Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the House passed the conference report to H.R. 3199 reauthorizing certain expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The final bill failed to include adequate safeguards on national security letters, NSLs, which are requests for personal data and records issued directly by Government agencies without the approval of a judge.

NSLs have existed since the 1970s, but their use--primarily by the FBI--greatly expanded after 9/11. Using NSL authorities, the Government has collected and maintained data on thousands of Americans.

NSLs are important investigative tools, but their use has grown rapidly--and without adequate oversight.

NSLs may be issued by the FBI without asking a judge for a warrant. In this way, they differ from orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, for business records under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the so-called library provision. Section 215 orders must be approved by a Federal judge.

NSLs have been characterized as ``back doors'' for obtaining library and other records that may not be available under FISA. If 215 orders can be called ``fishing licenses,'' then NSLs allow fishing without a license.

Defenders of NSLs liken them to grand jury subpoenas. However, they are different in important respects. First, grand jury subpoenas may only be issued by a U.S. Attorney as officer of the court. NSLs may be issued by an FBI agent in the field without any review by a jury or court. Second, grand jury subpoenas may only be issued after suspicion that a Federal crime has occurred; for NSLs, the standard is much lower--requiring only that the information sought is ``relevant'' to a national security investigation.

Congressional oversight of NSLs is almost nonexistent. Congress receives a classified one-page summary listing aggregate numbers of NSLs at least 6 months after they are issued. These reports are essentially meaningless and are the only oversight Congress at present exercises.

Clearly, there is a need to reform NSL standards and processes. This bill addresses this need by incorporating checks and balances on the front-end and back-end of the process.

On the front-end, the bill: Restores the pre-Patriot Act standard for issuing NSLs: the government must show a specific connection to a terrorist or foreign power before an NSL could be issued; requires approval of each NSL by a FISA Court or designated federal magistrate judge; requires the FISA Court to set up an electronic system for filing NSL applications, so that requests are expedited and investigations will not be slowed down.

On the back-end, the legislation: Provides a Sense of Congress that, in cases where an NSL recipient challenges the ``gag''/non-disclosure requirement, the government's certification that harm to national security will occur shall be treated as a ``rebuttable'' presumption, not as ``conclusive'' evidence that harm would occur; requires minimization procedures to ensure destruction of information obtained through NSL requests that is no longer needed; and requires detailed semi-annual reports to the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on all NSLs issued, minimization procedures, court challenges, and how NSLs aided investigations and prosecutions.

We must arm our investigators with the tools to catch terrorists, spies and others who threaten our national security. But, we must do so in a manner that protects the cherished liberty and privacy expectations of U.S. citizens.

This legislation will not hobble the investigative process nor hamper our pursuit of the terrorists. It will impose much-needed accountability and oversight.

Madam Speaker, this vote on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization is tough; it is far from being the best bill it could be. But I will vote for it and want to explain why.

Imagine a world in which terrorists make deals and connect with recruits on-line, in cabs, hotel lobbies or cafes all over the world. Communication is highly compartmentalized so few, if any, know what the big plans are. Sometimes, physical runners deliver messages to evade listening devices.

Such a world is not the stuff of Hollywood movies. It is our 21st century world.

The horrific events of September 11, and the more recent bombings in Bali, Britain, Jordan, Madrid, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey remind us that the terrorists are prepared to strike anywhere, at any time-- and with maximum destructive force.

With this as a backdrop, it has been and remains my view that the PATRIOT Act tools are needed: to track communications by email and internet, including the use of internet sites in libraries; and to prevent and disrupt plots against us.

Such powerful tools must be narrowly tailored to ensure that they do not violate the rights of innocent Americans. In reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, Congress had an opportunity to refine the law, but this conference report reflects only modest improvements.

Many of us in both bodies worked hard to make this conference report better. In the end, we asked for three things of critical importance.

First, four-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions-- Section 215 orders; Section 206 roving wiretaps, and the Lone Wolf provision. This request was accepted.

Second, dropping the 1-year criminal penalty on divulging that a National Security Letter has been received, even in a case where there is no intent to obstruct justice. This request was also accepted.

Third, modifying the ``conclusive'' presumption that disclosure of an NSL would harm national security. The legislation properly establishes that recipients of NSLs have the ability to consult an attorney and challenge an NSL in a Federal court. But the ``conclusive'' presumption language makes it virtually impossible to challenge the ``gag'' order on recipients of NSLs. This is an important flaw in the bill and, sadly, our requested change was not accepted.

To remedy this, several of us will introduce legislation to replace the ``conclusive'' presumption language with a ``rebuttable'' presumption, and to incorporate critical checks and balances on the ``front end'' of the NSL process. Such changes will help ensure NSLs cannot be used as a ``back door'' for getting library circulation, medical, tax, educational or other sensitive records, and will help protect against other abuses. This legislation will also ensure Congress is finally provided with meaningful, detailed reports on NSLs, which are critical to effective oversight.

Another flaw in the report is Section 215, commonly called the Library provision, which allows the government to gather a wide range of business materials, including library, medical and tax records. This section is tightened by requiring that the records must be ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation. But the conference report should have explicitly required that the records be connected to a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign power--the traditional FISA standard.

My refusal to sign the conference report was to protest the way the Conference was managed. Instead of taking a few additional days to craft a strong bipartisan report that strikes the best balance, the majority rushed to file this flawed report. That is why I have co- sponsored HR 4506, to provide a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act to give the conferees additional time to bring to the floor a more carefully tailored bill with strong bipartisan support. But the majority insists we proceed today.

My view of the PATRIOT Act is we need to mend it, not end it. Today we are mending it. Hopefully, soon, we will mend it further.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

Earlier today, the Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee issued a letter to the chairman of our committee protesting his decision to shut down a bipartisan investigation into the intelligence failures that led us into war. Failure to learn from the mistakes of the past is an abdication of our responsibility to the American people and dangerous for our country. If we do not learn lessons, we will repeat mistakes.

It is likewise the responsibility of this House to conduct rigorous oversight over our policy in Iraq. There is now broad consensus in the country that we need to change course.

Many of us have offered thoughtful suggestions to do just that.

Let me be clear, it is not our troops who have failed. They are performing heroically, as are our intelligence personnel. A month ago, on my most recent visit to Iraq, I had dinner with troops from California who are part of Task Force Baghdad. They are doing an outstanding job.

Reasonable people can differ on whether we should redeploy troops in 6 months or 16 months and what events should drive that redeployment, but today we stand united that a change of course is urgently needed. We stand united behind the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), our colleague, a 37-year veteran who has had his patriotism attacked by the White House, but who is not backing down, and we stand united that the Republican leadership should not use a stunt like this to score political points.

In case anyone missed it, the terrorists do not care whether we are Democrats or Republicans. They are not going to check our party registration before they blow us up.

I take a back seat to no one in my efforts to craft bipartisan solutions to problems. Iraq policy is failing, and it is time for this House to be bipartisan as the Senate was earlier this week, and it is way past time for this White House to give us a serious strategy and to clarify its intentions with respect to no permanent bases, no design on Iraqi oil, and a plan to help build true power sharing among the ethnic factions and true operational capability in the Iraqi security forces.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This resolution is intended to divide us, to put partisanship in the way of patriotism.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I commend him for his leadership. And I am pleased to see that, so far, this debate has all been in favor of support of this motion to instruct, which I think is a very important statement for this House to make.

Madam Speaker, I take my responsibilities as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee very seriously. I spend a lot of my day and a lot of my weekend, and most of my nights thinking and dreaming about how I can add value to protecting Americans and American interests.

Earlier today, hotels in Amman, Jordan, were bombed. Over 50 people are dead, scores are wounded. The terrorists are there, and let us not make any mistake about it, they are trying to be here again. So it is absolutely correct that we need modern and appropriate legal authorities to find them, and prevent and disrupt their plans before they are able to execute them. Prevention and disruption is much better than response, and I think everyone in this Chamber is dedicated to making sure we have the right tools. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed 45 days after 9/11, overwhelmingly, and that is why the House bill passed again recently by a large margin.

However, consistent with statements that Mr. Rohrabacher has just made, as we give these expanded authorities, we also need to assure the law-abiding public of America that we will be vigilant in supervising these authorities. Not just today, not just in the oversight hearings we held during this last year and, yes, we held a lot of them, but tomorrow and next year and the year after.

Having sunsets for these controversial provisions matters. That is why in the Intelligence Committee Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Hastings offered amendments to impose sunsets. Some amendments passed, but they did not survive in the final House bill.

Sunsets are a good idea, and I think with very strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, that these new authorities need to carry with them the promise that Congress will be vigilant and, that 4 years from now, we will reconsider whether they are necessary.

Let me also add a word about national security letters, which were a remedy designed in the 1970s.

I think national security letters, a tool not in the PATRIOT Act, need to be reviewed as well by this House, and I think we need to consider whether the authority is too broad or whether, using a magistrate system or some other system, they should be reviewed before they are issued. They should not become the backdoor route to using PATRIOT Act authorities without going through this careful system we have set up.

So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, it is a dangerous world. We need the tools necessary to find the so-called ``bad guys'' before they attack us, but we also need the tools necessary to assure law-abiding Americans that we are paying careful attention, and that the Congress, an independent branch, will not now, not ever, let down our responsibility to safeguard civil liberty for American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel for official government business, I missed votes on the House floor from Tuesday, September 27 to Thursday, September 29, 2005.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote Wednesday, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 501, final passage of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

I also ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote Thursday, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 505, the Miller amendment to improve H.R. 3824 through bipartisan compromise, and ``nay'' on rollcall

vote No. 506, final passage of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Senate passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would establish clear guidelines for interrogating prisoners we capture in war zones or counter- terrorism operations.

The amendment was co-sponsored by Sens. McCain, Lindsay Graham, Warner, Hagel, Gordon Smith, and Collins and passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 90-9. Today we are introducing a bill which is identical to the Senate-passed amendment.

Our legislation would clarify that no person may be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment--regardless of whether they are Americans, and regardless of whether they are held outside the U.S. (i.e., in Guantanamo Bay).

The legislation would also mandate that all DOD personnel employ only those interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual.

Interrogations are vital to obtaining intelligence in the fight against terrorism. But cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment violates U.S. treaty obligations and undermines our moral authority. It has also been shown to be ineffective at eliciting actionable intelligence.

Our troops and intelligence personnel have been forced to operate in a ``fog of law''--a patchwork of post 9/11 legal memos and policies that appeared to have condoned cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Our legislation would clarify the rules governing interrogations so that there can be no doubt what conduct is authorized.

Our legislation has been endorsed by a group of 29 retired military officers, including 3 ``four stars''--General Joseph Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, and General Donn Starry. It has also been endorsed by a broad cross-section of civil liberties groups.

There are some complimentary proposals which may be introduced at a later date. But in the meantime, this excellent proposal has momentum and bipartisan support, and we urge the House to support it.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from the House of Representatives during rollcall votes 468 and 469. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 468 and ``aye'' on rolllcall vote 469.

Mr. Speaker, Congress debated the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, I wrote an op-ed titled ``Not This Treaty, Not Now,'' arguing that NAFTA's time had not come, that the U.S. and Canada should require Mexico to meet certain preconditions before agreeing to the trade deal. Over the objections of those who argued NAFTA should be used to leverage reforms in Mexico, it passed without enforceable provisions to protect labor rights or the environment. Supporters of the agreement insisted NAFTA would create millions of good jobs, help stem illegal immigration and raise living standards ``from the Yukon to the Yucatan.''

A decade later, NAFTA's promise is largely unrealized. Environmental conditions in Mexico have worsened, real wages have stagnated, the income disparity between the U.S. and Mexico has widened, and illegal immigration shows no signs of slowing. Clearly, NAFTA is not all that advocates claimed.

The broken promises of NAFTA should serve as a warning, and cast doubt on similar claims that the recently negotiated Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will do what NAFTA has not.

Our Central American neighbors have made real economic and political progress in recent years, and the U.S. should work to re-enforce that progress. But as with NAFTA, CAFTA brings together countries with greatly varying labor and environmental standards and enforcement methods. This disparity necessitates strong and enforceable provisions to protect workers and the environment. As did NAFTA, CAFTA comes up short.

CAFTA's penalties for failing to enforce labor and environmental laws provide no real deterrent against future abuses; it offers no incentives to improve standards over time. In fact, CAFTA weakens labor protections by removing an existing oversight mechanism available under our current system of trade preferences for the region.

CAFTA also incorporates NAFTA's troubling Chapter 11 provisions, which effectively give foreign investors the right to challenge U.S. health, safety and environmental laws. California has been at the forefront of efforts to protect its communities from air and water pollution, yet CAFTA gives foreign investors the right to challenge our state law if it affects their commercial interests.

Free and fair trade can lift living standards both at home and abroad, encourage technological innovation, create jobs and empower individuals. But each agreement must be considered on its merits. Bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore, Jordan, and Australia; normal trade relations with China; and renewal of ``fast track'' approval were issues I supported.

But trade is not fair if desperate people are forced to work in hazardous conditions or communities are forced to bear the costs of environmental degradation. In the context of lax enforcement of labor and environmental regulations, free trade can provide perverse incentives to impose the costs of production onto workers, communities and the environment. Such incentives serve neither the economic interests of the U.S. nor our trading partners.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to CAFTA, I echo my refrain from 10 years ago: ``Not this treaty, and not now.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as many have said, we are all watching events unfold in London this morning, hoping that this is not another gruesome act of terrorism. If they can strike twice in the heart of London, a city on high alert, then just think what they might try to do in any city in America. That is why we need tough tools here at home to uncover terror cells and disrupt their plans.

The PATRIOT Act modernizes law enforcement's tools to uncover those plots. Most of the act is not objectionable, but it is far from perfect, and there are several key provisions that allow the government to engage in unnecessarily broad searches and surveillance of innocent Americans. That is why I strongly believe we should mend it, not end it.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tried to mend it, but the Committee on Rules did not make any of our amendments in order. Nine of us offered responsible, common-sense amendments:

To establish the traditional FISA standard for search warrants and trap and trace/pen register authorities, to ensure that the government cannot seize your personal records unless they are related to a foreign power;

To tighten the ability of the FBI to conduct roving wiretaps, to ensure that only terror suspects and their enablers, not innocent Americans, are wiretapped;

To re-sunset the key provisions in the act in another 4 years to assure accountability and effective congressional oversight, and specifically to sunset the Lone Wolf provision, enacted only 8 months ago, in 2010;

Finally, to prohibit the FBI from using the broad FISA powers to get

bookstore or library documentary records, a provision which passed this House last month on a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Hastings amendment to sunset the Lone Wolf provision was accepted by the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He accepted the amendment and it passed on a bipartisan vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is a valued member of the Committee on Rules, but his own committee stripped out his amendment in the base bill and did not even allow him to offer it on the floor.

This is about intelligence. The Committee on Rules should not be able to block the will of Democrats and Republicans on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to improve the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, this rule undermines the will of the House and blocks us from mending and improving critical tools in this era of terror.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the London attacks this morning, be they copycat terrorism or yet another al Qaeda attempt, are one more reminder of how vulnerable we are. We need effective tools to combat terrorism. The terrorist threat is real, and if we are going to demand that the FBI uncover terror cells in the U.S., we need to give them the tools to do that.

The al Qaeda organization that attacked us on 9/11 has changed. It is no longer a top-down centralized terror group planning acts from overseas. Instead, we face a loose network of home-grown terror cells, or what I call franchise terrorism. Their attacks draw inspiration from al Qaeda, but they act independently, making it tougher to disrupt their plans.

I want to make two points about the PATRIOT Act. First, it gave law enforcement some important new legal authorities. But new legal authorities, Mr. Chairman, on their own, will not protect us from terrorism. We need to shift priorities, to develop better strategies and devote greater resources to protect our soft targets, like rail, subways, and ports, and that we have not yet done.

Second, on the issue of reauthorizing the 16 provisions that are sunsetting, my view is ``mend it, don't end it.'' The PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11, with little debate. We were bracing for more terror. The invasion of Afghanistan had begun and Capitol Hill was hit with anthrax attacks. Congress did a fairly decent job, and I supported the bill, but we can do better.

We should reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, which modernized law enforcement tools, but we should clarify and tailor the authorities so that the government does not have a license to engage in fishing expeditions for your personal information or conduct FBI surveillance on innocent Americans.

The bill on the floor today is better than the original PATRIOT Act. And if some of the amendments we will consider pass, it will be even better. But my colleagues on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will describe in a moment amendments which we offered in committee and before the Committee on Rules. Those amendments are solid, moderate, and bipartisan, and they should be able to be debated today. The good news is that the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has just reported a bill that includes many of them. That bill, I hope, will serve as the model in conference committee. That bill could have been the House bill.

In conclusion, protecting America from terrorism is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an American issue. As I have often said, the terrorists are not going to check our party registration before they blow us up. So when we defend America, let us forget party labels and focus on what will provide security and liberty for the American people. Balancing liberty and security is not a zero sum game. You either get more of both or less. The American people deserve more of both.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a valued member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the only one of us successful enough to get his language adopted in the bill before us today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, to the last speaker, I agree it is good, but I think it could be a lot better.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the former rookie of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. Chairman, as prior speakers on our side have made clear, we should be mending it, not ending it. That is my view under this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader and my predecessor as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment on two grounds.

First, I think it moves us in the right direction. I have said several times on this floor today about the PATRIOT Act that we should mend it, not end it. This does tighten section 215, which has probably been, more than any other section in the PATRIOT Act, the subject of intense worry for outside groups and especially those who use libraries.

But, second, I support it because of the process involved. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) have worked on a bipartisan basis to craft something they could both support and to persuade the leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules to embrace it. This is what we should see more of, and I wish we were seeing more of it in connection with this bill.

Finally, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) does make important points. There is an even better way to amend section 215, and that way has just been embraced unanimously, obviously on a bipartisan basis, by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and that is to connect section 215 orders to specific facts which show the target is connected to an agent of a foreign power. That would be best; and, hopefully, we will get there before this bill becomes law.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment. As the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just said, we did try to work out a unanimous consent request. We agreed among us, but, sadly, others in this body did not agree.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is right. This is a modest amendment that will yield good information so that we will proceed to do data mining in an efficient way consistent with protecting the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. That

is all it does. It requires only the Justice Department to prepare a report, not the Defense Department and not other departments in the government.

So my view is that we should vote for this amendment now and perfect it later. I agree with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. It will help us do data mining the right way, and America will be safer for it.

Madam Speaker, the seaside community of El Segundo in my congressional district, rich in so many ways, is a great deal poorer following the death on Saturday of its longtime Mayor and State assembly representative Mike Gordon. Those of us who knew Mike well and the countless others whose lives he touched are devastated by his unexpected and untimely passing.

In the course of my public career, few people have had a more profound impact on me and the policies I pursue than Mike Gordon. He was a natural politician, drawn to people, and driven to solve their problems, no matter how big or small.

Mike Gordon was a big thinker, one who could see around corners, anticipating the needs of his community and forging, in a strong but sensitive way, its future. He was a mayor, an assembly member, a baseball coach, community activist, party leader, good husband, father, and friend. And when he succumbed to brain cancer in the early morning hours of June 25, he was just 47 years old.

When Mike received his dire diagnosis 3 months ago, the broader world of California politics was just opening to him. Years of consensus building and goodwill and enormous potential were cut cruelly short.

I grieve for his family: his devoted wife, Denise; and four children; Ryan, Erika, Amanda, and Gordy; and for our larger loss.

Madam Speaker, Gordy Gordon designed a rubber bracelet which said ``I am helping Mike fight.'' Though Mike lost that physical fight, we who survive him will carry on the fight for the beliefs we share.

Mr. Speaker, there are few communities in the world that are instantly recognizable, that immediately conjure up an image, an identity, a lifestyle. Venice, California is one such place--a place that people dream about in the depths of winter; that promises eternal sunshine, warm beaches, buff and shapely lifeguards; and the soothing, ceaseless wash of the waves.

On July the 4th, as our Nation celebrates its 229th birthday, Venice, California celebrates its 100th. As a resident of Venice, I am proud to join my neighbors and local leaders in acknowledging this remarkable milestone.

Founded in 1905 by real estate entrepreneur Abbot Kinney, Venice was modeled after the canals and boardwalks of its namesake in Italy. Kinney's vision established Venice as an entertainment mecca, attracting visitors from around the world to its amusement park, boardwalk businesses, ocean swimming and street performances.

Since its inception, Venice has been a perennial attraction for artists and free spirits, beatnik writers, and innovative musicians-- from Jack Kerouac to the Doors. Venice today remains a hub of artistic expression and cultural diversity with its graffiti art murals, sidewalk musicians, street basketball games, roller skate dancers, bodybuilding competitions, and lively restaurants, shops and cafes.

Venice is not only one of the nation's most unique artistic communities, it is booming with well-informed, politically engaged, civic-minded activists. A visit to the wonderful Farmer's Market on any weekend morning provides ample evidence of the community's wide and varying interests. In addition to a great cup of coffee, fresh baked goods and delicious local produce to feed the body, one can feed the mind at the many booths promoting diverse and important political, environmental and local causes.

The award-winning Venice Family Clinic is the largest free clinic in the country and provides inspiration to the community through life- saving health care for low-income, uninsured and homeless individuals.

Whether through the skills they learn at the Venice Boys & Girls Club or by cultivating their imagination at Venice Arts in Neighborhoods, our children grow up to be productive citizens. Many go on to dedicate themselves to enriching the community through the Venice-Marina Rotary or the Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the diverse Venice community in the United States Congress. Each 4th of July, we celebrate two historic events together: American independence and the founding of our hometown.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his service both on the Rules Committee and on the Intelligence Committee, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) as well for his comments earlier in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so that we can have a debate on the Waxman amendment. Yesterday, we had an open rule for the Defense Appropriations Act which funds the intelligence community. I fail to see why we cannot have an open rule for the authorization bill for those same intelligence programs. I also think it is sad that the leadership scheduled consideration of this authorization bill after our vote on the appropriations bill. This makes little sense and erodes our ability to establish clear guidance for how money will be spent.

Mr. Speaker, this rule should have made in order all of the amendments

that were offered. Only 10 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, nine were offered by Democrats, and of those nine, only one was made in order. Each amendment was responsible. Each deserves full consideration on the House floor. Members on both sides of the aisle should have an opportunity to debate the important issues raised by these amendments, but as a result of this unnecessarily restrictive rule, neither Republicans nor Democrats will have that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one amendment that the Rules Committee will not let us debate, the Waxman amendment to establish an independent commission on detainee issues. Detentions and interrogations are vital tools. We need those tools. But they must take place according to our laws and our values. To do anything less puts our own troops in harm's way and erodes our moral credibility in the world.

Today, our intelligence professionals operate in what I call a ``fog of law,'' a confusing patchwork of laws, treaties, memos and policies. The Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee is conducting a serious bipartisan investigation into the practice of renditions and interrogations under the able leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). But this investigation is largely classified. We also need a public unclassified investigation so that the public can have confidence that our Constitution and our laws are respected. A public bipartisan investigation will help us learn precisely what happened, who should be accountable at senior as well as operational levels, and how to fix the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record an op-ed from the June 7 Washington Post by civil rights attorney Floyd Abrams, former Representative Bob Barr, and Ambassador Tom Pickering, which called for the creation of an independent commission. They wrote: ``Only with such a commission are we likely to enact the reforms needed to restore our credibility among the nations of the world.''

I agree. Shutting off the lights at Guantanamo will not solve the problem. Only Congress can solve the problem by addressing the policies underlying Guantanamo. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that it is Congress's responsibility to make rules concerning captures on land and water, and that is why, in addition to calling for this independent commission, I believe we need bipartisan legislation. The safety of our troops and our moral credibility in the world are on the line.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue. I want to assure her that I understand and support the general principle she has raised, and I believe that we should be mindful of that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2475, the strongest intelligence authorization bill to emerge from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in recent memory. Without the funding authorized in this bill, the brave men and women of the intelligence community would not be able to do their jobs which are so vital to the defense of our country. I and many other members of the committee have visited these intelligence professionals in some of the most austere places of the world, and they deserve our gratitude and support.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and thank him and all of the members and staff of our hardworking committee for their bipartisanship and patriotism. As one of our members, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) often says, we put America first.

Our members have made a difference. In April 2004, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee introduced legislation that became the basis for the 9/11 Commission's Report and the intelligence reform legislation passed by Congress last fall. That reform dramatically reshaped our intelligence community, unifying 15 agencies under the leadership of a director of National Intelligence.

This year's intelligence authorization bill authorizes funds for that new office. The DNI must succeed in his job and he deserves our support. He is responsible for ensuring that intelligence is timely, accurate and actionable. To do this, he needs authority to build and execute budgets and move personnel. So I am pleased that we removed a provision in this bill that would have severely eroded the DNI's authority to move personnel around the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorists, intelligence is the tip of the spear. Some see this fight as a traditional war, requiring wartime emergency budgets and wartime authorities for the President. That may have been the right approach immediately after 9/11. We fought a war in Afghanistan and achieved an impressive victory.

But the terrorist threat has changed. Today we no longer face a centralized top-down terrorist organization operating out of one country. We face a network of loosely affiliated terrorist groups which operate as franchises around the world, and that is why I believe we are living in an era of terror.

This legislation does some good things to help us achieve victory in an era of terror.

First, it ends our reliance on emergency supplemental budgets for counterterrorism. The budget the President sent to Congress this year funded less than 40 percent of the intelligence community counterterrorism requirements, leaving the rest for emergency supplementals. This bill changes that on a bipartisan basis, and we fund 100 percent of CT requirements.

Second, this legislation incorporates a resolution introduced by all nine Democrats, urging the new DNI to establish a multi-tiered security clearance system to allow patriotic Americans with relatives in foreign countries to obtain security clearances and serve our Nation. It is high time we do this. This will help with field officers who can speak the languages and blend in with terrorist groups, penetrate proliferation networks, and recruit spies against the toughest targets.

Victory in an era of terror will not be achieved by military might alone, Mr. Speaker. Victory will require America to win the argument for the hearts and minds of the next generation in the Arab and Muslim world. I fear that we are presently losing that argument.

The ongoing revelations about abuses at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere undermine our ability to maintain the moral high ground and be seen as a beacon of democracy and human

rights. I am encouraged that our committee's new oversight subcommittee is investigating abuses that have occurred in our interrogation and detention programs within the intelligence community. This is a serious bipartisan investigation. But I also support a broader public bipartisan inquiry into detention policies across the government so that our efforts to fight the terrorists do not become a moral black eye for America that undermines our security.

One area where this legislation can be improved, Mr. Speaker, is in its approach to technical systems. The details of these systems are classified and cannot be discussed openly. But I am concerned that we have made sudden, drastic cuts to certain programs that may lead to a gap in our intelligence capabilities and erode the industrial base needed to develop critical capabilities in the future. I am pleased that the chairman is committed to addressing this problem with me as the bill moves to conference.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is strong legislation that puts us on the right track to achieve victory in an era of terror. There is more, much more, we must do and we will. The brave men and women of the intelligence community deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, a mouthful that we call HACI.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new news on our committee is that we have stood up an oversight subcommittee. Much discussion has been made about this already today.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is ranking member of the intelligence oversight subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, my home State of California produces many of the platforms and systems that give us the technical edge in intelligence, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my California friend, ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), ranking member on the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I served for 6 years on the Committee on Armed Services and came to admire greatly our next speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the last speaker that I applaud his comments about the need for this new legislation to succeed. It is critical, in my view, to move from a 1947 business model, which is the one we were operating under, to this one.

I also would point out to our colleagues, as the last speaker knows, that battlefield intelligence is not included in the DNI construct that we built.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a recent addition to our committee, who is a very active member of our new Subcommittee on Oversight.

Madam Speaker, I associate myself totally with the comments that our chairman just made.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), our rookie on our side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on the remarks the chairman just made.

Madam Speaker, it is not a zero-sum game, it is not a trade-off between what we call HUMINT, that is, human intelligence, which is primarily the use of spies to tell us the plans and intention of the bad guys, and technology. It is a positive-sum game, or we hope it is a positive-sum game, that balances correctly our investments in HUMINT and our investments in technology.

I said earlier that my home State of California makes many of the technical platforms that we use effectively to gather intelligence. I agree with our chairman that we should take a clear-eyed look at what works and what does not work and what capabilities we need to defeat present and future threats. But some of us, I would say a majority on the minority side, believe that the weighing, measuring, and finding wanting that has gone on in this bill needs further review, that the balance can be better struck.

I look forward to working with the chairman on a better balance as this bill comes to conference, keeping in mind that we want a positive- sum outcome.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a very serious Member of this body, not on our committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the last speaker for his generous words and ask how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, we at the moment have no other speakers on the floor. And I reserve the right to close for our side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, the last 4 years have witnessed two of the worst intelligence failures in our Nation's history. Congress passed intelligence reform and created the DNI position to give the brave women and men of the intelligence community the tools they need to collect and analyze accurate and timely intelligence.

We cannot have any more catastrophic failures where we fail to connect the dots or believe too fervently in the claims of bogus sources. This legislation, the authorization bill we are considering today, is the first funding bill under our new intelligence organization.

It is a strong bill that deserves our support. As we said earlier, for the first time we fully funded counterterrorism in the base budget so we can plan CT operations against our enemies. For the first time we have urged the DNI to create multitier security clearances so we can field a diverse group of intelligence officers who speak the languages and understand the cultures of our adversaries.

I am proud to say these were two ideas offered by the committee Democrats that gained bipartisan support in our committee. As I have said, there are ways this bill can be improved further. And I look forward to working on

this as we move to conference. But this is a bipartisan product that deserves bipartisan support.

And before I close, I do want to thank again the hard-working members on both sides of the committee who put so much effort into it day after day, and moreover the hard-working staff on a bipartisan basis.

And let me just identify those on the minority side who are sitting on the floor with me today: David Buckley, staff director; Chuck Gault, deputy staff director; Jeremy Bash, general counsel; Mike DeLaney; Larry Hanauer; John Keefe; Pam Moore; Wyndee Parker, special counsel; and Christine York. They make us look good, and I urge passage of this legislation before us.

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

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Charlie Allen is as close as you can come to a legend in the intelligence community. Before the intelligence reform bill passed last year, he was one of the few senior intelligence officers who could get 15 disparate agencies to function as a community. He did that mainly through sheer force of personality.

Our Nation collects intelligence through a variety of means, from spies on the ground to satellites overhead, and everything in between. In his capacity as the assistant director for collection, Charlie got the collectors to understand that they were most effective when they worked together as a team against the hardest targets.

He got them to understand that integrated collection strategies yielded the best outcomes. Under Charlie's leadership, the collectors in the intelligence community have scored some truly impressive victories, and it is unfortunate that these cannot be recounted in public.

I will just tell you that Charlie's service to the Nation was made clear to me the day he told the committee that he had been with the CIA for nearly 50 years. That is an astounding record, and it is certainly appropriate as we close debate on what I think is one of the best authorization bills ever, that we recognize Charlie's service to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I want to commend her and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the enormous work they did outside the intelligence committee. As we were considering the intelligence reform legislation last year, the faces that I saw on a constant basis were theirs and the families. And I often have said that the families were the wind beneath our wings. I would add a couple of Members of Congress to that, too, and I thank them for all they did.

I am very pleased that the majority is accepting the amendment. It is a good idea for us to make absolutely clear that the NCTC, the National Counter Terrorism Center, is a vital piece of the reform we enacted last year and that it needs to be fully operational ASAP.

To explain further, one of the big mistakes we made leading up to 9/ 11 is everyone now knows our failure to connect the dots. Obviously, having a fusion center designed for this purpose is a very good way to make sure we do not fail to connect the dots the next time.

So it took, I would say, the introduction of this amendment to cause the President to nominate a very able fellow, Vice Admiral Redd, to be the director of the NCTC. He did that 2 days after this amendment was presented in the Committee on Rules. And perhaps now that we are accepting it as part of today's debate, the NCTC will become fully operational even before that prison reform bill is enacted.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this. I support the team that has brought this to us. And I would note to this body, that bill last year that we worked so hard on gets its real sea legs today as the House takes this necessary step in funding its critical parts and in making clear that we will not accept any efforts to roll back the jurisdiction of the DNI, who is going to be the commander of the tip of the spear in this era of terror.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and commend him for sponsoring this notion of an independent commission to look at detainee abuses.

Mr. Speaker, though I am a strong supporter of this legislation, I think it would be even better if it included language to establish this commission, and so I support the motion to recommit the bill for the purpose of adding the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment.

Military historians often talk about the ``fog of war.'' I believe our intelligence professionals operate in a fog of law, a confusing patchwork of treaties, laws, memos and policies.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that it is Congress' responsibility to establish rules concerning captures on land and water. I hope that we will seize this responsibility.

But as Congress studies the policy options going forward, it is vital that we have the facts. Only a bipartisan, independent commission can get to the bottom of what happened among administration policymakers within the military chain of command and out in the field.

The steady stream of revelations about Guantanamo and other facilities around the world erode our moral credibility, just as we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim world.

It is vital to our national security, Mr. Speaker, that we fix this problem so that our detention and interrogation policies get us actionable intelligence without creating a whole new generation of terrorist recruits. Pretending that there is no problem is not a strategy for success.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our committee, on a bipartisan basis, is looking into these issues through our Subcommittee on Oversight. I commend our progress; but in addition, I think the public will have more confidence in what we are doing if we also have an outside, independent commission.

In that spirit, I support the Waxman motion to recommit.