Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 604, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. I believe these amendments to be noncontroversial, and intended to enhance the underlying bill. The manager's amendment is intended to make minor technical modifications to clarify two provisions that were added in markup. I have an amendment that would require employees at senior level in the intelligence community to endure a ``cooling off'' period before being employed by a company that is owned or controlled by a foreign government that poses a high counterintelligence threat. It would also make them subject to reporting procedures. This amendment stems from my concern that some senior level employees in the intelligence community retire or otherwise separate from the U.S. Government and take employment with foreign companies or foreign- controlled companies after holding positions where they likely learned very sensitive information that would be of value to those particular companies or governments. It is not intended to be punitive prohibition on post-intelligence community employment but rather to establish a procedure to establish that sufficient time has lapsed to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Carney has an amendment that would provide the Congress with a useful report on ways to improve the declassification process across the intelligence community. The intelligence community has declassified a massive amount of documents. Increased transparency through an improved declassification process will help rebuild the confidence of the American people in their intelligence agencies. Mr. Connolly has an amendment that will add several best practices to the assessment our bill requires for intelligence community software licenses. This amendment is all the more important in light of current efforts to improve intelligence community information technology systems. Wise management of software licenses can help save the taxpayers' dollars while making sure our intelligence officers have the tools they need to do their job. Ms. Jackson Lee has an amendment that will help us identify ways to improve the support contractors offer to the intelligence community. It may help us find ways to make the most of scarce resources, all the while ensuring that contractors do not perform inherently governmental functions. Mr. Keating has an amendment concerning intelligence sharing between Federal, State, and local entities, which has been a critical tool to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Joint terrorism task forces pool talent, skills, and knowledge from across the law enforcement and intelligence communities into a single entity that can respond with the flexibility and speed to stop impending threats. Even so, we must always look for ways to improve intelligence-sharing relationships. This amendment requires a study of the efficacy of the memoranda of understanding signed between Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies. The study will help identify any obstacles to intelligence sharing between agencies and find improvements to existing intelligence-sharing relationships. Ms. Kelly has an amendment to expand a grant program by the Director of National Intelligence to include predominantly black institutions. To succeed in their mission, the intelligence agencies need our Nation's top talent, and that means they must make full use of our Nation's diverse population. These grants will help provide study programs in foreign languages such as Farsi, Pashto, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African dialects. Foreign language skills are critical for intelligence officers, as we all know. Mr. Kilmer has an amendment that will require the intelligence community Chief Information Officer to make recommendations to the Director of National Intelligence based on the software licensing assessment required by section 307 of the bill. It will also require the DNI to issue guidelines to implement those recommendations. These recommendations and guidelines will help the IC implement the results of the important assessment that this bill will require regarding software licensing. I will, therefore, support the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to its veterans and to the retired members of the intelligence community. We should look for as many ways as possible to help them succeed in the job market. And I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment for promoting this. The amendment does, again, highlight the sheer level of threat we face from cyber crime, cyber terrorists, cyber espionage. We are being overwhelmed. When you look at China, Russia, Iran, and now organized crime groups who are approaching nation-state capability, it is as bad as I have ever seen it. And, again, 85 percent of the networks across America are not protected by the government because they are private sector networks. The government, itself, is about 15 percent of those networks. We need to find a pathway, A, to attract the talent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego) is talking about; and, B, we need to allow these private sector folks to protect themselves by gaining information, sharing information the government has that could protect those networks from cyber catastrophe. It is happening each and every day. The next generation of cyber warriors are there. And I think this amendment will go a long way to recruit the right talent in the right place to help us meet this growing threat of the future prosperity, safety, and the security of the United States. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his interest. This is exciting news. The bill is not crafted correctly, and it opens us up to exposing classified information to corporations that may be foreign-owned and operated by the very counterintelligence threat we seek to push back on. But thank you for this effort. We should reject this. We should include resounding support for the CISPA bill that carefully drafted language to make sure that there is a cyber-sharing relationship, both between the government when it comes to malicious code and the private sector who, remember, is all by itself out there getting attacked by nation-states and large organized criminal groups trying to steal their information. If you think about even the last month or so that General Alexander was the Director of the National Security Agency, just in that last bit of time he was there, the military sites, the government sites were hit 41 million times by people trying to cause destruction or break in and steal something. Again, this is as serious a problem as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we are not prepared to handle. So that CISPA bill that I think you tried to get here--I mean, part of this bill is the redundancy department of redundancy. The second part is just not drafted correctly, and we would love to help you get to the right place. This bill, I think, causes a little more harm than I think you realized without carefully considering how you construct a cyber- sharing malicious code relationship between the government and the private sector. It needs to happen. This way, it just exposes, again, the information to counterintelligence groups that we don't want to have it. So I would strongly urge the rejection of the motion to recommit. But I want to thank the gentleman. I look forward to working in the next few months with the gentleman to make sure that we put in place a fighting chance, a fighting chance for the 85 percent of those private sector networks that are getting absolutely ravaged every single day by cyber attackers, by people who are trying to disrupt activities. There are public reports that Iran is probing our financial institutions. Think about the idea if they were able or successful to go in and take down a financial institution that has trillions of dollars every single day in global transactions, destroy data, manipulate data, and you don't know who owes whom what. Imagine the economic catastrophe that happens. Well, guess what? This is not Orwellian. It is not next year, it is not 6 months from now, and it is not 10 years from now. It is happening today, and every nation on the face of the Earth is trying to get this capability--including al Qaeda. They are advertising to try to find the right people to develop a capability for a cyberattack to disrupt, to destroy, and to cause chaos. This is as important an issue as I can think of, Mr. Speaker, that I hope we find some resolution on. Again, I have to strongly oppose this motion to recommit for the drafting errors I find in the bill. But I look forward to working with the gentleman on the CISPA bill that is in the Senate and passed by this House in a huge bipartisan way so that we can bring relief and security to the future prosperity of the United States of America. With that, I yield back the balance 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. 4681, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, June 2, 2014.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the other Judiciary Committee sponsors, and Leader Cantor for all of their hard work coming to a compromise with the Intelligence Committee that enacts meaningful change to FISA while preserving operational capabilities. It is commendable that we have found a responsible legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so that we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the actions of traitors who leak classified information that puts our troops in the field at risk or those who fear-monger and spread mistruth to further their own misguided agenda. Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last June, the Section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense, and often inaccurate, criticism. The bulk telephone metadata program is legal, overseen, and effective at saving American lives. All three branches of government oversee this program, including Congress, inspectors general, and internal compliance and privacy and civil liberties offices in executive branch agencies. Despite the effectiveness of the program, and the immense safeguards on the data, many Americans and many Members of this body still have concerns about a potential for abuse. The legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflects hundreds of hours of Member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise. In March, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Ruppersberger and I introduced legislation that was designed to accomplish these main priorities: We committed to ending bulk metadata collection of communications and other types of records. We committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put America at risk. We committed to providing an even more robust judicial review process for the program. And we committed to providing more transparency into the FISA process and the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The revised USA Freedom Act accomplishes the same goals, as well. This legislation is intended to prohibit ``bulk'' collection activities under the authorities in question. ``Bulk'' collection means the indiscriminate acquisition of information or tangible things. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communications records or other tangible things. Rather, the prohibition applies to the use of these authorities to engage in indiscriminate or ``bulk'' data collection. These changes are intended to respond to concerns that these authorities could be used to permit a bulk data collection ``loophole.'' The bill bans bulk collection by introducing the requirement for a ``specific selection term.'' The ban on bulk collection, however, is not intended to limit acquisition of information through the traditional, targeted types of FISA or National Security Letters. The list of examples of what may constitute a specific selection term is non exhaustive, and we anticipate there will be other forms of discriminants than those contained in the legislation. The legislation also creates a new mechanism for obtaining call detail records on a continuing basis for up to 180 days to protect against international terrorism. The legislation is not intended to affect any current uses of Section 501 outside of the bulk context, including for records related to foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person and clandestine intelligence activities. We also assured that the language we are considering today permits a return of two hops to include using records identified by the government as the basis for the second hop. Additionally, it is important that when records are produced to the government they are produced in a form that will be useful--meaning that the government can set conditions on their production, including by determining the format and manner for production. This does not, however, mandate that companies change their business practices to store data in any particular form. The USA Freedom Act provides the meaningful change to the telephone metadata program that Members of the House have been seeking. If we had the fortune of having a Commander in Chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program as is, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. With that not being the case, I believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world. I urge Members to support this legislation.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate Michigan's United States Military Academy class of 2014 for completing the demanding requirements of West Point. They will soon receive their commission as 2nd Lieutenants in the U.S. Army and go on to serve our great nation, protecting American national security interests throughout the world. Their commitment to the Army and this country is admirable. As a former officer in the United States Army, I commend them on this outstanding accomplishment. I take great pride in seeing Americans, young men and women like them, choose such a demanding, honorable path. I wish them nothing but continued success and congratulate them again on achieving such a momentous accomplishment. List of Cadets Graduating From the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on May 28, 2014 Andrew E. Carlson, Troy; Andrew R. Fanko, Perry; Andrew J. Lee, Novi; April C. Emerson, Stanwood; Benjamin M. Miller, Clinton Twp.; Benjamin E. Schiff, Lakeville; Brenden A. Plancon, Charlevoix; Cabot M. Howell, Birmingham; Calla E. Glavin, Birmingham; Devon J. Compeau, Oakland; Garrett T. Kastl, Hope; Ian M. Brambs, Farmington Hills; Jacob T. Gleason, Warren; James M. DiMilia, Northville. John G. Buckle, Northville; Justin W. Haggerty, Belleville; Kyle A. Maxwell, Romeo; Matthew J. Hoff, Portage; Matthew A. Thompson, Ann Arbor; Paul P. Hancock IV, Dearborn; Peter T. Noreen, Cedar Springs; Quetzalcoatl S. Carrassco, Ypsilanti; Ricardo J. Galindo,, Farmington Hills; Rita I. Snyder, Rockford; Thomas A. White, Ann Arbor; Emily N. Clemons, Grosse Ile; Joshua P. Herbeck, Ann Arbor; Charles M. Kelly, Birmingham; Morgan K. White, Monroe.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate TRW Automotive's Fowlerville, Michigan facility on earning Quality magazine's ``Plant of the Year in North America'' award for quality, safety and continuous improvement. Employing more than 200 people, the Fowlerville plant manufactures slip control braking systems. The plant, like all of TRW's, can be recognized for its use of a visual management system that uses a color coded process to track production for safety and quality. TRW had sales of $17 billion last year, and supplies dozens of major car manufacturers with safety and component parts. It has more than 65,000 employees globally. The Fowlerville plant, together with its neighboring plant in Fenton, contributed roughly $360 million in annual sales in 2012. The two plants share a management team, as well as best practices. With dedicated effort to quality, Michigan manufacturers continue to prove ``Made in U.S.A.'' is not a thing of the past. I am proud of TRW's Fowlerville plant and I am proud of Michigan's manufacturing tradition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. I would like to begin by recognizing Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the other judiciary committee sponsors, and Leader Cantor for all their hard work and continuing to forge a compromise with the Intelligence Committee that enacts meaningful change to FISA while preserving operational capabilities. It is commendable that we have found a responsible legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so that we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the actions of a traitor or traitors who leaked classified information that puts our troops in the field at risk or those who fearmonger and spread mistruth and misinformation to further their own misguided agenda. Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last June, the section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense and often inaccurate criticism. The bulk telephone metadata program is legal, overseen, and effective at saving American lives. No review has found anything other than that. All three branches of government oversee this program, including Congress, the FISC, inspectors general and internal compliance and privacy and civil liberties offices in the executive branch agencies. Despite the effectiveness of the program and immense safeguards on the data, many Americans and many Members of this body still have concerns about a potential for abuse. Remember, the whole debate here has been about the potential for abuse, not that abuse had occurred. The legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflect hundreds of hours of Member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise. In March, the Intelligence Committee ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger, and I introduced legislation that was designed to accomplish these main priorities. We committed to ending bulk metadata collection for communications and other types of records. We committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put America at risk. We committed to provide an even more robust judicial review than exists today and process for that program. We committed to providing more transparency into the FISA process and the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The revised USA FREEDOM Act accomplishes the same goals as well. The USA FREEDOM Act provides the meaningful change to the telephone metadata that Members of the House have been seeking. If we had the fortune of having a Commander in Chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. With that not being the case, and I believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world, I urge Members to support this legislation. I want to thank all of those who came together to forge something that has been certainly a difficult process along the way. At the end of the day, something important happened here: a better understanding of the threats by, I think, more Members of Congress that pose every single day to the lives of American citizens by terror groups around the world. That rise in threat level is getting worse. The matrix for that threat level is getting worse. It was important as we forged and, I think, met the concerns of so many and educated, I think, many on the misinformation that was out there, that we protect the core capability to detect if a foreign terrorist on foreign soil is making a call to the United States to further advance their goals of killing Americans. I think we accomplished that today. It is not the bill I would have written completely, but I think we protected those operational concerns and met the concerns for those who had a mistrust of that metadata being locked away with the National Security Agency. With that, I look forward to a thoughtful debate and reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who has been incredibly important, not only on forming this piece of legislation to find the right balance, but his work across North Africa on Boko Haram before it was even popular in bringing attention and resources to important intelligence problems around the world in difficult places, a good friend, a great Member, and a great patriot.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for his diligent work on this issue since last summer. Mr. Reed's work, along with that of Mr. Stutzman from Indiana, was critical to ensuring that we struck the right balance on this legislation. We would not have been able to find that sweet spot that got us to such a strong bipartisan agreement without input from these and other Members interested in finding a solution. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his interest, his time, and his effort to help be a part of the forging of this important piece of legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly thank Mr. Langevin, who has done not only incredible work on this particular bill, but his work on cybersecurity should make Americans proud of his effort to move that ball down the field. Without his expertise on these matters, the United States would be a little worse off when it comes to national security. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and his work on cyber and other national security issues. I continue I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the comity of the moment, with all the love extended and the group hugs and the high fives, I think it is important to America to understand how much effort--how proud I think they should be about the intensity of the debate and discussion over what this bill looks like because I believe everybody involved in this cares about civil liberties and privacy; they do, wherever you fall on it. And I do believe that everybody who is involved in this cares about our national security. This debate--this fierce, intense debate--that happened off of this floor in committees, in negotiations over every word and every paragraph and every period, resulted in the bill that you see before us today that did get bipartisan support and buy-in for a very critical issue: at the end of the day, the national security of the United States and the public's trust in the intelligence agencies, which have the responsibility each and every day, in some very dangerous places around the world, to collect the information that keeps America safe. At the end of this, I hope that people take away from this debate that those who believed that the first round of negotiations meant that our national security was in peril and those who believed in the first round of negotiations that our civil liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today. It is that important for our country. Mr. Speaker, I only bring that up, and I thank all of those involved--the Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary, the Republicans and Democrats on the Intel Committee, and all of those who were involved in this negotiation. I think they have done America a favor today, and they have brought back the institutional notion of negotiation and intensity of debate that brings us to a better place today. I think this bill is a result of that. America should be proud. Now, we can move forward on other national security priorities that will serve to protect Americans' and our allies' lives around the world. With that, 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. 4681, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015, reported favorably to the House today with an amendment, and will file its report on the bill in the House next week. The bill is currently expected to be considered in the House next week. Mr. Speaker, the classified schedules of authorizations and the classified annexes 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 be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration of 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 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 annexes to the committee's report contain the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 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 rules. If a Member has not yet signed that oath but wishes to review the classified annexes and schedules 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 annexes 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.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Ms. Louise Dreuth. Louise is retiring from the federal government this month after more than 26 years of public service in the national security arena. She currently works in the Department of Defense as a senior congressional analyst in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence's Congressional Activities office. Although Louise originally hails from New York, she graduated from high school and college in Montgomery County, Maryland, and has been a longtime resident of Bethesda. Since she entered the work force, Louise has had a varied and distinguished career, having worked in both the legislative branch and executive branch at different times. Notably, Louise began her government service as a Professional Staff Member on The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when the committee was first established in 1977. No doubt those were interesting and challenging times, as the new committee worked to establish ongoing oversight of the Intelligence Community. As a Professional Staff Member on the HPSCI, Louise played a significant role helping the committee develop its authorization bills, performing research, and contributing to the critical mission of thorough oversight. Louise left the Committee in 1986 to work in the private sector for several years, but returned to the federal government in 1992 and joined the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), where she worked for 13 years in a number of increasingly challenging legislative and public affairs positions. Her work at MDA prepared her well to become the Chief of Communications for the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) when it was established in 2005. Shortly after CIFA was merged under the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2008, Louise joined the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI), where she is now. She has handled a busy, high-profile portfolio of counterintelligence and security legislative issues in OUSDI's Congressional Activities office for the past five years. Most recently, Louise has led numerous congressional engagements related to the latest unauthorized disclosures of classified material. As so often was true during her career, Louise's role has been to advise intelligence professionals in the Department of Defense on how to communicate the impact of these leaks and what DoD and defense intelligence entities are doing to prevent future disclosures. Louise has also contributed to Congress's better understanding and oversight of these critical issues. At the conclusion of her impressive career as a national security and legislative affairs professional, Louise is looking forward to spending more leisurely days with her husband Mike, their little grandson Ben, and their adult children Josh and Beth. I know Louise has been a very devoted daughter to her mother, and will now be able to see her more frequently. And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Louise Dreuth for her dedicated public service. Over the course of more than 26 years in legislative and public affairs positions within the federal government, she has advised many national security and intelligence professionals on how to communicate important, complex issues to Congress and the American public. She has made direct and significant contributions toward positive relations between the legislative and executive branches of our government. Louise has consistently brought great credit upon herself and every office in which she has worked. I thank her for her service and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.