Congressional Record: June 21, 2005 (House)
Page H4829-H4840
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2475, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 331 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 331
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2475) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for
other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the
bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) One hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; (2) the further
amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules, if offered by Representative Maloney of New York or
her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order or demand for division of the question,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 331 is a structured rule that
provides for consideration of H.R. 2475, authorizing appropriations for
fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.
I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its
consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill.
It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence modified
by the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report
accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted and shall be
considered as read.
It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney) or her designee which shall be considered as read
and shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and opponent, and all points of order against the
amendment are waived.
The rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his hard-working ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their
excellent work on this legislation. More than any other committee in
the Congress, we rely on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
to do work that we have confidence in and that is accurate and honest.
The committee is the eyes and ears of this Congress in the intelligence
community. We depend on them to be aware of what the rest of the world
and our own community is up to. We put our faith in them to practice
oversight and to produce a legislative product that addresses the needs
of our intelligence community, and therefore our Nation.
The committee does an outstanding job of working on a bipartisan
basis to provide for our men and women who are fighting the war on
terror on a variety of fronts.
I want to take a moment to salute those men and women who are working
around the globe in a variety of capacities doing so much in a quiet,
discreet way for our security and liberty. Linguists, analysts, case
officers, mathematicians, and engineers, some of the brightest minds
that our Nation produces, work in the intelligence community taking, in
many cases, an option that is not as generous as the private sector may
be if they were to put that intellect and those talents and skills into
some other capacity in the private sector.
But they do it as a labor of love, as a part of public service
identical to that which calls men and women into uniform in the armed
services and which calls men and women into our firefighter and police
and other first responding capacities. No differently than those
uniformed members, the men and women in our intelligence community
throughout the world are performing a huge public service for which we
can never show enough gratitude and appreciation.
{time} 1300
The Intelligence Committee has reported out a bill that continues the
House's commitment to the global war on terrorism and to ensuring that
intelligence resources are directed in a balanced way toward threats to
our national security. This legislation authorizes more than last
year's appropriated amount and more than the President's request to
continue to fight the war on terror.
The bill does an effective job of balancing our intelligence
resources and strengthening human intelligence gathering by increasing
the number of case officers and training and support infrastructure. A
long-term counterterrorism program is established to reduce the
dependence on supplemental appropriations. Additionally, it authorizes
the full amount of funds expected for heightened operations for
counterterrorism operations and the war in Iraq.
H.R. 2475 enhances the analytic workforce by providing additional
linguists and analysts as well as improved training and tools.
Furthermore, the bill continues to invest in technical programs,
funding systems end to end, investing in R&D and increased use of
signature intelligence, and reflects the results of a comprehensive
survey to review and rationalize technical collection programs.
For the first time, the Intelligence Authorization Act funds the new
Office of the Director of National Intelligence and allows for
increased positions. The National Counterterrorism Center is enhanced
through improved information sharing activities and collaboration
provisions. The bill improves physical and technical infrastructure of
intelligence agencies with new facilities.
This authorization bill is a perfect example of how Congress can
achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. Again,
I thank Chairman Hoekstra, Ranking Member Harman, and the members of
the committee for their admirable work. I urge Members to support the
rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. First, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) for yielding me the time.
[[Page H4830]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the
consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year
2006.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that Members who wish
to do so can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the
classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities
of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national
intelligence program. This includes authorizations for the CIA as well
as the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence programs within,
among other things, the Department of Defense, the National Security
Agency, the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI.
Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for
the tactical intelligence and related activities and joint military
intelligence program of the Department of Defense.
Today more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and
flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this
body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the
continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this
legislation, and I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor
before the July 4 recess.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this bill, it is not
closed to improvements. As the Democrats noted in our additional views,
this bill is the first authorization bill to be considered since the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law
last December. The reforms undertaken last year, in the aftermath of
two intelligence failures, created a Director of National Intelligence
and dramatically reshaped the intelligence community. This
authorization bill will therefore help define the authorities,
priorities, and direction of the Director of National Intelligence and
the entire intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee rejected the President's
paltry request for counterterrorism funding and, instead, fully funded
the intelligence community's needs. Fully funding counterterrorism
represents bipartisanship and good public policy. Of course, this does
not seem to be the first time that this administration does not heed
the advice of its own intelligence experts, but I digress.
Let me speak also briefly about the fact that this bill and the
report accompanying it are pretty much silent on one of the most
salient issues of the day, our military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The allegations of severe human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay are at
best extremely disturbing and at worst unforgivable sins of our Nation,
which has always led the fight for human rights. I do not work there,
so I cannot speak to the veracity of every single allegation. But I do
know that Guantanamo Bay is a stealth prison, an unrecognizable blip on
the radar screen of domestic and international law. Surrounded by a
world of laws, treaties, norms and practices, Guantanamo is an
unrecognizable entity, a small space where the law simply does not
penetrate.
The prisoners are in judicial limbo, with limited access to lawyers
and no legal recourse to profess their guilt or innocence or to protect
themselves from abuse. In fact, many of them have now been jailed for
more than 3 years without even having been charged with a crime. It
sounds a bit Kafkaesque to me. Requests from objective outside
observers to examine the condition of the prisoners have been rebuffed
time and again. The Bush administration seems to trust in only itself
to determine whether the prisoners are deserving of legal protections.
I am disheartened by the intelligence authorization bill's silence on
this matter. The Members of this body should be greatly concerned with
the utter lack of respect for the law or adherence to international
agreements that characterize Guantanamo Bay. Former Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.''
Congress has a responsibility to prevent Guantanamo Bay from becoming
the personal prison of convenience for the Bush administration to stash
people it does not want to suffer legal rights to. This body would be
greatly remiss if we shucked that responsibility in favor of turning a
blind eye to what very well might be the biggest terrorism recruitment
tool since the attacks on September 11.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill provides authorizations and
appropriations for some of the most important national security
programs in this country. With the adoption of the manager's amendment,
which we will hear about in much greater detail presently, I look
forward to supporting the bill's ultimate passage.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague
with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),
the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, came before
the Committee on Rules asking that two amendments be made in order. One
amendment calls for a select committee to be established in Congress to
investigate abuses of detainees held under U.S. military custody. The
other amendment establishes an independent commission for the same
purpose.
Mr. Speaker, these are matters that merit the attention of this House
and deserve to be debated and voted upon by the Members of this body.
But the majority party on the Rules Committee feels otherwise. The
Republican leadership believes it is better to sweep these matters
under the rug, hide them, forget about them, but certainly not
investigate them. It makes no difference whether such an inquiry takes
place inside the Congress or outside the Congress, any form of
independent investigation is out of the question.
But questions about the abuse and torture of detainees simply will
not go away, whether it is Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or the countless
other prisons, jails and detention facilities under U.S. control in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Every week brings new revelations of abuses.
Mr. Speaker, I do not blame our soldiers for these abuses. It is
their leaders who have failed. It is the leaders up and down the chain
of command whose incompetence and arrogance have led to a systemic
breakdown of standards and codes of conduct that our military has lived
by since its creation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few lines from the June 13
edition of Newsweek. The article is entitled ``Good Intentions Gone
Bad.'' In it, Rod Nordland, Newsweek's Baghdad bureau chief, who is
departing after 2 years in Iraq, shares a few final thoughts. He
writes:
``Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling
Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits. WMDs or
no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and
America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot,
but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April
2004, the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage
control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath
of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no
evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single
American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite
claims by the military that the prison produced actionable
intelligence. The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the
behavior of U.S. troops but the incompetence of their leaders.''
Mr. Speaker, this is why we should be debating the Waxman amendments.
We cannot run and hide from this abuse. It haunts us, Mr. Speaker. It
haunts us. If ever a matter needed the light of day, it is this one.
Oppose this rule. Support debate on the Waxman amendments. Restore
America's credibility on human rights and military conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record articles from Newsweek and from
the Baltimore Sun.
[From Newsweek, Jun. 13, 2005]
Good Intentions Gone Bad
(By Rod Norland)
Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in
toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous
visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely
be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry
the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning
point was the Abu Ghraib scandal.
[[Page H4831]]
Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a
desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners
at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On
top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all
the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life
or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims
by the military that the prison produced ``actionable
intelligence.''
The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the
behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their
leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the
Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of
Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse.
A few soldiers will always do bad things. that's why you need
competent officers, who know what the men and women under
their command are capable of--and make sure it doesn't
happen.
Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to
despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion
into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but
the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18
percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S.
contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic
services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up
to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a
country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees
Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable
electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most,
it's only 4 percent.
The most powerful army in human history can't even protect
a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both
the international airport and Baghdad's main American
military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night
U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they
close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles.
More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole
country safe. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the
number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly
enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that
followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-
defense at any cost--which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.
The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad
where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of
American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave
is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications.
The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to
fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the
worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green
Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi
ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and
behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub
bouncers--to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S.
soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're
overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely
despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the
distant end of their tours--and in most cases, another tour
soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home,
often face the wreckage of careers and family.
I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected
government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who
give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that
the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process.
Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and
equipped. But Iraqis have such along way to go, and there are
so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of
those who think America should pull out immediately. There's
no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come.
The question isn't ``When will America pull out?''; it's
``How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?'' All I can
say is this: last one out, please turn on the lights.
____
[From the Baltimore Sun, June 5, 2005]
Close Camp Delta
(By Michael Posner)
For many around the world, the detention facility at the
U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has become one of
the most prominent, negative symbols of America's departure
from the rule of law since 9/11.
Camp Delta, as the prison on Guantanamo is called, holds
more than 520 men from about 40 countries. Many of these
people have been detained there for more than three years;
none has been given any indication of when, or even if, he
will be released. The U.S. government has classified all of
the detainees as ``enemy combatants.''
While the term is not recognized in international human
rights or humanitarian law, it has provided the U.S.
government with a rationale for denying detainees any rights
whatsoever, either under the Geneva Conventions (the laws of
war) or U.S. criminal law. This situation has prompted some
Bush administration officials to dub Guantanamo ``the legal
equivalent of outer space.'' This label would also apply to
the dozens of secret U.S. detention sites in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Jordan and aboard ships at sea.
But just as Guantanamo has become a powerful negative
symbol, it has the potential to be a positive one if the
United States is willing to take steps to recognize the
possibility. One step, and it is a bold one, would be to shut
down the Guantanamo prison--to close its doors and, in doing
so, open a public debate among members of Congress, military
officers and intelligence and law enforcement leaders on
interrogation and detention practices around the world.
Shuttering Guantanamo not only would allow the United
States to broadcast to the world its commitment to the rule
of law--by moving all security detainees into an established
legal process--it also would serve America's security
interests. Those around the world who use the symbol of
Guantanamo to fuel anti-American sentiments would lose one of
their most potent rallying cries. And autocratic governments
no longer would be able to hide behind American's example, as
they do now, in justifying their own practices of indefinite
detention and abuse.
The closing of Guantanamo would, by its very nature,
require an evaluation of all the locations where the United
States is holding security prisoners because Guantanamo
derives much of its infamy from what it has wrought:
Guantanamo was the testing ground for coercive interrogation
techniques. Torture was exported to other facilities from
there.
In the spring of 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
explicitly approved 24 interrogation techniques for
Guantanamo, including ``dietary manipulation,''
``environmental manipulation,'' ``sleep adjustment'' and
``isolation,'' all of which has been previously prohibited by
U.S. law and explicit military policy. He did so despite
strenuous objections from senior military lawyers, the FBI
and others in the government. This policy is still in place.
By mid-2003, the military extended the Guantanamo rules to
Iraq. In fact, in August 2003, the Pentagon sent the
Guantanamo commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, to Abu
Ghraib prison, reportedly with the instruction to ``Gitmo-
ize'' the Iraqi prisons. The revelation of pictures from Abu
Ghraib last spring tells part of that story.
But the story is much bigger--and more troubling--than what
those photos depict. Consider this: Since December 2002, 108
people have died in U.S. custody, according to Pentagon
figures. Of these deaths, no less than 28 were criminal
homicides, the Defense Department acknowledges. The victims
were tortured to death.
An official investigation into the cases of two young men
who were beaten to death at a U.S.-run facility in Bagram,
Afghanistan, revealed that more than two dozen soldiers were
involved in these deaths. The interrogators, believe that
they could deviate from the well-tested rules because, as one
said, ``there was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners
of war, but nothing for terrorists.''
Despite its benefits, the prospect of Guantanamo being
closed any time soon is unlikely. Last week, Vice President
Dick Cheney said of the prison: ``What we're doing down there
has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately.'' And yet,
the vice president's assertion files in the face of leaked
FBI and International Red Cross reports as well as comments
by a former U.S. military translator who published his
observations of detainee mistreatment and sexual humiliation.
What can be done when there is such a discrepancy between
the facts and the official interpretation of them? In a
democracy, the best way to deal with this is openness:
Congress should authorize the creation of an independent,
bipartisan commission to conduct a thorough investigation of
U.S. detention and interrogation policies worldwide. This
would allow the United States to assess what went wrong and
why and to recommend corrective action.
Until Congress does this, Guantanamo and the other U.S.
detention centers will continue to serve as the symbol of
America's tarnished reputation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to
yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the
distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. 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
[[Page H4832]]
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.
{time} 1315
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.
The material previously referred to is as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 7, 2005]
Justice Before Politics
(By Floyd Abrams, Bob Barr and Thomas Pickering)
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, came widespread shock
and horror--and some tough questions. Could the United States
have prevented this catastrophe? What corrective action might
we take to protect ourselves from other terrorist attacks?
After political struggles and initial resistance by many
political leaders, Congress and the president created the
Sept. 11 commission in 2002. This bipartisan group of 10
prominent Americans was charged with conducting an
independent and complete investigation of the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11 and with providing recommendations for
preventing such disasters. In July 2004 the commission
released its report, and in December Congress passed
legislation to implement many of its recommendations.
In the spring of 2004, the scandal involving the abuse of
prisoners at Abu Ghraib became public. Additional allegations
of abuse surfaced in connection with prisoners detained by
the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
Many Americans asked themselves the same painful questions
about these allegations: How could such terrible actions have
taken place? Who was responsible? What reforms might we
implement to prevent such problems? Once again, a year later,
these questions remain unanswered.
We believe that the American public deserves answers. We
are members of the bipartisan Liberty and Security Initiative
of the Constitution Project, which is based at Georgetown
University's Public Policy Institute. We have joined with
other members of the initiative--Republicans and Democrats,
liberals and conservatives--to call for the establishment of
an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the issue
of abuse of terrorist suspects. We urge Congress and the
president to immediately create such a commission and to use
the Sept. 11 commission as a model.
No investigation completed to date has included
recommendations on how mistreatment at detention facilities
might be avoided. Even the Pentagon's much-heralded report by
Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, completed in March, concluded
only that there were ``missed opportunities in the policy
development process'' and that these opportunities ``should
be considered in the development of future interrogation
policies.''
Establishing an independent, bipartisan commission would
also be beneficial for U.S. relationships abroad. The abuse
of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody has undermined the
United States' position in the world. This is a time when we
should be making extra efforts to reach out to Muslims and to
ask them to work with us in the war against terrorism.
Instead, our failure to undertake a thorough and credible
investigation has created severe resentment of the United
States.
An independent bipartisan investigation can generate
widespread acceptance and support for its findings. Only with
such a commission are we likely to enact the reforms needed
to restore our credibility among the nations of the world.
We must move beyond the partisan battles of our highly
charged political climate. To provide a credible
investigation and a plan for corrective action, and to show
the world that the United States takes seriously its
obligations to uphold the rule of law, we urge Congress and
the president to establish a commission to investigate abuse
of terrorist suspects.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as it relates
to these issues. It reflects a legitimate disagreement over the
direction that this investigation should take, whether it should be
based in the legislative branch or based in the executive branch or
some combination, which has been the history.
In fact, here in our own Congress, the Senate has had eight hearings
on detainee abuse, and three on Abu Ghraib specifically. General Myers,
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs; the Chief of Staff of the Army; the
Secretary of Defense; and the Acting Secretary of the Army have all
conducted independent reviews. There are 12 other Department of Defense
reviews that have occurred, and the House Committee on Armed Services
in this body has held three hearings and numerous briefings.
The legislative branch has been diligent in their oversight
responsibility. And I appreciate that there are differences on this,
but I particularly appreciate the way that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have handled this. Unlike in the Senate where the
detainee abuse was equated with the regime of Pol Pot and Hitler and
Stalin, there is a measured approach to disagreement in this Chamber,
and I think that that is the responsible approach, unlike the direction
that the Senate has gone. To equate Guantanamo Bay with regimes that
murdered millions of people is absurd, and it is dangerous, and it
gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in this body
pointed out, detainees in Guantanamo are provided their own prayer
rugs. If that were done in the public school system, it would be
against the law. They are called to prayer five times a day. If that
were done on the average high school intercom system, it would be a
violation of the law. They are fed three nutritious meals per day at an
average of $12 per detainee per day. If we multiplied what we spend on
the school lunch program times three meals, they would be receiving
less than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.
And because of the ongoing judicial review that our government is
engaged in with those detainees, at the end of that process, 234
detainees so far have been released from Guantanamo. And to show their
great gratitude, at least a dozen of them have been identified as
returning to the fight against American servicemen and -women.
I think that it is important that we keep those facts in mind, as
well, as we move through this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I
would
[[Page H4833]]
just say to my friend from Florida that this judicial review that he
talks about evidently is going to take place forever.
It is not about food, Mr. Speaker. The detainees are properly fed.
But they cannot see their relatives. Most of them cannot see a lawyer,
and most of them have not been told what they are charged with. When I
say it is Kafka-esque, Franz Kafka wrote the book ``The Trial'' that
said how horrible it was to be in a situation where one does not know
their accusers, they do not know what they are charged with, and they
are convicted of something in sitting there. We cannot do that in this
country. It is not about food. It is about rights. It is about human
rights and dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the Committee on Government
Reform.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since we saw the
horrific photographs of the torture of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. Yet in Congress, we have ignored our fundamental
responsibility to investigate this issue. And it is not just Abu
Ghraib, but other prison camps as well where we are hearing more and
more reports of instances of disrespect of the Koran and denial of
human rights to detainees.
Under our system of checks and balances, the House of Representatives
has a constitutional duty to ensure proper oversight of the executive
branch, and for this reason I submitted an amendment to this bill to
create either a select committee of the House of Representatives to
examine the matter or an independent commission to conduct such an
investigation. But the Republican leadership blocked both amendments.
They do not want an investigation inside the House or outside by an
independent group. The independent commission, I believe, would have
filled this huge oversight vacuum. It was denied, and that is why I am
in opposition to the previous question on the rule and the rule itself.
The reports of detainee abuse are undermining one of our Nation's
most valuable assets, our reputation and respect for human rights. And
they are endangering our Armed Forces and inciting hatred against the
United States. As Senator Biden said, Guantanamo is the ``greatest
propaganda tool for the recruitment of terrorists worldwide.''
Some of the allegations that have been replayed over and over again
around the world may not be true. President Bush calls them ``absurd.''
But we will not know what is true and what is not true unless we
investigate. And when we refuse to conduct thorough, independent
investigations, the rest of the world thinks we have something to hide.
When we ignore our constitutional obligations, we are not doing the
administration any favor. A lack of oversight leads to a lack of
accountability, and no accountability breeds arrogance and abuse of
power.
Over the past year, more and more instances of detainee abuse from a
growing number of locations around the world have come to light. In
just the past few weeks, new evidence emerged of the desecration of the
Koran at Guantanamo Bay; the involvement of Navy Seals in beating
detainees in Iraq; and the gruesome, ultimately fatal torture of
Afghans at the U.S. detention center at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.
It is time for this House to put aside political calculations and
fulfill our constitutional oversight responsibilities.
Let me just point out to my colleagues that we have not had an
investigation since Abu Ghraib. The House held only 5 hours of public
hearings in the Committee on Armed Services to investigate the abuses.
In contrast, the House spent 140 hours taking witness testimony to
examine whether President Clinton mishandled his Christmas card list.
What is more important for the use of oversight and investigative
powers of the House?
While the Senate review has been more extensive, it has not involved
comprehensive public review of all relevant agencies and personnel, nor
has it produced comprehensive conclusions regarding individual
accountability and necessary corrective actions.
We must do our job. We need to examine these allegations and take our
oversight responsibilities seriously. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unquestionably, Congress's responsibility to properly oversee the
activities of the entire Federal Government is preeminent, and that is
why I am proud that, under the leadership of the gentleman from
California (Chairman Hunter), they have had hearings. In the Senate
they have had hearings. And today, as we speak, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence also has an oversight subcommittee
devoted to investigating all of these issues.
Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of that
committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. And before I move on to
address some of the discussion that has been on the floor today, let me
talk about some of the issues in the rule; and I think later on we will
have an opportunity to talk about what may be unusual in this bill.
But as my colleagues on the other side today may try to destroy, we
have developed a bill that will set a direction for the intelligence
community and we have done it in a bipartisan way. We have checked the
issues as to whether the bill is sufficient in terms of the resources
to have an effective intelligence community. We have made important
decisions as to the relative balance between HUMINT and our technical
capabilities. We have made important decisions about the direction of
our technical capabilities, and we have done it on a bipartisan basis.
This bill came out of committee with a voice vote. It shows the
continued commitment of the House to support the global war on
terrorism and our troops deployed abroad. We attempted this year to
keep ancillary issues out of the bill, to focus the full attention of
the committee on careful oversight and review of our Nation's
intelligence programs. Our goal was to properly align the resources of
those programs to counter the threats facing our Nation. I appreciate
the efforts of the Committee on Rules to keep floor debate similarly
focused on the programs that are authorized in the bill and related
issues.
Again, we are setting a strategic direction for where we think the
intelligence community needs to go. There will be some changes that
were made as a result of the rule that we will vote on in the next few
minutes, and these again were an attempt to make sure that there was
not confusion about what direction we wanted to go in, what we wanted
to get done, and make sure that the underlying direction for the reform
of the intelligence community was the bill that was signed into law by
the President last December.
I will say that I agree with some of my colleagues on the other side.
My ranking member said it is the responsibility of Congress to do its
work. Congress will do its work. We have been doing our work. We have
had a bipartisan, constructive effort, led by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), to take a
look at the allegations that are out there. We have been investigating
these issues.
My colleague here says we have not been doing any work. My colleague
has not done the basics. He maybe could have asked, has the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence on the House side done anything to
take a look at the alleged allegations or the abuses at Guantanamo, the
intelligence community's relationships to Abu Ghraib? I think my
ranking member on the other side has said that we have had a
constructive, bipartisan effort to take a look at the allegations, to
take a look at the role of the intelligence community, and to take a
look at how we move forward on these types of things. But sometimes
people do not even want to raise the basic questions and get the basic
information that they need.
These are serious issues. The information that the folks may have in
Guantanamo may save American lives. It will make our war on terror more
effective.
Should these allegations be investigated? Absolutely. Are they being
investigated? Absolutely. And members
[[Page H4834]]
on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence know that that work
has been going on, and it has been going on in a very constructive and
a very effective method.
{time} 1330
I look forward to passing this bill today. I look forward to this
committee continuing the work that Congress has asked it to do, and us
going back and doing it in an effective way, to make sure that we will
have an effective intelligence community. It is time to stop bashing
our troops and our intelligence community. These people put their lives
on the line every day. It is time to show them some support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to
yield 2 minutes to my friend and classmate, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this restrictive rule for
not making in order the Waxman amendment to provide for an
investigation by a bipartisan, independent commission of the detainee
abuses alleged at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other sites.
Let me say at the outset that the men and women in our armed services
ought to be praised for their selfless sacrifices. They deserve not to
have their names and their good works associated with the torture and
abuse that has been alleged in newspapers and other reports. That is
why it is so important to have a complete and full investigation and to
receive assurances that torture and abuse are not standard operating
procedure in our armed forces, even if torture was authorized by
Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Gonzales. It is not authorized
by Congress or by the American people who ultimately get to have the
final say.
It also bothers me that these detainees do not have any way of
asserting their innocence. The President says they are all terrorists,
but what if some of them were cases of mistaken identity? What if some
of them had nothing to do with terrorism? What if they have a similar
name or a similar appearance, but are indeed factually innocent of all
charges?
It seems to me that if the government is so sure that everyone we are
holding is a terrorist, there should be no trouble convincing a court,
a judge, or a military court. That would be preferable to having the
government assert that all of these people are terrorists, just trust
us. We cannot allow that type of abuse of power to continue in our
name.
This assertion of the right to hold people forever, with no specific
evidence and no due process, has not been asserted in an English-
speaking country since before Magna Carta, 800 years ago, until this
President had the nerve to besmirch the good name of the United States
by making such an assertion. This is not how America became the Shining
City on a Hill so admired by people the world over.
No executive should be permitted the power to lock people up forever
without ever having to prove their guilt. That is a power that I would
trust to no man, no king, no dictator, and no President.
Let me say one other thing. Torture and abuse of prisoners is not
just a shameful violation of human rights, it does not work. People
under torture will say anything. Intelligence professionals know better
than to believe or to rely on information extracted under torture.
Torture and abuse of detainees is wrong for so many reasons. It is a
horrendous practice, it produces nothing but shame and more enemies for
the United States, and anger from the rest of the world.
We need to aggressively investigate these abuses and put safeguards
and policies into place to prevent them from ever happening again.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Perhaps we should remind the gentleman of some of the 545 people who
are being detained in Guantanamo; 545, by the way, is fewer people than
are in my county's jail on a Saturday night.
But of those 545 people who killed innocent women and children, they
included a detainee named Katani who was stopped before he could board
one of the planes used to strike the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, or taking care of Osama bin Laden's body guards, other
members of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks and members of the
Taliban. These are not your average, run-of-the-mill pick-pockets and
thieves. They are hardened terrorists who have pledged everything to
destroy American service men and women, to come into our homeland and
wreak havoc and cause mayhem and cause death and destruction within
these borders of the United States of America. They are being
monitored. They are under ongoing judicial review. The eyes of the
world, as this debate has evidenced, are on Guantanamo.
These are individuals who represent the very worst in our global
society who would do anything to bring us harm. Yet we seem to lose all
of that perspective in this very dramatic, theatrical debate that began
in the Senate when there was an equation of Guantanamo with the regimes
of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot which resulted in the torture and
mutilation and death of millions of human beings. And for this similar
equation to be made on the House floor that we, in our activities in
Guantanamo, are even remotely close to those regimes is out of bounds.
There have been numerous Department of Defense investigations into
detainee abuse, numerous House Committee on Armed Services hearings on
detainee abuse, Senate committee hearings on detainee abuse, and
ongoing Intelligence subcommittee reviews of what is going on there.
It is important that we step back and understand that this is an
intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women the tools
they need to fight people around the world that we would not invite
over for dinner; people who would do everything in their power to bring
down our society, our form of government, our cloak of safety. Let us
keep those things in mind when we go forward with this debate about
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Just one thing for my friend from Florida: Charge it and prove it.
That is all. This is a great Nation. We can charge those folks with a
crime, and we can prove that they did what the gentleman said.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this point to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this rule.
We have been led to believe that the use of torture in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were isolated incidents; that
murder, sexual assault, and physical abuse were the work of a few low-
ranking guards who are now being brought to justice.
The new evidence indicates we have been misled.
Recent news accounts have detailed the deaths of two detainees in
2002 at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan during interrogation
by military intelligence. One man was hung by his arms in his jail cell
for days and beaten so severely in the legs that he died, even though,
as the newspapers reported, soldiers involved in the detention believed
that the man was innocent.
Despite being ruled homicide by the coroners, the deaths were
described by a military spokesman as resulting from natural causes. In
the meantime, the officer was promoted and placed in charge of
interrogations in Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison.
But this story is not about low-ranking soldiers who independently
ran afoul of the system; it is not a matter of a few bad apples. It is
one tale in what is emerging to be a pattern of systematic abuse
carried out with the knowledge and approval of senior military and
civilian officials.
How do we know that the Defense Department and senior military
commanders knew what was going on? Because their own documents say so.
Their own documents show that the general in charge of our troops in
Afghanistan knew that unapproved techniques were being used in those
interrogatories. So what did he do? He made
[[Page H4835]]
a list of these techniques and sent them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
who were looking for ways to alter interrogations in Guantanamo Bay.
In fact, the only time the general in charge of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan seems to have issued any written policy is when he
recommended that the Geneva Convention techniques be removed for
everyone, regardless of whether or not they were tied to al Qaeda or
the Taliban.
So let me sum it up. Advanced torture techniques were developed and
used in Afghanistan and resulted in the deaths of multiple detainees.
The deaths were covered up and the investigations were stalled. The
techniques were shared with the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and
then spread to Iraq where the same people responsible for the deaths in
Afghanistan were put in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison.
From Afghanistan to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, torture, lies, and
coverup. This is not an accident, this is a pattern of abuse.
I want to enter into the Record an editorial from my hometown paper
on this.
That is why I join my colleagues in calling for the creation of an
independent commission on detainee abuse. The leadership in the House
and, more specifically, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
have proven both negligent and incapable of dealing with this issue as
they have looked the other way and led the country to continue to
believe that this is only a few bad apples, a few malcontents that went
about it the wrong way when, in fact, the evidence from our own Defense
Department tells us differently and has irreparably damaged the
reputation of the United States, and has cast doubt on our foreign
policy, and it is a new recruitment tool, as so many have commented,
both in the intelligence community and in the Congress, that raises the
likelihood that U.S. troops captured by enemy combatants or terrorists
will be killed or tortured. It gives the radical opponents of the
United States and the insurgents the fuel to feed the insurgency
against U.S. soldiers and the new Iraqi Government.
The failure of this administration, which so often demands
accountability of others to deal with this issue in an honest and
forthright fashion, undermines our ability to implement the strategy
for success in Iraq and Afghanistan and tears down our forces.
Suspicious Treatment
First, there were the sickening photos smuggled out of Abu
Ghraib prison a year ago that shocked the world and fueled
anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. Then,
there were allegations from prisoners recently freed from
Guantanamo Bay that U.S. military guards had beaten false
confessions out of them and desecrated the Quran. Then.
earlier this month, the New York Times reported that military
interrogators at a U.S. prison in Afghanistan had killed
detainees during questioning, then tried to cover up the
cause of death. The interrogators didn't believe one of the
men was involved in terrorism, but had beaten him to death--
allegedly by accident--anyway.
Now, Amnesty International U.S.A. has released a scathing
report calling the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
``the gulag of our times.'' The report's authors accuse
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and other top U.S. officials of being ``architects
of torture.''
The human rights watchdog organization called on foreign
governments to use international law to investigate U.S.
officials for their abuse of detainees accused of having
terrorist ties.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press has obtained 1,000 pages of
U.S. government tribunal transcripts under a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit that offers chilling, firsthand
accounts of alleged prisoner abuse. In one case, a Guantanamo
Bay prisoner told a military panel that American soldiers had
beaten him so badly, he now wets his pants.
Vice President Dick Cheney insists that the prisoners are
``peddling lies'' and that the Guantanamo detainees have been
``well-treated, treated humanely and decently.'' President
Bush blasted the Amnesty report Tuesday, calling it
``absurd.''
Yet, It is quite unsettling that prisoners in Guantanamo,
Afghanistan and Iraq have told strikingly similar stories.
Bush administration officials' unapolog- etic defense of
military conduct at Guantanamo and other U.S. military
prisons--in the face of mounting evidence of serious
problems--is symptomatic of its increasingly familiar refusal
to acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility. This
arrogant stonewalling must not be allowed, especially when so
much is at stake.
The well-publicized mistreatment of Muslim detainees at
U.S.-run military prisons has severely damaged the United
States' reputation abroad. It is the height of hypocrisy to
talk of spreading democracy while our government tramples all
over individual civil liberties. In the United States, a
person is innocent until proven guilty, yet Muslim detainees
are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Nearly 600
people have been held without charges. Up until a year ago,
they could not even challenge their detentions in U.S.
courts. The U.S. government had argued that as foreigners on
foreign soil, they had no legal recourse, which is absurd as
well as un-American.
It is high time that President Bush and Congress appoint a
bipartisan panel to investigate the allegations of abuse of
terrorist suspects. People on both sides of the ideological
spectrum have called for such a commission, ranging from
conservative former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., to the Center
for American Progress on the left.
If, as Rumsfeld claims, released detainees are a bunch of
liars, the administration has nothing to hide.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Perhaps the gentleman, out of his concern for torture, would read
into the Record the similar treatments, the abuse, the torture, the
behavior shown Jessica Lynch. Perhaps the gentleman would also read
into the Record the actions of the gentlemen who boarded American
airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. Perhaps, out of his sense of concern about torture, he would
enter into the Record transcripts and videos of the beheadings that
have been taking place in Iraq. Perhaps the gentleman, out of his sense
of concern about torture, would cover those bad apples, those bad
actors, and the actions that are being taken against them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in opposition to any further investigation of either what is
taking place at Guantanamo Bay with our detainees or further
investigation of Abu Ghraib.
I want to speak about Guantanamo first, because I heard some of the
reports when we first brought detainees there, and I went down and
visited. I walked among the prisoners, I saw the housing, I saw how
they were treated. I was asked what I thought when I saw the whole
thing, and I want to use my quote here on the floor. I said, ``I
thought it was too good for the bastards.''
I stand here today appalled at my colleagues who, in fact, are
concerned about the rights of mass murderers. And that is exactly what
we have here. We have international mass murderers, enemy combatants.
They had no consideration, in support of a regime, the al Qaeda regime
and Osama bin Laden, who slaughtered thousands of people on our soil,
and many of whom were both Americans and internationals.
What right did they respect of Barbara Olson, who worked for our
Committee on Government Reform, whose plane crashed into the Pentagon
that morning? And I remember Barbara. What right did they respect of
Neal Levin, who I met with at the World Trade Centers, who was trapped,
along with everyone who helped me and our Subcommittee on Aviation, who
were all murdered on the morning of September 11 when they were in the
Windows on the World restaurant? What right did they defend of those
people?
How quickly we forget September 11. I am reading the book ``102
Minutes.'' I wish everyone would read it, about the thousands of people
who were left trapped in the World Trade Center. What rights did these
people who supported that activity exercise?
Abu Ghraib, if I hear one more thing about that and the actions of
our military folks; someone described ``horrific torture.'' I saw worse
things at fraternity houses in college than what our troops were
involved in. And to continue the harassment.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) brought into the
Committee on International Relations two prisoners; one, I recall, was
from Abu Ghraib. I did not see anyone from the other side there, I did
not see anyone from the press there when they described their treatment
under Saddam Hussein. Do my colleagues know how he dealt with
overcrowding? He took them out and slaughtered them. I did not see
anyone from the other side concerned about the rights of those
prisoners.
[[Page H4836]]
One gentleman told us how he was taken from Abu Ghraib Prison; well,
he described not only the beheadings, but the limb amputations, the
pulling out of tongues, the electrical shocks. How dare anyone from the
House or the other body compare the treatment our troops afforded this
scum of the earth?
What about an investigation of the 300,000 mass graves that our
troops have uncovered and the treatment that those people received.
Finally, again, that one prisoner, and no one here bothered on the
other side to even attend the meeting with the prisoners to hear how
Saddam Hussein treated them. He described how he was taken out, he and
others, and they were all shot, and the bulldozer pushed over dirt on
them; he was shot five times, and only managed to crawl away and
somehow survive to tell how the other side truly tortures.
{time} 1345
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am convinced of some things: some of my
colleagues just do not get it when it comes to human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule with a very simple question:
What is the House Republican leadership afraid of? We say we want to
promote democracy around the world. We say we want to set a good
example to others, and yet the House leadership seeks to block a vote
today. That is what this argument is about, a vote today on the Waxman
amendment, which would simply create an independent, bipartisan
commission to investigate abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and
other places around the world.
Unfortunately, the only example we seem to be setting these days is
the example of the ostrich, to bury our heads in the sand, to ignore
the facts, to ignore the truth.
The Bush administration and my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle say that the reports of human rights abuses at these facilities
have been greatly exaggerated. Then what are they afraid of? The
chairman of the Intelligence Committee just says these are serious
issues. They are serious issues.
We do not want quarter-truths; we do not want half-truths. Let us get
at the full truth, the good, the bad and the ugly. People around the
world look to the United States, not just for the statements we make,
but for the actions we take. And Americans have been shocked at the
reports of abuses because they know these actions do not reflect our
values, and that is what this is about, our values.
And they do not represent us as a people. The United States
throughout its history has been a great beacon of human rights. And
very sadly, that beacon has been dimmed by the abuses that have been
taking place. And the best way to reclaim our credibility on this issue
is to squarely face the facts and those abuses.
We must lead by our example. We must show we will not run from the
truth even when it is unpleasant. Only by confronting the truth can we
learn from our mistakes. Only by examining our own conduct can we
credibly talk about the misconduct of others. Let us show the world
that a strong, competent Nation does not run from or hide from the
truth. Let us once again lead by example.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the seeker of
that truth, the chairman of the oversight subcommittee tasked with
looking into alleged abuse.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding and commend him on the handling of this rule, but also in
helping us put this whole issue into greater context.
Because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to remind
ourselves that this bill contains a number of things which try to help
defend the country, try to help keep us all safer, try to prevent gross
inhumane acts of slaughter by the terrorists, which we know they are
intent upon committing.
And so I think it is important as we focus down on some of these
specific issues, and we should talk about them, to keep the larger
context in mind. The gentleman from Florida has helped to do that. In a
little bit, I want to talk in greater length about the oversight
subcommittee, because I think it is important to say that the chairman
of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee, at the beginning of this Congress, decided to
create a special oversight subcommittee of the House Intelligence
Committee.
And our charge is to focus at greater depth and with greater
persistency on some of the key intelligence issues which we face. And
we take that job very seriously. And I think we can do the job very
seriously, in part because we usually do not do our job in front of the
cameras. We do not do our job for partisanship.
We do not come out on the floor, in press conferences or in other
places, and try to bash the administration or to protect the
administration. We try to be tough, but fair. And that is the way that
real oversight, particularly in the area of national security, ought to
be done, rather than posturing and other things that we have seen from
time to time. The problem is the work you do in the Intelligence
Committee cannot be talked about openly. And so there is very little
one can say about the specifics.
But just because we cannot come and detail all of our activities and
some of what we found and what more we have to do, one should never
take that to mean that there is not serious oversight and investigation
ongoing, because there is.
And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that worldwide terrorism
presents a number of challenges to us. It is absolutely true, as many
of the speakers have said, that we must maintain our American values,
and at the same time try to prevent acts of terrorism.
Our problem is, when we just focus on one part of that equation, when
we forget that the purpose here is to prevent acts of terrorism, then I
think we become unbalanced, our rhetoric becomes more sensational, and
unfortunately I think the American people do not benefit from such
talk.
I can only say that with my partner, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Cramer), and other members of the subcommittee, with our bipartisan
staff, we take our job very seriously. And we will pursue that
investigation very seriously. And we will try to make sure that
American values are maintained, and at the same time our troops, our
homeland security folks, our policemen and others, have the information
they need to keep us safe. We will keep both goals in mind.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
leadership and for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage today in a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And let me first thank the
gentlewoman for her consistent leadership on so many national security
issues.
Let me just say briefly that I appreciate this opportunity to discuss
an issue very briefly that is of critical importance, that is, making
sure that the United States Government is not involved in violating the
will of any people anywhere in the world which duly elects a government
through democratic means.
In 1982, Congress passed the Boland amendment, which prohibited the
Federal Government from using taxpayer dollars for the purpose of
overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua. I offered an amendment to
this intelligence authorization bill that broadens this concept to
ensure that our Federal intelligence dollars are not used to support
groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically
elected governments. Unfortunately it was not made in order.
In an ideal world, we would not specifically stipulate this, but
events in Haiti and more recently in Venezuela have led me to wonder
whether we need to codify this straightforward, nonpartisan position.
So I think that we must do all we can not only to support
[[Page H4837]]
the spirit of democracy throughout the world, but also to ensure that
it is allowed to flourish and to grow.
I would like to ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) if
she has any thought about how we need to move forward, basically
because I believe again, as I said earlier, that such actions fly in
the face of our own democratic principles.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. 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.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
comments and her attention to this issue. I look forward to working
with her.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous
speakers said we just do not get it. To him I would say, and to others,
yes, we do get it.
I came back to this body after 9/11 precisely because of the attack
on Americans and the loss of three people that I knew personally. I
came back here with the idea that we needed to fight for America and
defend ourselves and not tear up the Constitution in the process.
The suggestion made by some that we are engaged in wide-scale
torture, that we are somehow morally equivalent with others is
absolutely absurd. The proper way for us to respond to allegations is
to do what the Congress is supposed to do, and what the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry) said we are about, which is the proper
congressional oversight, not mock hearings like we had last week, not
setting up independent commissions, not politicizing this, but doing it
in the way the Constitution requires us to do it.
If there is any problem, it is with the Congress not doing proper
oversight. We have the commitment from the committees and the
subcommittees to do it. Let us rise above partisanship. Let us do the
right thing, and let us get rid of this nonsense of a moral equivalency
between the United States and some of those terrible regimes around the
world. It is not worthy of this body.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
this restrictive rule.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered a reasonable
amendment, which was rejected by the Rules Committee, that would have
put the House on record in support of a bipartisan, independent
investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the
facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Because there are known cases of abuse, and there are more questions
than answers about the extent of abuse on people held by or for the
United States, we need to shine a very bright light on detainee
treatment. Only when we know the full scale of the problem will we be
able to stop, prevent, and correct any wrongs that have been done in
our country's name.
And if it is true, as Vice President Cheney says, that the prisoners
are peddling lies, then let us investigate prisoner treatment so that
we have evidence and not just assertions. The United States should be
the standard bearer of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout
the world. However, it has been over a year since the story broke about
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and we have yet to conduct a through
independent investigation.
Opening the door to an independent investigation would be a major
step toward returning our country's standing as a moral leader. And to
those who would try to justify what we do by saying, well, it is not as
bad as those unspeakable beheadings or other things, well, I should
certainly hope not, because we are not like them. We are better than
them. We are the United States of America.
And now, those who call on our country to uphold the rule of law and
who reject becoming debased ourselves by conducting torture, they
become the object of relentless criticism. Those patriots who want to
stand up to our values and our belief in the rule of law, we are a
proud and a great Nation blessed with immense freedom and with military
personnel who proudly defend us. We should not fear the truth; we
should demand it with an independent investigation.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right when she
says we are better than them. She is absolutely right when she says we
are not equal to them. I hope she shares that thought with the senior
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with
interest. And I rise in support of the rule and in support of a
realistic foreign policy that some in this Chamber apparently
misunderstand.
The actions of September 11, 2001, were not criminal acts; they were
acts of war against this Nation.
{time} 1400
One of the fundamental problems when you separate all the venom and
vitriol that we have heard in this debate and certainly from someone in
the other body who compared American fighting men and women to the
Soviets with their gulags and the Third Reich and Pol Pot's regime in
Cambodia, one of the fundamental problems seems to be the willingness
of many to equate this with some sort of law enforcement problem. It is
not.
And to those who are expending such efforts and such rhetoric on
behalf of the alleged rights of enemies of this country, let me remind
you that the Constitution's first three words are ``We the people,''
not ``they the terrorists,'' or ``they the insurgents,'' or ``they the
accused.''
In wartime the Constitution is a mechanism for the survival of the
Republic. And as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out years ago, the
Constitution is not a suicide pact. This need not be a partisan
controversy. One look only so far as the History Channel as columnist
Thomas Sowell pointed out 2 weeks ago. Do you know what happened at
World War II to unfortunate combatants; that is, those without
representing a nation state or wearing the uniform or insignia of a
military nation or state during World War II?
When those unlawful combatants were apprehended, they were lined up
and shot. The Commander in Chief at that time was Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. That was in adherence with the Geneva Convention.
We are in a war where people behead Americans. It would be nice to
see one-tenth of the passion on behalf of American citizens that we see
for the terrorists and their alleged rights. Vote in favor of the rule.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second to speak to my
friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and he is my friend, but I think he
is wrong when he says human rights issues are something that we just do
not get.
Well, that is wrong. I think we do get it. I think it is fairly clear
to the Members of this body, it is fairly clear to the people of this
country, that many of you Democrats are very interested in human rights
of the prisoners down in Guantanamo Bay, people who would kill your
children, who would kill your families and destroy your homes. And we
are interested in getting information in a reasonable manner from
prisoners or terrorists in order to save the lives of American people,
to save the lives of our military.
So it is a simple matter. It comes down to whose side are you really
on?
[[Page H4838]]
Are you on the side of the terrorists so you can be against President
Bush, or are you on the side of the American people and the American
families?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I answer the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am
on the side of the American people and I am on the side of the rights
that I believe are principles inherent in our United States
Constitution and throughout the United States Constitution.
I do not have time to yield to the gentleman, otherwise I would.
Make no mistake about it, most of us feel as strongly as most of you
do, and I do not think that anybody here ought question our patriotism.
This Nation is the greatest Nation on this Earth, and we do not have
to have anything to fear. We do not have to have any worry about trying
people who harm this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule
so we can consider the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Waxman amendment has been
explained. It would establish an independent commission, similar to the
9/11 Commission, to conduct an extensive, bipartisan, and thorough
investigation into the multiple accounts of prisoner abuse that have
occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.
Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the shocking and
humiliating photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib first became
public. I doubt there is any Member of this Chamber who was not
appalled at that disgraceful act. Yet, in spite of these events, the
House has done very little of substance.
Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to conclude by saying, a ``no'' vote
will allow Members to vote on the Waxman amendment, so we can take
immediate steps to fully investigate these very disturbing incidents of
prisoner mistreatment.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a vibrant, robust debate and a good solid
beginning of the undeniable debate that will follow on the underlying
bill.
In case you missed it from the debate over the rule, there is a lot
more to this rule than just Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is an
important rule that allows us to consider the intelligence
authorization bill that gives our men and women around the world the
tools and skill and support they need to win the war against terrorism
on our behalf, important new assets in terms of technical capabilities,
and a tremendous investment in the most important piece that we have in
intelligence, which is those hardworking men and women who were called
to public service.
This is a fair rule. It allows for a great deal more consideration of
these issues that we have already begun to discuss in terms of
detainees and the role of American intelligence in our society and the
tools that they need around the world. I encourage everyone to support
it and to support the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 331--Rule for H.R. 2475 Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
``In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the
following:
``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution
if offered by Representative Waxman of California or a
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order or demand for division of the question, shall
not be subject to amendment, shall be considered as read, and
shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4)
Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Waxman referred to
in Section 1 is as follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2475, As Reported Offered by Mr. Waxman of California
At the end, add the following new title:
TITLE V--ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
DETAINEE ABUSES
SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established in the legislative branch the
Independent Commission on the Investigation of Detainee
Abuses (in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 502. DUTIES.
(a) Investigation.--The Commission shall conduct a full and
complete investigation of the abuses of detainees in
connection with intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring
Freedom, or any operation within the Global War on Terrorism,
including but not limited to the following:
(1) The extent of the abuses.
(2) Why the abuses occurred.
(3) Who is responsible for the abuses.
(4) Whether any particular Department of Defense,
Department of State, Department of Justice, Central
Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, or White
House policies, procedures, or decisions facilitated the
detainee abuses.
(5) What policies, procedures, or mechanisms failed to
prevent the abuses.
(6) What legislative or executive actions should be taken
to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future.
(7) The extent, if any, to which Guantanamo Detention
Center policies influenced policies at the Abu Ghraib prison
and other detention centers in and outside Iraq.
(b) Assessment, Analysis, and Evaluation.--During the
course of its investigation under subsection (a), the
Commission shall assess, analyze, and evaluate relevant
persons, policies, procedures, reports, and events, including
but not limited to the following:
(1) The Military Chain of Command.
(2) The National Security Council.
(3) The Department of Justice.
(4) The Department of State.
(5) The Office of the White House Counsel.
(6) The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central
Intelligence Agency.
(7) The approval process for interrogation techniques used
at detention facilities in Iraq, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
(8) The integration of military police and military
intelligence operations to coordinate detainee interrogation.
(9) The roles and actions of private civilian contractors
in the abuses and whether they violated the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act or any other United States
statutes and international treaties.
(10) The role of nongovernmental organizations' warnings to
United States officials about the abuses.
(11) The role of Congress and whether it was fully informed
throughout the process that uncovered these abuses.
(12) The extent to which the United States complied with
the applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949,
and the extent to which the United States may have violated
international law by restricting the access of the
International Committee of the Red Cross to detainees.
SEC. 503. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.
(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10
members, of whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be jointly appointed by the minority
leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives, who shall serve as vice chairman of the
Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
(1) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the
Federal Government or any State or local government.
(2) Other qualifications.--Individuals that shall be
appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States
citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of
experience in such professions as governmental service, law
enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration,
intelligence gathering, human rights policy, and foreign
affairs.
(3) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the
Commission shall be appointed within 45 days following the
enactment of this Act.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet and begin the
operations of the Commission as soon as practicable. After
its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call
of the chairman or a majority of its members.
(c) Quorum; Vacancies.--Six members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made.
(d) Conflicts of Interest.--Each member appointed to the
Commission shall submit a
[[Page H4839]]
financial disclosure report pursuant to the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, notwithstanding the minimum required
rate of compensation or time period employed.
SEC. 504. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the
authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member
thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this title--
(A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, receive such evidence,
administer such oaths; and
(B) subject to paragraph (2)(A), require, by subpoena or
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and
the production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents,
as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or
designated member may determine advisable.
(2) Subpoenas.--
(A) Issuance.--
(i) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this
subsection only--
(I) by the agreement of the chairman and the vice chairman;
or
(II) by the affirmative vote of 6 members of the
Commission.
(ii) Signature.--Subject to clause (i), subpoenas issued
under this subsection may be issued under the signature of
the chairman or any member designated by a majority of the
Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the
chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the
Commission.
(B) Enforcement.--
(i) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under this subsection, the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or
where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order
requiring such person to appear at any designated place to
testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the
court as a contempt of that court.
(ii) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of
any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when
summoned under authority of this subsection, the Commission
may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact
constituting such failure to the appropriate United States
attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for
its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures
as if the United States attorney had received a certification
under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
(3) Scope.--In carrying out its duties under this Act, the
Commission may examine the actions and representations of the
current Administration as well as prior Administrations.
(b) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in
such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter
into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its
duties of this Act.
(c) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission,
office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and
statistics for the purposes of this Act. Each department,
bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent
establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent
authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon
request made by the chairman, the chairman of any
subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any
member designated by a majority of the Commission.
(2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and
disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff
consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders.
(d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis administrative support and other services
for the performance of the Commission's functions.
(2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the
assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and
agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission
such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support
services as they may determine advisable and as may be
authorized by law.
(e) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(f) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as departments and agencies of the United States.
SEC. 505. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.
(a) In General.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
(b) Public Meetings and Release of Public Versions of
Reports.--The Commission shall--
(1) hold public hearings and meetings to the extent
appropriate; and
(2) release public versions of the reports required under
section 509.
(c) Public Hearings.--Any public hearings of the Commission
shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection
of information provided to or developed for or by the
Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation,
or Executive order.
SEC. 506. STAFF OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairman, in
consultation with vice chairman, in accordance with rules
agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the
compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as
may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its
functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the
equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The staff director and any personnel of
the Commission who are employees shall be employees under
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of
chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
(B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to apply to members of the Commission.
(b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be
detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the
Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights,
status, and privileges of his or her regular employment
without interruption.
(c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to
procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at
rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a
position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 507. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.
(a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be
compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of
the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that
member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of
the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or
regular places of business in the performance of services for
the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the
Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b)
of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 508. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND
STAFF.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the appropriate
Federal agencies or departments shall cooperate with the
Commission in expeditiously providing to the Commission
members and staff appropriate security clearances to the
extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and
requirements.
(b) Exception.--No person shall be provided with access to
classified information under this title without the
appropriate required security clearance access.
SEC. 509. REPORTS OF COMMISSION; TERMINATION.
(a) Interim Reports.--The Commission may submit to Congress
and the President interim reports containing such findings,
conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures as
have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.
(b) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress and the President a final report containing such
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission
members.
(c) Form of Report.--Each report prepared under this
section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may
contain a classified annex.
(d) Recommendation to Make Public Certain Classified
Information.--If the Commission determines that it is in the
public interest that some or all of the information contained
in a classified annex of a report under this section be made
available to the public, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the congressional intelligence committees
to make such information public, and the congressional
intelligence committees shall consider the recommendation
pursuant to the procedures under subsection (e).
(e) Procedure for Declassifying Information.--
(1) The procedures referred to in subsection (d) are the
procedures described in--
(A) with respect to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives, clause 11(g) of
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, One
Hundred Ninth Congress; and
(B) with respect to the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate, section 8 of
[[Page H4840]]
Senate Resolution 400, Ninety-Fourth Congress.
(2) In this section, the term ``congressional intelligence
committees'' means--
(A) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives; and
(B) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
SEC. 510. TERMINATION.
(a) In General.--The Commission, and all the authorities of
this Act, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the
final report is submitted under section 509(b).
(b) Administrative Activities Before Termination.--The
Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph
(1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including
providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its
reports and disseminating the final report.
SEC. 511. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated funds not to exceed $5,000,000 for
purposes of the activities of the Commission under this Act.
(b) Duration of Availability.--Amounts made available to
the Commission under subsection (a) shall remain available
until the termination of the Commission.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 288]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Carter
Herseth
Lewis (GA)
Murphy
Sessions
Walden (OR)
Whitfield
Young (FL)
{time} 1431
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. ISTOOK changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Congressional Record: June 21, 2005 (House)
Page H4840-H4858
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 331, I call
up the bill (H.R. 2475) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government,
[[Page H4841]]
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 331, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 2475 is as follows:
H. R. 2475
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Intelligence Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006''.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2006 for the conduct of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the following elements of
the United States Government:
(1) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(2) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(3) The Department of Defense.
(4) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(5) The National Security Agency.
(6) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
and the Department of the Air Force.
(7) The Department of State.
(8) The Department of the Treasury.
(9) The Department of Energy.
(10) The Department of Justice.
(11) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(12) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(13) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(14) The Coast Guard.
(15) The Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The
amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and
the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2006,
for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the elements listed in such section, are those
specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
prepared to accompany the bill H.R. ____ of the One Hundred
Ninth Congress.
(b) Availability of Classified Schedule of
Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made
available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and House of Representatives and to the President. The
President shall provide for suitable distribution of the
Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within
the executive branch.
SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director
of National Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian
personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year
2006 under section 102 when the Director of National
Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the
performance of important intelligence functions.
(b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of
National Intelligence shall notify promptly the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives whenever the Director exercises the authority
granted by this section.
SEC. 104. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management
Account of the Director of National Intelligence for fiscal
year 2006 the sum of $_____. Within such amount, funds
identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
referred to in section 102(a) for advanced research and
development shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
(b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the
Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of
National Intelligence are authorized __ full-time personnel
as of September 30, 2006. Personnel serving in such elements
may be permanent employees of the Intelligence Community
Management Account or personnel detailed from other elements
of the United States Government.
(c) Classified Authorizations.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are
also authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account for fiscal year 2006 such
additional amounts as are specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a).
Such additional amounts for advanced research and development
shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
(2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the
personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the
Intelligence Community Management Account as of September 30,
2006, there are also authorized such additional personnel for
such elements as of that date as are specified in the
classified Schedule of Authorizations.
(d) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in section 113 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404h), during
fiscal year 2006 any officer or employee of the United States
or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the staff
of the Intelligence Community Management Account from another
element of the United States Government shall be detailed on
a reimbursable basis, except that any such officer, employee,
or member may be detailed on a nonreimbursable basis for a
period of less than one year for the performance of temporary
functions as required by the Director of National
Intelligence.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal
year 2006 the sum of $_____.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay,
retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be
increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may
be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits
authorized by law.
SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not
be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any
intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by
the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in
Part A of House Report 109-141, is adopted.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
modified, is as follows:
H. R. 2475
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified Schedule of Authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Intelligence Community Management Account.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits
authorized by law.
Sec. 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence
activities.
Sec. 303. Authority of the Director of National
Intelligence to assign individuals to United States
missions in foreign countries to coordinate and direct
intelligence and intelligence-related activities
conducted in that country.
Sec. 304. Clarification of delegation of transfer or
reprogramming authority.
Sec. 305. Approval of personnel transfer for new national
intelligence centers.
Sec. 306. Additional duties for the Director of Science and
Technology.
Sec. 307. Comprehensive inventory of special access
programs.
Sec. 308. Sense of Congress on budget execution authority
procedures.
Sec. 309. Sense of Congress with respect to multi-level
security clearances.
TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Sec. 401. Clarification of role of the Director of Central
Intelligence Agency as head of human intelligence
collection.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2006 for the conduct of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the following elements of
the United States Government:
(1) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(2) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(3) The Department of Defense.
(4) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(5) The National Security Agency.
(6) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
and the Department of the Air Force.
(7) The Department of State.
(8) The Department of the Treasury.
(9) The Department of Energy.
(10) The Department of Justice.
(11) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(12) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(13) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(14) The Coast Guard.
(15) The Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The
amounts authorized to
[[Page H4842]]
be appropriated under section 101, and the authorized
personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2006, for the conduct
of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the elements listed in such section, are those specified in
the classified Schedule of Authorizations prepared to
accompany the bill H.R. 2475 of the One Hundred Ninth
Congress.
(b) Availability of Classified Schedule of
Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made
available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and House of Representatives and to the President. The
President shall provide for suitable distribution of the
Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within
the executive branch.
SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director
of National Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian
personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year
2006 under section 102 when the Director of National
Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the
performance of important intelligence functions.
(b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of
National Intelligence shall notify promptly the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives whenever the Director exercises the authority
granted by this section.
SEC. 104. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management
Account of the Director of National Intelligence for fiscal
year 2006 the sum of $446,144,000. Within such amount, funds
identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations
referred to in section 102(a) for advanced research and
development shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
(b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the
Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of
National Intelligence are authorized 817 full-time personnel
as of September 30, 2006. Personnel serving in such elements
may be permanent employees of the Intelligence Community
Management Account or personnel detailed from other elements
of the United States Government.
(c) Classified Authorizations.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are
also authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence
Community Management Account for fiscal year 2006 such
additional amounts as are specified in the classified
Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a).
Such additional amounts for advanced research and development
shall remain available until September 30, 2007.
(2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the
personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the
Intelligence Community Management Account as of September 30,
2006, there are also authorized such additional personnel for
such elements as of that date as are specified in the
classified Schedule of Authorizations.
(d) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in section 113 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404h), during
fiscal year 2006 any officer or employee of the United States
or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the staff
of the Intelligence Community Management Account from another
element of the United States Government shall be detailed on
a reimbursable basis, except that any such officer, employee,
or member may be detailed on a nonreimbursable basis for a
period of less than one year for the performance of temporary
functions as required by the Director of National
Intelligence.
TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal
year 2006 the sum of $244,600,000.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay,
retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be
increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may
be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits
authorized by law.
SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not
be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any
intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by
t
