Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. Chairman, the annual Intelligence Authorization Act is one of the most important bills that the House passes each year. It provides and allocates resources critical to national security programs that are the front lines of America's defense and foreign policies and, most critically, work to detect, prevent and disrupt potential terrorist attacks against the American people. The bill is also essential to ensure close and effective congressional oversight of the intelligence community.

There are issues that remain to be worked out as the legislative process continues. But I appreciate the work that Chairman Reyes has done to avoid many of the contentious items that have recently prevented the enactment of an intelligence authorization bill. And I appreciate that the bill reflects areas of consensus on critical national security issues.

I believe that this bill is strong in two areas. First, it was significantly improved by seven Republican amendments that were adopted on a bipartisan basis to address what I believe are important issues in priorities facing the intelligence community. Among these, the committee adopted my amendment to remove all earmarks from the bill, a significant step forward. Our intelligence program should be based on only one primary consideration, what best ensures that the intelligence community is able to do its job in the interest of the national security of the United States.

The committee adopted an amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) to limit the size and unintended bureaucratic growth of the Office of the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence. The bill also includes another amendment by Congressman Rogers to require a high-level strategic evaluation of the FBI's progress in transforming its FBI's intelligence capabilities. This process may not be moving forward fast enough to accomplish the needed changes and needs close attention.

The bill is also strengthened by significant provisions to improve congressional oversight of the intelligence community and the executive branch which addressed issues I have repeatedly raised since serving as chairman of the committee. These include provisions to clarify that each member of the Intelligence Committee must be fully and currently briefed on current activities. Again, I'm pleased that we're able to take and improve this oversight on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats on the committee both believe that we need this information to be able to effectively do our job. Some work remains to be done to smooth this out. But we have taken the right steps to move this forward. I appreciate the chairman's work to develop this framework for this important reform.

I understand and he understands that the executive branch may not like enhanced oversight and that they have expressed their concern about the provisions of the bill that strengthen the oversight process, including congressional notification, increased reporting and auditing. But there is no single current issue on which there is stronger bipartisan consensus on the committee than our concern that the administration is not fulfilling its statutory duty to keep each member of the committee fully and currently informed with respect to certain intelligence matters.

In the past year alone, I joined with Chairman Reyes to call on the President to brief the members of the committee with respect to intelligence regarding the al Kibar facility in Syria. The full committee was not briefed until the day the information was subsequently disclosed to the public. The committee was briefed months too late, and we received the information after the media did. On another matter, the administration has refused to brief all members of the committee even though it has briefed five members of the committee staff. It is clear that reforms are necessary.

In addition to these legislative provisions, I believe that the classified annex adequately supports our needs in important areas such as human intelligence collection and contains additional provisions to enhance oversight. While I may not agree with each of the specific authorizations, on balance the classified portion of the bill generally reflects consensus on the programmatic requirements needed to protect our national security.

Despite these areas of consensus, I must point out that I have concerns with parts of the bill and the action of the Rules Committee not to make certain important amendments in order. I'm disappointed with certain provisions relating to national intelligence space systems. Certain levels of funding fall short, and the bill fails to stimulate a sense of urgency in overhead architecture and shortfalls. In certain areas, it mandates technical solutions without a complete analysis.

I also have concern with what I believe is an unnecessarily complex and unwieldy provision to create a new Inspector General of the intelligence

community. While I support the enhancement of oversight for community- wide issues, this provision would significantly duplicate existing efforts and further grow the size of the DNI bureaucracy. I hope that we can continue to improve the bill as it moves through the process. I also hope that we can work to address concerns that have been raised by the intelligence community with respect to section 425 of the bill concerning the use of contractors.

Finally, I need to express my strong concern that the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment I submitted that would prevent funds authorizing the bill from being used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States. This provision should not be necessary. I believe that the public consensus that trained terrorists should not be brought into the American cities should be clear and overwhelming. However, there is a significant possibility that lawyers may try to argue that trained terrorist detainees should be released on American streets. This would be judicial activism at its worst, unsupported by either clear legal precedent or statutory authority. Congress must send a clear message immediately on this critical issue. We may have the opportunity to do that later today.

On balance, this bill is a workable bill. It needs to be improved. And I look forward to seeing exactly how the amendments process moves forward through the day.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my congratulations to Mr. Cramer on his retirement. We are going to miss you in the committee, Mr. Cramer. Alabama is going to lose two great Members of Congress, two members who have helped make the Intelligence Committee a better committee, who have studied the issues. We will miss you and wish you well, but I am sure we will see you again. Thank you for the work and effort you have put on the committee.

My colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) is also going to be leaving. I am not sure what the folks in Alabama have put in the water this year, but they are drinking the same thing and have decided to retire. Again, Mr. Everett has also contributed a tremendous amount of time, energy and effort in learning the issues of the Intelligence Committee and making sure that the work we do on the committee is a bipartisan effort, coordinated with the efforts in the Armed Services Committee to make sure that the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee are moving in the same direction and doing the things that are necessary to keep America safe.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

I yield my colleague an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who was successful in the committee in passing two important amendments to improve this bill.

I yield an additional minute to my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, Mr. McHugh from New York.

Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, I have no other speakers so I shall reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I would like to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am probably the only speaker left. I will close at the appropriate time.

I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just inquire of the chairman of the committee, you are prepared to close as well?

Thank you. I will yield myself the balance of our time.

I am looking forward to, and I am glad that we have had such a collegial discussion about the bill, the process that we have gone through in the committee, to get to the point that we are.

Obviously, we are going to go through a process of trying to improve this bill while we are here on the floor today. I can look forward to going through that process. I look forward to hopefully passing an improved bill out of the floor, and then look forward to going to conference and hope that we can continue this same kind of partnership in trying to get, not only a bill through the House, but getting it through a conference process and getting a bill to the President that the President will sign.

It is important that the Intelligence Committees, that the House and the Senate, put their imprint on the intelligence community. We haven't been able to do that for 3 years. It is important that we do it and that we do it at this time. The intelligence community needs the kind of direction and the parameters that we have established in this bill, to ensure that Congress can do its work, but also that the intelligence community can do its work within a framework that has been established by the Congress.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

While I will not oppose this amendment, I do want to note my concern that it includes substantive provisions that were not included in the amendment when it was originally submitted to the Committee on Rules.

On this side, we did not have an opportunity to review those provisions before the amendment was made in order. I'm disappointed that in this case, the process that has been so successful in terms of working together was not continued. In the future, I hope that the process will be more transparent and enable a fair opportunity to review and understand the provisions that are being included in the manager's amendment before they are submitted to the Rules Committee and before we are required to go to the Rules Committee to testify.

We support the manager's amendment. We don't support the process. But we continue to work on the process and those things as we go through that.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, as the designee of Mr. Blunt, call forward the second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It was originally going to be offered by my colleague, the distinguished Republican whip. He was called to the White House, and I consider it an honor to move this amendment forward on his behalf.

The amendment highlights not only the absolute success of the Colombian Government in its rescue of American and Colombian hostages that had been held for years by a narcoterrorist organization, but also the clear successes of the Colombian Government's efforts after years of close cooperation with the United States.

I want to take this opportunity to commend President Uribe and the Armed Forces and the National Police of Colombia on their efforts on this rescue and their many successes in implementing Plan Colombia. The amendment emphasizes the strong need to continue our close cooperation to work towards finishing the job in Colombia. We will continue to follow these issues closely and carefully in the committee, and I appreciate the Whip's efforts to focus attention on this important issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield myself 1 minute.

Again, this is an amendment that talks about the success of the programs that we have been working on in a bipartisan basis with the Colombian Government, highlighted, of course, by the recent rescue of the American and Colombian and other hostages that had been held for years; but more importantly, we have worked in a participative way, in a collaborative way, in a number of different areas, on the diplomatic front, political front, and also on an intelligence and military front and continue to do that, not only to free the hostages but also to make a firm statement against narcotraffickers that the Colombian Government, the U.S. Government, and others are committed to stopping the narcotraffic which is kind of performing and acting as a cancer in both the United States and Colombia.

This amendment by Mr. Blunt that I have the privilege of offering recognizes the participation and the work of the various governments, the various agencies, and the various individuals that have enabled this program to be successful.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have 1 minute remaining; is that correct?

I would like to yield my last minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support this amendment. In the committee, I offered a similar amendment that would have required a revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. The discovery of the al Kibar facility in Syria shortly after the original National Intelligence Estimate on Iran came out clearly suggested that prior assessments with respect to proliferation should be reviewed and reevaluated and the confidence level reassessed.

The previous NIE on Iran was so poorly drafted and so seriously undermined by subsequent developments in intelligence that I thought it was necessary for the DNI to go back to the drawing board and start over. While my amendment was not successful, I believe that this amendment helps to address the issues I was attempting to raise.

Therefore, I will support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

At this time, I yield myself whatever time I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to prohibit the use of funds in this bill to discourage analysts from using the words ``jihadist,'' ``jihad,'' ``caliphate,'' ``Islamist'' or ``Islamic terrorist'' by or within the intelligence community or the United States Government.

We are dealing with an enemy that speaks in no uncertain terms about its desire to attack our homeland and kill innocent Americans. In a statement released in March, Osama bin Laden said the following:

``God, make the mujahedin in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Islamic Maghreb, the Arabian Peninsula, Somalia, Chechnya, and everywhere victorious. God, defeat our enemies of the Jews, the Christians, and their supporters.''

More recently, in May bin Laden said the following:

``O youths of the generation: Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine and al-Aqsa Mosque and to regain the orthodox caliphate, God willing.''

Al Qaeda itself uses these terms to describe its fight against America, our allies, and moderate Muslims around the world. Why then would we prohibit our intelligence professionals from using the same words to accurately describe al Qaeda's stated goals?

Yet that is exactly what some in Washington are attempting to do. I was dismayed to learn that over the past few months, intelligence bureaucrats at the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security have issued memos imposing speech codes on how their employees can describe al Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups. They won't even be able to use the words these groups use themselves to describe themselves. These agencies within the intelligence community won't be able to use those words.

Mr. Chairman, free speech should not be controversial, nor should candid, accurate, and fair discussion of the self-professed goals of the terrorists that attack our homeland and have sworn to kill more Americans.

I find it more than ironic that some who have complained the loudest about politicization in the intelligence community would oppose this simple amendment to prevent the politically correct politicization of our Nation's intelligence community. We all know that political correctness can be the enemy of clarity.

We also know that radical jihadists have made repeated efforts to stifle free speech in the West, including the murder of Dutch film maker, Theo van Gogh, and frequent death threats against authors, cartoonists, and journalists.

Let's not give the radical jihadists a victory here by imposing a speech code on America's intelligence community.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is absolutely about political correctness. If we can't use the words that our enemies use to describe themselves and their activities, when they say jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine, and we go to local law enforcement, when we go to others in America and we describe the motivations and the intentions of those who wish to do us harm, I ask my colleagues, how do you expect the intelligence community to explain the behavior or the motivation of our enemies? Do we expect the intelligence community to say these are kind of bad people that may want to do us harm? We can't really use the words that they use to describe themselves because we've restricted the access of those words.

How will America understand the nature and the character of our enemy if we can't use the words that they use to describe themselves and we need to come up with a whole new language that is totally out of context with the enemy and the nature of the threat that we face today?

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, intelligence is critical to every decision affecting America's national security. Whether the challenge is learning the intentions of our Nation's adversaries or detecting the location of the next roadside IED in Iraq, America needs a well-resourced and well- managed intelligence community.

This committee's primary responsibilities are to authorize funds for the intelligence agencies, to conduct vigorous oversight over their operations and to ensure that those operations are effective, legal and an appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, the gentleman from Michigan, for working with me in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle for the great work that they have done to bring this bill to the floor today.

This year, as in years past, I have gone to the front lines to see our courageous intelligence professionals perform their jobs. They do this quietly, often without recognition or praise. Many spend time away from their families, often in very dangerous situations and under very dangerous conditions. This bill is the tangible sign of our support for the women and men of our America's intelligence agencies.

We're providing robust funding for our most important priorities including HUMINT, language capabilities and technical capabilities.

Our principal concern continues to be that al Qaeda is stronger today than at any time since September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden and his key deputies remain at large. But al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group that has gained strength. Over the past 7 years, Hezbollah and Hamas have become more capable and even more determined. Dangerous states, including Syria, are pursuing nuclear capabilities. There is the possibility that one of these states, or even a rogue scientist, could transfer fissile material to a terrorist group. This must remain our foremost priority and our top concern.

This bill invests in people, our most precious resource. It adds funding to enhance human intelligence collection, not only for counterterrorism, but also for enduring and emerging global security issues, such as challenges that we face in Asia, Africa and Latin America, to name a few. This bill also contains a number of provisions that promote greater accountability, including the creation of a new Inspector General for the intelligence community.

Our bill will improve language capabilities in the intelligence community by adding funding for speakers of critical languages and requiring reports to

Congress to evaluate progress in this perennial problem area. The bill also mandates implementation of security clearance reform to make it easier for first and second generation Americans, many of whom have critical language skills, to serve in the intelligence community with proper clearances.

I mentioned earlier that one of the responsibilities of this committee is oversight. Yet this administration has repeatedly failed to comply with the National Security Act of 1947, which mandates that our committee be ``fully and currently informed'' of all the intelligence activities from the administration. This bill enhances congressional oversight by ensuring that the committee receives the information that it needs to perform its inherent oversight function.

Working on a bipartisan basis, our committee adopted two provisions to enhance reporting on intelligence activities to the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. One provision would restrict 75 percent of all covert action funds until the full membership of the intelligence committees is briefed on all covert actions in effect as of April 24, 2008. A second provision would restrict the administration's attempts to brief only the chairman and ranking member and clarifies which information must be reported to our full committee.

This legislation also authorizes much of the requests for the foundational activities of the cybersecurity initiative, but it also expresses the committee's serious concerns about potential policy, implementation and governance issues. Our committee is also concerned that Congress does not have a comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of human and fiscal intelligence resources that have been devoted to Iraq, possibly at the expense of fighting the war on terror. H.R. 5959 requires a detailed report to our committee on this very topic.

The bill also addresses a number of long-term technical challenges in the intelligence community. It does so by adding significant resources to modernize signals intelligence capabilities and integrate them into the global enterprise.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, despite the size of the budget request, the administration did not include funds adequate to keep the U.S. intelligence community competitive in advanced technologies. Research and development funding is our Nation's investment in maintaining our edge in state of the art technologies. Our bill adds funds to four agencies specifically for that purpose. And the committee urges the executive branch to sustain, if not increase, this level of funding in future budgets.

In our markup, Mr. Chairman, the committee adopted a number of amendments offered by both the majority and minority members. One of those important amendments, crafted with bipartisan cooperation, will prevent CIA contractors from engaging in interrogations unless the Director of National Intelligence provides a waiver.

Our goal is to put this committee back in the authorization business by getting a bill to the President's desk that he can sign. To do that, we can't tackle every single important issue in this one bill. But if we fail to pass this bill, we risk eroding Congress' ability to strengthen and oversee intelligence operations that are vital to American national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who serves as chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. May I add, Mr. Chairman, that on a personal note, I'm privileged and proud to have served with Mr. Cramer on the Intelligence Committee for about 8 years. This is his last authorization bill. He will be retiring at the end of this Congress. So I just wanted to thank the gentleman for his service and for his work. He has never stopped working up to the very end here in his last term.

Thank you, Mr. Cramer, for your great work.

Mr. Chairman, before recognizing a very senior and valued member of our committee, I wanted to wish my good friend and former chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Armed Forces well on his retirement. I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Everett since I have been in Congress on Armed Services and also on Intelligence. I know how much he cares about the issues that affect our national security, and so I want to wish him well in his retirement as well.

Good luck, Terry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a senior member of our committee, who serves as the chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) who serves as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and who proudly represents NSA which is in his district.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Terrorism, Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague, Mr. Rush Holt, who also serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The answer is yes. I will be happy to work with you in conference.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time on both sides.

And can I inquire of my colleague if he has any additional speakers.

Then I will be pleased to recognize a hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for 2 minutes.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

That was our last speaker. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself the remainder of our time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say how much I appreciate the cooperation and the work that the ranking member has done to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank staffs on both sides in particular. I want to thank my Staff Director, Mike Delaney, my Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel, Wyndee Parker, and Chief Counsel, Jeremy Bash, for the great work that they have done.

And I also want to thank our Vice Chair of the committee, Congressman Leonard Boswell, who, unfortunately, was unable to accompany us here today because he is recuperating in the hospital. All of us wish him well and we want to see him back as soon as possible. He is a hard worker and contributes a lot to our committee.

And I also want to say that this is a good, solid bill. This is the kind of effort that our men and women in the intelligence community serving us proudly throughout the world deserve.

Each and every one of them gives their best effort, and they deserve the respect and the support of every Member of this body and everyone in this country. We thank them for the effort that they put forward, and we appreciate the commitment, the dedication and their professionalism, as well as the sacrifices that their families provide for our great country.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it has been a privilege to lead this committee. We have great Members on both sides that care very much about our national security and work very hard on all the issues that are important to our country and our national security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the revised Reyes/Murphy manager's amendment does several things. First, it makes clear that the intelligence community may enter into a contract to purchase a generally available fuel that is not an alternative or synthetic fuel or produced from a non conventional petroleum source provided that certain criteria are met. Some members of our committee were interested in addressing this issue, and we, Mr. Chairman, have done our best to handle it within the jurisdiction of our committee.

Second, we included an amendment offered by Mr. Welch to require an assessment of the feasibility of employing individuals who have worked for the Federal Government in Iraq or Afghanistan as translators or interpreters. It fits very well with the committee's other reporting requirements on foreign languages. I believe it will be helpful to know whether the intelligence community can benefit from those individuals who have already served our government in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes a technical correction to a report on intelligence resources devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. This correction is designed to ensure that the report captures both collection and analysis resources.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while we have no additional speakers, I just wanted to assure the ranking member that, as has been stated, like the bill, this is not a perfect bill. We're still working through the process, and I assure him we will continue to work together.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I support this amendment.

This amendment expresses congressional support of Colombia in its most recent success against the FARC. I thank the minority leader for offering it.

The United States should support democratic nations in their efforts against violent terrorist groups such as FARC. We are all proud of the recent rescue of U.S. and Colombian hostages held by the FARC. This operation shows the strength, resourcefulness, and valor of the Colombian military. These qualities were developed through cooperation between the U.S. and Colombia.

In the past years, Colombia has made great strides against the FARC and greatly has reduced their strength. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported assistance to Colombia for the past decade. We must continue to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, which incidentally was offered in our committee but which was not agreed to.

For years, Members have come to this floor to talk about the need to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims. This was one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the State Department have issued careful guidance to their employees saying in effect, when you see the term ``jihad'' to describe a violent form of terrorism, you might be alienating those moderate Muslims who want to join us in the fight against terrorism.

The government must consider how its words will be interpreted by its audience. If Muslims around the world hear something other than what we want to say, we will simply not achieve our goals.

This is sensible guidance, not political correctness. Language is a strategic weapon in the war of ideas. We should, therefore, use it wisely. The administration has obviously realized this and has provided appropriate guidance.

Congress should not try to undermine this effort by sending contradictory messages about the use of these terms.

I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), former ranking member of this committee, 2\1/ 2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I will just yield myself the remainder of my time to say that this is not about political correctness. This is about recognizing that words matter and the way we use words matter, particularly to those that we're trying to influence and those that we're trying to bring over in this war of ideas.

I think it's important to recognize that, again, it's not about political correctness. It's about using common sense.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I appreciate the efforts of the distinguished former ranking member of the committee to call attention to the importance of the aerospace industrial base, which is critical to our intelligence efforts. I applaud her work with my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) in bringing this amendment forward.

This amendment also further highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy for our Nation's intelligence overhead architecture. Unfortunately, I do not believe a sufficient strategy is yet in place, and I am concerned that the intelligence community is still not moving with urgency to solve this problem. We must address these issues in the interest of our national security, and just as importantly, to protect and maintain our industrial base as highlighted in this amendment.

With that, I would yield back the remainder of my 1 minute and yield the remaining 4 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while we are still taking a look at exactly what this amendment means, it raises some concerns because I think the last thing that some of us want to do is to divert important intelligence resources and assets to take a look at something that happened 20 to 30 years ago at the same time that we are facing the threat that we face today from radical jihadists and other challenges on a global basis.

I think my colleague made some compelling arguments as to if there is information available in the intelligence community that would shed some light on these types of issues that the intelligence community should at least report that information to the Intelligence Committee so that we can determine how we should dispose of that information, perhaps make it available.

I am assuming that my colleague doesn't envision the intelligence community going out and doing new work to try to assess as to what happened 20 to 30 years ago but to report on the information that they have in their possession at that time.

I will yield to my colleague.

Is my understanding roughly correct?

Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for that clarification.

So I will not oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I will support the amendment. And I am sure that those of us on the Intelligence Committee can work with the individual and the intelligence community to make sure that we get the information that is out there that is available to assess it and to go through it in such a way that will not take large amounts of time from the intelligence community and divert their attention from the tasks and the challenges that they face today.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

At the current time and in the current form, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit sends the bill back to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with instructions for an amendment requesting a national intelligence assessment on the strategic implications of high oil and energy prices for America.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House today that last year, when we did the Intelligence Authorization Bill, over 230 of my colleagues voted for an amendment that would require a national assessment on global climate change and asked the intelligence community to investigate that. This is a much more pressing and a much more serious issue and a much more immediate issue.

This assessment would constitute the best analytical judgment of our intelligence community as to the outlook for supply, demand and prices for a variety of strategic energy sources. This assessment would also examine the plans and intentions of key energy-producing and exporting states. But most importantly, this assessment explores the national security implications of America's sworn enemies, such as Iran and Venezuela, using increased energy prices as leverage against us and our foreign policy goals. This assessment is timely and directly relevant to America's national security interests.

This amendment stands in sharp contrast to the repeated attempts to divert precious time and scarce intelligence resources to discuss topics such as global warming, topics that merely advance an ideological agenda, rather than keeping this country and the American safe.

Take a look at specifically what this motion to recommit asks the intelligence community to do. It asks the intelligence community to look at the plans, the intentions of key energy-producing and exporting nations with respect to energy production and supply.

Energy-producing nations are changing their behavior. Why? For them it is less about increasing supply today because they are now flush with cash. Their behavior is changing.

It also asks the intelligence community to look at the national security implications of potential use of energy resources as leverage against the United States by Venezuela, Iran, or other potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices. Some call this the ``Iran premium.'' 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are controlled by government or national oil companies, many of them unfriendly to the United States.

This assessment also would ask for the national security implications of increases in funding to current or potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices. This year there will be a transfer of over $2.3 trillion from energy-consuming nations to energy-producing nations. The intelligence community should assess what the impact of that wealth transfer should be.

In addition, the community would do an assessment of the likelihood that increased energy prices will directly or indirectly increase financial support for terrorist organizations.

In an environment where America receives 60 percent of its energy overseas, where we are dependent on foreign supplies of energy, and where there are no indications that there will be decisions made to increase U.S. production, it is absolutely essential and vital that our national intelligence community does this assessment so that we, as policymakers, can understand the implications of the decisions that we make.

We need this assessment. We need to understand how vulnerable we are and the tools that our adversaries may use against us in the future.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Send this bill to committee, where, on the Intelligence Committee, this can be done in a very expeditious way. To make sure that we get this information, this assessment will be required to be brought back to the House of Representatives by January of 2009.

With that, I ask for my colleagues' support, and yield back the balance of my time.

I will yield for a question.

This motion to recommit is promptly.

I believe that the way the amendment is written, the committee can do the work, do it very, very quickly and get this bill and get this amendment back.

If the amendment were forthwith, there would be another avenue to deal with it.

Reclaiming my time. The amendment is promptly, so that the committee can do the work that it is required to do and that the committee is required to do. This says we will have the committee do its work, and that the DNI will report back by January with this information that is critical to the House of Representatives.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to enter--I have a question for my colleague.

I would like to suggest to my colleague that he amend the unanimous consent request to include putting on the House Calendar the opportunity to vote on, to schedule and vote on ANWR and other production issues.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague again to amend his unanimous consent request.

My reservation is, I request, I reserve the right to object and will not object if my colleague amends his unanimous consent request to include putting on the House calendar H.R. 3089, H.R. 2279, H.R. 5656, H.R. 2208, H.R. 2493, H.R. 6107 and H.R. 6108.

Mr. Speaker, I demand that these words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, the use of the word ``betrayal'' in regard to my actions I believe warrant that those words be taken down.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. And I want to take my time to also rise in support of the Blunt amendment on Colombia.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot describe the joy and the excitement that I felt on July 2 when I knew the rescue operation had been successful and that Mark Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, Ingrid Betancourt and 11 Colombians were finally free after years of torment and brutality suffered at the hands of the FARC.

I immediately wrote President Uribe congratulating him on the successful rescue. I also told President Uribe and members of the Colombian families that I remain committed to working for the release of the rest of the hostages. I would like to enter a copy of that letter into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I want to see an end to the conflict in Colombia. I want to see the dismantling of all paramilitary, FARC, ELN, and other armed groups in Colombia. Clearly, this is in the best interests of the Colombian people as well as the United States.

I want to see the Colombian military and security forces finally break their ties to armed groups, drug lords and criminals, and to fully respect the rights of all Colombian citizens.

The Blunt amendment notes how intelligence and other cooperation by the United States contributed to weakening all of Colombia's illegal armed actors--the paramilitaries, the FARC and the ELN. It states that such assistance should continue to capitalize on recent successes. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. According to an analysis by the Center for International Policy, what is most interesting about the hostage rescue operation and other recent successes is how different it is from what has failed in the past, namely, massive and expensive military offenses, fumigation, and racking up civilian body counts. The rescue highlights what has worked--the intelligence and cooperation that the gentleman from Missouri encourages us to continue:

A greater intelligence focus aimed at the top leadership of the FARC and the captors of the hostages;

A public relations campaign making it clear to the guerrilla rank- and-file that those who desert and who surrender to the government will not be tortured or disappear as in the past, but instead will get job training, a stipend, and the promise of a new life;

And an increased presence by security forces in population centers and on main roads aimed at protecting civilians rather than treating them as suspects.

Mr. Speaker, most interesting about these strategies is that, with the exception of the cost of increased manpower and protective presence, they are relatively inexpensive. These efforts, which have proven so effective, make up only a sliver of Colombia's defense budget and only a sliver of U.S. assistance. Planners of future aid packages to Colombia should take note.

Intelligence and encouragement of desertion work--these relatively cheap but vastly improved capabilities made the bloodless rescue mission possible. It is hard to imagine the Colombian military of even just 2 years ago pulling off an operation like this, but today we celebrate the freedom of 15 Colombians and Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter sent by Senator Richard Lugar to President Uribe urging him to seize this moment and open up negotiations with the FARC and the ELN to end the conflict and release the hundreds of Colombians who remain in captivity. Thus, indeed, will Colombia finally defeat the guerrillas and hopefully reunite the remaining hostages with their families and loved ones. I remain committed to this cause, and every Member of this Chamber should remain committed to this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I have many, many deep concerns about the human rights situation in Colombia and some of the aid we send. But the Blunt amendment is not an endorsement of the ``same old, same old.'' It is a recognition of something that has worked.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Blunt amendment, and I urge passage of this rule.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 2, 2008.

Hon. Alvaro Uribe Velez,

President, Republic of Colombia, Casa de Narino Bogota,

Colombia.

Dear President Uribe, I just want to express my deepest

appreciation and gratitude for the successful operation that

freed 15 of the hostages--eleven Colombians, Ingrid

Betancourt, and the three Americans.

No doubt like everyone watching the breaking news

throughout this afternoon, I simply have no words to express

what I'm feeling.

I can only say thank you to you and to everyone who was

involved in this very successful and intelligent ruse that

resulted in freeing so many without a single shot fired or

anyone injured.

As always, I remain committed to working with you and with

my counterparts in the international community to secure the

freedom of the remaining Colombian captives.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern,

Member of Congress.

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

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

I'm the last speaker, and I'm waiting with great anticipation for your close.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is a good rule, and it deserves to be supported. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I would say to my colleagues that what the gentleman from Washington just proposed on energy is yet another smoke screen by the Republicans in their effort to try to cover up their horrendous record on energy. They have been in control of this Congress. They were in control of the White House for years, and what we have seen are skyrocketing gas prices. They have done nothing to make us more energy independent.

No, I will not.

They have frustrated efforts by the Democratic majority to try to support alternative renewable, clean sources of energy from solar, to wind, to fuel cell technology, to you name it, and they have been against it. The President has refused to heed the appeal by Democrats and by the Speaker of the House to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide the American people with immediate relief from these high gas prices.

What we have gotten is the same old, same old. We have two oilmen in the White House, and we have policies being proposed by the other side of the aisle which is the same old same old. Give the oil companies whatever they want. You know what? The oil companies are wrong, and they're gouging the American taxpayer, and it's about time we had a Congress that stood up to them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1343 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2493) to amend the Clean

Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique

fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an

amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by

Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which

shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable

for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent;

and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the underlying intelligence authorization bill that this rule makes in order generally has bipartisan support in this House. This support comes in part from a number of Republican amendments that were adopted during the Intelligence Committee markup.

Among the adopted amendments was one offered by Ranking Member Hoekstra to eliminate all earmarks from the bill and to strike the provision transferring $39 billion to the Department of Justice for an entity known as the National Drug Intelligence Center.

This appropriateness of earmarking intelligence funds, and controversy surrounding this earmark in particular, was a serious issue during last year's consideration of this bill.

By adopting the Republican ban on earmarks in committee, such controversies are diminished, but Mr. Speaker, the larger need for earmark reform across Congress still remains.

Mr. Speaker, I support a 1-year earmark moratorium for all Members to allow for reforms to take place. Key among these reforms should be a definition of what is an appropriate allocation of Federal funds and what is an abuse of taxpayer dollars that assumes no essential or relevant Federal Government need.

Republican efforts to institute a 1-year ban on earmarks and to allow for a reform have been stymied by opposition from Speaker Pelosi and the other liberal leaders of the House.

While it is a small sign of success that earmarks have been stricken from this bill, a great deal more needs to be done to restore the American people's faith on how Congress spends taxpayers' money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the rule itself, I would like to make two points. First, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive and only makes in order half of the 20 amendments filed with the Rules Committee; just 10 amendments will be debated on this bill. There were other relevant amendments that were offered by Representatives on both sides of the aisle that were blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the best that can be said about this unfair rule is that it at least treats both Republicans and Democrats unfairly by

blocking an almost equal number of amendments from Representatives of each party. However, Mr. Speaker, restricting debate on both sides of the aisle is not what the American people were promised by those who now control this House. They promised an historic level of bipartisan openness, not the record-setting shutdown of debate on the House floor that they've been practicing for the past year and a half.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule waives the PAYGO rule written and passed by the liberal Democrat majority in January of 2007. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may rush to say that they had to waive PAYGO rules because this is an intelligence bill and there is a classified section that isn't public, so it can't be read to make a parliamentary ruling on whether PAYGO has been violated. That's what the argument will probably be. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is a false excuse.

The fault here rests not with the need to keep secret the classified information in the bill, it's that the Democrat majority chose to write the new House rules--initially--behind closed doors without consulting with the whole House or with Republicans. In doing so, they have made error after embarrassing error. On multiple occasions, this House has had to go back and fix mistakes in the rules that Democrat leaders made by refusing to work or even consult with Republicans. They had to do it on charitable fund raising, plane travel, and banning Members from flying their own airplanes.

And when it comes to PAYGO, not only was the rule written poorly to apply to classified parts of the bill, but it's a rule that Democrat leaders have decided to ignore for politically expedient reasons.

There is a great deal of talk from the liberal majority on their allegiance to PAYGO, yet they've just ignored it time after time when it suits their purposes; for example, on the farm bill, on unemployment insurance extensions, and on fixing the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, it's inconsistent to use PAYGO as an excuse to block proposals and amendments you oppose and then ignore PAYGO on a bill that you really want to pass. PAYGO is simply a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker, that this Democrat Congress is trying to use to cover for the largest proposed tax increase in American history and tens of billions of dollars in higher government spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Massachusetts, who is substituting for my namesake, I gather, if he has any more speakers on his side.

With that then, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This rule provides for the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Bill for the next fiscal year. This legislation is important to our national security, and it deserves the attention of this House. However, this Congress also needs to address the issue of skyrocketing gas prices that affect both our economic and our national security.

For months now, Democratic leaders have blocked debate and votes on legislation that would produce more American-made energy, which would open parts of Alaska, Federal lands and offshore to oil and gas drilling. As a result, in the long run, it would lower the price of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting and Congress needs to act. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow for much needed energy legislation to be considered on this House floor.

By defeating the previous question, the House can finally vote on this vital economic and national security issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so that we can start producing American-made gasoline.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.