Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, on the 10th anniversary of that date.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative

days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1892.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I first wish to announce that, subsequent to ordering the bill reported, the committee has modified the classified schedule of authorizations to the bill with respect to the level of funding of certain programs, with bipartisan agreement between myself and my ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger.

The classified annex containing the 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 the procedures described in my announcement to the House on Wednesday. The modified schedule of authorizations is and has been available for review to Members for the period of time required by the rules of the House.

Madam Chair, I think this is an important day for the community, certainly rolling into the weekend of the 10th anniversary of that tragic event on 9/11. It is important, it is crucial, that we continue to monitor, to improve, to provide support for our intelligence services who so bravely around the world and here at home serve to protect the United States of America.

The bill before us today is a vital tool for our oversight of the intelligence community's classified activities and is critical to ensuring our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to do their important work. Passing an annual intelligence bill is vital to keeping the laws governing our intelligence operations up to date. The FY12 bill sustains today's intelligence operations and provides for future capabilities while achieving significant savings.

The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing the country from many other threats that we face. This bill funds all U.S. intelligence agencies, spanning 17 separate agencies, totaling roughly $80 billion. The bill's comprehensive classified annex provides detailed guidance on intelligence spending, including adjustments to costly programs. It provides oversight and authorization for critical intelligence activities, including but not limited to the global counterterrorism operations such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden; tactical intelligence support to combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places; cyber defense by the National Security Agency; detecting and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the R&D, research and development, of new technology to maintain our intelligence agencies' technological edge, including work on code breaking and spy satellites.

The bill also reflects our tough economic times as well, Madam Chair. After passage of the Budget Control Act, the committee revamped the bill it reported out of committee in May to double its budget savings. The bill is significantly below the President's FY12 budget request and further still below the FY11 authorized and appropriated levels. We accomplished this without impacting the mission. The savings were achieved through a whole series of joint work and effort by many to merge services and find savings that would bring efficiencies, as I said, again, Madam Chair, without impacting the mission of the intelligence services.

The bill curbs unnecessary personnel growth. The cost of additional personnel would squeeze funding for high-tech investments, which is our competitive advantage in intelligence. While the bill denies most of the administration's requested personnel increases, it adds some key positions in high priority areas such as cyber defense. The bill also promotes major operating efficiencies in a number of areas, including data processing, IT, and office leases, finding over $100 million in savings.

This bill also makes only ``best value'' investments and shaves $1 billion from a handful of very large-ticket hardware items and programs that the intelligence community is involved in. The bill protects investments in cutting-edge R&D and redirects $500 million of savings to invest in some game-changing technologies.

The bottom line is this bipartisan bill preserves and advances national security, and it is also fiscally responsible. Secrecy is a necessary part of our country's intelligence work, so the intelligence committees must conduct strong and effective oversight on behalf of the American people. That oversight is impossible, however, without an annual Intelligence authorization bill. Madam Chair, that's why we stand before you today with a bill that I think this body can be proud of, America can be proud of, and our intelligence community can take to the bank that we're investing in their mission success.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 2, 2011.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding provisions in the Intelligence

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 within the

jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee, specifically

the preparation of Nuclear Proliferation Assessment

Statements and a requirement that the Department of State

provide information concerning individuals detained at Naval

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We appreciate your agreeing to

include the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee in the list of committees to

which this information will be submitted.

In order to expedite Floor consideration of this

legislation, the Committee will not object to the inclusion

of these two provisions and will not mark up the bill. The

Committee takes this action with the mutual understanding

that the Committee's jurisdiction over this, and similar

legislation, is in no way diminished or altered.

The Committee reserves the right to seek appointment to any

House-Senate conference on this legislation, and requests

your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate

your including this letter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chairman.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Ohio. I think on this, unfortunately, his facts were just not correct. It's interesting in the business of intelligence because so much of it is classified that the rhetoric is easy to throw around and the condemnation is easy to heap on the very brave men and women who are following the law that we give them overseas. And I think that's one of the reasons that this administration came to power and said, all of the kinds of things and all the rhetoric around the political campaign just wasn't true. They found that they were following the law. They were comporting with the missions and guidelines and objectives in accordance with the law of the United States. So they are, in fact following the law.

There was no, absolutely no role for the CIA to overthrow the Qadhafi regime. That is just false. So I think we need to be careful about making these assertions that are pretty damning, if you will, that are completely inaccurate. We may believe that happened. I can tell you, on the Intelligence Committee, and my friend, Dutch Ruppersberger, we watch this closely.

One of the reasons I hope he will change his mind on the bill, Madam Chair, is that we need the ability to have oversight of these 17 agencies. This bill allows us to do it. By having no bill for 6 years, no authorization bill of any meaning was passed in this House. That's when problems start.

This gets us back to regular order. It gets us back into the business of conducting proper oversight and setting the guidelines in the classified annex, which I would urge the gentleman to come down and review in the House Intelligence Committee, which every Member has the privilege and, I argue, responsibility to do that if that's what they desire to do. It lays out very clear guidelines on spending and objectives and policies.

So I would argue that the gentleman's position is misstated. I understand his frustration. But, again, this gets us back to regular order, and I praise the administration for continuing the programs that we know were put in place under the last administration that are keeping Americans safer today.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I too have concerns about weapons systems in Libya. But one of the problems was you can't be against the intelligence services being places to collect information, and then wonder why they're not in a place to get the information that we might need. And that's part of the problem here.

There was no CIA involvement in the regime change, none. That did not happen. I don't know where that got started. That is inaccurate information, and I would be careful about throwing out that the agency was involved in some regime changes. They were not.

We have pressed the agency and the administration to be more aggressive on accounting for and rendering safe weapons systems that are scattered all around Libya. We saw this in Iraq. When the regime uses these weapons caches, not to protect the citizens of its own state but to protect its regime, it becomes much more difficult to get a handle on it. We ought to be celebrating the agency's work in trying to determine where these systems are and how we render them safe and account for them, and one way we can do that is passing this bill that gives them the resources to do exactly that.

I would hope the gentleman would have a change of heart.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I respect the gentleman from Ohio's position as well and hope that we can work out those differences as we move forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is not only a colleague but a friend, in working so diligently over the course of the summer and really at the beginning of this year to reestablish the Intelligence Committee as a force for oversight over the 17 agencies. It is a tremendous amount of money, and it is a tremendous amount of responsibility because most of what we do happens behind closed doors and is classified.

I think working together we have come to one of the best products certainly I have seen since on the committee of the most thorough review from line by line by line of both the National Intelligence Program spending as well as the Military Intelligence Program spending, and we've had very good cooperation because we've cooperated together from the agencies themselves.

There really was a unity of effort here that I think Americans can and should be proud of in an effort to make sure that our men and women who are risking their lives today to protect the United States of America have the resources they need and the commitment on behalf of this Congress and the American people to be successful in their particular mission.

I want to thank the staffs on both committees. For the first time we had joint briefings with both Republican and Democrat staff on the very difficult budget issues that worked sometimes through the process of the Intelligence authorization bill. They briefed

at the same table at the same time, which sounds a little--something that should happen more often but it did not and we have reestablished that. We have reestablished the quarterly reviews on all of the programs so that we have regular and consistent oversight on what happens in the intelligence community. That all wouldn't really have happened without the leadership of Mr. Ruppersberger and his team and my team as well.

There are too many to name who spent countless hours on this particular bill, the leadership team here and all the folks on the Intelligence staff. Honorable mention to Brian Smith, our budget director, who gave a lot of his heart and soul to go through every line and find every penny for us. I know on Mr. Ruppersberger's staff they have sat beside him the entire time to make that happen.

Without further ado, Madam Chair, we'll get to the amendments; but, again, I do think this is a product that reflects the best of what Congress can do when we work together, and the best of the most amazing people in our intelligence community and what they have to offer in the protection of the United States of America.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the manager's amendment to include a clarification at the request of the ranking member. The modification is at the desk.

Madam Chair, this is the manager's amendment to the bill. These are the last few details that we were able to work out in a bipartisan way to bring the bill to the floor.

The manager's amendment is primarily intended to remove three provisions that have been the subject of a veto threat by the administration. In addition, it makes a number of largely technical clarifications and adds a provision on authority to fill vacancies, a provision that was inadvertently omitted from the Rules Committee's print of the bill.

Madam Chair, as I explained during the general debate, moving this bill forward is critical to ensure comprehensive legislative oversight of our intelligence activities and, just as importantly, intelligence budgeting and spending. While I regret that our efforts to reach accommodation on these provisions, which were originally included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill, it is important that we remove these contentious provisions now so that the detailed spending and oversight recommendations in the classified annex can go forward.

The first contentious provision would have required Senate confirmation of the National Security Administration's Director. The other two contentious provisions subject to veto would have required the production of certain State Department cables related to detainee negotiations. While I support the production of these materials, the committees seeking them have other tools at their disposal to obtain them, and the bill should not be held up over that document dispute.

In addition, the manager's amendment includes a clarification to clarify section 310 on mitigating risks in the supply chain to ensure that those authorities cannot be delegated below the level of a service acquisition executive. The change is important to ensure the appropriate level of management is involved in such important decisions. This change reflects the committee's understanding that these acquisition authorities will not be used lightly and that all decisions under this provision will be carried out by responsible senior officials within the intelligence community and coordinated and overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.

Finally, the manager's amendment contains a modification requested by the ranking member to a provision concerning narcotics trafficking on public lands. The modification is needed to clarify the intended scope of the provision to ensure it is not read too broadly.

With that, Madam Chair, I ask Members to support the manager's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for working with us. It is an important issue, and you have our commitment from myself and, I believe, the ranking member to coordinate this particular report.

I appreciate the gentleman's consideration, because it will allow the community to prioritize it. It may take 3 weeks or longer, or 3 weeks shorter than an amendment might call for, but it allows them to adjust according to the demands at the particular time on the intelligence community. For that, I want to thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with him on the issue.

I thank the gentleman from California.

This is an important amendment. These are issues we have been working on in committee; and I can tell you, we have been a tad bit frustrated at that lack of coordination. I think it is unfortunate it took this amendment as a part of the Intelligence bill to continue to put pressure on the administration to get their act together on this particular issue. It is an issue we absolutely must solve, not only for the safety and security of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, but also for the greater impact on the war on terror. I strongly urge support of the Hunter amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for rail security. It is an incredibly important issue. I continue to believe, as I did the last go-round, this is not the right place for this. I have agreed not to officially oppose his amendment.

I just want to again remind individuals that this is 17 agencies across the whole spectrum of intelligence work. And for Congress to step in and say rail priority, even if their agency might be satellite oriented, just does not make a lot of sense to me; and I know it won't make a lot of sense to them as well.

Again, I agree that rail security is incredibly important. We have segments of the intelligence community, and I want to re-emphasize segments, and here in our homeland security, that worry about rail security, and I argue that would be a better place for this amendment. As I said, I will not officially oppose it. I have made no official recommendation. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's position. I will be voting ``no,'' but I would tell the rest of the Members to do what they see fit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's interest here. I don't know any organization that we established not to operate under the rules and construct of the Constitution of the United States. It is a little bit redundant, in my perspective; and also we deal with these issues through IGs, we do this through congressional oversight, and we deal with this in the classified annex. I would encourage the gentleman to take a look at the classified annex. A lot of the work that we do is to make sure that these organizations are functioning according to rules, regulation, and constitutional law.

I am not going to oppose his amendment. I have no recommendation. I do think, however, it's probably not well placed in this particular piece of legislation.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2012, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When Chairman Rogers and I took over leadership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we made a commitment to getting back into the practice of passing intelligence budgets. We made a commitment to the men and women of the intelligence community to do what is right--to give our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and authorities they need to keep us safe.

We on the Intelligence Committee have a responsibility to provide effective oversight; to help build up the community, not to tear it down; to hold the community accountable for performance while upholding the Constitution and protecting civil liberties. This is even more important today as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, where close to 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives.

The bill makes smart choices by trimming where possible, eliminating duplicative efforts, and ensuring we do not affect the current critical capabilities that protect our Nation now and in the future.

The bill aligns our resources with our current threats in a fiscally responsible manner. After the debt debate this last summer, our committee trimmed our budget even further to keep its costs in check. The bill curbs personal growth when appropriate, never affecting the core mission. It invests in new positions for select high-priority needs, such as FBI surveillance officers to keep watch on terrorists, NSA cyber professionals to protect computers from malicious intrusions, and Treasury financial analysts to unravel terrorist plots.

We found major savings in operating costs, pushed down the price of programs through intense oversight, required acquisitions to come in on budget and on schedule, and invested in research and technology to keep our competitive edge. We fully funded the President's major satellite program as well as commercial imagery to ensure our intelligence professionals, the warfighters and our allies have the information they need on the front lines around the world.

Right now, this bill includes two controversial provisions relating to Guantanamo Bay detainees and another making the Director of the National Security Agency a Senate-confirmed position. These provisions garnered a veto threat from the White House. Chairman Rogers and I worked together to come up with a solution. Today's manager's amendment withdraws the Gitmo and the NSA Director provisions. I encourage all Members to vote in favor of the manager's amendment. If these provisions can be successfully eliminated, I will support this bill and look forward to seeing it become law. This bill will make great investments in space, cyber, and the warfighter.

Republicans and Democrats have worked together with our Senate counterparts to make this a good bipartisan bill. Intelligence is clearly the best defense against terrorism. This is even more important as we approach the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

If this bill is signed into law, it will be the third time in 3 years that the Intelligence Committee passed an Intel authorization act. For the 5 years before that, we did not have an Intelligence bill.

With this bill, we are giving the intelligence community guidance and critical direction. We are doing our job. With the passage of the manager's amendment, I believe this is a good bipartisan bill that makes important decisions to protect our families and communities. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the vice chair on the Democratic side of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to confirm, Mr. Kucinich, I do respect your comments and your point of view, but our role on the Intelligence Committee is oversight. When we can pass bills, we work and oversee all these agencies. And if we find out where there are allegations of a concern, let me know, and we will try to do what we can do to get information. But I know of no situation that we have not been told in the last couple of years, when Mr. Rogers and I have been working together.

I think it's important for the United States of America to remember this. In my opinion, the best defense against terrorism is intelligence, but it's got to be done the right way and protect civil liberties.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Rhode Island, Jim Langevin.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It took a long time for us to get here today: days of important hearings, analyzing the intelligence community, hours of critical meetings, making important decisions of what to include and not to include in the bill and lots of time pulling it together.

Republicans and Democrats came together to make important choices to do what's right for the intelligence community and for our country. I commend everyone who participated in this effort, especially the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Rogers and other members of the Intelligence Committee.

I would like to thank both Democrat and Republican staff for the countless hours they spent helping us make this happen. With the passage of the manager's amendment, I fully support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. The stakes are too high not to.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, I strongly support the manager's amendment.

The manager's amendment deals with the issues that the chairman talked about. Also, it was our negotiation to resolve certain issues, and that has been done. So I fully support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I just want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for his involvement in all national security issues. We serve together on the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee in Appropriations and we work together on gangs. So I appreciate your focus on this area to protect the citizens of our country and our district.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

First, I just want to acknowledge the gentleman's service. You have been on the field. I think IEDs are one of the biggest threats that we have to our men and women in theater, and I strongly support that we move forward with your amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First, I support this amendment. The amendment would include a sense of Congress language to encourage the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security to integrate the intelligence-sharing capability of fusion centers and leverage participation from all intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security agencies to prevent acts of terrorism against the United States.

I thank the gentleman for this amendment, which is very timely as we approach the 10th anniversary of September 11. The Intelligence Committee is holding a series of open hearings in order to acknowledge the progress made in the intelligence and national security community since 9/11 and to identify areas that will need improvement.

One area we will explore is Federal collaboration with first responders at State and local levels. The Bipartisan Policy Center and the former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, recently issued a report about our national response to 9/11 over the last 10 years. They found that Federal and local information sharing is still not as good as it could be.

The proposed sense of Congress is consistent with the findings of numerous organizations, but our Nation still requires better integration of intelligence. I therefore urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Also, I acknowledge the fact you are a former prosecutor. I am a former prosecutor. Our chairman is a former FBI agent.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the tenth anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history, I would like to use my time to remember those we've lost, reflect on the lessons we've learned, and consider what we can do as a nation to ensure that an attack of this magnitude never occurs on American soil again.

Mr. Speaker, as America helplessly watched the terrifying images of thick clouds of grey smoke rising from the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, emotions of shock, anger, fear, and tremendous sadness washed over the body politic. Never having experienced an attack of this magnitude on American soil before, the events which unfolded on 9/11 engendered a profound shift in the way we conceptualize national security and left an indelible impact on the psyche of every American citizen. This was a day that would have a profound impact on the way every American lives, and would shift a large amount of our country's focus and resources toward a new challenge: the Global War on Terror.

In the days after the 9/11 attacks, we were introduced to a man named Osama bin Laden and the organization he led, al-Qaeda. These previously esoteric monikers became ubiquitous terms synonymous with hate, terror, and anger. Yet, despite the dastardly events that unfolded on that day ten years ago, tales of selfless acts of heroism and tremendous bravery in the face of evil--indicative of the American spirit--made us proud and provided a ray of hope in the fog of uncertainty.

Ten years later, it is important to reflect on the lessons we learned from those brave men, women and children who were unjustly taken from us that day. My heart still aches for all 2,819 people we lost in the attacks, including the 343 firefighters and paramedics, 60 police officers, and those on board United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175. We remember the bravery of the PDNY and NYPD first responders who courageously ran up the World Trade Center towers, while thousands of others rapidly evacuated. We also remember the remarkable story of those on United 93 who attempted to regain control of the cockpit after their flight had been hijacked by a group of terrorists that pointed the aircraft in the direction of the building where I currently stand.

I would also like to remember those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My heart goes out to the 3,051 children who lost a parent, and to the spouses, parents and relatives of the victims. Just as we promised shortly after the attacks, we will never forget.

In the days and months following 9/11, we saw the true strength of the American people. It was during these times that people were able to momentarily suspend all political, regional, ethnic, and economic divisions to mourn and seek hope in one another. We healed as a Nation; we grew as a Nation. The petty differences that we so often magnify in our society were put aside and we focused on what we had to do to keep our country moving forward in the face of such adversity.

In the decade since 9/11--thanks to American vigilance, resilience, and resolve--al-Qaeda has been unsuccessful in carrying-out another attack on our Nation's soil. Several plots by would-be terrorists trained by al-Qaeda have been foiled by our Nation's intelligence agencies and local law enforcement, including a 2009 plot to bomb New York City's subway and a 2010 plot to place explosive devices on cargo planes entering the U.S.

Our military campaign in Afghanistan successfully overthrew the tyrannical Taliban and significantly hampered the power and mobility of al-Qaeda and its sympathizers. After years of dedicated service by the brave men and women who put country above self in our armed forces, America is safer and Afghanistan is now a fledgling democratic society. However, these accomplishments came with a price. Since 2011, the U.S. has spent over $1.2 trillion on Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We also paid for these wars with the lives of 6,026 of our bravest young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country. In my district, we suffered the loss of 12 remarkable servicemen. We remember Long Beach residents: Pfc. Stephen A. Castellano; Sgt. 1st Class Randy D. Collins; Sgt. Anthony J. Davis, Jr.; Sgt. Israel Garcia; Pvt. Ernesto R. Guerra; Pfc. Lyndon A. Marcus, Jr.; Spec. Roberto L. Martinez Salazar; Spec. Astor A. Sunsin-Pineda; Pfc. David T. Toomalatai; Pfc. George D. Torres; and Staff Sgt. Joshua Whitaker, as well as Carson resident Pfc. Daniel P. Cagle of Carson who were all killed in action.

As the troops in the battlefields of Afghanistan begin their withdrawal, we are reminded of the reasons why we entered the war in the first place: to exact justice on those responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and to eliminate their sympathizers' ability to conduct a similar attack in the future. In those two regards, I would argue that we have been extraordinarily successful. Perhaps the most consequential victory of the War on Terror came earlier this year when Osama bin Laden's life was finally ended by a group of Navy SEALs who deftly carried-out a covert operation at bin Laden's secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I am extremely thankful for President Obama and his Administration's firm leadership in the effort to bring bin Laden to justice. The sense of victory experienced by Americans after the death of Osama bin Laden was so powerful that it seemed to carry us into a new chapter of the War on Terror, one less concerned with fighting the enemy overseas and one more concerned with protecting our citizens at home.

Therefore, I believe that now is the appropriate time to begin a significant withdrawal of troops from war zones in Afghanistan and other parts of the Arab world. Committing millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to nation building abroad at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and struggling represents a fundamental misallocation of resources. While keeping the American people safe should always be our top priority, more resources need to be focused protecting our homeland and educating, training and employing the beleaguered American workforce.

We have come a long way in the past 10 years, and we should be proud of the progress we've made as a nation adapting to a post-9/11 world. However, we still have a long way to go to ensure that an attack similar to those on 9/11 never happen in the U.S. again. As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications, I am keenly aware of the improvements that need to be made in order to keep the American people safe. For example, I represent a district that is home to the largest port complex in the nation. Each year, over 350,000 containers of cargo pass through the Port Los Angeles alone. These large shipping containers provide would- be terrorists with an excellent way to get hazardous materials into the country. That is why I am a strong proponent of working toward the implementation of a 100% container check rule on ports around the nation. This will ensure that cargo entering the U.S. is safe and will provide peace of mind to millions of Americans who reside near our Nation's ports.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that despite some questionable decision making during the previous administration, our country is stronger and safer than ever before. Although we still have a long way to go, the progress we've made in the last decade to secure our homeland from attack by unconventional forces should make everyone proud. Again, my heart goes out to the families of those who were lost during the attacks and to those who lost their lives fighting the perpetrators of those tragic events. While our country

must never stop moving forward, we must also never forget. The victims of 9/11 are not forgotten.

Let me just say how proud I am to support the FY 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. I appreciate the leadership of both Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger in crafting this bill. This has truly been a bipartisan effort of which I have been proud to be a part.

I am pleased that this bill includes funding to accelerate implementation of an insider threat detection program, and that's both on the cyber front but also in cases like the Hasan case that was tragically in the news and that occurred not long ago and cost many lives.

This bill basically requires best practices implemented within the Army to be reviewed for inclusion across the intelligence community. That's referring to their insider threat detection program.

In addition, the bill supports critical resources needed for cybersecurity, the broader cybersecurity threat, a threat which demands the attention of our national security specialists and the entire country.

As the successful operation against Osama bin Laden showed us earlier this year, the intelligence community has made significant strides toward working together to counter the most complex threats facing our Nation. This productive cooperation and integration embodies the intent of Congressional intelligence reforms made after the tragic events of 9/11, and I'm encouraged to see this progress in the area of information-sharing.

Yet while the sharing of classified information is imperative to keep our country safe, unrestrained and unregulated access can put our country at great risk. As we have seen from both the damage of WikiLeaks and historical espionage cases, the threat from a malicious insider with the keys to the kingdom is very real. We are far beyond the risk of paper documents being copied and carried out. Today the question is how much information can a potential leaker or spy fit on to a USB drive or a CD.

Although technological advances have strengthened the efforts of our intelligence community, they have also increased the risk.

Now, with this serious concern in mind, I'm proud that this bill requires the DNI to review improvements made by the Army's insider threat regulations and consider implementation of these practices across the entire intelligence community.

In addition, the bill accelerates other technical initiatives within the insider threat program. I believe it's imperative that we ensure that our security officers and network administrators have the capabilities in place to protect our most sensitive information.

Now, in view of the enormous resources spent on security clearances, protecting classified information, and securing networks across the globe, it also makes fiscal sense to protect our investment by taking advantage of the auditing software already available today. The access to classified information bears with it significant responsibilities, one that I know that I and my colleagues on the committee take very seriously.

The other serious threats which this bill addresses are the risks posed to our broader cyber networks. Now, I'm proud that it strengthens resources and it furthers the administration's efforts to address the threats of our critical infrastructure. I know that that is something that is also shared by my colleague, Congressman Ruppersberger.

While I applaud the administration's work, I think that we need to go further to raise awareness and work with both public and private sector partners to meet this threat. We cannot afford to continue operating with the massive digital vulnerabilities to not just our sensitive information but also our important intellectual property that makes up the foundation of our innovative economy. Addressing these threats must become a national priority, and we must work quickly to grow our current and future cyber workforce to fill the rising demand for cybersecurity information assurance.

This bill helps secure our sensitive information and vital networks to threats from malicious actors beyond our borders and on the inside because of these important provisions, along with the other merits cited by my colleagues today.

I thank again Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for the outstanding bipartisan cooperation we've seen in their leadership and also the other members of the committee. It's a committee that I'm proud to serve on. I thank them and the committee for their work.

I urge Members to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.

This bill is, by the conventional standards of the House, an appropriate vehicle for meeting many of the routine needs of the Intelligence Community. However, it completely fails to undertake the kind of probing, large-scale reassessment of the structure, mission, and purpose of our intelligence enterprise in a post-bin Laden era. I regret that Congress has not shown the stomach for the kind of thorough, comprehensive, and brave review of intelligence activities that was undertaken by the Church Committee in the 1970's. Given the events of the last decade, such a review is both long overdue and very badly needed. Despite my strong reservations about what this bill does not but should do, I will support this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, many have expressed deep concern about the security situation in the Middle East. There are many hopeful signs from the so-called Arab Spring, but there are also concerns about the security of Israel and neighboring States.

Several among us and among my constituents expressed concern some months ago about what would happen with a weakened border between Egypt and Israel. And, as we all know, on August 18 several groups of terrorists killed eight Israelis, wounded several more in attacks along the road leading to Eilat.

This is just one example of what we need to pay attention to in the area. Will Egypt become a staging ground for more terrorist attacks against Israel? Can al Qaeda gain new safe haven in any of the countries undergoing massive political change? We hope not, I would like to think not, but it is important that we have good, solid intelligence assessments of the situation.

My amendment would direct the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress within half a year of passage of this law an estimate on the implications of these revolutions for the security of the State of Israel and to report to Congress in a way that is accessible to all Members of Congress on the implications of the so- called Arab Spring and the changes in the countries around the area.

This amendment is for obvious reasons. Israel is an important ally and really is founded on principles of law and fairness and justice, and we want to see those values upheld and extended.

I recognized, in conversations with Chairman Rogers and the ranking member, that an amendment to this legislation is, perhaps, not the best way to accomplish this. So in a moment I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, giving notice to the Chair, but with the understanding that we will make this same request of the Director of National Intelligence by way of a letter and that we will have available to Members of Congress this estimate of this security situation.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member very much for their cooperation on this. They are fully aware of this, which is partly why it is not necessary to offer an amendment to that effect.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, having served on the Intelligence Committee until this year for a number of years, I am very much aware of the constraints that are sometimes placed on the agencies by lots of reports due on lots of dates.

I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to see that we get this estimate done in the most constructive way.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.