Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 754) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise today in opposition to the combined rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576.

The underlying bill, H.R. 674, repeals the 3 percent withholding for taxes on payments to government contractors, and H.R. 2576 will make health care unaffordable for 500,000 Americans--that's not according to me but according to CBO--leaving them with no choice but to drop their coverage. This bill will also increase the costs or reduce the coverage for many more Americans, including individuals with severe disabilities.

The pairing of these two bills is not, in my considered opinion, an appropriate use of our Nation's Tax Code, and in my opinion, does nothing to create jobs. It is part of the same old ``all or nothing'' majority strategy that led to the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year.

The Republicans have taken a bipartisan idea--and it is bipartisan, as my good friend from South Carolina said--that would actually put money directly in the pockets of hardworking Americans and make its passage contingent on a bill that rehashes the health care reform debate from the last Congress. Once again, my colleagues have chosen to play politics with the lives of middle class and working poor Americans.

The withholding requirement, itself, was passed in 2005 when President George W. Bush was in the White House and when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate, but it was never implemented, and it has been put off a number of times.

Today, there is broad support for repealing this Republican-created provision. H.R. 674 has, as my friend said, 269 bipartisan cosponsors. Since Republicans have now brought a bill to the floor that would repeal this requirement, it is clear that this measure should not be combined, as in this rule, with H.R. 2576.

Getting rid of this provision will keep administrative costs down and assist American businesses during these challenging economic times. However, Republicans want to pay for the 3 percent bill by making it harder for retirees, the disabled, and poor to get access to health insurance. This is, yet again, an inappropriate use of our Tax Code.

This bill is known as the MAGI bill, ``modified adjusted gross income.'' It repeals the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows individuals and families to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from their incomes when determining their eligibility for health care benefits. This definition would also apply when qualifying for Medicaid and Federal subsidies to buy private insurance in the State-run exchanges. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of nontaxable Social Security benefits is typical when applying income limitations to tax benefits.

Regardless of the facts, my friends in the majority have decided to throw retirees and disabled individuals under the bus in order to offset a completely unrelated bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is about equity and fairness, but is it equitable for as many as 500,000 Americans to lose all their health care coverage as a result of this measure? What are we saying to these individuals; sorry, 500,000 of you are out of luck? Is it fair to make health care less accessible to low- and middle-income individuals rather than close loopholes and cancel special tax deals for wealthy, wealthy oil companies?

In contrast, the Democrats' substitute offered by Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, will make oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, thereby reducing the deficit by $5.3 billion over 5 years and $12.8 billion over 10 years.

It is clear that H.R. 2576 is not about equity at all. It's about forcing individual taxpayers to shoulder the burden of business tax provisions. H.R. 2576 will impose higher costs on retirees and persons with severe disabilities, shifting them out of Medicaid coverage or requiring that they contribute significantly more of their income for health insurance coverage through reduced tax credits.

How do Republicans intend to offset the cost, such as increased trips to the emergency room? How do you offset that association with half a million Americans suddenly losing their health insurance coverage? The Tax Code should not be used to effectively reduce health care coverage and increase costs for those least able to afford it.

Make no mistake, H.R. 2576 is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine comprehensive health care reform. Last week, the Senate Republicans forced a vote on the 3 percent withholding repeal bill, but it too failed over unreasonable Republican demands.

Where are the jobs? Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are redefining the rules to make health care less accessible for a considerable number of Americans. These bills together are a new approach to cutting the deficit for Republicans. Until recently, they said that the only way to fix the deficit was to starve the beast, that is, spending cuts only. But with a bill like H.R. 2576 that takes away health care from hundreds of thousands of Americans, Republicans have decided that rather than starving the beast, it's better to feed the beast to our society's most vulnerable members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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