John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before turning to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). I want to just take this time to say to the distinguished ranking member of Judiciary, Lamar Smith, how much we appreciate his constructive work with the working group that has been trying to come together to reach an agreement on this bill. At all times he has been straightforward, candid; and we think that the work that we are doing should go on, even though we are bringing the bill up today and it is moving forward. And I invite his continued working with us so that we can reach as much conclusion as we can on the several points that are outstanding. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman who has put so much work into this matter, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Rick Boucher, the author of this bill. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to Ms. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the gentleman from Kentucky working with us (Mr. Yarmuth) and I yield to him 2 minutes in support of this measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting Mike Pence of Indiana, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who has been working on this bill before the 110th Congress. He was a leader in supporting this legislation in the 109th Congress and may have been working on it even before then. So when I listened to my other colleagues on the other side who have been working on and continue to support this legislation, I think it is very easy to perceive that with the working group, with the leaders on both sides of the aisle working with Rick Boucher on this for so long, we have now come to a point where most of the concerns have been addressed; and I deeply thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for the constructive role they played not only in their independent capacity, but in the working group that has been working behind the scenes on this, as well. Now, Members of the House, there has been something said about the importance of national security information. Sometimes it is just as important that the press report on information that the government has tried to hide in the name of national security. Because the problem frequently is that if we keep going after journalists trying to shut them up, trying to put them in jail, or threatening to prosecute them, they will be afraid to report some of the important stories that I am going to relate to you that up until now journalists have had to take it on their own risk to decide what to do. I don't think that is appropriate, nor is it necessary, nor is it contrary to any of our concerns about national security. The history of the American press provides ample evidence of certain stories that would have never been known to the general public without the news media's use of confidential sources. Oftentimes these stories shed light on government misconduct, on corporate waste, fraud and abuse, and other matters of concern. The free flow of information to the public is vitally important to the operation of our democracy and to oversight our most powerful public and private institutions. Now, here are a few examples of issues that were made known to the public through news reports based on confidential source information. Reporters decided that they would honor the confidence of their resources no matter what happened to them. These are courageous people of the media that had to take this on themselves. So this shield law is to take people out of this bind, out of this fear of having to be coerced because we don't know what is going to happen. This draws a very bright line for everybody to understand how we should proceed in the future. Here is a matter that is important: the unsafe and deteriorating conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Here is another public interest matter: the exposure of fertility fraud in Southern California based upon clinical records provided by anonymous sources, reporting more than 250 accounts of fertility fraud and revealed coverups, intimidation of clinical employees and bribery. Because of this reporting, the American Medical Association issued new guidelines for fertility clinics. Here is another story that was of some consequence: a hospital scandal of patient dumping by a Los Angeles County emergency aid program. Reporting that article prompted a government investigation that brought it to an end. Rampant steroid use in Major League Baseball by world-class athletes which, in part, led Major League Baseball and its players union to open up its labor contract and adopt a steroid testing policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during our negotiations led by the Boucher-Pence team, I would like to bring to the attention of the ranking member and manager of this bill before us an important change that was made in the manager's amendment which may or may not have come to his attention because it was made so late in the day. We now have a manager's amendment that would allow the government to pierce the journalistic shield to prevent a terrorist attack, but also to identify any perpetrators of a terrorist attack. I wanted to make sure that my friend and colleague was aware of this very important change because it was made at the very last minute. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a number of articles from newspapers, mostly editorials, that deal with the support of the shield law that is before the Congress at this time. We have a contribution from the Post-Standard in Syracuse, New York, entitled, ``The Shield Law Moves Closer to Reality,'' dated 14 October of this year. In the Baltimore Sun, we had an opinion written yesterday in that newspaper, ``In Search of Shield,'' in support of the legislation. We have heard from the Detroit Free Press from today's paper, ``Vote to Pass Law to Shield Reporters,'' in support of this legislation. The Los Angeles Times earlier in May wrote an article: ``Shielding Journalists: Reporters, and the Country, Would Benefit from a Proposed Federal Law to Protect Confidential Sources.'' The Detroit News in May of this year wrote, ``Why a Federal Shield Law is Necessary,'' authored by Christine Tatum. The New York Times in two different instances in September and October of this year, ``A Shield for the Public,'' was the editorial page comment, and in October, ``The Public's Right to Know,'' another important article in support of this legislation. Here's one that the ranking member would be interested in. The San Antonio Express-News: ``Smith's Decision on Shield Law Critical.'' We hope that had come to his attention before today. The Washington Post, in September: ``Protecting Sources.'' Another important contribution: ``A Much-Needed Shield for Reporters,'' written by Theodore B. Olson in The Washington Post in June of this year. Finally, from USA Today: ``Our Views on Prosecutors and the Press: Jailing of Reporters Chills Free Flow of Information.'' These are only a few of a notebook full of materials that we wouldn't dare introduce this many pieces of material into the Congressional Record. I will include for the Record the items that I cited. Submissions to Record on H.R. 2102 ``Shield Law Moves Closer to Reality.'' The Post-Standard. Syracuse, NY: Opinion Section. 14 October 2007. ``In Search of Shield.'' The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD: Opinion Section. 15 October 2007. ``Vote to Pass Law to Shield Reporters.'' Detroit Free Press. Detroit, MI: Opinion Section. 16 October 2007. Shielding Journalists: Reporters, and the Country, Would Benefit from a Proposed Federal Law to Protect Confidential Sources.'' The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA: Editorial Page. 27 May 2007. Tatum, Christine. ``Why a Federal Shield Law Is Necessary.'' The Detroit News. Detroit, MI. 23 May 2007. ``A Shield for the Public.'' The New York Times. New York, NY: Editorial Page. 20 September 2007. ``The Public's Right to Know.'' The New York Times. New York, NY: Editorial Page. 9 October 2007. ``Smith's Decision on Shield Law Critical.'' San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, TX: Editorial Page. 28 July 2007. ``Protecting Sources.'' The Washington Post. Washington, DC: A-18. 21 September 2007. ``Olson, Theodore B. ``A Much-Needed Shield for Reporters.'' The Washington Post. Washington, DC: A-27. 29 June 2007. ``Our Views on Prosecutors and the Press: Jailing of Reporters Chills Free Flow of Information.'' USA Today. McLean, VA: Editorial page. 14 May 2007.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to recognize the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and just want to say that we have not given up on the possibility of winning some modest support from the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He has negotiated with us in good faith. We continue to work on any improvements. I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) have put forward, and I want to thank Members of the House on both sides. There is apparently a large number of bipartisan supporters for this measure. I want to assure the House that we are moving forward with deliberate speed, and it is in that sense that I continue to urge support for the measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and I congratulate the ranking member for joining us in supporting the Boucher-Pence manager's amendment. We think that we can move even further. Here is an amendment that alters the standard for piercing the shield where national security is involved. Also, it enables law enforcement to obtain an order compelling disclosure of the identity of a source in the course of a leak investigation. So I am very happy about this. I think that it portends that there may be other areas of agreement that we will be able to reach. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I'm proud, to join with Intelligence Committee Chairman Reyes today in introducing legislation that will give our intelligence community needed tools to combat foreign threats while preserving civil liberties. Making sure that surveillance activities protect freedom as well as security is critical to waging an effective fight against terrorism. The RESTORE Act extends the ability of the Government to acquire communications of persons abroad for the purpose of terrorism and other national security threats. Earlier this year, in the Protect America Act, PAA, amendments were made to the long-standing consensus approach set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. Responding to what the administration characterized as pressing concerns, the PAA gave the Government enhanced flexibility to collect foreign intelligence information. But the broad scope of the authority and procedures that allowed the Government to collect this information without up-front court approval raised grave concerns about the need for more safeguards of innocent Americans' communications. The RESTORE Act improves upon the PAA by providing a series of checks and balances while still allowing maximum flexibility. It limits the Government's authority to what the Director of National Intelligence told us he needed--a means to acquire information from telecommunications companies about physical threats to the Nation in which the target is overseas. The RESTORE Act does not require individual warrants when persons reasonably believed to be abroad, but it is firm that a FISA warrant is required to obtain communications of people in the United States. The RESTORE Act settles that FISA is the exclusive means of electronic surveillance, and that no modifications can be made without express statutory authorization. The RESTORE Act will also provide additional resources for the National Security Agency and Department of Justice to ensure that there are no backlogs of critical intelligence gathering. Congressional oversight and full knowledge about surveillance activities is critical in ensuring the Nation's safety. Both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees need access to court orders, Presidential authorizations, and details of and legal justifications for past wiretapping efforts. The RESTORE Act provides for audits and congressional reports of surveillance programs past, present, and future. Through these reports and audits, with nonclassified aspects where appropriate, Members of Congress and the public will have the opportunity to assess whether the program works as designed. Chairman Reyes and I are committed to vigorous oversight, constant dialogue, and statutory improvements as needed to meet our duty to ensure safety and liberty for all. The administration has continued to deny us the information that Congress is entitled to and which is necessary for a full understanding of the issues at stake. Nevertheless, I believe this legislation will allow us to move forward and respond to the concerns of the administration. This bill will require that information be made available to us and give the Congress the opportunity to assess these procedures and the program on the basis of a complete record. The RESTORE Act's important audit and reporting provisions are essential for when the program will sunset in 2009. At that time, with a new Congress, a new President, and the results of these provisions, we will again strive to provide additional protections for the rights of Americans. For this is an ongoing responsibility that all of us in Congress are working toward--a foreign intelligence gathering system that is effective and flexible, yet bound by procedure and law.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2740, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to accept the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Randy Forbes, because we are willing on this side to accept the motion to recommit, with the understanding that we will work to clarify its scope, as has been indicated in the discussion, and that we do understand that this would not in any way weaken the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act or invalidate current law which is now in place. Mr. Speaker, with that agreement on the part of the ranking member, this side accepts the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge support for my amendment to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Justice the power to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by attorneys in that department. And so I put forward to the committee a commonsense proposal that merely gives the Inspector General the tools that he or she may need to root out and report on waste, fraud and abuse. Whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, I believe we should have strong and vigorous oversight of the Department of Justice. At present, however, the Department of Justice Inspector General is limited in his ability to investigate allegations of misconduct. Instead, present law, to the surprise of many, requires that all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys be investigated not by the Inspector General but by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The department's Inspector General should have the same power Inspectors General have throughout the government to investigate without limitation any and all allegations of wrongdoing that arise in that department. The Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General. It is absolutely contrary to human experience to believe that the counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility can aggressively investigate them. It is vital that investigations of these officials, and other high-level officials in the department, be conducted by the statutorily independent Inspector General who is required to be confirmed by the United States Senate. That is the thrust of the idea I propose in this first amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2740.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have never fought a war in which private contractors not only outnumber United States troops, as they do in Iraq, but perform many tasks that are very similar to those historically performed by our troops. A critical difference, however, is that these contractors, unlike our troops, are not subject to the requirements of military discipline and United States law governing the conduct of warfare. Further, they are also immune from Iraqi law. As we know, last month contractors working for Blackwater allegedly opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, killing at least 11 Iraqi civilians. A witness told a CNN reporter, ``Each of their four vehicles opened heavy fire in all directions. They shot and killed everyone in cars facing them and people standing on the street.'' Another witness, whose youngest son was killed during the attack, likened the event to ``hell, like a scene from a movie.'' This latest incident unfortunately evidences the fact that some of these contractors are abusing their power with impunity, subject to no law whatsoever, domestic or foreign. H.R. 2740 corrects this serious gap in current law. Specifically, it amends the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, known as MEJA, in three critical respects: First, it closes the legal gap in current law by making all contractors accountable for their actions. MEJA currently only extends U.S. Federal criminal jurisdiction to felony crimes committed overseas by contractors working on behalf of the Defense Department. This measure specifies that the act would apply to all contractors, regardless of the agency for which they provide services. Second, this measure requires that the Inspector General of the Justice Department examine and report on the Department's efforts to investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct committed by contractors overseas. Since the Iraq war started, the Department has failed to commence a single prosecution against a contractor under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Sadly, last month's Blackwater incident was not the first time contractors have acted abusively without any accountability. On Monday, we learned that Blackwater was involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since the year 2005. And Blackwater isn't the only culpable company. In 2005, armed contractors from the Zapata contracting firm allegedly fired indiscriminately not only at Iraqi civilians, but also at United States Marines. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a trophy video on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians. And employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in a ``joyride shooting'' of Iraqi civilians. These cases, and all like them, should be appropriately investigated and prosecuted, if warranted. Third, H.R. 2740 establishes ground units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by contractors. Notwithstanding the fact that more than 180,000 contractors are currently operating in Iraq, there is not a single investigative unit located in that country. Pursuant to a directive of the administration, FBI agents are belatedly being sent to investigate the Blackwater crime scene in many instances where the evidence has long disappeared. Without a mandated investigating unit, the Justice Department lacks the ability or the incentive to respond effectively. And so, to our colleague from North Carolina, David Price, the author of H.R. 2740, we fixed that shortcoming. And I acknowledge the sponsor for his sustained leadership on this important issue of ensuring that those acting in our name will be held legally accountable for their conduct. This legislation is widely supported, including the Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the International Peace Operations Association, and Amnesty International. The need for us remedying the problem described is extremely urgent. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of its swift passage. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, whose interest in this subject matter began 3 years before he became chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, and I am happy to recognize him for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to yield to the chairman of the Crime Committee in the Judiciary, Bobby Scott of Virginia, who has held hearings extensively on this matter and has worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am very pleased to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the ranking member of the Crime Committee for his insightful remarks, and I now ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) to conclude and close out the discussion. I remind our friends that he was a vice admiral in his former career, and we welcome him to close the debate.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.