participated, as a State and a Federal judge and then as a lawyer, in dealing with circumstances in our prisons.

Our colleague suggests that detainees are treated in a certain way, and those particular things--for example, food and the length of the hair or religious convictions--have been litigated ad nauseam in the United States. I can assure you that persons who are in custody in the United States find themselves able to access to the food that comports with their religious requirements and also the other circumstances.

One thing that is great about America is that we do have values, and one thing that is great about us in handling others, even much better than they even ever consider us, is that those values manifest themselves in the treatment of persons who are our enemies.

Now, I am going to try with this document here to put to rest this not-in-my-backyard argument that I continue to hear from my colleagues about Guantanamo.

I first want to commend to my colleagues H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act of 2009, which I filed, and I would urge them to look at it and to look at the detention criteria and at the ways to process detainees, as well as the reporting requirements that transpire. I will not take the time now to go into detail, but that measure is sitting here, and any one of them can join it. I have no pride of authorship, and I've said to Members on the other side and on our side that, if there is something they can add or detract, then please do so.

Regarding where you put people whom we hold and somehow or another the thought being that we can't try people in our Federal system or, for that matter, if we have a situation where every detainee must be tried in military commissions, according to some, well, let me tell you some of the people whom we hold in one prison today.

According to the Bureau of Prisons, ADX Supermax in Florence, Colorado, has a capacity of 490 inmates. There are currently 445, leaving 45 cells available. I can assure you anybody in Guantanamo could be transferred here with no threat to Florence, Colorado. No one has ever escaped Supermax. Supermax officers are some of the best trained in the Nation, and current and former inmates include--let me just give you some of these people:

Anthony Casso, a mobster and former underboss of the Lucchese crime family, is at this prison. Wadih el-Hage, a coconspirator in the 1998 United States Embassy bombings, is in this prison. Matthew Hale, a white supremacist leader convicted of soliciting the murder of a Federal judge, is in this prison. Larry Hoover, the leader of the Gangster Disciples Nation, based in Chicago, is in this prison. Jeff Fort, the cofounder of the Black P. Stones gang in Chicago and the founder of its El Rukn faction, is in this prison. Omar Portee, the cofounder of the United Blood Nation, is in this prison and has never escaped. Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, is in this prison in Colorado. Juan Matta-Ballesteros, the drug trafficker and coconspirator in the Enrique Camarena case, is in this prison. Zacarias Moussaoui-- remember him? He was tried in our regular system as a coconspirator in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Guess where he is? In Colorado, in Supermax. Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bomber, is in this prison. Richard Colvin Reid, the Islamic terrorist, nicknamed the ``Shoe Bomber,'' who also came through our regular system under the aegis of the previous President, is in this prison. Eric Robert Rudolph, convicted of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing, is in this prison. Dwight York is in this prison. Ramzi Yousef, of the World Trade Center bombing, is in this prison.

Enough of this ``not in my backyard.'' We can hold these people.

H. Rap Brown is in this prison. Thomas Silverstein, convicted of murdering a Federal correctional officer, is in this prison. Luis Felipe, founder of the Almighty Latin Kings and Queens Nation, is in this prison. Howard Mason, a drug trafficker, who ordered the murder of Police Officer Eddie Byrne, is in this prison. A leading member of the Aryan Brotherhood, Barry Mills, is in this prison.

So what are you all talking about when you stand around and tell people that we can't hold people in this Supermax prison? We can hold them in Guantanamo. We can hold them in Supermax, and we can do everything that is required of us as a nation in order to protect ourselves in that regard.

Yet what has happened in this institution is you have given the American people a chance to believe that they should be afraid if you hold them in certain institutions in your neighborhoods. Well, they come through your neighborhoods an awful lot, and you evidently don't know about it. I, personally, am just a little tired of your not-in-my- backyard attitude about this particular system. We can hold terrorists, and we can hold criminals, and we've been doing it all of my adult career, and that's 50 years as a lawyer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend on the Rules Committee, I would just like to comment regarding my good friend, Mr. Lungren's comments.

Mr. Lungren, there have been three people who have been convicted in military commissions, and two of them are already free. During that same period of time, under President Bush's administration and under in President Obama's administration, more than 300 people have been convicted in our civilian courts.

And you're correct. I was using the people in the Supermax to make the point no matter who they were, whether they were Zacarias Moussaoui, who certainly isn't an American citizen, or countless others, that we can hold them and that they can't escape. The fear some seem to think is that they would escape.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to have to teach law here, and I never wanted to do that.

The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law, and that's whether a person is in Guantanamo or whether they are in Colorado.

That said, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker for this side, and I will reserve my time until the gentleman closes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that will enhance vital human intelligence collection, fill the critical gaps in our intelligence-gathering activities, authorize significant investment in our Nation's cybersecurity capabilities, as well as provide much needed reform by forbidding the CIA's practice of outsourcing interrogation to private contractors operating outside the law.

It is unfortunate that we live in a dangerous and different world, where we must always be vigilant of those who wish to cause harm to others. This bill is critical to addressing the many challenges we face within the intelligence community.

I want to take this moment of personal privilege to thank Chairman Reyes and the staff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the Republican and Democratic staff, for their extraordinary hard work and dedication in helping to see this excellent bill to fruition.

Four years is far too long for the intelligence community to go without guidance from its oversight committees. I believe we should get an authorization bill passed and on the President's desk for signature into law. There is going to be added general debate. But when I listened to my colleague, who is my good friend, I kind of feel like that all of the labor on both sides, including speakers that I served with on that committee, Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Rogers, we have worked very actively to get us to the position that we are in with reference to this authorization bill. There have been agreements and there have been disagreements. And there are always things that can be added.

The responsibility of the Rules Committee is to move the agenda. I am very proud of the fact that there is a summit on health care going on at the White House at the same time that we are discussing the authorization bill, and that I am getting ready to leave here and go to a jobs task force, which I believe is high on the minds of the American agenda, which proves that we really can do legislation, prepare legislation, chew gum and walk at the same time. We are an incredible lot of people we are, and just like that we can also secure this Nation, as this bill does in high kind.

But I am going to say to you all one more time, enough of the business about not in my backyard. If I didn't dispel it today, I will see you another time on the floor to have you understand just how extraordinary the Federal judiciary is, just how extraordinary the intelligence community is, and just how important it is to our Nation's security that we allow them to function accordingly.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am 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 does just that.

First and foremost, this bill authorizes the activities and the funds for the 16 agencies of the intelligence community. It is difficult to talk about their roles and their missions in the open, but in some ways it is 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 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 resolve those differences. Since July, there have already been noticeable improvements in the way the administration and the intelligence community are communicating and briefing Congress.

Accordingly, the manager's amendment I will offer includes a revised provision on 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 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 am 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 persisted 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 interest in promoting diversity as a mission imperative. He has 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 Technical and Tactical Subcommittee, Mr. Ruppersberger, has worked hard on the classified annex to make sure our approach to acquisitions and our most technical programs make good sense. He has been a pivotal part to 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 Investigations 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 provision addressing the videotaping of interrogations and another on intelligence information on the health risks 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 to the families of the men and women of the intelligence community who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I am proud to support that as well.

We also received important input from the committee's minority members. Mr. Kline of Minnesota offered an excellent amendment, which we were pleased to accept, that requires the National Reconnaissance Organization to rewrite its charter to meet its current missions. Mr. Conaway's personal interest in 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 auditability.

Madam Chair, I believe that 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 to the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also improves the recruitment and training of a diverse and capable workforce.

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 is for them, and for those who carry on their mission, that I proudly submit this bill today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, now it's my privilege to yield 3 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 of minutes ago.

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.

Madam Chair, I am happy to oblige my good friend, Mr. Boswell.

You are correct, Mr. Boswell.

Having had the opportunity to visit Drake University with you, you are correct.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I don't quibble with the opinions that my friends on the other side of the aisle have. It's just facts that don't support those opinions that I quibble with. They're not entitled to their own facts.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), a valued member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, just so we are clear, it doesn't appear that some members of the other aisle realize how important the rules are. The rules of the House apply to everyone on a bipartisan basis. The information he sought was denied from our committee because it didn't fit the criteria and the rules of the House.

With that, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and a new member of our House Intelligence Committee this year, Mr. Smith of Washington.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Terrorism-HUMINT, Analysis and Counterintelligence Subcommittee, my good friend from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, and our former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman of California.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, a valued member of my committee, Ms. Eshoo from California.

I yield the gentlelady 15 additional seconds.

Madam Chair, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Madam Chair, it is 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.

I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a valued member, Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to a valued member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chair, 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 that 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 faraway places around the world. I have been with them and their families at Bethesda when they were recuperating from the attack in Khost. I have been to the ceremony at the CIA. I understand what they go through. This is a good bill. It deserves everybody's support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the manager's amendment includes a number of revisions to H.R. 2701 along with a number of technical changes. I would like to highlight several of these key provisions.

The manager's amendment makes significant changes to the underlying bill's 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 very limited circumstances, it allows the President to limit briefings on certain highly sensitive covert actions to the Gang of Eight--the leadership of the Intelligence Committees and the 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 be provided with general information regarding that briefing.

In the event the President decides that a briefing must be limited to the Gang of Eight, the manager's amendment also requires that he submit a certification stating that extraordinary circumstances require the briefing to be limited.

In the case of a limited briefing, the DNI will have to reissue that certification every 180 days or open the briefing to all members of the 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, in 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 DNI and the Attorney General to provide Congress with a strategy on balancing intelligence collection needs with the interests of the United States in prosecuting terrorist suspects.

The questioning and prosecution of terrorist suspects has been the subject of some controversy in recent weeks, and I believe that 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. Marshall of Georgia. It requires the DNI to study 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 the passage of the manager's amendment.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and a valued member of our committee, Mr. Langevin.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson), who is a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats.

I am happy to oblige.

I believe that the Homeland Security Committees have 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.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The manager's amendment includes language originally proposed by Mr. McDermott that reiterates existing law on torture and provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Torture is a reprehensible and counterproductive practice. The U.S., as we all know, has no business engaging in that. The language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts existing law.

Executive Order 13491 prohibits interrogators from engaging in any of the activities highlighted in the manager's amendment language. This Executive Order limits interrogations to the interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual. It also spells out the terms of Common Article 3 and relevant provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as the minimum standard for the United States to follow.

The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law. 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.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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 are focused on keeping us safe. They are not concerned about the political spin here. They are not concerned about the rhetoric that they hear. But they do appreciate actions more than rhetoric.

I know because I have been around the world visiting them. I have been to talk to various 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 are 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 is 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 is a good manager's amendment. I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment.

I would like to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to it.

I yield such time as she may consume to my friend from California (Ms. Harman).

Madam Chairwoman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and want the record to reflect that Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois is very much in agreement with Mr. Hoekstra.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 reflecting the face of this Nation.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Burton amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate him wanting to honor the personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I have said many times on the floor, I have had the privilege of visiting with members of the CIA and members of their families, members of the CIA throughout the world under probably the most difficult of circumstances. I understand the hardships that they face.

Most recently, I was with family members and survivors of the Khost bombing, which illustrates the danger they put themselves in willingly to protect our country. I would also remind the gentleman that we should not mix and compare apples to oranges. There is 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 would 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 a great amount of disagreement in terms of the legal authorization of these techniques, considered torture by most anybody's standards. I would also remind us that the CIA did not have any expertise in waterboarding. They had to actually go out and contract DOD personnel to be able to acquire that technique. It puts them in a tough situation.

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 are expected to do to keep our country safe and responding to the kind of political spin that, unfortunately, we hear about their work.

But, the one thing that comes across when I hear from them is they appreciate the support that they receive from the Congress. They appreciate the fact that regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, we respect the work that they do.

We, despite all of the arguments that are proffered here in this great Chamber, in the final analysis they know that they have a job to do. They know that they have a duty to perform. They know that they are committed professionals and that they expect and deserve the support of every 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. I think we ought to leave it at that and leave the politics and leave the rhetoric and remind ourselves that the message we need to send them is that we support their work. The message we should send them is that we honor them for their service to this great country.

The message that we deliver to the families of those victims of the Khost bombing is that we will support them. 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 all of us.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me first express my appreciation to my friend from Fort Lauderdale, a member

of both the Rules Committee and a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, last Christmas Day, as we all know, when a passenger boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 headed for the Detroit Metro Airport, the issue of national security once again came to the forefront, to the top of the agenda for everyone in our country. This is, of course, never, never far from our minds. But in recent months, as several high-profile terrorist plots have been thwarted, the tragic shooting at Fort Hood had taken place and our troops continue to fight two wars, we know that the threat of attacks on Americans remains a very real threat to us.

What was so shocking and revealing about the attempted attack on Christmas Day was not that al Qaeda remains a threat. This much we all know. What was most troubling to the American people was the revelation that key information was available that could have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from ever boarding that plane in the first place.

Last month, December 25, as everyone, including the President has acknowledged, the system failed us. If not for the perpetrator's failure to properly detonate the device and the heroic acts of his fellow passengers, this attempted attack would have become a horrible, horrible tragedy. It was not careful intelligence gathering, analysis, and coordination that saved the people on that plane; it was luck and the quick thinking on the part of those very courageous passengers.

Mr. Speaker, the American people rightly began, immediately after Christmas, on Christmas Day and thereafter, to ask questions about what is being done to address this failure that allowed Abdulmutallab to board that plane. What exactly what wrong? How can we fix the system? What can we do to ensure that this kind of failure never, ever happens again.

Now, in light of these questions, it would seem appropriate that today we would be considering our annual intelligence authorization bill. Now is the time to compile the lessons learned from the attempted attack on Flight 253, the Fort Hood shooting, the numerous arrests of would-be terrorists like Najibullah Zazi and David Headley and the continued items that obviously we don't hear about out there.

Now is the time to take, Mr. Speaker, these new insights and reform our intelligence agencies and policies to better protect our homeland and the American people, and that has to remain the top priority. That is where all of the attention should be focused. And yet, inexplicably, we are considering a bill today that is nearly 8 months old. This legislation was reported out of committee in June of last year. It was written before any of these recent attacks and attempted attacks took place, before any of these new revelations of flaws in our system and before any analysis was conducted on how to fix them.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Democratic majority's decision to bring up this hopelessly outdated bill is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that it was known to be a seriously flawed bill even back in June when it was being finalized. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration released a scathing criticism of this legislation and even issued a veto threat.

According to the Statement of Administration Policy from July 8 of last year: ``The administration has serious concerns with a number of provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning of the intelligence community and that would raise a number of policy, management, legal and constitutional concerns.'' That is the Statement of Administration Policy.

The statement went on to elaborate on the bill's flaws: the serious risk of compromising highly sensitive data, the new layers of bureaucracy, the impediments to building an intelligence workforce for the 21st century, the wasted resources. These were not the accusations, Mr. Speaker of political adversaries; these were the serious criticisms of President Obama. And they were leveled nearly 8 months ago before a whole host of new challenges made themselves apparent to us. If this was a flawed bill last July, as the President clearly defined it as being, it is now a flat-out dangerous bill.

I believe that the American people will be stunned to learn that the Democratic majority has chosen, with this legislation, to simply ignore the grave new concerns that have been raised in recent months. No lessons have been learned and no new solutions have been contemplated. The Democratic majority's bold approach is to take up an 8-month-old bill that wasn't even a good idea at the time and, as I said, was criticized harshly by President Obama.

The manner in which they are bringing this bill to the floor is just as troubling, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic majority will likely claim that a bipartisan amendment process has been allowed: five Democratic amendments were made in order, four Republican amendments, and three bipartisan amendments. But what these numbers mask is the fact that 21 Democratic amendments were included in the manager's amendments. This not only skews the process in a very partisan way, but it denies the Members of this body representing all Americans, representing Democrats and Republicans alike, the opportunity to vote on these 21 amendments individually based on their merits. We are denied the opportunity for transparency and scrutiny.

What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this rule has implications for legislation far beyond the intelligence bill at hand. This rule provides a blank check for the Democratic leadership to bring up any bill at any time today or tomorrow without a shred of transparency or even one moment of public scrutiny. This rule gives them carte blanche to take whatever legislative action they choose, entirely absent of any accountability.

And I've got to say, I was thinking about this last night when we were in the Rules Committee, to impose this kind of structure this early in a Congress--the second month of the second session of the 111th Congress--is beyond the pale. When such drastic and draconian measures are taken to shield their actions from all scrutiny, we can only ask ourselves, what exactly are they plotting? What exactly are they trying to hide from the American people?

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the security of our homeland and for the sake of a return to the often-promised accountability and transparency, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. What we need to do is we need to take a hard look at the intelligence failures that have taken place. Let's ask the hows and the whys and make the necessary reforms that will ensure that we never again have to rely on blind luck to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps most important of all, we must reject this attempt to shield the Democratic majority's actions from public view.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I completely concur with my colleague about this notion of our recognizing that day after day--and I had that in my opening remarks--day after day we are seeing the prevention of the kinds of attacks that we are all concerned about, and we congratulate and herald the intelligence community for that. I think that what we need to focus on is the Abdulmutallab situation, the Fort Hood shootings, and the Najibullah Zazi and David Headley arrests. These things have taken place since this bill had any kind of committee consideration last year. And all we are arguing is, yes, it's great that some amendments have been made in order--unfortunately, it's a very partisan item to have 21 amendments included in the manager's amendment--but we believe very strongly that the committee--and you know very well, having worked so hard on that committee, that a lot of work takes place in secrecy, understandably, that in dealing with these situations, that should happen before bringing a measure of this magnitude to the floor that even the President and so many others have acknowledged is flawed.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just 1 second?

I thank my friend for yielding. And Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I totally concur with absolutely everything my friend just said.

All I want to do is agree with you. So thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very, very happy to yield 4 minutes to the very hardworking and diligent and thoughtful ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, our friend from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I am happy to yield to my friend an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from Gold River, California, has been attempting to engage in a colloquy with my friend.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), and I am sure that he will yield to the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale if he would like to respond in any way.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides before I yield to my friend from Gold River?

I yield an additional 1 minute to my friend from Gold River, California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I would first say in response to my good friend from Colorado, Mr. Lungren has just reminded me that the moment one of these individuals is on American soil, they have enhanced rights that they would not otherwise have.

I would like to engage in a colloquy with the very distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss one of the amendments that unfortunately will not see the light of day, that we will not have the opportunity to debate other than in the context of the overall manager's amendment, which included 21 amendments from our Democratic colleagues, including the McDermott amendment.

Now, the McDermott amendment, which was discussed by my friend from Clarendon, is an amendment that provides basically carte blanche, an opportunity for any individual, one of these barbarians, to claim for religious reasons that they are being mistreated. The moment I heard the word ``Big Mac'' come forward from my friend Mac Thornberry, I have to say who's my Big Mac, but I thought, my gosh, someone could actually claim that being denied a Big Mac would be cruel and unusual punishment? And I've got to say as I look at the litany of items on here, including exploiting phobias of the individual, I just don't understand it. And I wonder if my friend might further enlighten us on this.

I'm happy to yield.

I thank my friend for his contribution.

He just reminded me that the speech that everyone heard, what was described as the ``Scott heard 'round the world'' when we saw Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate seat in Massachusetts, the line that came to the forefront was, I want to make sure that my tax dollars are expended on fighting against these terrorists rather than expending our tax dollars defending these terrorists. And the McDermott amendment takes and expends more time and effort and energy in defending them. And, unfortunately, the only discussion that we will have on this, Mr. Speaker, is during consideration of the rule because we're not going to have a chance to vote on this amendment other than its being included in the overall manager's amendment with 20 other amendments being included.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a very thoughtful new Member who has expended a great deal of time and energy trying to ensure that we can at least have a debate on the issue of bringing terrorists onto U.S. soil, my friend from Peoria, Mr. Schock.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Illinois.

Let me say to my friend that I anxiously look forward to his spellbinding closing remarks that I'm sure we'll all be able to benefit from, but I have one other speaker and then I'll close and look forward to sitting patiently and listening to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking member of the Intelligence Committee, a veteran of the FBI, the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we all know where the eyes of the American people are focused right now, and it is not here on the House of Representatives. They are focused down across the street from the White House at the Blair House, where the health care summit is taking place. I have no idea how it is going. We have been managing this debate on an issue that is of paramount importance.

The five most important words in the middle of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution I regularly say are ``provide for the common defense.'' We need to recognize that this is priority number one, our Nation's intelligence. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, these are names that have come to the forefront because these individuals pose a threat to the United States of America.

There is no issue that is more important for us to be focusing on. Mr. Lungren said earlier rather than having a 6-hour summit on the issue of health care, which we all acknowledge is important and needs to be addressed, the attention should be focused on national security. And unfortunately, it is not only not being focused on, but what we are doing here today is taking a flawed bill from July of last year, 8 months old, that was maligned and criticized by the statement of administration policy from President Obama, and what is it we have done? We have denied amendment after amendment.

Mr. Schock's very thoughtful amendment to deal with the issue of should we give enhanced rights to these people who have perpetrated terrible acts against us? Bring them onto U.S. soil, which would make that happen? We think we should have a chance to debate that issue. Should we take the 21 amendments that our Democratic colleagues have offered, including my friend, Mr. McDermott, who has an amendment that dramatically enhances the power of those individuals who have either tried or have perpetrated terrible acts against us and provides them new defense?

Again I mentioned Scott Brown earlier. And what resonated from his acceptance speech when he won the election was that we shouldn't be expending our taxpayer dollars on defending these terrorists. We should be expending our taxpayer dollars to fight to make sure they never, ever pose a threat against us. This is a terrible rule. It is a terrible rule because it denies the opportunity for debate. And the bill itself needs to be reworked by the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject it. Let's do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in this bill for all that is at stake in the country.

When there was a switch in debate about how we approach 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 of policy about how we go after terrorists overseas. And the notion that was brought out that, gee, if we just treat this like a law enforcement environment, if we treat it the way we would 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 will have no more problems, they're going to go away, we will get them in the courtrooms of America, there is a fundamental flaw with doing this.

In order to fully function as a law enforcement effort, the administration has sent FBI agents overseas into the battlefield to read Miranda rights to tell foreign-trained terrorists who probably couldn't find, some of them, America on a map that you have the right to remain silent; if you can't afford a lawyer the United States will appoint one for you; we will pay for it.

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 will catch them then, and we will put them in trial and read them their Miranda rights even though they were recruited overseas, trained overseas, in many cases surreptitiously moved to different parts of different countries in order to get every aspect of their training. And they're taught that they are on a combat mission. That is what they're taught, that your goal in this event is to go cause harm and casualties and chaos to 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 TSA agents. You can't hire enough domestic FBI agents. You can't send enough FBI agents into the battlefield 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.

And I'll tell you, that first 24 to 48 hours is critically important in the intelligence community because of a small thing. This guy isn't going to be able to give you all of the layout of al Qaeda and all of their financing and all of 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 cramp. To most people, that wouldn't mean a lot. To trained 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.

They made a fundamental shift, from proactive intelligence overseas to find them where they train, to where they finance, to where they recruit, to 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 mainstream courtrooms. We're prosecuting CIA officers for following legal advice from the Department of Justice in interrogation. So we're treating CIA officers like criminals, and we're treating foreign-trained terrorists like Americans with all of the benefits and the privileges therein.

You almost couldn't make this up. You couldn't come to this conclusion. And with it, we've got consequences.

When you look at the series of events from the Fort Hood shootings to the Christmas Day bomber and the mistakes that were made and the lost opportunity for disruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and get us back to where we're putting the interests of Americans first versus the interests of the rights of terrorism before the safety and security of the United States.

I strongly urge a rejection of this bill.

I, too, along with my colleague from Texas, and certainly the ranking member from Michigan, want to bring to the attention of this body just how dangerous the amendment is that says this, ``Any officer or employee of the intelligence community who, in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation, knowingly commits, attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' And it goes on to talk about infringing on their religious beliefs by any notion whatsoever that isn't defined in the bill.

Sleep--it talks about lack of sleep. As a matter of fact, the interrogators are probably getting a lot less sleep than actually the terrorists they are interrogating because they also process the information before and after the interrogations.

You have created a whole new direction to go after the very people who are interrogating people trying to kill Americans, and you are saying we are going to put you in jail if you push your limits. And by the way, 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 in the intelligence community.

Madam Chair, just to further again tell you how dangerous the amendment is on making it a criminal act for CIA officers to try to conduct interrogations, again I just want to read-- this goes after specifically any intelligence officer or employee of the intelligence community. So saying we're just restating law simply isn't true. And then it goes on to say ``interrogation knowingly commits, attempts to commit, or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' ``Degrading,'' of course, is undefined.

But think of this: It goes on to explain at a further portion in their language ``if you seek to blaspheme his or

her religious beliefs.'' Now, we know that al Qaeda through their training always says when you're caught by the United States, allege abuse. It shuts the system down. Guess what we just did. Does that mean a Jewish FBI official is no longer able to go in and conduct an interview? I don't know. Does it mean that if an uncovered woman goes in to conduct an interview, we've blasphemed their beliefs and their religion? I don't know. But we've certainly 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 that's going to save lives. I mean you could go on to any sector of any religion that has become radicalized 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 to 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 and al Qaeda's operational tactic to slow us down in the obtaining of that information.

I can't tell you how serious this amendment is with no debate and no discussion. It's dangerous. I urge rejection on this alone.

Madam Chair, it's not that you're giving terrorists better rights than Americans. It's the fact that you're extending to foreign terrorists, foreign nationals, foreign-trained individuals coming here to commit acts of violence and kill civilians the same rights as Americans. That's wrong. They are enemy combatants.

You say, well, we can't have Abu Ghraib. You're right; we can't. Torture is illegal. It was illegal then, and guess what? It was investigated and they have been prosecuted, rightly so. They abused people. Wrong. They go to jail. That's what happens in this system.

What you're doing now is interjecting mass confusion into the people who are going to try to conduct debriefings all over the world, and they're going to go to dangerous places, and guess what? You've engaged one of the worst parts of the al Qaeda playbook that says, remember, when Americans are shooting at themselves and chasing their tail, they are not shooting at us. Allege abuse. You've just put 11 confusing pages right into the hands of our enemy to say, 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.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, it's with a heavy heart I rise with this amendment. This has been a bipartisan issue for, I hate to say it, going on 5 years where the Director of the FBI 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 were having a difficult time doing it.

So what they ended up doing is they forced supervisors in the field. These are FBI experts in a whole variety of fields--it could be white- collar crime, it could be organized crime, it could be foreign counterintelligence, could be counterterrorism efforts--and arbitrarily said, after 5 years you're done. You either have to step down, you have to come to Washington, D.C. and apply to be an ASAC or other job, or you have to move on. You can either leave the Bureau, you can step down and go back to the ranks of what we used to call a brick agent in the

Seeing there's no further speakers, I would just urge the body's quick support and, again, hopefully we can stand with the men and women who have stood with us in difficult times across the country. I yield back my time.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California. You know, sometimes you can get ahead of a problem. We don't often do that in Congress. I think this is a great way to get ahead of a problem.

Given the fact that these individuals who have, who are doing great things for their country, we're thankful for it, takes sometimes a piece of intellectual property that really belongs to the people of the United States, and some of it is very sensitive, very compartmentalized. It's information that is shared with very few. So it is an incredible responsibility. And for us not to 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 the intelligence community, I think is wrong. And 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.

And I want to commend the gentlelady for her work and effort on this. And I wholeheartedly support this effort.