Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is not only a colleague but a friend, in working so diligently over the course of the summer and really at the beginning of this year to reestablish the Intelligence Committee as a force for oversight over the 17 agencies. It is a tremendous amount of money, and it is a tremendous amount of responsibility because most of what we do happens behind closed doors and is classified. I think working together we have come to one of the best products certainly I have seen since on the committee of the most thorough review from line by line by line of both the National Intelligence Program spending as well as the Military Intelligence Program spending, and we've had very good cooperation because we've cooperated together from the agencies themselves. There really was a unity of effort here that I think Americans can and should be proud of in an effort to make sure that our men and women who are risking their lives today to protect the United States of America have the resources they need and the commitment on behalf of this Congress and the American people to be successful in their particular mission. I want to thank the staffs on both committees. For the first time we had joint briefings with both Republican and Democrat staff on the very difficult budget issues that worked sometimes through the process of the Intelligence authorization bill. They briefed at the same table at the same time, which sounds a little--something that should happen more often but it did not and we have reestablished that. We have reestablished the quarterly reviews on all of the programs so that we have regular and consistent oversight on what happens in the intelligence community. That all wouldn't really have happened without the leadership of Mr. Ruppersberger and his team and my team as well. There are too many to name who spent countless hours on this particular bill, the leadership team here and all the folks on the Intelligence staff. Honorable mention to Brian Smith, our budget director, who gave a lot of his heart and soul to go through every line and find every penny for us. I know on Mr. Ruppersberger's staff they have sat beside him the entire time to make that happen. Without further ado, Madam Chair, we'll get to the amendments; but, again, I do think this is a product that reflects the best of what Congress can do when we work together, and the best of the most amazing people in our intelligence community and what they have to offer in the protection of the United States of America. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the manager's amendment to include a clarification at the request of the ranking member. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, this is the manager's amendment to the bill. These are the last few details that we were able to work out in a bipartisan way to bring the bill to the floor. The manager's amendment is primarily intended to remove three provisions that have been the subject of a veto threat by the administration. In addition, it makes a number of largely technical clarifications and adds a provision on authority to fill vacancies, a provision that was inadvertently omitted from the Rules Committee's print of the bill. Madam Chair, as I explained during the general debate, moving this bill forward is critical to ensure comprehensive legislative oversight of our intelligence activities and, just as importantly, intelligence budgeting and spending. While I regret that our efforts to reach accommodation on these provisions, which were originally included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill, it is important that we remove these contentious provisions now so that the detailed spending and oversight recommendations in the classified annex can go forward. The first contentious provision would have required Senate confirmation of the National Security Administration's Director. The other two contentious provisions subject to veto would have required the production of certain State Department cables related to detainee negotiations. While I support the production of these materials, the committees seeking them have other tools at their disposal to obtain them, and the bill should not be held up over that document dispute. In addition, the manager's amendment includes a clarification to clarify section 310 on mitigating risks in the supply chain to ensure that those authorities cannot be delegated below the level of a service acquisition executive. The change is important to ensure the appropriate level of management is involved in such important decisions. This change reflects the committee's understanding that these acquisition authorities will not be used lightly and that all decisions under this provision will be carried out by responsible senior officials within the intelligence community and coordinated and overseen by the Director of National Intelligence. Finally, the manager's amendment contains a modification requested by the ranking member to a provision concerning narcotics trafficking on public lands. The modification is needed to clarify the intended scope of the provision to ensure it is not read too broadly. With that, Madam Chair, I ask Members to support the manager's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman for working with us. It is an important issue, and you have our commitment from myself and, I believe, the ranking member to coordinate this particular report. I appreciate the gentleman's consideration, because it will allow the community to prioritize it. It may take 3 weeks or longer, or 3 weeks shorter than an amendment might call for, but it allows them to adjust according to the demands at the particular time on the intelligence community. For that, I want to thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with him on the issue.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from California. This is an important amendment. These are issues we have been working on in committee; and I can tell you, we have been a tad bit frustrated at that lack of coordination. I think it is unfortunate it took this amendment as a part of the Intelligence bill to continue to put pressure on the administration to get their act together on this particular issue. It is an issue we absolutely must solve, not only for the safety and security of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, but also for the greater impact on the war on terror. I strongly urge support of the Hunter amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for rail security. It is an incredibly important issue. I continue to believe, as I did the last go-round, this is not the right place for this. I have agreed not to officially oppose his amendment. I just want to again remind individuals that this is 17 agencies across the whole spectrum of intelligence work. And for Congress to step in and say rail priority, even if their agency might be satellite oriented, just does not make a lot of sense to me; and I know it won't make a lot of sense to them as well. Again, I agree that rail security is incredibly important. We have segments of the intelligence community, and I want to re-emphasize segments, and here in our homeland security, that worry about rail security, and I argue that would be a better place for this amendment. As I said, I will not officially oppose it. I have made no official recommendation. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's position. I will be voting ``no,'' but I would tell the rest of the Members to do what they see fit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I claim time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's interest here. I don't know any organization that we established not to operate under the rules and construct of the Constitution of the United States. It is a little bit redundant, in my perspective; and also we deal with these issues through IGs, we do this through congressional oversight, and we deal with this in the classified annex. I would encourage the gentleman to take a look at the classified annex. A lot of the work that we do is to make sure that these organizations are functioning according to rules, regulation, and constitutional law. I am not going to oppose his amendment. I have no recommendation. I do think, however, it's probably not well placed in this particular piece of legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this goes to the fundamental heart of why some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I think their intentions are good--but fundamentally do not understand the role and function of the intelligence community to protect the United States of America. Just as the gentlelady stated, the newspaper reported a very credible threat to the security of the United States and to the violence of the citizens and maybe two prominent cities here on our homeland. So every day somebody gets up around the world with the sole intention of killing innocent Americans in this country through an act of terrorism. In addition to that, people are trying to penetrate our cybernetworks all over this country, not only for intellectual property, but to cause harm and damage. We have nuclear treaties and nuclear proliferation that we ask and push and nudge our intelligence services to be on top of and not to make a mistake. Don't make a mistake that would result in a catastrophic event anywhere in the world, let alone here in the United States of America. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to deal with the hard issues of the border. But taking it from an open, aggressive, build a fence, put more resources on the border, getting serious about policing our southern border to take it into the classified, nobody can see it, see, aren't we doing something, is the wrong thing to do for this country. We need to stand up for these men and women who we ask every day to protect this country. When you try to divert resources to gang violence from our intelligence services, that sends a very clear signal to America: you don't get it. I want terrorists caught. I want a great raid on somebody like Osama bin Laden. I want all of the resources of the intelligence community geared to keeping us safe. We have a Border Patrol; we have National Guard. We have lots of other ways to secure our border. Let's not waste the resources. Let's not give a slap in the face to every member of our intelligence community who is risking their life today to get a piece of information, to take an action that keeps us safe here in the homeland. I strongly urge the rejection of this misguided amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has ordered the bill, H.R. 1892, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, reported favorably to the House with an amendment, and last week filed its report on the bill in the House. The bill is currently expected to be considered in the House this coming Friday. Mr. Speaker, the classified Schedule of Authorizations and the classified Annex accompanying the bill are available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center. The committee office will open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration by the House. I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified Annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. This will ensure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire assistance during their review of these classified materials. I urge interested Members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. The classified Annex to the committee's report contains the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal year 2012 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly. It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of House rule XXIII, which only permits access to classified information by those Members of the House who have signed the oath provided for in the rule. If a Member has not yet signed that oath but wishes to review the classified Annex and Schedule of Authorizations, the committee staff can administer the oath and see to it that the executed form is sent to the Clerk's Office. In addition, the committee's rules require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement indicates that the Member has been granted access to the classified Annex and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I agree with the gentleman from New York, and our political philosophies may be different. I think it's a powerful and passionate speech. What frustrates me, I think, the most, and the fact that we are even having this debate in this way is because the President has not led on this particular issue. He should have come before Congress. I think that's clear. I don't think anyone really objects to the fact that he should have come here anytime when we put our troops in harm's way, absolutely. I think he's done not a great job talking about what our national security interests are in Libya and what role we're playing in Libya. Bad marks all the way around. But the Kucinich resolution is dangerous. I do believe we have national security interests at stake here. Even though the President has gone about it in all the wrong way, they're our national security interests. And to stand up today and say we're frustrated with the President, we're going to stomp our feet and we're going to bring them home, leaving our allies holding the bag, is unconscionable-- unconscionable. Here's what happens if the Kucinich resolution passes: the naval blockade becomes at risk, Qadhafi gets stronger, our ability to refuel aircraft--NATO aircraft who are doing strikes, not the United States who are doing strikes mind you, our British, our Italian and our French allies who are doing combat strikes--goes away. The fact that we cannot get in and do particular efforts on making it very difficult for them to see through radar and actually target planes happens by the United States, that goes away. Who would do that to friends and allies in the middle of a fight? And here's our national security interests. They have thousands and thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. This isn't a guess. We're not reading some analytical sheet. Many of you have seen it. I have personally seen it. We know it's there. It's declared. What happens to those chemical weapons in a place where al Qaeda in the Magreb is growing stronger, not weaker? There's only one country in the world that has the unique capability to keep an eye on it and take care of it when the opportunity arises. That's the United States of America. That is in our national interest. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft weapons that keep me awake at night. We have the unique capability in the United States to make sure that those weapons systems don't fall into the hands of those who would do us harm--the terrorists who proliferate in northern Africa right now. Those are in our national security interests. So, yes, let's have the debate. I think the Speaker's approach is absolutely appropriate. It's sad that we had to come to that point where we had to inform this administration, ``Sir, you have not made your case. You need to come and make your case.'' And I argue when he does that, when he makes his case, I think the American people will be with him. But he has to make the case, and he needs Congress' consult and advice on this particular issue. And I argue he needs our approval to continue to move forward. I hope that we don't get really small in our politics and we're so angry at this President for not making his case on something as sensitive as this that we would ruin our national interests as we move forward. They are important allies, our French and our British. Now we've been frustrated at them, and I'm sure they're frustrated at us. But they've spilled their blood and their treasure in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and they currently help us fight terrorism where we find it in the world. Do you poke your friend in the eye because you're mad? No. This is an important issue that has to be bigger than our political parochial beliefs. It has to be bigger than our congressional districts. This is about America, our future, our allies, and, yes, our national security. Who better to make sure that those shoulder-fired weapons don't go someplace than us? Who better to make sure that those chemical weapons don't fall in the hands of terrorists who seek to kill innocent men, women and children? Qadhafi has been proven to be a state sponsor of terror. The Pan Am bombing, he killed hundreds. He killed U.S. soldiers in Germany in the eighties, our U.S. soldiers, through an act of terrorism. We know he still has terrorism hit squads. We know it. We can't prove that he's engaged them yet, but we know they exist. Why would we walk away from that threat when we know he's under siege and feeling desperate? This is the time we should stand with our allies, Madam Speaker. This is the time that we should say, yes, our national security interests are at heart. And, yes, Mr. President, come down and meet your constitutional obligation and show this Congress why we're there, what role we're playing and what it means to our national security. I would urge a strong rejection of cutting and running in the Kucinich amendment and a strong support of the Speaker of the House's right approach to bring the President to Congress, as he needs to be.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you very much. And I congratulate Mr. Reed on the amendment. I think it is wholly appropriate that we commend all of the intelligence services and our elite Special Forces who participated in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. And it really wasn't a victory over one person or one leader, but a blow to the entire network, to the belief system of those that believe violence, killing innocent men, women and children of all religions, is a way to promote your political gains. If you think about the incredible accomplishment that happened after, and started really after 9/11, we had to make up for huge gaps in humint intelligence. And through the help of this body and this Congress and President Bush and then on to President Obama, we began to reassemble the abilities and capabilities of our intelligence community. Through interrogations, information was developed about how al Qaeda works and we understood its logistics, how it finances and recruits and moves people, how it recruits people to do suicide bombings, how it plans operations. All of that came in the early days. Then 5 years ago through an integration, there was a little piece of information, a nickname applied to an alias with someone who was hanging around other folks who were probably using nicknames applied to an alias who may be a courier for Osama bin Laden. And through all of our collection agencies, signals intelligence, satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence, a case was slowly and surely developed that finally allowed, with a few lucky breaks and some great determination from our intelligence community, the ability to locate the place where they believed Osama bin Laden was hiding out. Once that was determined, they brought in our Special Forces community, who did an exceptional and superb job in bringing him to justice in what was a difficult situation. So I want to compliment Mr. Reed and Mr. Grimm for bringing this amendment forward to give a small sense of recognition to all of the work on behalf of the entire intelligence and Special Forces community, and the soldiers too who risked their lives in holding ground in places like Afghanistan to reestablish security there so that al Qaeda won't find safe haven there when they leave. All of those things and all of those capabilities are incredibly important. All of that service and all of that sacrifice led to last Sunday's successful event. Let us not forget, al Qaeda may be hurt, they have lost their operational and inspirational leader; but they are not down. This is not the time to back off. This is not the time to say that we should do other things or maybe we shouldn't be places at all. This is the time to step on the gas and break the back of al Qaeda as a threat to the world as we move forward. Again, I want to congratulate Mr. Reed and Mr. Grimm, and I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it's laudable that they would commend the men and women of the intelligence community. We certainly thank them for that. We just did that a few minutes ago. That would certainly qualify for the department of redundancy as we would move forward. The one that I find mystifying, we came so close, so close, to finally making this a bipartisan product. So the first part was great. You said thank you very much to the folks and hid behind the great work of the men and women of the intelligence community. But then you blow up the entire intelligence bill by prioritizing of funding. Two things that does. One, it blows up the work, the framework. There's a priority framework in the intelligence community that sets these standards and tells the intelligence community, here are your priorities, given place, given region, given resources. That happens already. So you basically say, well, we don't believe that you ought to be doing that. We should be doing that. Wrong answer. The second part of it is we have a classified annex and it talks about very important investments that we in a bipartisan way have worked to get to--code breaking, cybersecurity. What you are saying is cybersecurity isn't as important. You think this is more important. That is not for us to determine. We just went through months and months of work to tell the intelligence community to put the classified annex together to say, here are the intelligence priorities as we go forward. This bill is intended to gut the work of the last few months that we have just done in a bipartisan way. I tell you, it's a little frustrating knowing that we came that close, Mr. Speaker, to getting a bipartisan product that represents the values of the intelligence community, the resources that they need, and, yes, says thank you to the men and women who will never be known for the work they do to keep America safe. I recommend a strong rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 754, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from the great State of North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, also a member of the committee, Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).