Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011

Mr. Chair, today I want to highlight a critical issue facing the Intelligence Community: increasing reliance on contractors.

A 2010 Washington Post story reported that 30 percent of the workforce in our intelligence agencies is contractors. Furthermore, the Post estimated that out of 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors. I encourage my colleagues to read this eye opening article.

These startling facts cause me great concern--we've learned the hard way time and time again what happens when we fail to monitor the work of federal contractors. The federal government has the responsibility to maintain its commitment to monitoring their use--with special attention made to the evolving nature of their work and the associated national security risks inherent to outsourcing these tasks. I look forward to working with the Select Committee on Intelligence to achieve this goal.

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 2010]

National Security, Inc.

(By Dana Priest and William M. Arkin)

In June, a stone carver from Manassas chiseled another

perfect star into a marble wall at CIA headquarters, one of

22 for agency workers killed in the global war initiated by

the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The intent of the memorial is to publicly honor the courage

of those who died in the line of duty, but it also conceals a

deeper story about government in the post-9/11 era: Eight of

the 22 were not CIA officers at all. They were private

contractors.

To ensure that the country's most sensitive duties are

carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation's

interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what

are called ``inherently government functions.'' But they do,

all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism

agency, according to a two-year investigation by The

Washington Post.

What started as a temporary fix in response to the

terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls

into question whether the federal workforce includes too many

people obligated to shareholders rather than the public

interest--and whether the government is still in control of

its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and CIA Director Leon

Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.

The Post investigation uncovered what amounts to an

alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret

America created since 9/11 that is hidden from public view,

lacking in thorough oversight and so unwieldy that its

effectiveness is impossible to determine.

It is also a system in which contractors are playing an

ever more important role. The Post estimates that out of

854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are

contractors. There is no better example of the government's

dependency on them than at the CIA, the one place in

government that exists to do things overseas that no other

U.S. agency is allowed to do.

Private contractors working for the CIA have recruited

spies in Iraq, paid bribes for information in Afghanistan and

protected CIA directors visiting world capitals. Contractors

have helped snatch a suspected extremist off the streets of

Italy, interrogated detainees once held at secret prisons

abroad and watched over defectors holed up in the Washington

suburbs. At Langley headquarters, they analyze terrorist

networks. At the agency's training facility in Virginia, they

are helping mold a new generation of American spies.

Through the federal budget process, the George W. Bush

administration and Congress made it much easier for the CIA

and other agencies involved in counterterrorism to hire more

contractors than civil servants. They did this to limit the

size of the permanent workforce, to hire employees more

quickly than the sluggish federal process allows and because

they thought--wrongly, it turned out--that contractors would

be less expensive.

Nine years later, well into the Obama administration, the

idea that contractors cost less has been repudiated, and the

administration has made some progress toward its goal of

reducing the number of hired hands by 7 percent over two

years. Still, close to 30 percent of the workforce in the

intelligence agencies is contractors.

``For too long, we've depended on contractors to do the

operational work that ought to be done'' by CIA employees,

Panetta said. But replacing them ``doesn't happen overnight.

When you've been dependent on contractors for so long, you

have to build that expertise over time.'' A second concern of

Panetta's: contracting with corporations, whose

responsibility ``is to their shareholders, and that does

present an inherent conflict.''

Or as Gates, who has been in and out of government his

entire life, puts it: ``You want somebody who's really in it

for a career because they're passionate about it and because

they care about the country and not just because of the

money.''

Contractors can offer more money--often twice as much--to

experienced federal employees than the government is allowed

to pay them. And because competition among firms for people

with security clearances is so great, corporations offer such

perks as BMWs and $15,000 signing bonuses, as Raytheon did in

June for software developers with top-level clearances.

The idea that the government would save money on a contract

workforce ``is a false economy,'' said Mark M. Lowenthal, a

former senior CIA official and now president of his own

intelligence training academy.

As companies raid federal agencies of talent, the

government has been left with the youngest intelligence

staffs ever while more experienced employees move into the

private sector. This is true at the CIA, where employees from

114 firms account for roughly a third of the workforce, or

about 10,000 positions. Many of them are temporary hires,

often former military or intelligence agency employees who

left government service to work less and earn more while

drawing a federal pension.

Across the government, such workers are used in every

conceivable way. Contractors kill enemy fighters. They spy on

foreign governments and eavesdrop on terrorist networks. They

help craft war plans. They gather information on local

factions in war zones. They are the historians, the

architects, the recruiters in the nation's most secretive

agencies. They staff watch centers across the Washington

area. They are among the most trusted advisers to the four-

star generals leading the nation's wars.

So great is the government's appetite for private

contractors with top-secret clearances that there are now

more than 300 companies, often nicknamed ``body shops,'' that

specialize in finding candidates, often for a fee that

approaches $50,000 a person, according to those in the

business.

Making it more difficult to replace contractors with

federal employees: The government doesn't know how many are

on the federal payroll. Gates said he wants to reduce the

number of defense contractors by about 13 percent, to pre-9/

11 levels, but he's having a hard time even getting a basic

head count.

``This is a terrible confession,'' he said. ``I can't get a

number on how many contractors work for the Office of the

Secretary of Defense,'' referring to the department's

civilian leadership.

The Post's estimate of 265,000 contractors doing top-secret

work was vetted by several high-ranking intelligence

officials who approved of The Post's methodology. The

newspaper's Top Secret America database includes 1.931

companies that perform work at the top-secret level. More

than a quarter of them--533--came into being after 2001, and

others that already existed have expanded greatly. Most are

thriving even as the rest of the United States struggles with

bankruptcies, unemployment and foreclosures.

The privatization of national security work has been made

possible by a nine-year ``gusher'' of money, as Gates

recently described national security spending since the 9/11

attacks.

With so much money to spend, managers do not always worry

about whether they are spending it effectively.

``Someone says, `Let's do another study,' and because no

one shares information, everyone does their own study,'' said

Elena Mastors, who headed a team studying the al-Qaeda

leadership for the Defense Department. ``It's about how many

studies you can orchestrate, how many people you can fly all

over the place. Everybody's just on a spending spree. We

don't need all these people doing all this stuff.''

Most of these contractors do work that is fundamental to an

agency's core mission. As a result, the government has become

dependent on them in a way few could have foreseen: wartime

temps who have become a permanent cadre.

Just last week, typing ``top secret'' into the search

engine of a major jobs Web site showed 1,951 unfilled

positions in the Washington area, and 19,759 nationwide:

``Target analyst,'' Reston. ``Critical infrastructure

specialist,'' Washington, D.C. ``Joint expeditionary team

member,'' Arlington.

``We could not perform our mission without them. They serve

as our `reserves,' providing flexibility and expertise we

can't acquire,'' said Ronald Sanders, who was chief of human

capital for the Office of the Director of National

Intelligence before retiring in February. ``Once they are on

board, we treat them as if they're a part of the total

force.''

The Post's investigation is based on government documents

and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate

and social networking Web sites, additional records, and

hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and

corporate officials and former officials. Most requested

anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking

publicly or because, they said,

they feared retaliation at work for describing their

concerns.

The investigation focused on top-secret work because the

amount classified at the secret level is too large to

accurately track. A searchable database of government

organizations and private companies was built entirely on

public records. [For an explanation of the newspaper's

decision making behind this project, please see the Editor's

Note.]

The national security industry sells the military and

intelligence agencies more than just airplanes, ships and

tanks. It sells contractors' brain power. They advise, brief

and work everywhere, including 25 feet under the Pentagon in

a bunker where they can be found alongside military personnel

in battle fatigues monitoring potential crises worldwide.

Late at night, when the wide corridors of the Pentagon are

all but empty, the National Military Command Center hums with

purpose. There's real-time access to the location of U.S.

forces anywhere in the world, to granular satellite images or

to the White House Situation Room.

The purpose of all this is to be able to answer any

question the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might

have. To be ready 24 hours a day, every day, takes five

brigadier generals, a staff of colonels and senior

noncommissioned officers--and a man wearing a pink contractor

badge and a bright purple shirt and tie.

Erik Saar's job title is ``knowledge engineer.'' In one of

the most sensitive places in America, he is the only person

in the room who knows how to bring data from far afield,

fast. Saar and four teammates from a private company, SRA

International, teach these top-ranked staff officers to think

in Web 2.0. They are trying to push a tradition-bound culture

to act differently, digitally.

That sometimes means asking for help in a public online

chat room or exchanging ideas on shared Web pages outside the

military computer networks dubbed .mil--things much resisted

within the Pentagon's self-sufficient culture. ``Our job is

to change the perception of leaders who might drive change,''

Saar said.

Since 9/11, contractors have made extraordinary

contributions--and extraordinary blunders--that have changed

history and clouded the public's view of the distinction

between the actions of officers sworn on behalf of the United

States and corporate employees with little more than a

security badge and a gun.

Contractor misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt U.S.

credibility in those countries as well as in the Middle East.

Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, some of it done by

contractors, helped ignite a call for vengeance against the

United States that continues today. Security guards working

for Blackwater added fuel to the five-year violent chaos in

Iraq and became the symbol of an America run amok.

Contractors in war zones, especially those who can fire

weapons, blur ``the line between the legitimate and

illegitimate use of force, which is just what our enemies

want,'' Allison Stanger, a professor of international

politics and economics at Middlebury College and the author

of ``One Nation Under Contract,'' told the independent

Commission on Wartime Contracting at a hearing in June.

Misconduct happens, too. A defense contractor formerly

called MZM paid bribes for CIA contracts, sending Randy

``Duke'' Cunningham, who was a California congressman on the

intelligence committee, to prison. Guards employed in

Afghanistan by ArmorGroup North America, a private security

company, were caught on camera in a lewd-partying scandal.

But contractors have also advanced the way the military

fights. During the bloodiest months in Iraq, the founder of

Berico Technologies, a former Army officer named Guy

Filippelli, working with the National Security Agency.

invented a technology that made finding the makers of

roadside bombs easier and helped stanch the number of

casualties from improvised explosives, according to NSA

officials.

Contractors have produced blueprints and equipment for the

unmanned aerial war fought by drones, which have killed the

largest number of senior al-Qaeda leaders and produced a

flood of surveillance videos. A dozen firms created the

transnational digital highway that carries the drones' real-

time data on terrorist hide-outs from overseas to command

posts throughout the United States.

Private firms have become so thoroughly entwined with the

government's most sensitive activities that without them

important military and intelligence missions would have to

cease or would be jeopardized. Some examples:

*At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the number

of contractors equals the number of federal employees. The

department depends on 318 companies for essential services

and personnel, including 19 staffing firms that help DHS find

and hire even more contractors. At the office that handles

intelligence, six out of 10 employees are from private

industry.

*The National Security Agency, which conducts worldwide

electronic surveillance, hires private firms to come up with

most of its technological innovations. The NSA used to work

with a small stable of firms; now it works with at least 484

and is actively recruiting more.

*The National Reconnaissance Office cannot produce, launch

or maintain its large satellite surveillance systems, which

photograph countries such as China, North Korea and Iran,

without the four major contractors it works with.

*Every intelligence and military organization depends on

contract linguists to communicate overseas, translate

documents and make sense of electronic voice intercepts. The

demand for native speakers is so great, and the amount of

money the government is willing to pay for them is so huge,

that 56 firms compete for this business.

*Each of the 16 intelligence agencies depends on

corporations to set up its computer networks, communicate

with other agencies' networks, and fuse and mine disparate

bits of information that might indicate a terrorist plot.

More than 400 companies work exclusively in this area,

building classified hardware and software systems.

Hiring contractors was supposed to save the government

money. But that has not turned out to be the case. A 2008

study published by the Office of the Director of National

Intelligence found that contractors made up 29 percent of the

workforce in the intelligence agencies but cost the

equivalent of 49 percent of their personnel budgets. Gates

said that federal workers cost the government 25 percent less

than contractors.

The process of reducing the number of contractors has been

slow, if the giant Office of Naval Intelligence in Suitland

is any example. There, 2,770 people work on the round-the-

clock maritime watch floor tracking commercial vessels, or in

science and engineering laboratories, or in one of four

separate intelligence centers. But it is the employees of 70

information technology companies who keep the place

operating.

They store, process and analyze communications and

intelligence transmitted to and from the entire U.S. naval

fleet and commercial vessels worldwide. ``Could we keep this

building running without contractors?'' said the captain in

charge of information technology. ``No, I don't think we

could keep up with it.''

Vice Adm. David J. ``Jack'' Dorsett, director of naval

intelligence, said he could save millions each year by

converting 20 percent of the contractor jobs at the Suitland

complex to civil servant positions. He has gotten the go-

ahead, but it's been a slow start. This year, his staff has

converted one contractor job and eliminated another--out of

589. ``It's costing me an arm and a leg,'' Dorsett said.

Washington's corridors of power stretch in a nearly

straight geographical line from the Supreme Court to the

Capitol to the White House. Keep going west, across the

Potomac River, and the unofficial seats of power--the

private, corporate ones--become visible, especially at night.

There in the Virginia suburbs are the brightly illuminated

company logos of Top Secret America: Northrop Grumman, SAIC,

General Dynamics.

Of the 1,931 companies identified by The Post that work on

top-secret contracts, about 110 of them do roughly 90 percent

of the work on the corporate side of the defense-

intelligence-corporate world.

To understand how these firms have come to dominate the

post-9/11 era, there's no better place to start than the

Herndon office of General Dynamics. One recent afternoon

there, Ken Pohill was watching a series of unclassified

images, the first of which showed a white truck moving across

his computer monitor.

The truck was in Afghanistan, and a video camera bolted to

the belly of a U.S. surveillance plane was following it.

Pohill could access a dozen images that might help an

intelligence analyst figure out whether the truck driver was

just a truck driver or part of a network making roadside

bombs to kill American soldiers.

To do this, he clicked his computer mouse. Up popped a

picture of the truck driver's house, with notes about

visitors. Another click. Up popped infrared video of the

vehicle. Click: Analysis of an object thrown from the

driver's side. Click: U-2 imagery. Click: A history of the

truck's movement. Click: A Google Earth map of friendly

forces. Click: A chat box with everyone else following the

truck, too.

Ten years ago, if Pohill had worked for General Dynamics,

he probably would have had a job bending steel. Then, the

company's center of gravity was the industrial port city of

Groton, Conn., where men and women in wet galoshes churned

out submarines, the thoroughbreds of naval warfare. Today,

the firm's commercial core is made up of data tools such as

the digital imagery library in Herndon and the secure

BlackBerry-like device used by President Obama, both

developed at a carpeted suburban office by employees in

loafers and heels.

The evolution of General Dynamics was based on one simple

strategy: Follow the money.

The company embraced the emerging intelligence-driven style

of warfare. It developed small-target identification systems

and equipment that could intercept an insurgent's cellphone

and laptop communications. It found ways to sort the billions

of data points collected by intelligence agencies into piles

of information that a single person could analyze.

It also began gobbling up smaller companies that could help

it dominate the new intelligence landscape, just as its

competitors were doing. Between 2001 and 2010, the company

acquired 11 firms specializing in satellites, signals and

geospatial intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,

technology integration and imagery.

On Sept. 11, 2001, General Dynamics was working with nine

intelligence organizations. Now it has contracts with all 16.

Its

employees fill the halls of the NSA and DHS. The corporation

was paid hundreds of millions of dollars to set up and manage

DHS's new offices in 2003, including its National Operations

Center, Office of Intelligence and Analysis and Office of

Security. Its employees do everything from deciding which

threats to investigate to answering phones.

General Dynamics' bottom line reflects its successful

transformation. It also reflects how much the U.S.

government--the firm's largest customer by far--has paid the

company beyond what it costs to do the work, which is, after

all, the goal of every profit-making corporation.

The company reported $31.9 billion in revenue in 2009, up

from $10.4 billion in 2000. Its workforce has more than

doubled in that time, from 43,300 to 91,700 employees,

according to the company.

Revenue from General Dynamics' intelligence- and

information-related divisions, where the majority of its top-

secret work is done, climbed to $10 billion in the second

quarter of 2009, up from $2.4 billion in 2000, accounting for

34 percent of its overall revenue last year.

The company's profitability is on display in its Falls

Church headquarters. There's a soaring, art-filled lobby,

bistro meals served on china enameled with the General

Dynamics logo and an auditorium with seven rows of white

leather-upholstered seats, each with its own microphone and

laptop docking station.

General Dynamics now has operations in every corner of the

intelligence world. It helps counterintelligence operators

and trains new analysts. It has a $600 million Air Force

contract to intercept communications. It makes $1 billion a

year keeping hackers out of U.S. computer networks and

encrypting military communications. It even conducts

information operations, the murky military art of trying to

persuade foreigners to align their views with U.S. interests.

``The American intelligence community is an important

market for our company,'' said General Dynamics spokesman

Kendell Pease. ``Over time, we have tailored our organization

to deliver affordable, best-of-breed products and services to

meet those agencies' unique requirements.''

In September 2009, General Dynamics won a $10 million

contract from the U.S. Special Operations Command's

psychological operations unit to create Web sites to

influence foreigners' views of U.S. policy. To do that, the

company hired writers, editors and designers to produce a set

of daily news sites tailored to five regions of the world.

They appear as regular news Web sites, with names such as

``SETimes.com: The News and Views of Southeast Europe.'' The

first indication that they are run on behalf of the military

comes at the bottom of the home page with the word

``Disclaimer.'' Only by clicking on that do you learn that

``the Southeast European Times (SET) is a Web site sponsored

by the United States European Command.''

What all of these contracts add up to: This year, General

Dynamics' overall revenue was $7.8 billion in the first

quarter, Jay L. Johnson, the company's chief executive and

president, said at an earnings conference call in April.

``We've hit the deck running in the first quarter,'' he said,

``and we're on our way to another successful year.''

In the shadow of giants such as General Dynamics are 1,814

small to midsize companies that do top-secret work. About a

third of them were established after Sept. 11, 2001, to take

advantage of the huge flow of taxpayer money into the private

sector. Many are led by former intelligence agency officials

who know exactly whom to approach for work.

Abraxas of Herndon, headed by a former CIA spy, quickly

became a major CIA contractor after 9/11. Its staff even

recruited midlevel managers during work hours from the CIA's

cafeteria, former agency officers recall.

Other small and medium-size firms sell niche technical

expertise such as engineering for low-orbit satellites or

long-dwell sensors. But the vast majority have not invented

anything at all. Instead, they replicate what the

government's workforce already does.

A company called SGIS, founded soon after the 2001 attacks,

was one of these.

In June 2002, from the spare bedroom of his San Diego home,

30-year-old Hany Girgis put together an information

technology team that won its first Defense Department

contract four months later. By the end of the year, SGIS had

opened a Tampa office close to the U.S. Central Command and

Special Operations Command, had turned a profit and had 30

employees.

SGIS sold the government the services of people with

specialized skills; expanding the types of teams it could put

together was one key to its growth. Eventually it offered

engineers, analysts and cyber-security specialists for

military, space and intelligence agencies. By 2003, the

company's revenue was $3.7 million. By then, SGIS had become

a subcontractor for General Dynamics, working at the secret

level. Satisfied with the partnership, General Dynamics

helped SGIS receive a top-secret facility clearance, which

opened the doors to more work.

By 2006, its revenue had multiplied tenfold, to $30.6

million, and the company had hired employees who specialized

in government contracting just to help it win more contracts.

``We knew that's where we wanted to play,'' Girgis said in

a phone interview. ``There's always going to be a need to

protect the homeland.''

Eight years after it began, SGIS was up to revenue of $101

million, 14 offices and 675 employees. Those with top-secret

clearances worked for 11 government agencies, according to

The Post's database.

The company's marketing efforts had grown, too, both in

size and sophistication. Its Web site, for example, showed an

image of Navy sailors lined up on a battleship over the words

``Proud to serve'' and another image of a Navy helicopter

flying near the Statue of Liberty over the words ``Preserving

freedom.'' And if it seemed hard to distinguish SGIS's work

from the government's, it's because they were doing so many

of the same things. SGIS employees replaced military

personnel at the Pentagon's 24/7 telecommunications center.

SGIS employees conducted terrorist threat analysis. SGIS

employees provided help-desk support for federal computer

systems.

Still, as alike as they seemed, there were crucial

differences.

For one, unlike in government, if an SGIS employee did a

good job, he might walk into the parking lot one day and be

surprised by co-workers clapping at his latest bonus: a

leased, dark-blue Mercedes convertible. And he might say, as

a video camera recorded him sliding into the soft leather

driver's seat, ``Ahhhh . . . this is spectacular.''

And then there was what happened to SGIS last month, when

it did the one thing the federal government can never do.

It sold itself.

The new owner is a Fairfax-based company called Salient

Federal Solutions, created just last year. It is a management

company and a private-equity firm with lots of Washington

connections that, with the purchase of SGIS, it intends to

parlay into contracts.

``We have an objective,'' says chief executive and

President Brad Antle, ``to make $500 million in five years.''

Of all the different companies in Top Secret America, the

most numerous by far are the information technology, or IT,

firms. About 800 firms do nothing but IT.

Some IT companies integrate the mishmash of computer

systems within one agency; others build digital links between

agencies; still others have created software and hardware

that can mine and analyze vast quantities of data.

The government is nearly totally dependent on these firms.

Their close relationship was on display recently at the

Defense Intelligence Agency's annual information technology

conference in Phoenix. The agency expected the same IT firms

angling for its business to pay for the entire five-day get-

together, a DIA spokesman confirmed.

And they did.

General Dynamics spent $30,000 on the event. On a perfect

spring night, it hosted a party at Chase Field, a 48,569-seat

baseball stadium, reserved exclusively for the conference

attendees. Government buyers and corporate sellers drank beer

and ate hot dogs while the DIA director's morning keynote

speech replayed on the gigantic scoreboard, digital baseballs

bouncing along the bottom of the screen.

Carahsoft Technology, a DIA contractor, invited guests to a

casino night where intelligence officials and vendors ate,

drank and bet phony money at craps tables run by professional

dealers.

The McAfee network security company, a Defense Department

contractor, welcomed guests to a Margaritaville-themed social

on the garden terrace of the hotel across the street from the

convention site, where 250 firms paid thousands of dollars

each to advertise their services and make their pitches to

intelligence officials walking the exhibition hall.

Government officials and company executives say these

networking events are critical to building a strong

relationship between the public and private sectors.

``If I make one contact each day, it's worth it,'' said Tom

Conway, director of federal business development for McAfee.

As for what a government agency gets out of it: ``Our goal

is to be open and learn stuff,'' said Grant M. Schneider, the

DIA's chief information officer and one of the conference's

main draws. By going outside Washington, where many of the

firms are headquartered, ``we get more synergy. . . . It's an

interchange with industry.''

These types of gatherings happen every week. Many of them

are closed to anyone without a top-secret clearance.

At a U.S. Special Operations Command conference in

Fayetteville, N.C., in April, vendors paid for access to some

of the people who decide what services and gadgets to buy for

troops. In mid-May, the national security industry held a

black-tie evening funded by the same corporations seeking

business from the defense, intelligence and congressional

leaders seated at their tables.

Such coziness worries other officials who believe the post-

9/11 defense-intelligence-corporate relationship has become,

as one senior military intelligence officer described it, a

``self-licking ice cream cone.''

Another official, a longtime conservative staffer on the

Senate Armed Services Committee, described it as ``a living,

breathing organism'' impossible to control or curtail. ``How

much money has been involved is just mind-boggling,'' he

said. ``We've built such a vast instrument. What are you

going to do with this thing? . . . It's turned into a jobs

program.''

Even some of those gathered in Phoenix criticized the size

and disjointedness of the intelligence community and its

contracting base. ``Redundancy is the unacceptable

norm,'' Lt. Gen. Richard P. Zahner, Army deputy chief of

staff for intelligence, told the 2,000 attendees. ``Are we

spending our resources effectively? . . . If we have not

gotten our houses in order, someone will do it for us.''

On a day that also featured free back rubs, shoeshines, ice

cream and fruit smoothies, another speaker, Kevin P. Meiners,

a deputy undersecretary for intelligence, gave the audience

what he called ``the secret sauce,'' the key to thriving even

when the Defense Department budget eventually stabilizes and

stops rising so rapidly.

``Overhead,'' Meiners told them--that's what's going to get

cut first. Overhead used to mean paper clips and toner. Now

it's information technology, IT, the very products and

services sold by the businesspeople in the audience.

``You should describe what you do as a weapons system, not

overhead,'' Meiners instructed. ``Overhead to them--I'm

giving you the secret sauce here--is IT and people. . . . You

have to foot-stomp hard that this is a war-fighting system

that's helping save people's lives every day.''

After he finished, many of the government officials

listening headed to the exhibit hall, where company

salespeople waited in display booths. Peter Coddington, chief

executive of InTTENSITY, a small firm whose software teaches

computers to ``read'' documents, was ready for them.

``You have to differentiate yourself,'' he said as they

fanned out into the aisles. Coddington had glass beer mugs

and pens twirling atop paperweight pyramids to help persuade

officials of the nation's largest military intelligence

agency that he had something they needed.

But first he needed them to stop walking so fast, to slow

down long enough for him to start his pitch. His twirling

pens seemed to do the job. ``It's like moths to fire,''

Coddington whispered.

A DIA official with a tote bag approached. She spotted the

pens, and her pace slowed. ``Want a pen?'' Coddington called.

She hesitated. ``Ah . . . I have three children,'' she

said.

``Want three pens?''

She stopped. In Top Secret America, every moment is an

opportunity.

``We're a text extraction company . . . ,'' Coddington

began, handing her the pens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to announce that subsequent to reporting the bill, the committee has modified the classified annex to the bill with respect to the authorized level of funding for certain programs, with bipartisan agreement between myself and the ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger. The classified annex containing the modified schedule of authorizations is available for review by all Members of the House, subject to the rules of the House and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under which procedures were described in my announcement to the House on May 3, 2011. The modified schedule of authorizations is and has been available for review by Members and the period of time required by the rules of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the annual intelligence authorization bill, I do believe, is one of the most important bills that will pass in the House each year. I want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger. We sat down at the beginning of January and decided that matters of national security were too important for infectious partisan debate and rhetoric and we decided that we would work out through every cause, as congenially as possible, and agree where we could, on every matter that we had a difference on, moving forward on, again, matters of intelligence and matters of national security.

I think the product we see on the floor today reflects that commitment and that working relationship, and I want to commend Mr. Ruppersberger and the entire House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for their work, their cooperation, and their commitment to our national security to the United States.

We recently saw the successful mission against Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence professionals remain on the front lines in America's defense against our enemies. For the last 6 years, Congress has failed to pass a bona fide intelligence authorization bill with funding authority. Instead, yearly appropriation bills have simply deemed intelligence funding to be authorized.

We must, and I think we agree in a bipartisan way, stop that trend and stop it this year. The continued success of our intelligence community requires effective and aggressive congressional oversight. Such oversight can only be achieved if we get back in the habit of meeting our responsibility of passing an intelligence authorization bill every year.

Mr. Chairman, we have men and women scattered all across this globe who are engaged daily in sometimes often very dangerous work of collecting information to provide our policymakers and our warfighters the information they need to defeat our enemy. From trying to catch spies here in the United States by our FBI to recruiting people who want to cooperate and help the United States on tough issues like nuclear proliferation or terrorism efforts targeted against us or our allies, these folks log countless hours, risk their lives, spend time away from their families, and deserve our praise and our commitment that we will work with them to give them the tools that they need to be successful.

I can't think of a more important time in our history where I have seen intelligence play such an important

role in our world affairs. The world is changing before our eyes, and our intelligence community is providing us the information we need, not just to be safe, but to make good decisions on what that world looks like and what our national interests are country by country, region by region.

I am particularly pleased that this bill has such strong bipartisan support. The legislative provisions are intentionally limited to focus our attention on providing necessary resources to the men and women of the intelligence community as provided in the classified annex. 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, and that strong and effective oversight is possible. But without that annual intelligence authorization bill, the bill that we will pass today--we must get back in the habit of passing that bill every year.

We make important commitments in this bill, Mr. Chairman, for the priorities of the intelligence community. Technology has fused in the intelligence collection like I have never seen it, and its increase is exponential over the past 10 years.

We make important investment in the new technologies that allow our intelligence officials and professionals to do the work they need to do. It makes them more effective, and it also makes the investment in the people who oversee that technology even more important. We make that important investment in this FY 2011 intelligence authorization bill as well.

Nothing brings that home like the broad scope of what we saw participate in the Osama bin Laden event of last Sunday. Every single intelligence agency, and I do mean every single one, played a part in that operation, from collecting small bits of information, from putting that piece together, signals intelligence, satellite intelligence, MASINT intelligence, all of those things came together over the course of 10 years.

I credit George Bush and his administration for assembling this new intelligence community that really started after 9/11 and President Obama for making the authorization and the continued policies that allowed us to have that information to go after Osama bin Laden. It was really quite an impressive thing. Both administrations deserve credit for that, and I would hope that today the people of the House of Representatives would celebrate that victory and all the work of the unsung heroes who work in the shadows by passing this FY 2011 so they can get about the business of protecting the United States.

I appreciate, again, this bipartisan consensus.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from the great State of North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas and a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Conaway.

I yield 2 minutes to the appropriator member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, also a member of the committee, Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Will the gentleman yield?

We plan to bring a bill for 2012, and I will work with you on the NDIC. I couldn't agree more: it's important that we continue to have the government effort focus on illicit drugs; however, the National Drug Intelligence Center has done very little to address this national priority, and I look forward to working with the Member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished gentleman from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Ruppersberger for the last remarks. Cybersecurity is a real and growing threat for the United States. We make serious commitments in this FY 11 bill, and we have pledged to work together on separate pieces of legislation to put the United States in a better position to defend itself against cybersecurity. Something that started out so long ago as somebody in their mother's basement hacking into the local school to change their grades has become whole nation-states using the Internet and all of cyberspace to not only steal intellectual property from private enterprise, attempt to hack and steal information from the United States, but also use it for offensive purposes where we have seen the Russians who when they went into Georgia use aggressively cyber to prep the battlefield for their invasion, something that we all need to worry about.

I want to, again, pledge to work with the ranking member on this very, very important issue so that we can get on better footing as we move forward.

Also, on the space, it is one of the things that has given the United States a technological advantage in the world, something that we need to continue to make those investments into the overhead architecture of the United States from communication satellites to all of the things that we do from space. And it is a serious investment on this country, but when you look at the success of something like the Osama bin Laden raid, you realize all of it, from space, to cyber, to signals intelligence, to human intelligence, is something that was invested in in this money; and I'm glad that the ranking member used this opportunity to talk about those very important issues and the commitment in this bill to start to put us on better footing for that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a former Army captain, the great new Member from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Mr. Chairman, I will just take this opportunity to thank both the Democrat and Republican staff members who helped us prepare this bill. For the first time since I have served on the committee, we had both Democrat and Republican staff briefed in a bipartisan way at the same table, all Members in the room. And we think that that improved the value of this product tremendously, something we are hoping to continue.

So my hat is off to all of the staff. We hire professionals from the community, from all walks of life as well to provide us the expertise that we need to provide the proper oversight for the intelligence community. And I do believe, in this great spirit of bipartisanship with Mr. Ruppersberger, that this will give the tools to those 17 agencies who work in secrecy on behalf of the United States the things that they need to accomplish their mission and to keep this great country safe.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment to the bill that contains two provisions.

The first provision would simply clarify that section 411 of the bill, which relates to certain Defense Intelligence Agency expenditures, applies only to the National Intelligence Program funds. This clarification was requested by the Committee on Armed Services and is largely technical in nature.

The second provision would strike section 412 of the reported bill, which provides for the creation of certain accounts for intelligence funds. While this provision is an important one, intended to promote auditability of intelligence funds, some technical issues have arisen; and I believe it was prudent to hold this over until the FY12 bill. It is something that I support and hope to return to the bill in FY12. I do not believe that either of these changes are controversial and urge Members to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member. I look forward to working with him on this particular issue.

As I think the ranking member understands, Mr. Chairman, we've brought in auditors on the committee. This is something we're very committed to in a bipartisan way, to actually have funds that can be audited. It's a bit shocking, I think, to both of us that they have had these funds for such a long time that have not been able to be audited, and we hope to do that on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I support the intent behind the amendment, I believe it is also important to note for the record--and I appreciate the gentleman's work on this--that the Intelligence Committee has already a number of existing programs and initiatives in this area. I think this will, in fact, enhance that effort.

The proposed amendment has the goal of assisting Historically Black Colleges and Universities in creating and maintaining academic curricula that help the intelligence community meet its workforce diversity and critical language goals. I am happy to say that the community already understands well that a diverse workforce enhances its mission performance. For example, Director Panetta has launched his own initiative at CIA to enhance the diversity of that agency's workforce.

Additionally, there are other initiatives under way to increase the employment and retention of the diverse candidates throughout the intelligence community. And I won't go on, other than to compliment the gentleman for his interest in exposing the number of people who would have the skills to apply and diversify our workforce at the CIA.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support efforts to create a diverse workforce within the intelligence community. A diverse workforce is instrumental to effectively respond to the complex global threats faced by the United States.

I do have so many concerns that this amendment is duplicative with many efforts which are already under way within the intelligence community to address this issue.

For example, section 338 of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010, passed after the fiscal year last year, requires the DNI to coordinate with each element of the IC to provide a report of plans to increase the employment and retention of diverse candidates. Moreover, the DNI has already created a strategic plan on equal employment opportunity and issued Community Directive 110, the Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Program.

It is my hope that the inspector general will consider all of these existing initiatives in the report and use the substantial body of work that has already been done on these issues in completing it.

Nonetheless, I will support the amendment and its laudable goals.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I must unfortunately oppose this amendment.

I certainly can sympathize with the gentleman's intention to try to bring some closure for families in this particularly difficult issue in Argentina, and it may certainly result in some information to those who are conducting maybe historical research and analysis and certainly to mend the wounds that have been created in this particular situation.

It would also do something, I think, equally damaging to today's effort in the war on terror. It would divert the intelligence community from its mission of protecting the United States and our interests from current threats. When you think about how difficult it was to take a small piece of information and stretch a nickname, an Arabic nickname applied to someone who is using an alias, who is likely associating with individuals who had Arabic nicknames associated to aliases, and from that little scrap of information, the entire intelligence apparatus spent years trying to develop the right lead to lead us to last Sunday's event to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

This year, the intelligence community came forward and said, We need more analysts. We need more human resources in order to accomplish this mission. There are too many threats in too many places for our people to handle it. And what this amendment does, although it is very well intended, it takes resources away to apply it to a problem that is 20 to 30 years old. I am sorry, we just don't have that luxury today.

We are concerned, the intelligence community is concerned that the next few months, the next 6 months are crucial when al Qaeda is trying to get its act back together after losing its operational and inspirational leader and how they reach out or lash out in some kind of an attack. It is imperative that every minute of every day be spent targeting those who are seeking to kill Americans or our allies overseas now.

I hope that we find some other alternative to what the gentleman proposes in maybe another way. But redirecting the valuable assets in the fight on terror today I just think is a misuse of our resources and may, in fact, be a dangerous one at that. This is not the time to be disrupting our counterterrorism analysts, our case officers, or anybody in the CIA or other intelligence agencies away from disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations for the activities of the Government of Argentina nearly 25 years ago.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, with deep respect to the Member from New York, and I appreciate your passion on this, I can tell you as a former FBI agent, when you take 1 minute away from your case to cull information, it does take somebody who is operational in some sense, either an analyst or an operator or even on the IT front, to gather, collect, sort that information, to go through it, to put it in the proper form and to get it in the right place.

Really, every minute of every day is so precious to these individuals who are trying to focus on al Qaeda and the current threat. My argument is that this is something that can wait. It has waited 25 years. Probably the next few years won't make a difference, but the next few years in the fight against al Qaeda can mean the life and death of U.S. citizens.

So, again, I hope the gentleman doesn't think it is any condemnation of his effort. I think the time and the place and the resources that would be lost are just not meeting the national security priorities as we look out across what the threat stream is today.

So, unfortunately, I will continue to oppose it. I would like to work with the gentleman on something in the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

While I agree with the need for strong security in the railway sector, I just don't believe this amendment is best suited for the Intelligence authorization bill, as it seems to address the policy issues that are not authorized or otherwise addressed in the FY11 Intelligence authorization bill. The intelligence community does not have transportation security plans or transportation security budgets, nor do individual intelligence community agencies. In order to meet the requirement of this, they would have to restructure themselves to bring in the right people to do the plans for security for the railway. I don't think that's what the gentleman intends, but that's clearly what the gentleman's amendment would do.

I would argue that this amendment would be better focused on the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. That agency, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee and not the Intelligence Committee. The intelligence community does not develop transportation security plans. Rather, the intelligence community, through DHS, provides threat information to the transportation sector to better enable it to develop security plans.

Additionally, I note that this amendment simply expresses the sense of the Congress on the issue. It does not actually compel any action. I would question the real improvement to security on the railway sector from its adoption because, again, it appears that the amendment would not have a real impact. This is really out of the scope of the intelligence community.

I would urge the gentleman to reconsider and contemplate maybe addressing it in the TSA. If the gentleman would like any help and assistance in doing that, I would be eager to try to help the gentleman do that.

Again, given the time pressures on our intelligence community to stop real-time threats and pass that information on to people in the TSA and others, I would argue that this is an amendment that we should all oppose and look for a better opportunity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I appreciate both of the gentlemen's perspectives on this, but this is about the right tool for the right job. The intelligence community is the one that's supposed to develop the intelligence, the threat stream, the lead, and pass it to somebody who is in charge--the TSA in this case--of protecting the transportation sector.

Again, I make the argument it is important, but I just think this is misplaced. The intelligence community would have to try to create this expertise, which they do not have today in the entirety of the intelligence community, to make security plans. This is not what they do. It's not what they're equipped to do. They are not, in most cases, with the exception of the FBI and DEA, they're not domestic agencies. They're agencies that are designed to collect overseas. So it is just not a good fit.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's position. I just think the community would have to spend a lot of time and resources diverting from its real intention and mission to keep us safe.

Just quickly and just for the record--I think it's important--the information that the gentleman referenced was aspirational. We saw a lot of press reports that I think misrepresented the information that was provided. It was something that Osama bin Laden thought about. It is not something that the intelligence community believes was operational, which means you have to be vigilant all the time on all these issues.

So I commend the gentleman in his effort on trying to bring better security to our railways. Again, just the right tool for the right job. This is not the right place. Unfortunately, I will oppose it but would like to work with the gentleman on the right place to get the job done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 264 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the distinguished 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.

House Resolution 264 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 754. This rules allows for nine of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The fiscal year 2011 budget process began last Congress with about a dozen hearings and Member briefings and continued into this Congress with more briefings and negotiations. This legislation was introduced by the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan, Mike Rogers, and has gone through regular order to achieve its presence on the floor today. H.R. 754 was marked up in the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, provided a structured amendment process for nine additional amendments from Republicans and Democrats to be considered today on the House floor.

The bill we are discussing today authorizes the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government for fiscal year 2011 in order to enhance the national security of the United States, to support and assist the Armed Forces of the United States, and to support the President of the United States in the execution of the foreign policy of the United States of America. This bill is a vital tool for congressional oversight of the classified activities of the intelligence community, and it is critical to ensuring that our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to accomplish this important work on behalf of keeping America free.

The primary vehicle for exercising credible congressional oversight over our intelligence agencies is the intelligence authorization bill. Yet we have not passed a bona fide intelligence authorization bill in 6 years. Although the National Security Act requires intelligence activities to be specifically authorized, in recent years certain appropriation bills have included language that would ``deem'' the intelligence funding to be authorized. This procedure meets the statutory requirement but has weakened the ability, I believe, of Congress in its oversight of intelligence activities in recent years.

The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing our country from the many other threats we face as a

Nation. The recent killing of the terrorist Osama bin Laden is a clear example of the important work our intelligence agencies are doing behind the scenes every single day to protect America and Americans. Keeping the laws governing our intelligence operations up to date and ensuring that there are no unnecessary barriers in the way of future successes are exactly why we are here today and seek the authorization to pass an annual intelligence bill today.

The intelligence authorization bill funds all U.S. intelligence activities, spanning 17 separate agencies. Last year, this funding totaled roughly $80 billion. Our Nation's current challenging fiscal circumstances demand that Congress fulfill its duties and provide the appropriate accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs through an authorization bill yearly. Additionally, this bill will ensure that Congress funds the requirements of the brave and dedicated men and women in the intelligence community, military and civilian, many of whom directly support the war zones or are engaged in other dangerous operations that keep Americans safe.

The underlying legislation provides oversight and authorization for critical intelligence activities, including global counterterrorism operations such as the one that took out the terrorist Osama bin Laden, tactical intelligence support to support combat units in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else they're needed around the world, cyberdefense, detecting and countering weapons of mass destruction, global monitoring of foreign militaries, weapons tests, and arms control treaties. Additionally, this bill's classified annex provides detailed guidance on intelligence spending, including adjustments to costly programs.

This bill takes an important step forward in the intelligence community to help them meet the same financial accounting standard as other parts of the government. These accounting standards will help uncover savings in the current programs that can be reinvested into vital programs and priorities or returned to the American taxpayer.

I was very pleased this week when the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Mike Rogers, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), who represents the minority, came to the Rules Committee to talk about the needs of the intelligence community. In particular, I was very pleased as they worked so closely together to ensure that the issues that were contained within this document, the agreements that would be in law, and perhaps more importantly, the important relationships that would be shared by them as we work together to ensure that this country is safe, that we do so in a way where the American people see that keeping America safe, providing the necessary resources to the men and women of the intelligence community and expecting the results that would come from them, is a very important part of what our job as Members of Congress is all about.

I applaud Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan for providing this Congress with a much needed intelligence authorization bill, and I appreciate the exhaustive process on a bipartisan basis not only that Chairman Rogers has led but that includes a return to regular order in the authorization of this important legislation. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Lake Park, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, with the election of this new large Republican class, some 87 new Members, we picked up, in particular, a Member who will speak here in just a second. He is a young man who devoted his life, not only to his country through his service in the military, but also to law enforcement. He comes to Washington from Florida where he had been a distinguished sheriff of a large department. He came to us with not only a thought and belief about securing this country and of making sure that we took care of our citizens, but perhaps more importantly, he is a clear thinker on seeing not only intelligence issues but also the broader context of protecting this country. He has a son who serves in the military, and he has been very thoughtful.

I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Brooksville, Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that the Democratic Party is interested in leaving Afghanistan now that Osama bin Laden has been killed.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate and respect the words, not only from my friend, but I believe he is absolutely correct. I simply hear the drumbeat that comes out of this town about leaving now that there has been a big victory in dealing with the number one terrorist in the world.

I would suggest to you that there is still much work left to be done and that we must not change the focus of the men and women who today are in harm's way. We should not change the focus of the American people in getting them away from the job that is being done on a day- to-day basis and that we should not begin the drumbeat until we have further completed the work that is necessary to ensure that this country is safe.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a young member of the Rules Committee, a gentleman who served as mayor of Corning, New York, and a man who has dedicated himself to public service, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi, Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another one of our brand-new Members, who brings to this House and to the floor not only a commonsense element but the insistence that people from Corpus Christi be represented on the floor of this House in such a way that will benefit not only our country but also the United States military and, in particular, the United States Navy that has a large base in Corpus Christi.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we've had a distinguished group of speakers, including the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, who spent years of his service, not only on behalf of the people of Florida, but on behalf of all of us as he served on the Intelligence Committee.

We have had Members walk in and out of here: the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, who brings a thoughtful articulation about her ideas about the protection of this country, not just for the people of North Carolina, but for the people of the United States.

We've had the gentleman, a former sheriff, Mr. Nugent, a Member of Congress from Florida, also come and talk about their ideas about how you protect this country by protecting the men and women who are engaged in the active and day-to-day business.

The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, referred to al Qaeda as not defeated. We still have a threat that is out there. The gentleman, Mr. Farenthold, talked most forthrightly and honestly about the need of the American people to have confidence and thanks for the intelligence community and that which they do.

The gentleman, Mr. Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, as they bring their ideas forth in an open process that would be allowed in the committee, Intelligence Committee, and then to bring that forward as they would discuss that at the Rules Committee.

Here on the floor of the House of Representatives it's an interesting dialogue that we get into about our hopes and desires about supporting the intelligence community. But we must remember that the need for our intelligence community and for them to have clear direction from this Congress is important.

The killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world, Osama bin Laden, is a perfect example of the necessary intelligence information and support from this Congress for funds and the authorizing process, the oversight that is provided by the Congress.

The men and women in this intelligence community and the Armed Forces serve this Nation; and they provide us victories, day-to-day victories, not only in keeping America safe, but victories with finding and killing terrorists around the globe who would harm America and our allies.

The underlying bill today allows for that continued service by these brave men and women for the benefit of the American people.

Six years ago is far too long for Congress to have skirted its responsibilities to aid and help the intelligence community with an authorization. Now is the time to ensure the appropriate accountability, responsibility, and that funding is given to the intelligence community to carry out their mission to keep America safe and to look forward, as might be said, over the horizon to ensure that whatever is next, they are prepared for it.

I would like to applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, Mike Rogers; and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger); and the Intelligence Committee for this authorization bill as they work so well with the men and women of the intelligence community on a mission which is important for us to join in with the administration to ensure that our intents are very clear to them.

We live in a dangerous time and in a dangerous world, and I feel much better protected knowing that this hard work is done by so many dedicated people.

So I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

First, I rise in support of H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2011.

The men and women in the military and intelligence community who helped locate al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden exemplify the extraordinary courage and skill of those who work tirelessly to keep our community safe. They should be commended for a job well done. But our fight against terrorism is not over. We have severely weakened al Qaeda, but we must remain vigilant as we work to eliminate this threat. I believe that it's our responsibility to give our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and authorities they need to do their jobs successfully.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2011 has thousands of civilian positions above the level enacted in FY 2010 and above the level of people currently on board. This includes counterterrorism positions at the CIA and a large increase in personnel at the National Counterterrorism Center, the NCTC. The bill also adds hundreds of millions of dollars for intelligence above current levels. In response to the Web site WikiLeaks, the bill includes an insider threat detection program that automatically monitors unauthorized access to classified information.

The way Congress conducts effective oversight of the intelligence community is by passing an Intelligence authorization bill to give the intelligence community budgetary direction.

When I first got to the Intelligence Committee 8 years ago, right after 9/11, I was concerned with the lack of coordination and communication within the intelligence community. In the different areas in intelligence--the CIA, NSA, FBI--there was not the communication or coordination that was necessary. But this has definitely changed today. The Osama bin Laden mission proved that. Professionals from all across the intelligence community, including the CIA, NGA, NSA, and Special Ops, all came together as a team to get the job done. We are now on our game. We're working together. We're better than we've ever been. And we clearly have sent a message to the world: If you're going to attack Americans, if you're going to kill Americans, we're going to find you and we're going to bring you to justice.

On the House Select Intelligence Committee we work together. Chairman Rogers, as he stated before, and I have agreed to work together in a bipartisan manner. The stakes are too high not to do so. I join Chairman Rogers in saying politics has no place in the Intelligence Committee. The threats are real and the stakes are too high. Sure, we will have disagreements. We will disagree from time to time on policy. But we will work together to work through these issues to do what is right for the intelligence community to protect our country and our national security. This is what we did in this budget.

After months of negotiations with the majority and a number of changes to address many of the concerns of the administration, I believe this bill moves in a positive direction. It goes a long way to help our intelligence professionals get the job done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler), a hardworking member of the Technical and Tactical Subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are two issues that I would like to discuss that we don't talk about a lot, but I think it is important that we do raise the issue. I know Chairman Rogers and I and the rest of the committee do work on this issue, and that's our space program and that's also cybersecurity.

We, years ago, responded to Russia's putting up Sputnik by, in 10 years, putting a man on the Moon. What we did basically is we helped create the science of rocket science. We did research and development, and we were able to put a man on the Moon. That was a great day for the United States of America when we did put a man on the Moon.

Now we're in a situation where our space program needs to move forward. We have a lot of issues that we have to deal with in our space program; and the main reason for that is that, if you control the skies, you basically control the world. Space and satellites are so important to what we do, not just from an intelligence point of view, getting the information, taking the pictures, dealing with all sorts of communications. These are things that we do in space, and we have to keep moving ahead. We have to get our younger generation graduating from our colleges to continue to go into space.

And the big threat there is China and Russia. China is putting billions of dollars into space. Their goal is to go to the Moon, and it is our concern that if they do that we have to be with them there. We have to continue our research and development, and we have to be vigilant in our space program. Russia, also, is very active in the space area.

So it's something that isn't talked about a lot, but there's a lot of money that goes into space; and I think we have to do a better job in our military, in our space and intelligence, and let the public know how important space is.

There's also another issue which is of great concern, I think, to the United States of America's national security, and that is the issue of cybersecurity. As we speak, we're being attacked by different governments and who knows what else we're being attacked by, getting information, relevant information, every day we speak. It's a very serious issue; and, unfortunately, the public does not really understand what cyber is about.

Our NSA is as good as any operation in the world in their technology and developing the technology in order to protect our country. We don't control the Internet other than a small part, our dot-mils, the military part. So we have to make sure that our public understands how important cybersecurity is, how we could be attacked.

We just recently had an attack about a month ago on NASDAQ. Just think if we had a cyberattack on our banks and what the lack of confidence would be for our public, and the government can't afford to pay for it all. So there has to be an effort between our government, our military, our NSA, between our private sector and between individuals who have their personal computers. This is an area of the future we need to focus on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe many valid points have been made in support of H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.

First, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his leadership and for working together in a bipartisan way to do what's right for our country's national security and to make sure that we do our job in the oversight of all of the intelligence areas. Hopefully, we will continue this relationship as we go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to an outstanding member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 provides policy guidelines and sets classified funding levels for the 16 agencies in the intelligence community. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is gone forever, but our fight against terrorism is far from over.

I believe this bill moves us in the right direction to ensure our topnotch intelligence professionals have the resources, capabilities and authorities they need to keep our country safe.

I also want to acknowledge our staffs on both the Democratic and Republican sides, who worked together very closely with us to help put together this bill. I've always said that you're only as good as your team. We talk about teamwork. You need a good team and a good staff.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

In this era of tight budgets, I believe it is our responsibility to manage every taxpayer dollar efficiently and effectively. Section 412 of the bill provides the Secretary of Defense authority to transfer certain funds into specific accounts to provide more accurate accounting of money spent. The manager's amendment strikes section 412 from the bill.

Section 412 will allow for an accurate audit of taxpayer dollars. This important tool will save us money in the long run. We must identify programs that are not working and trim those costs. A thorough audit will help us do that. We must ensure any cuts do not negatively impact on the performance of the mission. The administration supports section 412, and so do I.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I agree with the chairman. Staff is working together to try to resolve the issues involving section 412. We look forward to a positive resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate Congressman Gibson's intent. And I also want to thank him for his service in the military. But I believe we should always be looking for efficiencies to help reduce costs throughout the government.

The Director of National Intelligence is conducting a similar review that will identify redundancies without sacrificing core missions. I want to see the product of those efforts before asking the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, to submit an additional report. For this reason I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise to offer the amendment for Congresswoman Waters as her designee.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Waters.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

I disagree with the chairman. I believe it's vitally important that we protect our railway infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security issued an intelligence message about potential al Qaeda contemplation in February 2010 of plots against the U.S. rail sector.

While there was no imminent threat at that time, we must remain vigilant. It's important that we devote resources to this issue. I hope that we could work together with the chairman if the amendment does not pass so that we can focus on this serious area of threat to our national security.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I thank my friend from Texas for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for U.S. intelligence and intelligence-related activities within the jurisdiction of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including the National Intelligence Program and the Military Intelligence Program, as well as for the Intelligence Community Management Account and for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.

We are considering this legislation at an auspicious time. The death of Osama bin Laden and the disarray in the al Qaeda network comes as a result of years of painstaking effort by the hardworking men and women of the intelligence community, the military, President Bush, and President Obama's gutsy, courageous, and correct call on May 1 of this year. They succeeded admirably in carrying out a difficult and dangerous mission. This legislation codifies many of the lessons learned in recent years that led to Osama bin Laden's demise. It is important that we continue to provide the necessary resources to sustain the momentum the United States and its allies enjoy in the effort to protect our Nation and its citizens.

As the former vice chair of the House Intelligence Committee, I personally know that the intelligence community is the first line of defense against those wishing to do us harm here at home and across the globe. Where terrorists or other elements, as we speak, are plotting attacks, planning operations, or are actively engaged in harming our citizens, the men and women of the intelligence community are devoted to acting on the information they gather to thwart those efforts. We owe them a debt of gratitude and our sincere thanks. These courageous men and women often work quietly, unnoticed, and too often, unrecognized, but nevertheless, they are critical to ensuring the security of our Nation.

I have had the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals during my oversight travel as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I cannot overstate how much I appreciate, and am humbled by, their service. Over the past 10 years, our country has continued to make daily progress against threats, thanks to the service of those dedicated professionals. We must keep in mind, though, that in spite of our best effort, we still face many real threats, and we still have much work to do to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 754 provides detailed guidance and authorizes appropriations for the many agencies of the intelligence community, while also improving accountability and transparency. It is essential that we streamline and coordinate oversight for counterintelligence. H.R. 754 amends the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002 to require the national counterintelligence strategy to be aligned with the policies and strategy of the Director of National Intelligence.

It is often reported that our government agencies come under cyberattack all day, every day, 365 days a year. International criminals, malicious individuals, and even other Nations are actively engaged in a constant effort to break into our cyber networks to obtain information, or to wreak havoc on the systems that govern our Nation's infrastructure, financial, military, diplomatic, and social networks. We must, of all things, be mindful of our responsibilities in that area. It can have a devastating impact if not properly attended.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must consider diversity to be a mission imperative. I have stated time and again that the intelligence community is not diverse enough to successfully meet its requirements and achieve success on its missions. On February 26, 2010, the House of Representatives passed my amendment to H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which required the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the heads of the elements of the intelligence community, to submit to Congress a report on the plans of each element of the community to increase diversity. The report is expected to be finalized in October of this year. Simply put, we need people who blend in, who speak the language, and understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting. It is time for the intelligence community to get serious about improving diversity for the sake of our national security. If the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Intelligence, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a member of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just urge my colleague not to use a broad reference with reference to the Democratic Party. Everybody in the Democratic Party does not agree that we should leave Afghanistan until the administration and the military and the intelligence community have completed their work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would in some respects reiterate much of what our colleagues have said with regard to Osama bin Laden. For 10 years, he held the title of scourge of the Earth. And I believe all of us are pleased that to the degree that he contributed to injustice, justice, as it pertains to him, has finally been served.

It is my hope that the families of the terrible events that transpired on 9/11 and the USS Cole and the families of the East African embassy bombings can find just a little more solace and just a little more closure as a result of his demise at the hands of extraordinary work on behalf of a substantial number of courageous Americans.

As a Nation, I would ask that we be extremely mindful that al Qaeda has not been removed, nor has the sentiment of this very dangerous societal element, nor are they the only organized structure of radical extremists that would attack our Nation. We must remain ever vigilant.

There was a bit of irony on May 1, 2011, that should not be lost on any of us. One of the events that transpired on that same day was that the late John Paul II, the Pope, was beatified and moved closer to sainthood. On May 1 that occurred. He spent his life blazing a path of enlightenment, peace, love, and uplifting humanity.

The second event that occurred on that day was the demise of bin Laden, who spent his life lighting a path of murder, deceit, and the destruction of humanity. While one found, and is finding, sainthood, the other found Satan.

It is a good thing that he is no longer a plague on the Earth, and the hope for humankind is that Pope John Paul II would be our exemplar of goodness.

Given the immense security challenges facing our Nation, Congress should pass this legislation so that we may continue to fulfill our commitment to the safety and well-being of the American people.

The men and women of the intelligence community may operate in the background, but they are at the forefront of our national defense and deserve every resource necessary to do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule because, in spite of Mr. Reed, my colleague on the Rules Committee, and the distinguished chairman, my good friend, touting the fact that we do have a number of amendments and the time, this is not an open rule; and I would have them to know that if it were an open rule, then all Members would be able to offer an amendment to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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