Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I hope that we can shake ourselves out of this notion that we are going to take the war on terror and treat it like a law enforcement event. It slows things down. We had that fight, but this bill goes even further. It says that we don't care what Americans believe will keep us safe, and we care more about the politics of what's going on today than we do the policies of terrorists who seek to do us harm. This is not the direction that we need. I would strongly urge this body's rejection and let's get about the work of a 2011 budget that can serve to protect the United States of America.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I too want to extend my thanks and gratitude on behalf of a grateful Nation for the work and service behind closed doors, with the microphones and the cameras gone, that the gentleman from Michigan has given to the Intelligence Committee and the intelligence community, and his efforts to continue to fight for policy that keeps Americans safe. Sir, I know America won't know of most of it, but please know that those of us that do have your back for the work that you've done. Thank you very, very much. The face of terrorism is changing, and it's changing in a very rapid way. Years ago we sat down and we asked our intelligence officials to do very hard things. We said to go to dangerous places and talk to dangerous people, find out the information that we need, identify those who have done horrible things to this country, and help us bring them to justice. It was the President of the United States at the time, George Bush. It was Nancy Pelosi who was sitting in the meetings, the intelligence meetings who said, Yes, that's the right policy. That's the right thing to do. And the battlefield has changed. It isn't just overseas anymore, where we write songs about our soldiers leaving the shores of the United States. The battlefield has come to us. It has killed U.S. citizens, and they attempt again and again to do that. This bill is a disappointment. This bill is really offensive. This is a 2010 bill that will be practically irrelevant tomorrow. We are passing a bill that will be almost irrelevant tomorrow. There is no classified annex. You can't call this an intelligence bill that sets us on the right path with no classified annex. How can we congratulate ourselves for this? There is more political cover in this bill than there is cover for the United States to go aggressively and pursue terrorism around the world. This bill protects the Speaker of the House, but it doesn't protect the CIA officers that all of us ask to do dangerous work around the world. Instead, they have to get lawyers and answer questions, the Department of Justice, after the President and this Congress said, Go do this for your country, for our safety, for our future. That's a slap in the face for the very people we have asked to risk their lives. They're not supposed to be facing a subpoena. They should be facing a crowd of cheering Americans saying, Thank you for your service in the difficult times this country faces in the war on terror. That is abandoned in this bill. Tomorrow we are going to allow Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the U.S. That provision is not in the bill. We all unified, said, This is a bad idea. Don't bring the best trained terrorists to the United States. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, That's an awful idea. And Americans say, Don't do it. There's a better way. This bill rejects that notion and goes to the very heart of why Americans are concerned about the direction of how we pursue terrorism in these days and in the days ahead. It now treats foreign terrorists committing acts of terrorism against the United States with the same benefits as a United States citizen. What? Most Americans, the average Americans know you don't do that. They are enemy combatants. The battlefield might not be in Afghanistan. It might be on the seat of an airplane coming to the United States of America. The battlefield is no different because the results of death and terrorism and mayhem are the same. We reject that in this bill and say, You know what, we are turning the page. We are going to treat those enemy combatants, those foreign terrorists, with all the benefits of a citizen of the United States.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today's debate has been a decade in the making. While this Congress and administrations of both parties fiddled, American manufacturing burned. Michigan workers make an average of $12,000 a year less than they did just a decade ago. Our trade deficit has skyrocketed, with manufacturing goods deficit up 3,000 percent. It is no accident and it is no coincidence. Chinese currency manipulation is the driving force behind this destruction. Chinese currency is at least 25 percent below where it should be, making their goods cheap and destroying our manufacturing base. In Michigan alone, Chinese currency manipulation has destroyed some 68,000 jobs in Michigan. In my district, some 4,500 jobs are gone because this Congress and both the Bush and the Obama administrations have refused to do anything but talk on Chinese currency manipulation. Today's vote is a tough, first step toward fair trade with China. Fair trade and the livelihood of Michigan workers finally lets them compete on a level playing field with the start and the passage of this bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a little bit of hope that we may have a great awakening in this body of what has been an assault on the manufacturing community of this great country. We have lost over 2 million manufacturing jobs in the last 2 years. Chinese currency manipulation is directly responsible for a quarter of those job losses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, China's currency policy has destroyed almost 5,000 jobs just in my district alone. Part of the 68,000 jobs, China has destroyed in Michigan. It is part of a larger pattern. There are 25,000 auto manufacturing jobs which have been lost in Detroit because of Chinese theft of intellectual property. The currency manipulation bill before you has been a long effort, an effort to understand that, when they cheat in the market, they steal American jobs. We welcome their rise in the economy. We hope that we can sell them cars and goods, but we can no longer stand by and let the Chinese Government and other governments manipulate their currencies and do other things that give them unfair competitive advantages against American workers. Given the chance to compete, we will absolutely win that fight. They know it. That's why they cheat to steal our jobs. You know, around this body, unfortunately, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to hate success--with taxation to our companies and heavy regulation, which will add huge, unknown quantities into this economy, and with a health care bill that absolutely destroys innovation and that absolutely raises the costs of a small business owner in this country. The cap-and-trade bill that will add so much uncertainty, one of the highest energy tax increases in the history of this country, looms over the business community--with tax increases set to take effect December 31 of this year. If you hire somebody in December of this year at about $40,000, the employer has to generate about $55,000 of income just to pay for that one employee. You know what? In January of next year, we have no idea what those costs are going to be. That's why businesses aren't hiring. So this step, this recognition, is to say that we have got to stop borrowing money from the Chinese so that we can impact our ability to help stop this currency manipulation that we know creates an unfair competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers. I hope, again, that this is this first small step in the recognition that it is not about big programs here and about lots more spending and lots more borrowing and lots more regulation that is going to make America prosperous. It is about getting the playing field equal, and it is about getting out of the way of our businesses and manufacturers around this great country, and it is about letting them do what they do best--innovate, hire people, create wealth, create prosperity. We have to stop hating success in this country because, if we continue it, you will start to hate America.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her help and support, and I also want to thank Mr. Dingell from Michigan. It's great to know that leadership and statesmanship is still alive in the people's House here in Washington, D.C. You know, it is fitting, I think, that this great body, this great deliberative body stop along the way of its important business, its really world-changing business and Nation-changing business, to recognize that some of the greatest acts happen locally. The great things don't really happen here; they are just reflected here. And the great things do happen in communities like Brighton, Michigan, and every other State in this great Union. And today is really that day. Very, very few times do you get to come to the floor and talk about some great community leader that you have such a personal relationship with, my mother. And this post office is being named, in short, for her great work in what is a great community in the great State of Michigan. And I will tell you, nobody would be more, I think, shocked and embarrassed that we are doing this today than Joyce Rogers. As a matter of fact, she would often say that her greatest accomplishment was raising five boys and surviving. But she did more than that. She got involved in the schools, in the local community. And her biggest accomplishment, I think, was the fact that she would talk to so many women and get them involved in small business and get them involved in politics and community service. After her funeral service late last year, I can't tell you how many times people came up to me or one of my family members and talked with tears in their eyes about how she would take the time to sit them down as small business women and talk them through to a plan for success or offer them encouragement. One women said, I know she came to shop at my store three and four times. She must have bags of my staff. I know she didn't need any of it. That's the kind of person she was. A kind of person where people of all stripes, of all political philosophies believe she made an impact on a community. And she certainly did that. I know she made an impact on five boys who are doing their best to do half as well as she did in life. So, to this body, I thank you; to the Michigan delegation, for recognizing this wonderful woman, I thank you.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Mrs. Joyce Rogers. A long-time Brighton, Michigan, resident until her passing late last year, Joyce Rogers was a tireless public servant, devoting much of her time to the betterment and economic development of the Brighton community. As executive director of the Greater Brighton Area Chamber of Commerce, Joyce Rogers played an integral role in rebuilding the business organization into the area's most important political and business networking organization. Through her efforts, Brighton was able to transform into a thriving business community, attracting new residents and customers to the area. Joyce Rogers was a pioneer in Michigan, forging the way for what we know today as economic development. In addition to her work as a small business advocate, Joyce Rogers always remembered her role as a woman leader, taking time to serve her community by acting as a mentor to Brighton business women. Joyce Rogers not only supported women in small business, but also encouraged them to become involved in public service and politics in the Brighton community. Joyce raised 5 successful sons, was an active participant in area charities, touched countless lives and helped change our community for the better. She lived every day believing that you could make a difference through hard work, respecting others and believing if you set your mind to it you could accomplish it. She was a leader in every aspect of her life and leaves a strong legacy of accomplishment and kindness to others. She is to be commended for her contribution to her family, her community and to the State of Michigan.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have been lucky, lucky over the skies of Detroit, lucky in Times Square, but we will not be lucky forever. We need to be proactive in our ability to gather intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks before they even get started. Catching somebody on the plane going back to Pakistan after they have delivered an explosive device is not success; it's failure. Catching them when they are on the plane in Pakistan coming to the United States would be an intelligence success. Prevention means speed and agility. Prosecution means slow and methodical. Both have their place. But when we are trying to protect the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we need to be quick and agile and move quickly and use every bit of intelligence we can get from a detainee before we move into the prosecution phase. Unfortunately, the majority did not allow that to happen. We said, Listen, when somebody comes into detention, every bit of actionable intelligence should be exhausted before they are turned over to the Department of Justice to have their Miranda rights read. It's a simple amendment. It's an honest amendment. It's an amendment that will keep us safe. They tell you, Well, we already have that prohibition against soldiers reading Miranda rights on the battlefield. So what? They don't read Miranda rights on the battlefield, but Federal law enforcement agents do. And that's what's happening. We are losing valuable information. And, predictably, these detainees are starting to say, Well, listen, if you are saying I don't have to talk until you provide me a lawyer, guess what, I won't. And equally predictably, guess what, we have had more almost successful attacks. And if we are counting on a t-shirt guy in Times Square to solve our terrorist problem, or the guy that's checking your luggage at the airport to catch that terrorist before they get on the plane, or the gate guard at a military base, we are going to lose. This is about common sense. We should reject this rule. It has denied our ability for our intelligence agencies to get the information from detainees that will save lives. Again, I urge the rejection of this rule.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for your help and cooperation--it goes to show you what good things we can do when we work together in this Chamber--to really stand up for the families of the fallen. You know, the folks who are killed in the line of duty come from all walks of life and from every corner of our country, and they sign up for law enforcement, Federal law enforcement because they believe in a purpose higher than themselves. And they consistently, day in and day out, Mr. Speaker, put their lives on the line for the same rule of law that we enjoy in every ounce of every community. And these are the rare and sad cases where these agents or patrol officers with the CBP have given their lives in defense of that law and liberty in communities across the United States. But there's also another set of victims there, and it is the family members who have sacrificed with them and packed up their families and come a long way away from where they grew up and where their family is to help build a support network for those agents and officers who are serving so proudly the United States of America. And due to a glitch-- and it was just that, a simple glitch--that if an FBI agent was killed in the line of duty overseas, their family could be relocated back. But if they moved from Maine to California, the family was stuck with the expense and the hazard and the hardship of getting home. This is really a small step to say ``thank you'' for the service and sacrifice for the men and women who wear the badge of the people of the United States of America, and a small statement to them that we care, we have not forgotten, and we thank you every day for your service and sacrifice to this great Nation.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding educator, Mrs. Nancy Egbert. Since the very beginning of her teaching career, Nancy Egbert demonstrated skill, leadership, and a unique ability to positively impact the children fortunate enough to be in her classroom. After graduating from Northern Michigan University in 1967 with a B.S. in education, she established herself as a versatile educator, teaching subjects ranging from journalism and business education at the high school level to reading, math and social studies to elementary school students. In 1984, Nancy Egbert tallied another achievement to her resume when she obtained a certification in elementary education from Michigan State University. In 1986 she was hired at St. Gerard's, a Catholic school in Lansing, as a second grade teacher, where she has served since. Her subsequent twenty-five year commitment to molding young minds during their most formative stage is in itself a testimony to her passion and commitment to high-quality religious education. It is in no small part thanks to her hard work that St. Gerard's has won the prestigious Michigan non- public school accrediting association (MNSAA) award for excellence for 2009-2010. Throughout her time as an educator in Michigan, she has helped shape countless young lives, serving as a role model and leader in religious education. I commend Nancy Egbert on her dedication to education and her students. She is to be applauded for her continuous contribution to the state of Michigan and the lives of our children.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to East Lansing High School and in particular the East Lansing High School girl's basketball team. On March 20, 2010 the Trojans won the Michigan Class A state championship. This victory capped an outstanding season as the Trojans completed a 27-1 season. Madam Speaker, these extraordinary young women deserve special recognition not only for their success on the basketball court, but also for their excellent work in the classroom. Congratulations to Head Coach Robert Smith and players Natalie Rose Brogan, Hannah Fitzpatrick, Malika Glover, Zakiya Minifee, Kelsey Deshambo, Kaitlin Lapka, Klarissa Bell, Shayna Allen, Alex Trecha, Alex Green, Libby Meyer, and Gracie Whelan. I ask that the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the East Lansing Trojan's on their state championship and I wish all of these young ladies luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, if this bill is so great, why the deception? The lying, the stealing, the cheating? I have never seen such behavior in my entire time in politics. ``If you like your health care, you can keep it.'' Not true, if you read the bill. Ten years of taxes, 6 years of services, if you read the bill. They steal money from the Social Security trust fund and cut $500 billion from Medicare. And not only that, Madam Speaker, but this pits one American against another in the cost of health care for the first time in our history. If you're a Florida senior citizen, you get to keep your Medicare Advantage. If you're from the other 49 States, you do not. And there is dirty deal after dirty deal after dirty deal in the bill that this House will vote on. It is a disgrace. It's wrong. America deserves better.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I commend Madeleine Bordallo on the work on this bill, and it does sadden many of us that we have to come here today and talk about an issue that is so pressing, an issue that affects 310 million Americans. And it's hard to find that time to get out and talk about that issue that will take away health care from millions, that will tax health care for millions, that will raid the Social Security trust fund, that will actually cut a half a trillion dollars out of the Medicare budget. But there are things in this bill that I think the other side does not want to talk about that is in here, and that is exactly why we feel compelled to come here to offer amendments at the Rules Committee to get this thing at least where the American people can have some faith that you're going to have an honest debate. The number of sweetheart and sleazy deals in this bill, the bill that this Chamber will vote on tomorrow, is sickening. It pits one American against another American. It pits one neighbor against another neighbor, and it happens time and time and time again in your legislation. If you're a retired UAW worker living next door to a retired tool and die machinist, guess what? There is a special provision where you get offsets for the increase in your premiums for a UAW worker but the tool and die machinists get nothing except a higher tax bill. It's wrong. It was a special provision tucked in this bill. If you're a senior citizen in Florida, there is a special provision that says your Medicare Advantage stays intact, but if you're a senior citizen living in Ohio or New York or Michigan, guess what? Not for you. You get treated differently. You lose your Medicare Advantage. It's wrong. It's sleazy. It's un-American. If you're a UAW worker in Michigan, you're going to get a higher tax on your insurance plan. If you're a longshoreman in New York City, you don't pay the higher tax on your insurance plan. It's unseemly, sleazy, and it's wrong. These are provisions tucked into this bill we can only assume to get to the magic number to pass on this floor. You know, if you're a banker in Michigan, you no longer, after this bill is passed, will be able to make a private student loan. That is right. But if you're a banker from North Dakota, guess what? You will get to make a private student loan. It's un-American. And each and every one of these sleazy deals ought to be brought to this floor and eliminated from this bill. We will have that opportunity in Rules Committee. We will see the commitment of this Chamber to be honest and transparent, not to mention the fact that we will stop the Social Security raid to pay for a bill that adds a trillion dollars to the deficit. And do you realize, Madam Speaker, why the impact of this is so important? Because this administration has had more deficit spending than every other President of the United States combined. It is shocking and it's breathtaking, and the arrogance of this Chamber to bring such an un-American bill with special sweetheart, sleazy deals tucked in and arm-twisting to make it happen is wrong. I know that the soldiers I served with fought for a unified country, a country that believed in liberty and personal responsibility and limited government. I know that today we ought to stand for that, too, and we ought to ask all of this to come to light and put those amendments as a part of the bill and clean up our act in Congress.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Finally, some spirited debate on an issue that will impact 310 million Americans. The problem with your anecdotal stories is, you are going to say that 85 percent of the system that is working right and having insurance are going to be punished and rationed in health care to fix the 15 percent. That's the travesty. You won't have one tough guy crying; you will have millions and millions of Americans crying for losing their health care. And on the deficit, to set it straight, the year prior to the Democrats taking over control of this Congress it was a $270 billion deficit. The year leading up to their takeover of this Chamber, $160 billion. And guess what? The very next year, $1.4 trillion. That's your problem. That's your plan. You need to deal with the facts.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I find it interesting. I admire my colleague from New York. He is a great speaker. And the reason he comes to the floor is to try to talk about everything else other than what is in the bill. He wants to say what Republicans are for so that they don't have to talk about what is in their bill. And that has been, really, the effort all along in this particular debate. There is great bipartisan agreement on this bill, and it is overwhelmingly in opposition. Republicans and Democrats not only on this House floor worked together to say ``no,'' but the American people worked together to say ``no.'' And why? Why would they do that? And why wouldn't you talk about the things that you had to do to try to get people to vote in favor of the bill? There are a slew of things which this body is about ready to approve. The Louisiana purchase. You made special adjustments. If this is so good and so wonderful, why do we have to put special provisions in this bill to exempt people from its provisions? Why? Because it's bad if everybody has to be a part of this bill, so individual Members said, If you give me just something I can go back and tell my people that I got them out of, it'll be a great day. You know what, you're asking Americans to pit an American against an American, a trillion-dollar bill that's not paid for, a bill that raises premiums, a bill that raids the Social Security trust fund to pay for a bill that still puts us in deficit. That's what this bill is. It's amazing. I think, you know, wow, we've fought for associated health plans where one small business could negotiate with another small business to lower their premiums, and the government, your government, said, no, you can't do that; that's illegal. We said, Hey, let's allow folks to cross State lines and force insurance companies to compete against each other so that we get lower premiums. And your government, your Democrat policies said, no, that's illegal. And then they said, you know what, this whole system isn't working because we can't associate together with small businesses and buy premiums because we don't like that idea. You can't go across State lines and force insurance companies to compete and be more transparent, we don't like that idea. So we made that illegal. So guess what, the government created the problem, and now they're saying, you know what, this is so hard and so complicated, we're going to give up on democracy and freedom; and the government is going to solve this problem for you. The arrogance is unbelievable. There are such simple things that we could do to lower premiums. There are such simple things that we could create in the free market that would allow people with preexisting conditions not to be discriminated against. You don't have to cut Medicare $500 billion to do it. You don't have to raid the Social Security trust fund to do it. This isn't about health care anymore. It's about politics. And that's so unfortunate. It's unbelievable what you are about to do to the American people. There's a new tax in here, a new tax on everything a doctor touches from the blood pressure cuff to the x ray machine to the smock that he wears. I have to tell you, you can't add cost to the health care system and have the premiums go down.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of the late Stuart Dunnings, Jr., the first African- American attorney to practice law in Michigan's Capitol City of Lansing, and founder in 1950 of the city's first African-American owned law firm. Mr. Dunnings, who passed away March 10, 2010, at age 85, was a champion of minorities from the beginning. President of the Lansing Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1951, he had been involved in the civil rights movement for half a century. He led the fight to get Lansing schools to hire more black teachers and successfully represented a Detroit basketball team's black student athletes when they were refused hotel rooms while in a Lansing tournament. Mr. Dunnings was co-counsel in school desegregation lawsuits in several Michigan cities, and served on civil rights committees and in lawsuits seeking equality for minorities. In 1992 he was honored by the Michigan State Bar Association as the ``Champion of Justice.'' He was inducted into the National Bar Association Hall of Fame. Mr. Dunnings and his late wife Janet had four children: Stuart III, Steven, Susan and Shauna. All four have law degrees, and one of eight grandchildren is attending law school. Stuart III is the Ingham County Prosecutor. Born in Staunton, Virginia, Mr. Dunnings graduated from Lincoln University, then from the University of Michigan Law School. During college, he hitchhiked back and forth to the east coast to visit family and seek employment in places like Washington, D.C. before opening his Lansing practice. He often hitchhiked to the courthouse in Mason when his cases were before the court. Facing the challenges of being the city's first black attorney, Mr. Dunnings practiced law until mid-afternoon, worked the Oldsmobile evening shift on the fender line, and spent weekends cleaning his office building to support himself and his family. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the late Stuart Dunnings, Jr., a man whose hard work, family commitment, and community spirit represent all that is good about our great nation and its people. Mr. Dunnings is truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you to my friend from California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, was a very, very important symptom for us to all understand, and it's easy to get confused, by the way, in who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. When you take the fight on the war on terror from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement approach, things get pretty murky in a hurry, and everything slows down, and information exchanges slow down. What we have done, what they have tried to do in the middle of the night, is sneak in a provision that would actually, when you read the entire thing, treat terrorists with a special carve-out that not even white-collar criminals, organized crime members, extortionists as American citizens would get, that your interrogator could be brought up on charges for what you believed might be incidences that offend you. Unbelievable. But that's exactly what happens when you are confused about who the bad guys are. This bill should be known for what it doesn't do. I mean, right now, they are getting ready to bring, through the administration policy and support of this Congress, hundreds of some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world to the United States. Do you know that about over a dozen times where these terrorists have been held overseas, including places like Great Britain, that terrorists have tried to break in to break them out? And guess what? Our policy is to bring them to the United States, give them a special carve-out, and treat them like American citizens at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. You know, we had the opportunity to do disruptive activities to al Qaeda, and some speculate that between the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bomber, there were methods and activities that we as a Nation didn't engage in because we were confused about being proactive on intelligence against terrorism or treating it like a law enforcement matter. There is a lot to be accountable in that decision, but it can happen when you get confused who the bad guys are. We have never had a full vetting of what was known at one time as the Global Justice Initiative where you send FBI agents around the world, including to the battlefield, to Mirandize foreign-trained terrorists who have declared war on the United States. That can happen when you forget who the bad guys are. There is nothing in this bill that protects the very courageous CIA interrogators for following Department of Justice guidelines in the interrogation and the development of information that will have saved lives in the United States. And, by the way, it was brought to our attention that the same interrogators who gave us about 70 percent of what we know about the logistics and operations of al Qaeda are subject to criminal investigations. You know why that happens? Because it's easy to do when you are confused about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Yesterday was that symptom, Mr. Speaker, that when you make that decision, there are serious consequences. Now, folks want to say, oh, that's just politics you are trying to interject. This is serious business. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will come to New York. Some estimate it as high as $200 million just for the security. That city said, ``No.'' Michigan said, ``No.'' Kansas said, ``No.'' Americans are saying, ``No.''

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. We ought to stand together in this body and say, ``No.'' This bill falls short of addressing the serious debate we better have ongoing from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement approach. This is not about you have the right to remain silent and if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. This is about aggressively pursuing terrorists where they live, where they train, where they operate. If our whole new plan is a law enforcement approach and we are going to catch them at the airport, we are going to lose this fight, and that's exactly what this bill fails to address. You cannot let one stand in the line with any American citizen and hope to God your last defense works, and that's what happens when you go to a law enforcement approach and you treat CIA officers like criminals and you treat foreign terrorists like high-status American citizens. You could get confused on who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in a hurry. I would recommend strong rejection of this bill. We need to start over, and we need to start asking hard questions about what this policy is doing to the national defense of the United States.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California. You know, sometimes you can get ahead of a problem. We don't often do that in Congress. I think this is a great way to get ahead of a problem. Given the fact that these individuals who have, who are doing great things for their country, we're thankful for it, takes sometimes a piece of intellectual property that really belongs to the people of the United States, and some of it is very sensitive, very compartmentalized. It's information that is shared with very few. So it is an incredible responsibility. And for us not to have a policy on how we make sure that those people don't use that information for personal gain on the outside of that community, especially the intelligence community, I think is wrong. And I think this is a good measure that puts some really basic protections, not only for them, but for the intelligence community and the people of America. And I want to commend the gentlelady for her work and effort on this. And I wholeheartedly support this effort.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. They made a fundamental shift, from proactive intelligence overseas to find them where they train, to where they finance, to where they recruit, to a law enforcement effort to bring them back to the United States. We're bringing foreign-trained terrorists to the United States and putting them in mainstream courtrooms. We're prosecuting CIA officers for following legal advice from the Department of Justice in interrogation. So we're treating CIA officers like criminals, and we're treating foreign-trained terrorists like Americans with all of the benefits and the privileges therein. You almost couldn't make this up. You couldn't come to this conclusion. And with it, we've got consequences. When you look at the series of events from the Fort Hood shootings to the Christmas Day bomber and the mistakes that were made and the lost opportunity for disruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and get us back to where we're putting the interests of Americans first versus the interests of the rights of terrorism before the safety and security of the United States. I strongly urge a rejection of this bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, it's not that you're giving terrorists better rights than Americans. It's the fact that you're extending to foreign terrorists, foreign nationals, foreign-trained individuals coming here to commit acts of violence and kill civilians the same rights as Americans. That's wrong. They are enemy combatants. You say, well, we can't have Abu Ghraib. You're right; we can't. Torture is illegal. It was illegal then, and guess what? It was investigated and they have been prosecuted, rightly so. They abused people. Wrong. They go to jail. That's what happens in this system. What you're doing now is interjecting mass confusion into the people who are going to try to conduct debriefings all over the world, and they're going to go to dangerous places, and guess what? You've engaged one of the worst parts of the al Qaeda playbook that says, remember, when Americans are shooting at themselves and chasing their tail, they are not shooting at us. Allege abuse. You've just put 11 confusing pages right into the hands of our enemy to say, make it really hard on the folks who are risking their lives to save Americans so that we can continue to do what we do, and that's plan, train, recruit, and we will send people to America to kill American civilians. This is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous step that you take. No debate. No discussion. Lots of confusion. Don't do this to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the United States of America.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in this bill for all that is at stake in the country. When there was a switch in debate about how we approach the war on terror, that's a legitimate argument, a legitimate debate to have, and we should do it under the light of day with all of the sets of consequences that come with any change of policy about how we go after terrorists overseas. And the notion that was brought out that, gee, if we just treat this like a law enforcement environment, if we treat it the way we would treat the average American citizen and extend the rights and the privileges to foreign-trained terrorists, the world will like us, the world will be a better place, we will have no more problems, they're going to go away, we will get them in the courtrooms of America, there is a fundamental flaw with doing this. In order to fully function as a law enforcement effort, the administration has sent FBI agents overseas into the battlefield to read Miranda rights to tell foreign-trained terrorists who probably couldn't find, some of them, America on a map that you have the right to remain silent; if you can't afford a lawyer the United States will appoint one for you; we will pay for it. The fact that if they get to the airport and stand in line with an explosive device next to you or your children or a family member or some other American citizen, we will catch them then, and we will put them in trial and read them their Miranda rights even though they were recruited overseas, trained overseas, in many cases surreptitiously moved to different parts of different countries in order to get every aspect of their training. And they're taught that they are on a combat mission. That is what they're taught, that your goal in this event is to go cause harm and casualties and chaos to Americans on American soil or to our allies on their soil. So they look at this as they have when they've declared war numerous times. They have declared war on the United States, and they're ready to kill Americans to prove their point. So some notion that by the time they get to the airport or board the plane we've been successful because we've had the opportunity to read them the Miranda rights is fundamentally flawed, and that is a fight that we will lose. We're going to lose that fight. You can't hire enough TSA agents. You can't hire enough domestic FBI agents. You can't send enough FBI agents into the battlefield to read Miranda rights to stop their effort. When you treat them like a criminal and read them their rights, you allow a defense attorney to start the negotiations about how much they will or will not cooperate. That starts. That happens. Clearly, the Christmas Day bomber enjoyed that same benefit. And I'll tell you, that first 24 to 48 hours is critically important in the intelligence community because of a small thing. This guy isn't going to be able to give you all of the layout of al Qaeda and all of their financing and all of their logistical movements, but he could have given us incredibly valuable information--maybe the name of another airline that may have been targeted on that day that we didn't know about, maybe the name or the description of a bad guy who trained in how to use that explosive device or a place or a town or a person that they may have seen in their training cramp. To most people, that wouldn't mean a lot. To trained professionals in the intelligence business, it means the difference between stopping them and them being successful. That little, small piece of information can save lives.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I, too, along with my colleague from Texas, and certainly the ranking member from Michigan, want to bring to the attention of this body just how dangerous the amendment is that says this, ``Any officer or employee of the intelligence community who, in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation, knowingly commits, attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' And it goes on to talk about infringing on their religious beliefs by any notion whatsoever that isn't defined in the bill. Sleep--it talks about lack of sleep. As a matter of fact, the interrogators are probably getting a lot less sleep than actually the terrorists they are interrogating because they also process the information before and after the interrogations. You have created a whole new direction to go after the very people who are interrogating people trying to kill Americans, and you are saying we are going to put you in jail if you push your limits. And by the way, torture is already against the law. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is pushing torture. What we're saying is, you cannot make this so unreasonable that they won't do it. And if you don't think that this will have an impact on an agent making the determination, should I or shouldn't I, you know what? I was hoping to turn around and find 300 screaming, cheering Americans saying thank you for your patriotism and your service, not 25 Justice Department lawyers with subpoenas. You will absolutely freeze the intelligence community's ability to go out and get information that they need, and it is absolutely naive to believe that they're going to do it anyway. I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. These folks want to follow the law; they want to follow the Constitution. And guess what? At the end of the day, they're willing to risk their lives to protect their country and their fellow Americans, and this is the treatment that we give them. This one provision alone will disrupt I can't tell you how many operations worldwide and is worthy of our rejection of this direction in the intelligence community.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chairman, it's with a heavy heart I rise with this amendment. This has been a bipartisan issue for, I hate to say it, going on 5 years where the Director of the FBI implemented a new policy, and the policy was designed to try to get a different talent pool of individuals to come to Washington, D.C. to be supervisors in their new bureaucracy of the intelligence community, if you will. They were having a difficult time doing it. So what they ended up doing is they forced supervisors in the field. These are FBI experts in a whole variety of fields--it could be white- collar crime, it could be organized crime, it could be foreign counterintelligence, could be counterterrorism efforts--and arbitrarily said, after 5 years you're done. You either have to step down, you have to come to Washington, D.C. and apply to be an ASAC or other job, or you have to move on. You can either leave the Bureau, you can step down and go back to the ranks of what we used to call a brick agent in the FBI. Five years ago we said, you know this is really unfair to a lot of agents. You're going to lose agents. Unfortunately, they implemented it, we lost agents, senior agents, talented agents. And from both sides of this aisle we heard stories after stories where we represented about good, quality, talented, seasoned FBI agents being forced to make decisions based on their families. Some were just not in a position to come back to Washington, D.C., so their reward for all that honorable service is get out. Well, the Director cut a deal with this Congress, not this particular session, but a Congress a few years ago, 5 years ago: I will fix this problem for the agents who this harmed. We are still waiting today. This is called the up-and-out policy of the FBI. It is wrong, Mr. Director. It is absolutely unconscionable that this continues to be a problem, after they've given the Congress of the United States your word it would be fixed. I just implore the Director to fix this problem. The only way for us to join together to get this fixed for the men and women who have risked their lives, who moved their families, who make the difficult choices to be an agent of the FBI, is to offer this amendment and say, no more. We're not playing anymore. Fix this problem. It's wrong to treat the men and women of the FBI with this blatant disregard for what has been harmful to them and their families, in some cases, their pensions as well. It's wrong. I know it has been bipartisan in the past, and I hope that it continues to be a bipartisan effort. And, Madam Chairman, I can't strongly enough say that I support it. But also, I have a letter here from the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, representing literally tens of thousands of former and current agents all across the country who have stood up and said this is the right thing. They support this amendment unconditionally. Let us stand with those men and women who are doing so much to keep us safe today. This is the one thing that we can do and send a message to this Director. For all the good and all the bad that happened since 9/11 and he's been part of a lot of good things, this could be a horrible black mark on what could otherwise be a great career there if you don't take care of the people who have been taking care of America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, something fundamentally different has happened in the last year. We have fundamentally changed the way we deal with terrorists in the United States. We should absolutely fully have that debate on the policy of that switch. Why? Because it has had tremendous consequences. Think about this: The CIA officers who, given direction by the Department of Justice, interrogated and debriefed and got some 70 percent of what we know about al Qaeda through their debriefings, are now being treated as criminals. Foreign-trained criminals are being brought to the United States and being treated as Americans. The fact that we would take a terrorist off a plane who had just attempted to kill some 300 people and the people on the ground and say you have the right to remain silent--wrong. You don't. I need to know if there's anybody else out there. I need to know where the training camp was. I need to know a name of an airline you may have heard while you were training in a place like Yemen to come to the United States on a combat mission and kill Americans. They should be treated as enemy combatants. That's exactly who they are. And when you make this fundamental switch from a proactive intelligence approach to keep them at bay to a law enforcement effort to bring them to the United States, it will have negative consequences for the national security of the United States. To not allow the amendments--I have had many and many of my colleagues here who had amendments to debate and talk about these very serious issues. There is a reason that they couldn't wrap up the fact that there was a shooting at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day bomber. There's a reason that happened. Because when you bring in law enforcement, it slows things down. They stop providing information until their lawyer can cut their best deal possible. This can't be about lawyers in the back room cutting good deals for foreign-trained terrorists trying to kill Americans. It has to be about the protection of every citizen in the United States and our allies abroad. When we lose that focus, we will lose the ability to stop everyone that comes to these shores. And if our new program is we are going to catch them at the airport by spending lots more money, we are going to lose this fight. We need to get them in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and wherever else they train, they finance, and they commit themselves to an act of combat to kill U.S. citizens.