Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I don't quibble with the opinions that my friends on the other side of the aisle have. It's just facts that don't support those opinions that I quibble with. They're not entitled to their own facts. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. REYES. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, just so we are clear, it doesn't appear that some members of the other aisle realize how important the rules are. The rules of the House apply to everyone on a bipartisan basis. The information he sought was denied from our committee because it didn't fit the criteria and the rules of the House. With that, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and a new member of our House Intelligence Committee this year, Mr. Smith of Washington.

Mr. REYES. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. REYES. I yield the gentlelady 15 additional seconds.

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

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, it is probably a good point that the ranking member makes that there should be a debate on Guantanamo; unfortunately, this is not the right bill to have that debate on. I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a valued member, Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

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

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I understand the frustration on the minority side. As an Army veteran, as a veteran of Federal law enforcement for 26\1/2\ years, I understand and value the United States Constitution. I understand and value that we have to live by the rules. I understand and value the fact that we are a global leader that is much respected. The gentleman talks about one amendment, and that amendment simply says, Follow the rules. Follow the law. Follow the principles that have made this country great. I understand that. Apparently, the minority does not understand that, and I feel for them because, in the final analysis, I have been with members of the intelligence community in faraway places around the world. I have been with them and their families at Bethesda when they were recuperating from the attack in Khost. I have been to the ceremony at the CIA. I understand what they go through. This is a good bill. It deserves everybody's support.

Mr. REYES. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REYES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, the manager's amendment includes a number of revisions to H.R. 2701 along with a number of technical changes. I would like to highlight several of these key provisions. The manager's amendment makes significant changes to the underlying bill's reforms to the process for notifying Congress on sensitive covert actions. As my colleagues know, the National Security Act requires that the President inform Congress through the intelligence committees about all significant intelligence activities including covert actions. In very limited circumstances, it allows the President to limit briefings on certain highly sensitive covert actions to the Gang of Eight--the leadership of the Intelligence Committees and the leadership of both Houses. Over the past several months, we have carefully considered the administration's objections to the reforms that the committee included in the underlying bill. The manager's amendment is a product of that work. The bill, as amended, would require the President to maintain a record of all Gang of Eight briefings. It also requires that the full committee be notified every time that a Gang of Eight briefing is conducted and be provided with general information regarding that briefing. In the event the President decides that a briefing must be limited to the Gang of Eight, the manager's amendment also requires that he submit a certification stating that extraordinary circumstances require the briefing to be limited. In the case of a limited briefing, the DNI will have to reissue that certification every 180 days or open the briefing to all members of the committee. This reform is a substantial improvement over the language we included in previous authorization bills and which some of my colleagues still support. This earlier language would have actually expanded the President's authority to conduct restricted briefings, going so far as to include all intelligence activities, not just covert actions. It would also result in more restricted briefings and not fewer. I am interested in passing laws that reform the notification process, not, as some would say, in sending political messages. The manager's amendment also includes a number of provisions proposed by my colleagues. These include an amendment by Mr. Bishop, which would require the DNI and the Attorney General to provide Congress with a strategy on balancing intelligence collection needs with the interests of the United States in prosecuting terrorist suspects. The questioning and prosecution of terrorist suspects has been the subject of some controversy in recent weeks, and I believe that Congress could benefit from understanding how the administration plans to handle such cases in the future. A second provision included in the manager's amendment was proposed by Mr. Marshall of Georgia. It requires the DNI to study the best practices of other foreign governments to combat violent domestic extremism. A number of our allies, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have established programs to stop individuals from turning to terrorism. This is a growing problem here in the United States, and we could benefit from learning how our friends and allies have dealt with this problem. Madam Chair, I urge the passage of the manager's amendment. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and a valued member of our committee, Mr. Langevin. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. REYES. I am happy to oblige.

Mr. REYES. I believe that the Homeland Security Committees have an important role to play in congressional oversight of national security matters and that the committee should be briefed on national security matters that fall within its jurisdiction.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. The manager's amendment includes language originally proposed by Mr. McDermott that reiterates existing law on torture and provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Torture is a reprehensible and counterproductive practice. The U.S., as we all know, has no business engaging in that. The language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts existing law. Executive Order 13491 prohibits interrogators from engaging in any of the activities highlighted in the manager's amendment language. This Executive Order limits interrogations to the interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual. It also spells out the terms of Common Article 3 and relevant provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as the minimum standard for the United States to follow. The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law. It provides a specific criminal penalty for those who knowingly cause the death of a detainee. It is already a crime for an interrogator to knowingly murder a detainee. This provision merely adds a concrete statutory penalty to that conduct. This language does not, does not, give terrorists greater rights than ordinary criminals. We cannot afford another Abu Ghraib, and the language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts these important provisions already codified in law, plain and simple. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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