Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, again, with deep respect to the Member from New York, and I appreciate your passion on this, I can tell you as a former FBI agent, when you take 1 minute away from your case to cull information, it does take somebody who is operational in some sense, either an analyst or an operator or even on the IT front, to gather, collect, sort that information, to go through it, to put it in the proper form and to get it in the right place. Really, every minute of every day is so precious to these individuals who are trying to focus on al Qaeda and the current threat. My argument is that this is something that can wait. It has waited 25 years. Probably the next few years won't make a difference, but the next few years in the fight against al Qaeda can mean the life and death of U.S. citizens. So, again, I hope the gentleman doesn't think it is any condemnation of his effort. I think the time and the place and the resources that would be lost are just not meeting the national security priorities as we look out across what the threat stream is today. So, unfortunately, I will continue to oppose it. I would like to work with the gentleman on something in the future. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. While I agree with the need for strong security in the railway sector, I just don't believe this amendment is best suited for the Intelligence authorization bill, as it seems to address the policy issues that are not authorized or otherwise addressed in the FY11 Intelligence authorization bill. The intelligence community does not have transportation security plans or transportation security budgets, nor do individual intelligence community agencies. In order to meet the requirement of this, they would have to restructure themselves to bring in the right people to do the plans for security for the railway. I don't think that's what the gentleman intends, but that's clearly what the gentleman's amendment would do. I would argue that this amendment would be better focused on the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. That agency, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee and not the Intelligence Committee. The intelligence community does not develop transportation security plans. Rather, the intelligence community, through DHS, provides threat information to the transportation sector to better enable it to develop security plans. Additionally, I note that this amendment simply expresses the sense of the Congress on the issue. It does not actually compel any action. I would question the real improvement to security on the railway sector from its adoption because, again, it appears that the amendment would not have a real impact. This is really out of the scope of the intelligence community. I would urge the gentleman to reconsider and contemplate maybe addressing it in the TSA. If the gentleman would like any help and assistance in doing that, I would be eager to try to help the gentleman do that. Again, given the time pressures on our intelligence community to stop real-time threats and pass that information on to people in the TSA and others, I would argue that this is an amendment that we should all oppose and look for a better opportunity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Again, I appreciate both of the gentlemen's perspectives on this, but this is about the right tool for the right job. The intelligence community is the one that's supposed to develop the intelligence, the threat stream, the lead, and pass it to somebody who is in charge--the TSA in this case--of protecting the transportation sector. Again, I make the argument it is important, but I just think this is misplaced. The intelligence community would have to try to create this expertise, which they do not have today in the entirety of the intelligence community, to make security plans. This is not what they do. It's not what they're equipped to do. They are not, in most cases, with the exception of the FBI and DEA, they're not domestic agencies. They're agencies that are designed to collect overseas. So it is just not a good fit. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's position. I just think the community would have to spend a lot of time and resources diverting from its real intention and mission to keep us safe. Just quickly and just for the record--I think it's important--the information that the gentleman referenced was aspirational. We saw a lot of press reports that I think misrepresented the information that was provided. It was something that Osama bin Laden thought about. It is not something that the intelligence community believes was operational, which means you have to be vigilant all the time on all these issues. So I commend the gentleman in his effort on trying to bring better security to our railways. Again, just the right tool for the right job. This is not the right place. Unfortunately, I will oppose it but would like to work with the gentleman on the right place to get the job done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, reported favorably to the House with an amendment. The committee's report will be filed today. Mr. Speaker, the classified Schedule of Authorizations and the classified Annex accompanying the bill will be available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center beginning any time after this report is filed. The committee office will be 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 anticipate that H.R. 754 will be considered in the House in the near future, perhaps as early as next week. 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 assure 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 2011 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 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 the information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for making our point for us. When you shut down production of oil and natural gas into the United States, we have to import more because we are still driving more. We have absolutely put ourselves at the mercy of a whole region of the world that is inflamed in trying to figure out who they are. And it has raised our prices. It went from $1.83 2 years ago to $4 a gallon. If you want to be serious about getting this right, let the EPA do what it does best--clean air, clean water--and let the national security folks keep us safe and increase production so that for goodness sake, somebody can afford to drive to work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I can't think of anything more disconnected from national security than this amendment. To speak on that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate the gentleman's passion for the issue, but I think when amendments like this hit the floor, it does a huge disservice to even the basis of their argument. You know, getting ready for World War II, we had a truck company in Ypsilanti, Michigan, that went from building pickup trucks with several thousand parts--in about 8 weeks, they converted it to building bomber airplanes with over a million parts. Only in America could that have happened to win the war. The great industrial arsenal of democracy happened in the great State of Michigan. If you want to talk about national security issues, when you try to do this on cap and trade, what you are doing is wholesale departing manufacturing jobs and our ability to produce things in this country to places like China and India, who have laughed at cap and trade and said, we welcome those jobs. We lost a million manufacturing jobs in our State alone. A million. Cap and trade. What you seek to do will lose 1.4 million more jobs. Admiral Mullen said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. When people aren't working, when America can't produce things, I am telling you, we will do more to harm our national security than anything I can think of. We are going to lose just in Michigan over 100,000 jobs in the next 25 years. So guess what? You want to talk about national security, someone who is unemployed and not paying taxes to help solve the debt problem is a national security threat, when you want to make unreasonable expectations. I want clean water, and I want clean air. I don't want the EPA shutting down factories that produce and actually produced the largest middle class in the history of the world. Why we would attack that and label that as a national security interest defies even the greatest of imaginations, Madam Chair. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. So if that woman doctor who trained here, taking care of kids, who cried for help and support doesn't move you, and maybe it shouldn't; for the pain of that funeral, that loss, that soldier who gave it all for this country doesn't move; then what ought to move you is the fact that these folks are gearing up and hoping and praying that we give up and we pull these troops out before the mission is done. We all want them home. We want them home with no safe haven and a way that we can continue to put pressure on al Qaeda and its supporting affiliates.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of power and emotion in this debate today, and I'm glad for that. There should be. I recall the first time I had the chance to get to Afghanistan in late 2003. I met a woman there who had been trained as a doctor in the United States. She went to practice medicine in her home country of Afghanistan. When the Taliban took over, they stripped her of her medical duties. They sent her home. She was imprisoned in her own home for 6 years. I met her at a children's hospital, and in the days of the first conflict, she stripped off her burka, she walked 10 miles to the town to show up to provide medical care for the first time to these children as a woman in Afghanistan. With tears in her eyes she said, Thank you. These children have no chance. Afghanistan has no future. And we saw the soccer field where they took people down and summarily executed them for violations that they deemed to be executable offenses under no law of their own, the burned buses where the modern conveniences were burned to get them out of the system when the Taliban took over to apply sharia law. And none of that would matter from the pain and the loss if you've attended one of these fine soldier's funerals; it is an emotional thing, and there is pain, and hurt, and sorrow, and something lost in all of us. So none of those other things would be alone a reason to send our soldiers to risk their lives in defense of this country, but because of the things I talked about, because they have imprisoned women in Afghanistan, because of the things that they've done to the people there, it created hate and ignorance and brutality, and al Qaeda saw an advantage, and they took it. They established there a safe haven where they recruited, where they financed, where they planned, where they armed themselves, where they recruited people around the world from other countries to come to train, and they sent some of them to the United States of America to slaughter 3,000 people. And if you want to talk about money, the trillion-plus dollars that 9/11 has cost us just in economic loss, that's why we're there. We should not forget the mission today and why they risk their lives. If you want to talk about the State Department policies, I'm all in. I'd love to have that debate. If you want to talk about rules of engagement, I'm in, that's a place, let's do it, let's have that debate. But if you want to tell the enemy today--and by the way, for the first time, we've got information that their commanders are saying we don't want to go fight. The spring offensive is being planned now, right now. Our soldiers are preparing for battle right now. This may be that last great battle in Afghanistan on behalf of our soldiers to eliminate the major components of the Taliban taking over their country.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. We've already had a lengthy debate on this legislation. There is bipartisan consensus that these important tools for our Intelligence Community cannot be allowed to lapse. The Senate amendment, which was also supported by a wide bipartisan margin in the other body, will keep these three needed priorities in place for the next 90 days, till May 27. While I have strong concerns about the short-term extension and how that will compress the time needed to have a full and complete debate over the longer-term reauthorization, I will support the Senate amendment in order to make sure that these tools remain available. As I said earlier this week in this debate, it makes very little sense to me why we would not have the tools like roving wiretap authority and authority to obtain business records in terrorism and spy cases when the same tools are readily available in criminal cases, often with fewer protections for civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, I have said before I think this is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood pieces of legislation I think I've ever seen. The things that exist in the ability for an FBI agent to conduct in criminal activities, including business records, including roving wiretaps, are just being extended to the FISA court, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to go against terrorism and espionage. That's the only difference here. It has been an important tool to keep America safe the last 10 years. I look forward to a thoughtful debate outside of the political rhetoric about what people believe this act to do and what it really does do to keep Americans safe. And if you believe that an FBI agent should be able to get a subpoena for business records to solve a crime, then clearly you believe that the same FBI agent should go to a FISA court to get a court order, which is a higher standard, for business records to prevent a terrorist attack. That's the only difference in these two, I think, misunderstood provisions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished military veteran, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 79, I call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 514.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the way the ranking member has approached this issue. There are people who have differences of opinion, strong, passionate opinions on this. I am shocked and a bit amazed at the misinformation that is in and about the Patriot Act. If you believe that roving wiretaps through a court order is bad, then we should stop investigating today organized criminals and drug dealers and child pornographers and kidnappers. If you believe today that going in and trying to get someone's business records to prove that they were at a place, with a subpoena from a grand jury, is a bad idea, then we should stop doing it. Today you can do it. You can go to the library and get someone's records. As a matter of fact, during the first part of this debate someone talked about how they went in and got all this information on whoever checked out a book on Osama bin Laden and what a horrible thing it was. That wasn't even a FISA warrant. It was a criminal warrant. That happened under the criminal code. That can happen tomorrow. And when this expires at the end of this month, they will still continue to be able to do that. But you will not be able to go to a FISA court and get a roving wiretap or a court order, by the way, to get records that will help in an ongoing terrorism investigation. It really is mind-boggling. Let me give you what I think is the greatest example, the Times Square bomber. If we would have known early in that particular arrangement, they could have gone and figured out, listen, we need a court order. We go to the FISA court. There are two courts here: a criminal court and a FISA court. We go to the FISA court, because we don't know how big this is; we don't know who all is involved. We don't necessarily want to arrest him; we want to arrest everybody that is involved. So let's go to the judge and prove to the judge that if we can figure out that he bought materials from a hardware store to build a bomb, that we might be able to prevent this thing in the future. So they go and get a court order. This is hypothetical. They get a court order, which is a pretty high standard in any investigation. Or the other option is the bomb goes off, it kills hundreds if not thousands of people, and that very same FBI agent takes it with a criminal warrant and gets the very same information after the bomb has gone off. That is what we are talking about. That is the difference. This notion that somehow you don't have to go to a court to get an order is wrong. Trust me, you are not going to be able to go through somebody's underwear drawer because you want to. It is not going to happen. If you believe in the process that we have in our criminal courts, to have to go and get an order by a third-party adjudicator, then you should also believe that this is a really good idea to be able to do it in these broad, hard-to-do investigations into terrorism and spying. It is difficult. Remember the Russian spy ring that was just broken up recently. They had a FISA court order warrant for a very long time because they needed to figure out everything that was going on before they brought this thing to a head. The same with a terrorism investigation. Think about how global it is now. They planned the attacks in Afghanistan to attack New York and it went through Pakistan and other places, Saudi Arabia, and they had multiple states involved when they brought this plot together. It is big. It is complicated. To take away, at the end of this month, our ability to get a roving wiretap that, by the way, on the very next day after you stop our ability to go to a FISA court to get one, you can still get one in a criminal case against organized crime or a drug dealer here in the United States, why, why would we do that to ourselves, Mr. Speaker? It makes no sense. The work that goes into putting these things together for the brief, to go to the court, is significant. I will tell you right now there are very brave Americans who are working cases right now hoping to get their brief done so they can walk into a judge and get an order that might pertain to business records, or it might be a roving wiretap to keep America safe. If it expires, they won't be able to do it. There is no difference. As a matter of fact, the standard in the FISA court is higher. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge this body's support of what we know is working and has kept America safe since its inception. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am excited at my colleague's renewed interest in the Constitution. This is a good day for this House and this country, but I can't think of a bill and provisions that have been more misrepresented than what happens in this Patriot Act extension. And, A, I think they make all the arguments in the world why we don't make this permanent: Let's give this an extension so you have time to talk about it. But there is an inescapable fact at hand: By the end of this month, these provisions will expire. There are agents in law enforcement and our intelligence community who are preparing briefs to go to the court, the FISA court, to use these provisions. They will not be able to do it on March 1. Why would we let that happen? Let me give you a great example. I used to be an FBI agent. I worked organized crime. When they were involved in drugs, we went out. We built a case. We did a brief. We took it to the judge and we got a court order to do whatever, roving wiretaps. Yes, before this bill, roving wiretaps. Why? Because they would use different phones to conceal the criminality of their efforts. Well, guess what? We have that happening now with terrorists. They go and buy a thousand--a thousand phones that you buy that are already preprogrammed. They will use it for one call and throw it away. What you are saying is we don't care that somehow it's okay for you to go after a drug dealer, a Mafia don who uses his brother-in-law's phone, but you don't want to use this provision to go after a terrorist who is trying to hide their identity and their conversations and their contents to build a radiological bomb. It's ludicrous. Why would we do that to ourselves? And make no mistake; you are putting Americans in danger when you let this expire. On the roving wiretap, the FBI Director today said, in an open hearing, less than 500 times it has even been used. It is hard to get a wiretap. But what you are saying is, after March 1, well, we can continue to do it for a drug dealer, but you can't go to the FISA court and get a wiretap on a terrorist who is using these phones for God knows what. Why would we do that to ourselves? Why would we jeopardize American safety? When it comes to business records, at the New York Times, if you got him before he wanted to do his event, you could actually go to the hardware store and get those business records where he was buying materials to assemble a bomb, under the FISA court and Patriot Act. But what you are saying is we would rather wait until it explodes and kills thousands and thousands of people, and the FBI can go to the same hardware store and use a criminal subpoena to get the same records. It makes no sense whatsoever that we would let this bill expire at the end of the month and jeopardize the safety and security of the United States. When you look at the lone wolf provision, if you heard what the Director of the NCTC today and yesterday was talking about, that the most dangerous threat that we have is somebody like Awlaki from Yemen trying to radicalize an individual and get them to do something God awful, like The New York Times Square bomber, like the Christmas Day bomber, like the Hasan shooting at Fort Hood. That's their interest. If you take away the lone wolf provision and the government can't quite prove that they are a part of al Qaeda but we know they are doing something, you have handcuffed them to stop it before it happens. One of the reasons that we don't have an attack here is because this act has been in place and they have used it judiciously. There have been no civil liberties violations, Mr. Speaker. I urge this body's appreciation to pass this rule. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Jose F. Aliaga for his outstanding work as a civil servant in his home country of Peru and the United States of America. Jose Aliaga first arrived in the United States to pursue a college education at the University of Michigan, where he recently earned his diploma this past December. As a political science major, Mr. Aliaga learned about the democratic process in America and looked for ways to use this knowledge to strengthen the diplomatic and economic relationship between Peru and the United States. He worked to promote trade between America and Peru and led one of the first trade missions from the United States prior to the Free Trade Agreement. In addition to his diplomatic work, Jose Aliaga has continued to further his role as a leader to children in Latin America. He founded the Aliaga Foundation to provide impoverished children in the jungle of Peru with books, pencils, food and medicine and continues to foster positive relations between the United States and Peru by promoting student exchanges between universities. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jose F. Aliaga. I commend Mr. Aliaga on his dedication to strengthening ties between America and Peru. He is to be applauded for his continuous contribution to the lives of children in Latin America.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sylvia L. Warner for her outstanding service to the people of Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. Ms. Warner was born and raised in Roanoke, Virginia. After graduating from Jefferson Senior High School, she began her career in journalism at the Belding Banner where she worked from 1969 through 1973. In her dual role as photographer and reporter, she covered local news in Michigan's Ionia County. It was during this time that she developed her passion for journalism and honed many of her reporting talents. After leaving the Belding Banner in 1973, she joined The Daily News in Greenville, Michigan. Ms. Warner was promoted through the ranks at the paper where she held several positions. She began as the local reporter for the Family Living Section, then the Managing Editor ending her career with the paper as the Editor. Ms. Warner was instrumental in managing a 10 member staff of reporters and photographers. After 20 years of editorial work focusing on local news and events, Ms. Warner left the publication to pursue other interests. In 1993, Ms. Warner moved to Lansing, Michigan, and combined her editorial expertise with her passion for politics. She joined the Michigan House Majority Communications Office as a Communications Specialist. Her experience with local and community communications proved to be invaluable to the freshmen House members she was assigned to assist. In 1997, Ms. Warner joined the Michigan Senate Majority Communications Office as Senior Writer and Media Specialist. She was tasked with coordinating special media events and supervising junior writers. In 1999, I was honored to have Ms. Warner join my Senate Majority Floor Leadership office. She quickly became an invaluable member of my staff. With Ms. Warner's experience and guidance, my ability to communicate and work with media was dramatically improved. In 2000, when I decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, I enlisted Ms. Warner's expertise to serve as my press secretary. With the guidance of a talented team I became the U.S. Representative to Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. This would not have been possible without the years of experience, guidance and faith of such talented people like Ms. Warner. Since my first congressional race, Ms. Warner has served as an exceptional Press Secretary and has been a cornerstone of my team. After many years of dedicated service, she has decided to move to Michigan to be closer to her children, grandchildren and great grandchild. I, along with the constituents of Michigan's Eighth District, owe Sylvia Warner a debt of gratitude for her unwavering commitment to public and civic service throughout the years. She will be greatly missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sylvia L. Warner for her service and wish her the best in her retirement.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Marine, Master Gunnery Sergeant Scot T. Morefield. Master Gunnery Sergeant Morefield enlisted in the Marine Corps on November 9, 1978 at age 17. On June 30, 2010, he retired after 30 years of honorable service to the Marine Corps, and to our country. His military career began after graduating from recruit training and infantry training school he attended aviation structures school, finishing as the academic honor graduate. MGySgt. Morefield was then assigned to an A-4 Skyhawk squadron where he served from 1980 to 1983. During that time he made numerous deployments to Asia. In 1983 he received an honorable discharge. After briefly working for Lentini Aviation in Troy, Michigan, and Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA, he started his own construction company. In 1987, while still running his construction business, MGySgt. Morefield re-enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves as a Combat Engineer. He graduated the Combat Engineer School at Camp Lejeune in 1990 as the academic honor graduate. In 1991, he received orders to return to Michigan where he continued his service assignment as a Marine Corps recruiter and a Staff Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of two Lansing, Michigan substations. Notably, he served at various times as both the Recruiter Instructor and the Operations Chief for the Lansing station before his retirement this June. Master Gunnery Sergeant Scot Morefield's personal awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Gold Star. I am proud to rise today to celebrate this Marine's service and commitment to our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking MGySgt. Morefield for his devotion to our mutual cause of national defense and wish him the best in his retirement.