Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5743.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first wish to make an announcement with respect to the availability of the classified annex to the bill for the Members of the House. This is to reinforce a previous announcement made to Members by the Committee on Rules on May 23, 2012, and an informal announcement by leadership.

Mr. Chairman, the classified Schedule of Authorizations and the classified annex accompanying the bill remain available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC 304 of the Capitol Visitors Center. The committee office will open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration by the House.

I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. This will assure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire assistance during their review of these classified documents.

Mr. Chairman, we're especially pleased with this year's fiscal 2013 Intelligence authorization bill and its presence here on the floor today. This will be our third authorization since I assumed the chairmanship and my colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger, assumed the ranking member position on the House Intelligence Committee.

The bill is a vital tool for congressional oversight of the intelligence community's classified activities and is critical to ensuring that our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to do their important work.

The Intelligence authorization bill funds U.S. intelligence activities spanning 17 separate agencies. This bill is significantly below last year's inactive budget, but up modestly from the President's roughly $72 billion in the unclassified number budget request for fiscal year 2013. It is also completely in line with the House budget resolution, which provides for a modest increase of defense activities above the President's budget.

The FY13 bill sustains our current intelligence capabilities and provides for the development of future capabilities, all while achieving significant savings and ensuring the intelligence agencies are being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing the country from many threats that we face. Effective and aggressive congressional oversight is essential to ensuring continued success in the intelligence community. The current challenging fiscal environment demands the accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs that can only come with an Intelligence authorization bill.

The bill's comprehensive classified annex provides detailed guidance on intelligence spending, including adjustments to costly but important programs. The bill funds requirements of the men and women of the intelligence community, both military and civilian, many of whom directly support the war zones and are engaged in other dangerous operations designed to keep America safe.

It provides oversight and authorization for vital intelligence activities, including global counterterrorism operations such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden; efforts by the National Security Agency to defend us from advance foreign state-sponsored cyberthreats; countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; global monitoring of foreign militaries and advanced weapons tests; and research and development of new technology to maintain our intelligence agencies' technological edge, including work on code breaking and spy satellites.

To stay competitive amidst declining budgets, the IC must wring out cost in all realms of operations--collection, processing, analysis, logistics, and ``back office'' operations. This bill promotes operating efficiencies in a number of areas, particularly in information technology, the ground processing of satellite data, and the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance departments. The bill holds personnel levels, one of the biggest cost drivers, at last year's levels. Even so, the bill adds a limited number of new personnel positions for select, high-priority positions, such as FBI surveillance officers to keep watch on terrorists.

The bill contains additional funding for intelligence collection programs, including increased counterintelligence to thwart foreign spies. The bill also increases funding for our intelligence community's comparative advantage--cutting-edge research and development.

While we're on the subject of funding our intelligence agencies, I think I would be remiss if we didn't briefly discuss the looming threat of sequestration and the devastating consequences it would have for our vital intelligence operations. The intelligence community and the congressional intelligence oversight committees have worked together over the last year, in recognition of the current challenging fiscal environment, to find efficiencies in the intelligence budget. And we've done that. We've actually done more in certain areas by finding efficiencies in other areas and reducing the overall cost of our 17 agencies.

Unlike the dangerous, across-the-board cuts of the 1990s, however, these funding cuts were carefully selected to ensure that no important operational intelligence capabilities were impacted. Let me be clear: The intelligence community has given until it hurts to produce better budget efficiencies, but we have done this without adversely affecting the mission, which is critically important.

All of this careful work, however, will have been done for nothing if Congress doesn't avert the sequestration train wreck. Sequestration will require a devastating cut to defense spending that will also entail dangerous across-the-board reductions in intelligence funding. The across-the-board nature of the sequester means that there is very little discretion left to our intelligence agencies on how to apportion these reductions.

Let me give you just a few examples of the dangerous impact this would have. Thousands of intelligence officers and specialized technicians will be laid off, to include those working around the world, and around the clock, to stop terrorist plots before they arrive on U.S. shores. The National Security Agency would have to significantly reduce its ability to intercept, translate, and analyze terrorist communications about their plans to attack the United States and Western targets. This would significantly reduce our odds of detecting and disrupting those terrorist plots. Intelligence community support to our soldiers and marines in harm's way in Afghanistan would significantly be curtailed. Also, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency would be forced to cut back the number of satellite images that it analyzes, reducing our odds of detecting significant foreign military activity, such as North Korean preparations for an attack on our troops in South Korea.

Our intelligence agencies and the important work they do is our first line of defense against the many threats around the world to our national security. Sequestration would be dangerous and irresponsible for many reasons, not the least of which is the threat to those vital intelligence capabilities, and Congress must act to avoid it. The House has put an offer on the table that would avert this disaster. We passed a bill earlier this month with responsible spending reforms that will bring down the debt without endangering our national security. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up this bill without further delay.

The bipartisan fiscal year 2013 Intelligence authorization bill preserves and advances national security and is also fiscally responsible. We have proven it can be done. The secrecy that is a necessary part of our country's intelligence work requires that the congressional Intelligence Committees conduct strong and effective oversight on behalf of the American people. That strong and effective oversight is impossible, however, without an annual Intelligence Authorization bill.

I want to thank all of the members on the committee for their bipartisan effort to find agreement on a bill that saves money and moves forward smartly on protecting the interests of national security for the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Mr. Chairman, I'll reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker who is on his way to the floor, I understand, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

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

I, too, want to thank the ranking member for his bipartisan leadership on this very, very important issue, our national security, and the staffs of both committees. We did something very unusual. We have the staffs work together to produce an authorization bill, and we think it makes a much better product with a lot more voices in the mix. We think we have gotten to a place that will protect America and save money for the taxpayers. That's a good place to be.

And at the end of the day, this is about a very serious issue. It's about the fact that we have folks all around the world who are getting up in the morning trying to commit acts of violence against U.S. citizens or our allies. It's about nation-states who want to steal the very prosperity of America by stealing our intellectual property through spying or cyberspying. It's about nation-states who are making an investment in cyberattack capability that would actually cause catastrophic harm to the United States economy. It is about nation- states who are engaged in the development of nuclear weapons for certainly no good purpose.

In the nineties we had a peace dividend because the structure of the threat changed fundamentally, and we could rearrange the way we looked at the world and our defense posture and our national security posture around the world. And I think this is a good moment to caution where we go in the future.

This is not like the nineties. We don't enjoy the same peace dividend in the sense that the world is more complicated and, in many ways, more dangerous than it has ever been before. Those intelligence services are getting aggressive. Our adversaries are getting better. They are investing in space and cyber in a way that is breathtaking if we don't keep pace. We don't have to spend dollar for dollar, but we do have to match intellectual capital with the solutions that we need to keep America safe.

The very brave men and women who risk their lives all over the globe to protect our soldiers by providing them state-of-the-art and up-to- date information, or by recruiting somebody in a very dangerous place somewhere else that might give us that little bit of advantage in knowing what our adversaries are up to, we owe a great debt of gratitude to those very brave Americans who risk their lives every single day in defense of this Nation. They are silent and quiet warriors, but deserve no less of our appreciation and gratitude for faithful service to this great Nation.

This bill reflects that, and it reflects the important status that we are going

to have to take in the intelligence community when it comes to protecting America in what is promising to be a dangerous future when it comes to our adversaries. This bill, we think, takes head-on those new challenges, so that America can be equally prosperous in the future and as safe as we have ever been.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule, amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment to the bill, and very simply--and I don't want to waste a lot of time on it--it would simply strike two technical provisions to allow us to resolve any potential issues going forward.

There were two technical issues that were deemed by the Parliamentarian as appropriation language. We just wanted to take that language out to make sure that there were no issues. It doesn't change the nature of the bill in any way, and it has bipartisan support. I would urge the body's support of the Rogers amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the amendment, I rise to control the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Thompson for working with us, not only on the overall bill, but on any amendment that might strengthen the process. I am committed to continue to work with Mr. Thompson on these very issues, and I would support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is an interesting amendment. This is something that we do as a matter of course in the committee, and it is as serious a matter as we consider: issues of war. It is also interesting that the consequences of a nuclear Iran are not a part of this. We would encourage that to happen, and we will engage in that discussion in the committee. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a catastrophe that is the worst part of a nightmare. Saudi Arabia has said, Hey, if Iran goes nuclear, we very well can't not go nuclear.

We believe that other nations--Turkey, Egypt, others--have said it's probably in our best interests not to be the ones without a nuclear weapon program if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. The proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Middle East is dangerous, incredibly dangerous. That's one outcome. We also have to consider that outcome as well.

Think about where Israel is today. This is a talk about U.S. action against Iran, something that we should consider. We should be very careful about all of those considerations. Now think about Israel and what they may or may not have to do when it comes to taking out a nuclear weapon program where they know one of its destinations will impact the very existence of the people of Israel. They live in a dangerous neighborhood. Egypt is now an uncertain partner in peace. There is violence

breaking out in the Sinai because of the turmoil and the changes happening in Egypt. Hamas is well armed, as well armed as we have ever seen them, with missiles aimed at Israel. Hezbollah has about 30,000-- the public number--we believe of very accurate missile systems pointed at Israel. Iran is moving and marching forward. Clearly the IAEA just recently reported a 27 percent enrichment rate on traces of uranium. That doesn't get you to the all-important 95, but it crosses a very critical threshold and a dangerous one, that 20 percent enrichment rate. That is a dangerous place for them to be. You hit 20, it's a lot easier to get to 95.

They have certainly shown that they are bad actors in the world. We should consider that as well, and we do in the Intelligence Committee. Imagine the fact that somebody would make the calculation, a nation- state, to assassinate an ambassador of another nation in our Nation's capital. And if they killed U.S. civilians, so be it.

We have seen a proliferation of these types of attacks from Iran. They haven't been very good at it yet. We've caught most of them. But they're learning from every event. And it's happening in places like Turkey, Pakistan, Argentina, and other places around the world. We are in a scary place indeed.

I won't oppose this amendment, but we need to look at this in total. I will tell you that if you want to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapons program, we have to step up. We're doing a fine job on the sanctions now--thanks to this body leading the way for sanctions working--but they also have to believe that military options are on the table. If they do not believe it, they'll continue down this path that is dangerous for the national security interests of the United States, of the Middle East, and indeed the world. Nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue elements is a thing that keeps me up every single night. I can't imagine that arms race in the Middle East making the job of stopping that any easier indeed.

I will not oppose this amendment, but I do think it's important that we put it in all of the context of the threat that a nuclear Iran poses, not just to the Middle East but to the world.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to applaud the gentleman for his work. We look forward to working with him as we move forward, and I will support the amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to compliment the gentleman for his work in bringing attention to this very important issue.

We have a serious problem on our southern border with our friend, neighbor, and ally, Mexico. They are under siege by organized criminal narcotrafficking organizations.

If you have just looked at the sheer death count and the murder and mayhem in some of the provinces along our southern border, it is shocking; and I think this will serve to at least make an advance on trying to help our southern neighbors get a handle on what is a serious and growing violent problem to our neighbor to the south. And I commend the gentleman and look forward to working with him in the future on this very important issue, and I would support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentlelady for her concern on these very important issues. One of the things that's so important, I think, to our country, is that we do have a strong and robust national security service of all sorts.

In order for that to work and be the most effective, people have to have trust in it. They have to understand that their rights are protected, and I think this amendment states exactly where they are and where they should be. And, therefore, I won't oppose the amendment, and I applaud the gentlelady's concern and effort. It will serve as a valuable reminder, I think, to the men and women who are standing tall in our defense what it's all about and why they do it.

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, though I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. Certainly, the good news is, as she said, she has pointed out the progress that has been made. And that's right, they have done an exceptionally good job of understanding that diversity is part of the success of our intelligence services. So restating that policy is probably a good idea. I will not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentlelady. Civil liberties are incredibly important. It's important that the American people have faith in their intelligence services that they are, in fact, catching bad guys and protecting Americans' civil liberties. The good news is that as a part of the Director of National Intelligence they have a Civil Liberties Protection Officer. This is a reaffirmation, I think, of that valuable work that that particular officer does, and really all of the members of our intelligence community need be reminded that protection of American civil liberties is an important value and an important thing to do while in fact you're catching the bad guys.

I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, say thank you very, very much for her work on the supply chain and its vulnerabilities. She has spent a lot of time on our committee making sure that we're doing all the right things to try to protect the supply chain when it comes to cyberthreats and other vulnerabilities that may exist, so I couldn't support the amendment more.

Lastly, I would just like to thank the gentlelady. This will be her last authorization bill. She has been a fantastic member of this committee and has brought a lot of stature to the issues she's engaged in--everything from home-grown terrorism to cyber to supply chain management. She has been a national treasure on that committee. She will be sorely missed. I wanted to offer our congratulations and our thanks to a job well done.

I object.

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

First of all, this is a motion to recommit. Let's not fool ourselves. And I understand this is the loyal opposition portion of the debate. It happens in each and every bill; I get it.

We've spent a lot of time in a bipartisan way getting the bill, and I think it's one of our better products given the detail with which we went over every budget line and operational detail in this budget. So when I read this, it looks like it was prepared fairly quickly in order to meet the time demand here, and it's very concerning.

In some of the things that we've done--even in this Chamber, we debated the cybersecurity bill and people had strong passions on both sides of the aisle of that bill about protection of civil liberties and just making sure there were checks and balances on our ability just to share information, a very small little piece. When you read this bill, that makes our cybersecurity bill look like a walk in the park. This is an expansion of the government involved in the Internet in a way that I find a little bit scary and shocking that they would allow it to get this far. Let me read it:

The intelligence community shall take all steps necessary

to protect and ensure that--

Sensitive information pertaining to economic, financial,

and consumer information is protected from cybersecurity

attacks.

That means you've got to reach way out into the Internet. Now you've just empowered the intelligence community--the very people we said we want to keep separate--into the Internet. This is dangerous. That's what happens when you get in a hurry and try to have a political amendment on a very bipartisan bill, and that's unfortunate about this.

The first paragraph, I would submit, we should make as a part of the ``department of redundancy department.'' All of that already happens. We do that as a matter of course and mission.

Again, it's a little bit surprising that they would allow this. I would even hope that your Members would take a very close look at this. You have just put your Members in a pretty bad spot about making them vote on something that will actually have the government involved in your Internet. Welcome to the laptop near you. Very concerning to me.

I will passionately oppose this, would urge all of my colleagues to passionately oppose this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5743, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include an exchange of letters with the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security with respect to the bill at this point in the Record.

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

I thank the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member and speak in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I congratulate both gentlemen for recognizing that the security and intelligence of America speaks loudly to the idea of bipartisanship.

Just a few hours ago, I was in a classified briefing--for fear of anyone thinking that I will share that classified briefing, I will not. But what I will say is it is clear that intelligence is a key to the peace and security that the American people have experienced since 9/ 11. Through the work of Members of Congress and the intelligence community, of which we owe a great deal of that gratitude, we have been able to, for now some 11 years plus on our soil, experience the safety and security, although we have had many attempts.

For that reason, I believe this is important work. My amendment says that it is important for the Director to consider the necessary processes to increase the recruitment and training of ethnic minorities as officers and employees of the CIA.

We have done this before. We have encouraged them to do so. And we can say that there have been gradual steps. And we applaud that. But the men and women who conduct this important work certainly deserve our support and all of the resources that we can muster to make sure they are successful in their endeavors. Yet we also ensure that the CIA itself reflects the American population and that of the world. Having agents who can be deployed anywhere at any time is vital to our national security, as well as the ability to interact with foreign nationals who speak the language is truly important. A diverse workforce can make America safer and more secure.

Historically, there's been an exclusion of minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, in the highest levels of national security. Let's continue to break that barrier. It's taken decades for minorities to make inroads into America's national security apparatus. And I know that this is a sense of Congress, but I always have faith that people will adhere to a positive statement by this body.

Although the number of CIA employees remains a classified secret, the Agency has released some numbers over the years. In 1966, blacks represented 10 percent of the CIA's total workforce and only 3 percent of the Agency's officers in senior intelligence service, whereas 17 percent of the clerical staff and 22 percent of the Agency's blue collar workforce was African American.

Over this past weekend, we commemorated, mourned, and celebrated our fallen soldiers. I had the privilege of having uncles who went off to war in World War II, one who served as a chief petty officer in the United States Navy. That was the integrated United States Navy. I can tell you that we are better for it when we utilize the talents of all Americans.

In 1992, a declassified study of CIA personnel found that about half of all black intelligence officers reported that they had been victims of racial harassment by the Agency. As of today, of the CIA's core of case officers, which is believed to number more than 1,000, only 11 percent are minorities and 18 percent are women. The majority of the Agency's top managers are still predominantly nonminorities.

According to CIA officials, one-third of the new operations officers hired in 2011 have been women, while just 11 percent have been minorities, as traditionally defined: African Americans, Asian Americans, or Latinos. Twenty percent of all new operations officers are native speakers of a foreign language and 75 percent have advanced proficiency in foreign languages, many because they've lived abroad. Almost half have advanced degrees.

I applaud that and I truly believe, as some may be listening and saying, Aren't we are all Americans? Yes, we are. If we are all Americans, then our

CIA, one of our most storied Agencies, needs to join and continue to recruit and improve on bringing in the diverse picture of the face of America because we'll be better for it.

When President Truman integrated the United States military, we became better for it. We celebrate all people who are willing to put the Nation's uniform on and die for their country. Likewise, for this wonderful intelligence Agency, we do the same.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I thank the ranking member as well.

In closing, let me just pay tribute to Garrett Jones, who served as a CIA station chief in Somalia during peacekeeping operations in 1993 and was cited as an African American officer who was able to work undercover for weeks in North Mogadishu, which his duty officers said would have been all but impossible by Jones' other officers.

We all have a contribution to make. And I look forward to this sense of Congress not being weeded out in conference and reemphasizing the importance of this effort.

With that I ask support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate my amendment #7 to H.R. 5743 ``Intelligence Authorization Act,'' which is a Sense of Congress that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency should take such actions as the Director considers necessary to increase the recruitment and training of ethnic minorities as officers and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The men and women who conduct this important work certainly deserve our support and all of the resources that we can muster to make sure that they're successful in their endeavors. Yet, we must also ensure that the CIA itself reflects the American population and that of the world. Having agents who can be deployed anywhere at any time is vital to our national security. As is a diversity of thought and perspectives that can be garnered by having a diverse workforce.

Historically there has been an exclusion of minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos in the highest levels of national security.

It has taken decades for minorities to make inroads into America's national security apparatus.

Although the number of CIA employees remains a classified secret, the agency has released some numbers over the years. In 1996 Blacks represented 10 percent of the CIA's total work force and only 3 percent of the agency's officers in senior intelligence service whereas 17 percent of the clerical staff and 22 percent of the agency's blue- collar work force was African American.

In 1992 a declassified study of CIA personnel found that about half of all black intelligence officers reported that they had been victims of racial harassment by the agency.

As of today the CIA's corps of case officers which is believed to number more than 1,000 and only 11 percent are minorities and 18 percent are women.

The Majority of the agency's top managers are still predominantly White males.

According to the CIA officials one-third of the new operations officers hired in 2011 have been women. While just 11 percent have been minorities as traditionally defined (African Americans, Asian Americans or Latinos), 20 percent of all new operations officers are native speakers of a foreign language and 75 percent have advanced proficiency in foreign languages, many because they have lived abroad. Almost half have advanced degrees.

There have been improvements since 1992, however, more must and should be done to ensure that diversity is reflected at the highest levels of the CIA.

The value of diversity in a spy service that operates in almost every country would seem to be obvious.

Garrett Jones who served as CIA station chief in Somalia during peacekeeping operations in 1993, cited the example of an African American officer who was able to work undercover for weeks in north Mogadishu, which he said would have been all but impossible for Jones or any of the station's other white officers. As we must deploy CIA agents all over the world. We need agents that are able to blend into a variety of situations. We need diversity.

Interest in working for the CIA rose after the Sept. 11 attacks. Between October 2001 and October 2002, the agency received 170,000 resumes.

Since founding of Office of the Director of National Intelligence minority representation increased to nearly 23 percent in 2009 in FY 2009, up since FY05, when it was 20 percent. Minorities received nearly 25 percent of promotions in FY09 and over 27 percent of new hires were minority. Women earned 46 percent of promotions in FY09, significantly higher than their representation at about 39 percent.

Letitia ``Tish'' Long is the first woman to head a major intelligence agency as director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the office responsible for collecting and analyzing overhead imagery and geospatial information.

Women have held the #2 spot at several intelligence agencies, including National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and NGA. CIA however has never had a woman as #2, but has had a woman in its #3 spot.

My amendment is a reflection of the need to continue to place the spotlight on the intelligence community to ensure that they continue in their efforts to reflect the needs of this country by recruiting, training, and retaining qualified minorities,

I have an amendment at the desk.

Again, let me thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for bringing forward a bipartisan initiative, and I hope that this would add to, again, reemphasizing what we have begun to do and that we will continue to do, and that is to recognize the value of security, but also recognize what Americans hold dear--their privacy, their respect for individual rights, their civil liberties. And so this amendment speaks specifically to the importance of protecting the civil liberties of religious and ethic minorities.

I can cite the moments in history where we have failed. Certainly, the Japanese interment loudly speaks in current, modern-day history of the tragedy of not respecting the civil liberties of Americans. Certainly, if we went as far back as the slave history of America, we can see that those who are on American soil who would have sought well to be Americans, their civil liberties were not protected.

But America has made great progress, and I think it is important as we look at new populations that come to this country that we particularly focus on this whole concept of religious liberty. It is a concept that sometimes is very difficult to adhere to. I may not agree with your faith and your religion, but you have the right to practice it as long as you're not doing harm to the American people.

For example, President George W. Bush in 2001 told the American Congress during that very difficult time that terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast

majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.

And so this particular faith certainly has been one that has been most noted. I think we have all come to the conclusion that we should protect the civil liberties of those who practice their faith under the Constitution of the United States, which the First Amendment guarantees the right to the freedom of access, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.

I would hope that in the intelligence community, as they do their work fighting terrorism, fighting the potential of those terrorist cells that may find themselves on our soil, that they will recognize the right of individuals to practice the faith and the aspect of the faith that follows the tenets of their faith and not categorize those individuals simply because of their faith that they might be intending to do us wrong.

There are many incidences where we have the kind of treatment of individuals because they happen to be of a particular background, particular ethnicity, racial background, and then, of course, faith. But I want to speak to this amendment so that people will know that it is a broad base, because many times we have disagreement with a number of subsets of different faiths, whether it's Protestant, whether it's faith that we are used to addressing.

So it is a statement that says that the civil liberties of all Americans will not be deprived through the necessity of protecting this land through our intelligence community on the basis of their religion and ethnic minorities.

We know that in some jurisdictions there have been incidences of individuals that believe that their privacy has been intruded upon. I would hope that in the framework of the fine work that the intelligence community has to do that there is no intimidation of making sure that civil liberties can be protected.

Many of us have debated a number of bills on the floor of the House dealing with privacy questions. I think it is important in this sense of Congress to always restate that we are committed to national security, but we're committed to the civil liberties of those within our soil--American citizens.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me capture what the chairman said. I like the terminology that says the American people must have faith in their intelligence community, but faith in the principles upon which we live. And they must know that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. And we as Members of Congress must as well.

So, again, I make a plea that this sense of Congress is a reaffirmation, but also an encouragement and a statement that should be in this bill that we respect the civil liberties of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and in fact so will our intelligence community.

With that in mind, I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and also ask that it be maintained even in conference, the reaffirmation of this important instruction as the civil liberties protection officer operates and does the work that they need to do. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate my amendment #8 to H.R. 5743, ``Intelligence Authorization Act,'' which is a Sense of Congress that the intelligence community should take all appropriate actions necessary to protect the civil liberties of religious and ethnic minorities.

We can obtain vital intelligence without compromising our civil liberties. As you know, risks to civil liberties are inherent in the very nature of domestic intelligence. This is because intelligence necessarily operates in secret and as a result, it is difficult to subject intelligence activities to the checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution realized were essential to prevent abuses of power. Even judicial reviews of intelligence activities are often given deference.

Intelligence is the information we use to identify and locate individuals involved in planning terrorist acts. This information must then be used to prevent any potential attack and can be done in ways that are legally permissible.

Domestic intelligence community left unchecked could pose significant dangers to open government, individual privacy, and civil liberties. My amendment is designed as a limitation for a reason. We need a bill that is strong on civil liberties, and includes protections against infringement of our constitutional right to privacy.

My amendment serves as a reminder that the American people have put their faith in the intelligence community and in Congress to protect not only their security but the very essence of what makes America great . . . our freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson in 1787 stated that ``[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.''

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America have forced serious reflections about the institutional framework of civil society and the commitment to democratic principles. Although the balancing of the protections of citizens' rights and liberties against their peace and security is a continuous constitutional struggle. Especially during war and national crisis.

According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ``We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country . . . it will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on'' (New York Times, Sept. 29 2001).

Our efforts to provide for the safety and security has required Americans to accept certain restriction on their freedoms--more surveillance of their papers and communications, more searches of their belongings, possible detention without a writ of habeas corpus, and proceedings by military tribunals without the standard protections of due process of civil courts.

I realize that we must give our intelligence community the proper tools to protect us while upholding the civil liberties of Americans.

We must always recognize that the American people are being asked to trade off civil liberties and personal freedom for a greater sense of security from the threat of terrorist.

It is no answer to these legitimate concerns that police officers or member of the intelligence community who monitor political or religious meetings, compile dossiers on political activists, or infiltrate lawful protest organizations are complying with the Fourth Amendment and are doing no more than any member of the public could do on his or her own. When government acts, it has a special obligation to respect constitutional rights--which include the First as well as the Fourth Amendment--an obligation not imposed on private citizens. My amendment is a Sense that it is the intent of this body to protect the civil liberties of the very groups that may be monitored as a direct response to our concerns about a terrorist attack. We must be led not by fear but by reason!

The challenge to our intelligence community is the same as the challenge for the nation as a whole. Securing the Nation's freedom depends not on making a choice between security and liberty, but in designing and implementing policies that allow the American people to be both safe and free.

Increased threats of terrorism after September 11, 2001, lightning- fast technological innovation, and the erosion of key privacy protections under the law threaten to alter the American way of life in fundamental ways.

Terrorism threatens--and is calculated to threaten--not only our sense of safety, but also our freedom and way of life. Terrorists intend to frighten us into changing our basic laws and values and to take actions that are not in our long-term interests.

While the government has both the power and the obligation under the Constitution to

defend the nation and its security, these powers cannot be exercised in a manner that contravenes individual constitutional liberties. Among others, these include the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, and association, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, as with all government powers, national security and intelligence gathering powers should be subject to checks and balances, including meaningful judicial review and probing oversight by the Congress.

The internment of thousands of Japanese serves as a reminder for why we must protect the civil liberties of religious and ethnic minorities.

Will the gentleman yield?

I do not rise on the gentlelady's amendment. In the statement I made on amendment No. 7, I indicated that the CIA officer's name that was undercover, that was not the CIA's undercover agent's name, which I would not give. It was the section station director's name, Mr. Garrett Jones. The CIA agent was undercover and remains unnamed. But he was an African American who did his duty because of his background.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, upon adoption of House Resolution 667, amendments number 4 and 6 printed in House Report 112 504 be modified to include the amendatory instructions that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and of the four rules that it contains.

The rules provide for the consideration of critically important pieces of legislation meant to fund the Federal Government, provide for our Nation's veterans and protect our national security. With this resolution, I have the distinct honor of bringing three appropriations bills to the House floor under open rules. I'm not sure when the last time is that somebody got to say he was bringing three open rules to the House floor at one time, but I am proud to be able to do that today.

House Res. 667 continues the majority's promise to the American people to bring openness, debate, and transparency back to Congress. As a father of three sons in the military and as the Representative of over 116,000 veterans, I'm particularly happy that this resolution provides an open rule for the bill that funds our Nation's veterans programs and meets our military construction needs. We owe our veterans a debt that can never be repaid, but the very least we can do is provide them with the benefits they so bravely and so selflessly earned.

I applaud the Appropriations Committee for the bipartisan way they worked together to fund these programs for our American heroes and their families. It shouldn't go unnoticed that at a time when it seems difficult to work across the aisle, the Appropriations Committee did just that, and they passed it unanimously. We shouldn't play politics with our veterans, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill doesn't.

House Res. 667 includes a structured rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2013. This is a bill that authorizes our Nation's intelligence and intelligence-related activities. It includes our National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program. It specifically ensures that nothing in this bill gives the government the authority to conduct any intelligence activity not otherwise authorized by the U.S. Constitution or our laws.

Although this rule may not be an open rule, it is necessarily so. The classified nature of the Intelligence authorization bill means that we can't debate a lot of the specifics of the underlying bill on the House floor. If we were to debate some of these amendments, we would be put in the impossible position of supporting or opposing the amendments based on facts that we simply can't discuss for reasons of national security. Still, in our efforts to be open, the Rules Committee managed to allow nine amendments on this debate. Seven of those amendments are Democratic, and two are Republican. This too is a bipartisan bill, and the Intelligence Committee passed it unanimously with a 19 0 vote. As the minority views of this bill stated, the stakes are simply too high to make our intelligence programs political.

For all of these reasons, I am proud to support this resolution, a resolution that provides for an extremely open process while balancing the transparency with our national security when it comes to debating our intelligence programs.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I'm always at a loss sometimes when I hear certain things, but this is really about there is no energy policy in America. We're talking about actually investing in some of the resources that we're standing on today in America to help us become more energy independent, not more energy dependent.

We've seen what Solyndra did. We've seen what some of these ideas have been. While some are very intuitive or can lead to some directions that we want to go in, we have resources here today in America that can help us become more energy independent. This appropriations bill actually increases that R&D, that development of clean coal. We have over 300 years of energy just in coal alone. Why would we not look at how we can clean it by utilizing technology to do so? This bill does that.

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, you've got to remember that three of these bills are open for amendment. My good friend on the other side probably remembers back to the 111th Congress when they never had an open rule on appropriations. But with this, we have three open rules and one structured rule. So if you don't like something that's contained in any one of those three bills, you have the opportunity to amend it on the floor. You can do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment, I believe, was made in order in 2001 when it was Democratically controlled--and it failed in the House. In fiscal year 2012, the Rules Committee actually made the amendment in order but the gentleman failed to submit it on the House floor.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I understand his position as it relates to something that occurred 30 or 40 years ago. But last year he didn't even offer it. It was made in order during the fiscal year, and he didn't even offer it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side, remember that that's an open rule. If you don't like a portion of it, then amend it. Bring an amendment to the floor. I know they're confused about that, and I know they didn't have it in the 111th Congress, but in this Congress you have the ability to amend it.

No piece of legislation is perfect. That's why you have the ability for amendments. So I would encourage my friends on the other side, or any Member, Republican or Democrat alike, if they want to see something different, amend it. That's the beauty of this.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I do not.

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

This is a responsible use as relates to a budget that we passed in this House. These appropriations bills live within the confines of the budget that was passed within this House. Now, I can't say that's always been the case here. As we look back over the last 4 years prior to my coming here, that was definitely not the case in regards to living within a budget, living within our means.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about certain provisions in the underlying appropriations bills. Once again, I'd just like to remind our colleagues this is not the 111th Congress that you're used to. The beauty is that you have an open amendment process, one that did not exist in the last Congress. So you can offer whatever amendment you want as it relates to any of these issues--strike it, defund it, do whatever you want to it. You can do that on this floor. That's why we have the open amendment process.

Remember, it's different than it was in the 111th Congress--at least that's what I've read. You know, you get to vote on the issues that are important to the American people. I hope that anyone who opposes any one of the underlying bills will join me in supporting this rule because it gives you the ability to actually amend it and craft it in a way that you think is best for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. We're talking about issues today that already have bipartisan agreement. You hear those on the other side of the aisle talk about issues that are in these appropriations bills, but they passed out of committee unanimously. Democrats and Republicans alike all voted for it unanimously to pass those out of committee. That's pretty telling in regards to what's contained within the appropriations bill. So I can't say it enough: they were passed out of committee unanimously, Democrats and Republicans alike, without dissension.

We're talking about funding the Federal Government, something that is fundamental to what we do, something that we have to do as a Member of Congress. And we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way that provides for our government, our veterans, our Homeland Security, and our intelligence community, while simultaneously taking steps to reduce Federal spending, which is what we have to do.

I commend the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committees for their diligent, bipartisan work on these four underlying pieces of legislation. I commend Chairman Dreier and my fellow Rules Committee members on bringing these bills to the floor in an open process.

I know that my good friend from Florida likes the open process. We hear about it every time we have a Rules Committee meeting about the open process and the ability to amend it on the floor. ``Let the House work its will'' is what we talk about, and we have that opportunity. While some may not know how to do that because they just haven't had the experience, we're all in this together. We're learning as we go along what that open process means and allowing Democrats and Republicans alike to come to the floor and debate the issues that they want to make a piece of underlying legislation better.

That's what's good about this whole system. We know it can be better, and we're making sure that the House does work its will in allowing these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it's about changing how we do business in this House, and we're taking one of the first steps in doing this through our appropriations process and having an open process to allow the ability to submit amendments on the House floor to make all of these pieces of legislation better. That's the goal. I know that's the goal on both sides of the aisle when they submit these amendments--I hope that is. We'll see how the House works its will on all of the amendments.

So I support this resolution, I support the open process, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. If they want to make a bill better, then offer the amendments on the floor on the three appropriations bills that you have the ability to do it on. Under the structured bill, there are already seven Democratic amendments made in order and two Republican.

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

An amendment to H. Res. 667 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause (b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1519) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to

provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination

in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this

resolution.

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

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

Departing for the moment at hand, Mr. Speaker, just to identify that, today, the bipartisan Foster Youth Program has on the Hill with many of us foster care youth from around this Nation. This bill directly affects their lives. I have the good fortune of having a constituent, Breon Callins, and Washington, D.C. youth Goldie Brown following me today, and I hope they hear my remarks and understand the importance to them and to all children in America's future.

The rule provides for the consideration of four bills--the Intelligence authorization, Energy and Water appropriations, Homeland Security appropriations, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations. While I agree with my colleague Mr.

Nugent that it is important that this is customarily an open process-- and I commend my Republican colleagues in that regard--I do as I did in the Rules Committee--and he was there last evening--object to the significant number of amendments that were not allowed, and I am sure there are Members who will be present to speak to them.

Once again, we are looking at broken Republican promises on spending levels. Once again, we are shortchanging our future for the selfish demands of today.

And once again, we're missing the opportunity to fully invest in our Nation. The choices made in these bills make no sense to me, Mr. Speaker. Nuclear weapons instead of nonproliferation. Fossil fuels instead of renewable energy. Divisive abortion provisions instead of bipartisan agreement on Homeland Security.

It's almost as if Republicans enjoy jabbing a finger in the eye of progress. They seem to be doing everything they can to find ways not to grow our economy and create jobs. They do not seem to understand that clinging to fossil fuels and nuclear weapons at the expense of scientific research and energy efficiency will not bring about the kind of progress that this great Nation needs. When you cut the Office of Science, when you cut the Advanced Research Projects Agency, and when you cut energy-efficiency programs, you harm our ability to invest in the kinds of research that lead to innovation and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I could go through all of these bills and point out everywhere the majority has not sufficiently invested in the kinds of programs we need to make progress. It would not be hard, because unless it involves military spending or oil, you can be sure that the majority has cut it under the argument that we're in a fiscal crisis and cannot forward it.

Mr. Speaker, I reject that notion. We can afford to invest in our future, we can afford to create jobs, and we can afford to make the choices now that will reap the benefits for future generations, including those foster children that I mentioned.

When President Bush wanted to invade Iraq, Congress spent a trillion dollars. When Republicans wanted to cut taxes for the best off among us in America, Congress spent a trillion dollars. When Congress wanted to fight the war on terror, it appropriated and still does nearly unlimited funding to do so. So this is not about the deficit. The United States does not lack the money to prioritize our future. What we do lack is the political willpower and the leadership necessary to set gainful priorities.

Spend some now, save more later. What is obvious to middle class and working poor Americans seems entirely lost to my Republican colleagues. This Nation should be benefiting from American ingenuity and products made here in America. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather let other countries take the lead in scientific advancement, energy efficiency, and clean energy. I'm not just talking about this year's appropriations, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about the trend under the Republican majority of defunding and deprioritizing the long-term needs of the Nation. It's just plain depressing.

I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer to see climate change as a liberal hoax, clean energy as a Socialist cabal, and science as a Communist plot. But drastic changes are upon this country and indeed upon this world, and our failure to adequately address these challenges now will cost us more in the future.

We need energy efficiency, not environmental degradation. We need nuclear nonproliferation, not more nuclear weapons. And we need more investments in science, because the next generation--including those foster children that I spoke about--of American scientists and innovators might not be one of the billionaires or millionaires so beloved by my Republican colleagues, but instead might be a desperate entrepreneur in need of a little bit of Federal assistance in order to make that great scientific breakthrough.

The sacrifices continually demanded by the Republican majority--in order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, including those of us in Congress--are shortchanging the future of this Nation. Rather than work with Democrats to develop bipartisan policies and funding priorities to address the country's challenges, House Republicans are continuing to use the appropriations process for partisan gimmickry and political gamesmanship, and pretending by deeming something that ain't going to happen in the Senate as law.

I can't tell you what business anti-abortion provisions have in a bill about funding the Department of Homeland Security. I can't tell you why it's more important for the Republicans to target women's health than it is to achieve bipartisan consensus on funding our Nation's first responders. And I can't tell you why, Mr. Speaker, we still have to debate this issue when there are so many other pressing concerns before us today.

Rather than garner Democrat support for the Homeland Security bill, Republicans felt the need to poison the legislation with the erroneous abortion provisions regarding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Rather than take seriously the need to fund disaster relief-- and, yes, it is true, tomorrow hurricane season begins, and we haven't done all or nearly as much as we should have, and there were amendments that would have addressed some of the things that we should, in fact, be prepared to do. Rather than take seriously firefighter assistance grants, cybersecurity efforts that are growing exponentially, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and other Federal frontline agencies, the majority has cast aside cooperation in the name of what I believe is reckless ideological point-scoring.

So in this latest season of appropriations, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves yet again cutting from valuable, worthwhile, and essential programs that would create jobs made in America, grow our economy, and ensure prosperity for the millions of Americans still struggling to get by.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I personally tire of using one bad example on energy creation--Solyndra, which was and is a bad example--and ignoring all of the other kinds of investments that we have made in this Nation that are going about the business of solar and wind. I saw in my congressional district this weekend a wind program that is the future that is working with existing energy infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my classmate and good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

If the fact that something failed in one year allows that it's not to be brought up another year, then we would be out of business around this joint. But if my colleague is seeking me to yield, I understand your point in the end, but I just want to say that Mr. Hinchey should have had an opportunity to make his presentation.

Well, he offered it now and we didn't accept it. Therefore, perhaps he'll get another chance.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), with whom I served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, Mr. Davis.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that immediately after we adopt this resolution, the House will consider H.R. 1519, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by my friend, Ms. DeLauro. And I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, my friend, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, my friend, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, would you advise again how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) with whom I served, again I say, on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to another of my classmates, the gentlewoman, my good friend from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is my good friend and also has served on these committees for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) with whom I served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask of my good friend from Florida whether he intends at this time to have any additional speakers other than himself?

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I do and will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

But at this time, I will close by saying our future economy, national security, and way of life depend on harnessing the power of scientific advancement, technological progress, and clean energy. And in this respect, America has no peers in the world. These efforts will enable us to reduce our dependence on oil, develop better energy infrastructure, and mitigate the effects of climate change. At the same time, we have to ensure our frontline homeland security resources are adequately funded and sufficiently prepared to meet new challenges.

We cannot be distracted by ideological poison pill amendments on abortion. We cannot be dissuaded from making the necessary investments because of false claims that we cannot afford them. And we cannot be so willing to sacrifice our Nation's future prosperity to fund more tax cuts for the wealthiest--and I continue to say, including those of us in Congress, the wealthiest Americans--and more nuclear weapons for the military.

These appropriations measures are Congress's best opportunity to set our Nation's priorities and to invest in our economy. Continually defunding these programs is the opposite direction of where we need to go. We must provide the funds necessary to make the advances that will ensure America's continuing global leadership.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise today in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. It is a bipartisan bill that gives our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and the authorities they need to keep our country safe. When Chairman Rogers and I took over the leadership of the Intelligence Committee, we made a commitment to bipartisanship. We believe politics has no place on the Intelligence Committee. The stakes are just too high.

We also made a commitment to passing intelligence budgets to give the intelligence community financial direction and to conduct proper oversight. I commend Chairman Rogers for making this an open process where we reached agreement on issues that will make this country safer and the intelligence process more efficient.

But we also know we're facing tough economic times so we must use every dollar wisely. This budget is about 4 percent below the enacted levels for FY 2012. It holds personnel at last year's levels and authorizes an initiative to achieve major efficiencies and improve performance and information technology. We made cuts where appropriate, eliminated redundancies, and pushed programs to come in on time and on budget.

The bill allocates resources to critical national security priorities: space, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism.

We restored some of the cuts to commercial satellite imagery to ensure the warfighter and policymakers have the images they need. I believe commercial competition is important to ensure the warfighter and other policymakers get high-quality products while keeping costs down. It drives innovation and provides a much-needed policy in case there are problems with other government problems.

The bill reinforces cybersecurity by protecting the intelligence community's networks from countries like China and others trying to steal our valuable data.

The bill also makes counterintelligence a priority by increasing surveillance of foreign spies from countries like China, Russia, and Iran.

The bill improves supply-chain security and adds the counterintelligence analysts this Nation needs.

The bill enhances counterterrorism efforts to continue the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world.

The bill increases oversight on the spending of domestic intelligence agencies.

The bill also expands the intelligence community's capabilities around the global to ensure the United States is capable and ready to address the threats worldwide.

The bill authorizes the Defense Clandestine Service created by the Department of Defense to reorganize its human intelligence collection and partner with the CIA's National Clandestine Service.

The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee remain committed to giving our intelligence professionals what they need to do their jobs while also providing proper oversight and protecting personal privacy.

Provisions offered by the minority members were accepted as part of the chairman's mark and other amendments were adopted unanimously by the committee.

Congresswoman Schakowsky introduced an amendment that protects the inspector general of an intelligence agency from across-the-board cuts to preserve their role as a watchdog of an organization. I commend Ms. Schakowsky for her good work on this bill.

Congressman Thompson introduced an amendment to expand our efforts to prevent drug cultivation on Federal lands. I commend Mr. Thompson for his efforts on this bill as well.

In fact, we wouldn't be here today without the hard work of all of the members of the Intelligence Committee. This is truly a bipartisan product. The bill passed through markup by a margin of 19 0, a true testament to the bipartisan spirit of the committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2013. This bill ensures the Nation's intelligence community is effective, fiscally sound, and subject to appropriate oversight.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), whom I consider one of the foremost experts in the area of cybersecurity. Thank you for your work in that field, Mr. Langevin.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time each side has remaining?

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

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

I'm proud that the bill under consideration has an emphasis on supporting counterintelligence resources. Last year, the chairman and I made it a priority to review the community's counterintelligence posture after learning more about the aggressive ways foreign intelligence and security services continue to steal U.S. secrets, including trade secrets, from U.S. companies.

One of the most disturbing reports came from the National Counterintelligence Executive which said that Russia and China are both aggressively utilizing cyberspace to steal U.S. economic secrets. This informative unclassified report is available on the Director of National Intelligence Web site. I encourage every U.S. business to read it to understand the threat they face today. The hard work and money it takes to innovate and conduct research are all at risk.

What China, Russia, and any other country who engage in espionage realize is that it's faster and cheaper to steal U.S. creativity than to develop it themselves. The report also gives examples of the millions of dollars that are at stake, like a single proprietary paint formula from Valspar valued at $20 million. These are some economic impacts of espionage, but they are also the cost to our national security and those of our allies.

A spy within our intelligence community, with access to our most sensitive secrets, can mean the lives of our sources and our troops. In these cases, it is impossible to calculate the impact. Espionage is countered by the villages of our counterintelligence professionals. These are the people we depend upon to discover the spies within our midst. I'm proud that this bill adds the resources and personnel for this critical mission.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

For the third time in 3 years, Chairman Rogers and I have stood on the floor of the House encouraging our colleagues to support our intelligence budget bill. We both rise in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I would like to thank Chairman Rogers for his bipartisan leadership on this bill.

The bill gives our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and authorities they need to protect American and American interests. We crafted a bill that addresses our core needs, including space, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism, while also keeping an eye on the bottom line. This bill is about 4 percent below last year's budget and holds personnel at last year's levels.

The Intelligence Committee came together as Democrats and Republicans to do what is right for our country and for the intelligence community. The bill unanimously passed out of our committee by a margin of 19 0.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Intelligence Committee for their hard work on this bill. You're only as good as your team and your staff.

I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose it.

First, I support this amendment as a continuation of the work that we have begun in Congress as an attempt to focus our intelligence community and the executive Agencies to this important threat that my friend and colleague has made.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.