Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Deputy Grant William Whitaker who was killed in the line of duty on Sunday, December 7, 2014 in Stockbridge Township, Michigan. Deputy Whitaker was 25 years old and had been with the Ingham County Sheriff's Office for one and a half years. Deputy Whitaker had previously served as a police officer with Stockbridge Police Department and Waterloo Township Police. Grant grew up with the drive to serve his community and found his calling in law enforcement. A native of Stockbridge, Grant went to Stockbridge High School where he played baseball. He was an avid outdoorsman who hunted deer, waterfowl and turkey. He enjoyed playing pool and golf and spending time with his nephews. It is tragic when any loved one passes, and to lose someone so young and so dedicated to his community is a terrible loss indeed. My thoughts and prayers are with Grant's parents and family during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4681) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4681.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at the end of my remarks the Joint Explanatory Statement prepared by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Ruppersberger and I assumed the helm of the committee, we committed to return to the practice of passing the annual intelligence authorization bill, recognizing that it is one of the most critical tools that Congress has to control the intelligence activities of the

United States Government. I am proud today that we are bringing the fifth such authorization bill to the floor since Mr. Ruppersberger assumed the role of ranking member and I assumed the role of chairman 4 years ago.

As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of the committee's direction is found in the classified annex to the bill, which is very similar to the version passed by the House earlier this year.

At an unclassified level, I can report that the classified annex increases the President's budget request by less than 1 percent and is consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Act funding caps. Key committee funding initiatives, vital to national security, are preserved in this bill. These funding initiatives are offset by reductions to unnecessary programs and increased efficiencies.

The bill's modest net increase reflects the committee's concern that the President's request does not properly fund a number of important initiatives and leaves several unacceptable shortfalls when it comes to the matters of national security. The bill also provides substantial intelligence resources to help defeat Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Earlier this year, the House passed its version of this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. This bill contains all of the provisions that were not previously enacted into law in the fiscal year 2014 bill, along with provisions added by the Senate. None of these provisions are considered controversial, and we have worked through and vetted to make sure that is accurate with both Republican and Democrat staff and Members.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a very interesting time in history. ISIL is attempting to build a state across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq, including Syria, Jordan, and Israel. The group already controls a swath of land across Iraq and Syria about the size of the State of Indiana, and it is growing. The goal of our counterterrorism strategy is to deny safe haven from which terrorists can plot attacks against the United States and/or our allies. Regrettably, we have not prevented ISIL from establishing such a safe haven, and, as a result, we face a growing threat from that region.

At the same time, state actors like Russia and China view this time as an opportunity to expand their reach and expand their influence. Uneven leadership in recent years has emboldened these adversaries to change the international order, at the expense of U.S. interests.

We rightly demand that our intelligence agencies provide policymakers with the best and most timely information possible on the threats we face. We ask them to track terrorists wherever they train, plan, and fundraise. We ask them to stop devastating cyber attacks that steal American jobs through theft of intellectual property. We ask them to track nuclear and missile threats. We demand they get it right every time.

This bill will ensure that the dedicated men and women of our intelligence community have the funding and authorities and support that they need to meet their mission and to keep us safe.

I take this moment, Mr. Speaker, at a time when certainly voices both around the country and around the world are seeking to condemn the very courageous men and women who show up in the intelligence business to provide the information to keep America safe. They are silent warriors. They are faithful patriots. They don't ask for recognition. They don't ask for time. You don't see their names in the front pages of the paper or on TV. They really don't seek that recognition.

But they seek the very purpose of being the first to be able to develop that one piece of information that might prevent further conflict, it might prevent a terrorist attack, it might prevent a nuclear launch, it might prevent one Nation from attacking another.

In the haze of what seems to be self-loathing these days, by targeting that against these very courageous men and women who cannot defend themselves in public, we are doing a disservice to their courage and their commitment to keep America safe. We find that it is easy to, at some point, go back and point fingers at what we believe may or may not have happened in the work of keeping America safe. It is realistically and holistically unfair that we would do that to these very brave souls who risk their lives today.

But here is the good news for Americans. These folks that work in the shadows understand that they have accepted these dangerous and quiet roles, and they will get up this morning, like they have every other morning, and understand it is between them and the United States when it comes to any terrorist attack, or worse, bigger, broader conflict somewhere in the world.

So they will do their job; they will do their duty; they will do their mission. They will read the papers and fold them and put them on their desk and go about their work, their important work. But it is wrong that years later we ask these people to have to believe that they might have to get a lawyer to do their job.

The next time that America asks them to do something hard and difficult in defense of the United States, we shouldn't be giving them lawyers and subpoenas and the United Nations condemning their actions and looking for prosecutions in their effort to tear the United States down one more level. We ought to be giving them ticker tape parades when they come home from these places and say: Thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your family's sacrifice. We can sleep better at night knowing that you have had the courage to stand where no other American was willing to stand in defense of the United States.

I hope they take this as certainly my final bill on this particular floor to encourage them to do their good work, to know that Americans who are kissing their kids and putting them on the bus this morning understand that it takes their efforts to keep this country safe, that somebody that shows up for work and is engaged in international commerce understands that it takes their work to keep America safe. Believe me, outside of this town, people across America understand the value and importance and really the essential work that these people do for the defense of America. We should not condemn them, we should be proud of their work, and we should stand behind them. This bill I think represents the work in a bipartisan way that allows them to continue that work, to do the work that protects America.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank my good friend Dutch Ruppersberger. Over the last 4 years, these five budgets could not have happened without your work and your staff's work in making sure that we had the best product available to make sure that the intelligence community had the resources that they need, the policies that they need, the support that they need, and, yes, every once in a while, the kick in the can that they needed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when Dutch and I assumed the helm of the Committee, we committed to return to the practice of passing the annual intelligence authorization bill, recognizing that it is one of the most critical tools Congress has to control the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government. I am proud today that we are bringing the fifth such authorization bill to the floor since I assumed the Chairmanship four years ago.

As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of the Committee's direction is found in the classified annex to the bill, which is very similar to the version passed by the House earlier this year.

At an unclassified level, I can report that the classified annex increases the President's budget request by less than one percent and is consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Act funding caps. Key Committee funding initiatives, vital to national security, are preserved in this bill. These funding initiatives are offset by reductions to unnecessary programs and increased efficiencies. The bill's modest net increase reflects the Committee's concern that the President's request does not properly fund a number of important initiatives and leaves several unacceptable shortfalls. The bill also provides substantial intelligence resources to help defeat ISIL.

Earlier this year the House passed its version of this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This bill contains all of those provisions that were not previously enacted into law in the FY 14 bill, along with provisions added by the Senate. None of those provisions are considered controversial.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a very interesting time in history. ISIL is attempting to

build a state across the Middle East--from Lebanon to Iraq, including Syria, Jordan, and Israel. The group already controls a swath of land across Iraq and Syria. The goal of our counterterrorism strategy is to deny safe haven from which terrorists can plot attacks against the United States and our allies. Regrettably, we have not prevented ISIL from establishing such a safe haven, and as a result we face a growing threat from the region.

At the same time, state actors like Russia and China view this time as an opportunity to expand their reach and influence. Uneven leadership in recent years has emboldened these adversaries to change the international order--at the expense of U.S. interests.

We rightly demand that our intelligence agencies provide policy makers with the best and most timely information possible on the threats we face. We ask them to track terrorists wherever they train, plan, and fundraise. We ask them to stop devastating cyber attacks that steal American jobs. We ask them to track nuclear and missile threats. And we demand they get it right--every time.

This bill will ensure that the dedicated men and women of our Intelligence Community have the funding and authorities--and support-- they need to meet their mission and to keep us safe.

Before closing, I want to take a moment to thank the men and women of this country who serve in our Intelligence Community today. It has been a distinct honor to get to know so many of them, and I am proud to have played a role in contributing to their success.

I would also like to extend thanks to all of my dedicated staff on the Committee who worked hard over the years to get us back on track in passing the annual Authorization bill and in our daily oversight of the Intelligence Community.

Thank you to my current committee staff: Darren Dick, Katie Wheelbarger, Sarah Geffroy, Andy Keiser, Bryan Smith, Ashley Lowry, Susan Phalen, Tom Corcoran, Michael Ellis, Chelsey Campbell, Geof Kahn, Brooke Eisele, Randy Smith, Jim Hildebrand, Shannon Stuart, Rachel Wilson, Lisa Major, Diane Rinaldo. Thank you, as well as to those who are no longer with the staff but played an influential role in committee activities during my tenure as Chairman: Michael Allen, Chris Donesa, Jamil Jaffer, Nathan Hauser, Todd Jones, Frank Garcia, George Pappas, Will Koella, Leah Scott, Fred Fleitz, and Stephanie Pelton.

Finally, a big thank you to our dedicated Security and Information Technology staff who keep us up and running everyday: Brandon Smith, Kristin Jepson and Kevin Klein.

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

I thought I would take a moment to extend my thanks to all the dedicated staff on the committee, certainly from the Republican side and to the Democrats as well, who worked hard over the years to get us back on track in passing this annual authorization bill in our daily oversight of the intelligence community.

If you will indulge me, Mr. Speaker, thank you to my current committee staff: Darren Dick, Katie Wheelbarger, Sarah Geffroy, Andy Keiser, Bryan Smith, Ashley Lowry, Susan Phalen, Tom Corcoran, Michael Ellis, Chelsey Campbell, Geof Kahn, Brooke Eisele, Randy Smith, Jim Hildebrand, Shannon Stuart, Rachel Wilson, Lisa Major, and Diane Rinaldo.

Thank you as well to staff who have played an influential role in the committee activities during my tenure as chairman in reengaging this as a force for oversight in the Intelligence Committee: Michael Allen, Chris Donesa, Jamil Jaffer, Nathan Hauser, Todd Jones, Frank Garcia, George Pappas, Will Koella, Leah Scott, Fred Fleitz, and Stephanie Pelton.

Finally, a big thank you to our dedicated security and information technology staff, by the way, who have done well to beat back the hordes of our nation state actors who, for some reason, Mr. Speaker, took a good interest in what we were doing in that classified space, and they kept us up and running every single day: Brandon Smith, Kristin Jepson, and Kevin Klein.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle, from Dutch to Heather, and the whole entire team for putting this product together by putting our country first. It is very important.

I challenge every Member to read this material next year when it is announced that you can review the classified annex. Review the classified annex. I think they will have a better perspective at the huge number of challenges facing the United States when it comes to real threats developing around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would again say thanks to all, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here. I don't often come to the well of the House for 2 or 3 minutes, let alone 60 minutes. But today is special, certainly for me, for my family, my extended family, and staff who are here today. This is my chance to really say thank you, and I had a heck of a good ride serving the people of the Eighth District back home, and some thank yous upfront to my wife, Kristi, who is here, who is both my best friend and the love of my life. Thank you for being here.

Boy, this is going to be harder than maybe I imagined. To my family, Erin and John, thanks for weathering the storm for a Member of Congress who is more often gone at times when they should be home. As a matter of fact, I remember I knew I was getting in trouble when my daughter, who was going into the fifth grade, and because I would fly out to Washington from Michigan every week, I had scheduled Mondays as lunch day at her local school for years, and so I got the lecture going into her fifth grade year that I would have to stay within a zone of her when I came to lunch. I was no longer able to sit next to her at the lunchroom tables because that, after all, would be god-awful to have your father at lunch with you in the fifth grade. So I did get to sit across from her for about one more year. And going into sixth grade, by the way, that was pretty much done.

To everybody who had the great privilege to walk these Halls, including the visitors and folks at home, I hope you still have that reverence for this building and for this institution for what it means not just to America but to the world. I know I did every single day that I walked these Halls. This morning when I came in I still got that little tingle about what it meant to be a Member of Congress in this great institution.

I know I felt that with the members of my staff throughout the years. Every chief of staff, every legislative director, every staff director, and every other staff member that I have ever had, fellows and interns, stepped up to the plate and certainly I know helped me become a better Representative for the people of the Eighth District. And all the things that we were able to accomplish--all of them--happened because we had people who cared a little bit more about something bigger than themselves. They cared enough to sacrifice probably better careers with higher pay and shorter hours in the private sector. They chose to come to Washington, DC, or work in the district offices to plow through and represent really average Americans to a big Federal bureaucracy that sometimes seems so intimidating they had nowhere else to go. They were the friends on the other side of those phone calls.

Many of these folks have graciously showed up today: Chris Cox, Matt Strawn, Andy Keiser, Andrew Hawkins, Allan Filip, Heather Strawn, Mike Ward, Diane Rinaldo, Kyle Kizzier--thanks, Kyle, for not killing me on the highway on the way to meet the Turkish newly elected prime minister, I appreciate that a lot--and Michael Allen and Darren Dick.

I think of my first crew that was right in the district office fighting it out: Tony, Penni, Katie, and Stuart, all of those folks who were so committed, again, to getting it right on behalf of the people that they represented. To my campaign team--and by the way, there were so many more people, I could take the whole 60 minutes and thank them all--a campaign team who fought it all, beat every odd, and beat every pundit's prediction that I would never stand and walk these Halls as a Member of Congress: Terri Reid, Val Tillstrom, RJ Johnson, John Nevin, Katherine Van Tiem, Joe Rachinsky, Mike Gula.

I want to thank someone who is special in all of that to me, somebody who has been with me 22 years, from the very high points to the very low points, Anne, I couldn't have done it without you. Thanks for being here today. Wow. I said I wasn't going to do this. I think of all the things that as a staff you were able to accomplish, from cancer care legislation to protect rural patients to medical devices for children, and biodefenses. We even figured out a way to make server farms more efficient without mandates. That was clever.

To all of the constituents that picked up the phone and found a friend at the other end, I think of the time that we all gathered up to help keep a soup kitchen operating through the holidays by getting private donors to step up for people they had never met or organizations they had never heard of to help those folks get fed through the church kitchen.

I think about all of the time we huddled all the staff in because we had one of the great, successful, painful IRS issues where, after years of trying to get this thing straightened out and, certainly, the anxiety and problems that are faced when dealing with a bureaucracy like the IRS, we got to make that phone call.

Not only did they not owe money, the IRS had made a significant mistake, and they were going to get a pretty sizable check back. There wasn't a dry eye in the room when they made that call as the staff together.

From all of the folks that we helped with Social Security or the folks who got their medals that they earned, to see that room filled with individuals who teared up because it was the first time that they heard their loved one tell the story of how they earned those medals fighting for the defense of the United States of America--you know, it is pretty a fantastic thing that I got to be here, so the work that I did on the Intelligence Committee, I have to tell you, was some of the biggest and best privilege that I have had the opportunity to participate in.

Someone asked me at the time: ``Why did you go from being an FBI agent to wanting to serve and go through the political process that we all do?'' I recall a story, as a fairly young agent, we were working a case, trying to locate a young girl who had gone missing from a Western State.

She had come to Chicago. I was on the organized crime squad. We had a tip that would hopefully lead to this girl's return to her parents. They were very concerned. She was young at the time, 15 when she left home.

The long story--the fast forward of that story is we were able to locate this particular young lady. She was operating in a house of ill- repute that was run and really protected by the local police, run by Chicago organized crime.

The proprietors of this particular establishment kept all of the ladies completely hooked on heroin. They would gather them up at the end of the night and take them to a building that they owned and lock them up, feed them heroin, and get them back the next day for their night's work.

When we took this young lady out, she was probably 17 by the time we found, located, and started to disrupt these types of activities. I will never forget--we got her into the car. We had arranged counseling. There was a great agent, a senior agent who was always very valuable to me, a guy named Richard Davis.

As she was coming out, she didn't have a coat, so he expropriated the money I had in my wallet when we had an opportunity to get her a coat, which we did. In the back of the car, she was immensely quiet. She didn't say a word. Again, our goal was to get her to some counseling and try to get her life back on track.

Out of the blue--and it was very quiet in the car, and so it was very cutting when she talked. She turned her head, and in the only words she spoke, she said: ``Do you know why I didn't kill myself? Because I knew somebody cared enough to come find me.''

That certainly made a profound impact on me both as a young FBI agent and the work that I was doing there, but also what I was trying to do here as a Member of Congress. To know that somebody is empowered to ask the hard questions, to go to the tough places, to kick and stir the pot when I believed and the people around me believed that it was important for the security and defense of the country, or saving those rural cancer patients from driving hours and hours, or making sure children had medical devices, or maybe we came up with a bill--and did--for the protection of biodefense in the United States.

One of my greatest privileges was having the ability to stand with the men and women as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with these folks who served all over the world in the intelligence community, the defense community.

I never forgot that story of that young lady and what it meant. I always pledged to myself that if I was ever in a position to be in authority to make that difference, maybe ask that other question, push or probe a little bit more or push a bill, that I would do that.

I think together as staff, family and friends, we have accomplished that. Congratulations to you and all of the work that you have done as well.

As I had that opportunity to stand around the world with some really brave and courageous individuals, both in our military and our intelligence community, I just have two people that I need to point out because I want them to know about the profound impact they had on me now as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and, certainly, their country and the work that I hope I took into as the role of chairman.

To the rock star of the CIA, thank you for standing up for your country in the shadows, for your leadership, for doing, I think, the country's hardest work. You have never complained. You sought no recognition, but in those shadows, you stood up at the right time to push the right policy that I believe has fundamentally made America safe. They never get to know your name, but I know it, and I thank you.

To Karzai's favorite, thanks for having the courage to take me where you weren't supposed to. Thanks for showing me up close and personal the very real challenges that the men and women of the CIA face in very dangerous places around the world.

Those particular early-on visits and counseling sessions set the pace for my understanding of what my role could be, to not only be tough on the Agency when it needed it, but to be supportive when the men and women of the Agency needed it as well. For that, I just want to say thank you, and thank you, again, for having the courage to stand up at the right time.

For any success I have had as chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't thank a good friend of mine, Dutch Ruppersberger. I know, in this town, saying you have a friend who is a Democrat as a Republican can get you thrown out. Oh, that's right, I'm leaving.

Thanks, Dutch, for really sitting down and putting our differences aside and working through tough and difficult issues to make the intelligence community work and work for the United States. It should happen more around here. It should happen every day around here. Sometimes, it does, and it doesn't get noticed, but I want to thank you for that.

We have had our donnybrooks. We have fought. There may even have been some finger-pointing-in-the-chest moments during our time together on the committee, but at the end of the day, we always came to the conclusion that we both mutually agreed was in the best interest of the United States of America and the security of not only our citizens here at home, but the well-being of the men and women who serve in harm's way. So, Dutch, thank you for that.

In all of the travels that I have had the benefit to do and all of the things that I have just reminisced about--and, hopefully, that was the hardest part of my remarks today--something always struck me, that America is the light of the world, still, today. People still hold in reverence something special that happens here.

It was reinforced to me when I was asked to go to the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. That was a few years ago. I thought: I'm not sure. Do I want to go to Belgium and go through all that?

I wasn't quite sure, but they hustled me up. They said, ``Let's do this. We will represent America. This will be a great event.'' So I went to the Battle of the Bulge.

We got tours of the battlefield, and all of that was wonderful, but the day of the parade--so the mayor of Bastogne, a town of 15,000 now, and it was a town of about 10,000 during the war. If you recall your history, that was the town where the 101st occupied that town surrounded by the Germans. It was difficult, tough fighting.

The mayor of Bastogne brought back all of the soldiers who could still walk and march in the parade, and even those who wanted to make the trip, but couldn't, they had a vehicle for them. You wondered: How would they remember this 60 years later? How would they remember what service and sacrifice these young kids who were from all over the country who had never been away from their farms or their retail shops, never been out of their communities, traveled all that way to fight for something so much bigger than themselves?

The town was packed. There must have been 100,000 people there. As the gentlemen marched during that parade, it was the proudest moment I can remember, as they tried to stand straight for those that could. They even carried the American flag. People were screaming and hollering and clapping. They held signs up that said, ``Thank you for saving my grandparents from a concentration camp.'' That was a powerful moment.

That evening, people who were children of Bastogne during the surrounding of Bastogne by the Germans who came up to offer some words at the microphone to these folks who were getting a medal from the mayor, and think about it, these would have very young gals who had grown up, and they were telling stories about these big, giant men who would come down into the basement and offer them their coats and their scarves and what little bit of food they had left, some candy, blankets. They would take off their boots and give them their socks because they had none.

Remember, these were the civilians who were trapped in this town during the ravages of war. They talked about the reverence of a country that would come that far away to stand with them at a time when they thought that their lives mattered very little in the gears of war.

You think about the fact that about $15 billion in the United States has been spent to save a million lives in Africa through our AIDS program that started a few years ago under George Bush--1 million lives saved.

Sixty percent of food aid that goes out, that goes to people who need food security, they can't eat, let alone have a program to take care of them, comes from the United States of America--the farms of the United States of America. The next highest contributor is less than half of that, and that is the EU, combined, for world hunger.

The Marshall Plan right after World War II, many maligned, but we invested a certain amount of money, so we could provide stability across Europe. Back then, it was $12 billion, which was a tremendous amount of money, money we probably didn't have.

Because of that--and we made the investment to keep soldiers there, not to occupy, we wanted nothing, we took nothing. We took no soil. We were invited to stay. It brought peace and stability across Europe in a way that we had never seen before. Think of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of small and large conflicts across Europe from the 12th century on, including the 19th century.

We brought them peace and prosperity in a way that Europe never believed it could do on its own. We did it through commerce, stability, and a commitment to stay. At the end of the day, no other nation in the world could have done that. We pushed back at the ravages of a cold war.

If you think about today, you see those events, and you come back to the United States, and you turn on the TV, and you listen to political dialogue today, you wouldn't think too awful much of the United States of America. You would think that we had become a country who didn't think that we provided much value in the world, we are going the wrong way, don't have much to offer, a nation in decline.

In fact, I had the occasion to have a meeting with a Russian general officer some time back about missile defense and some other things. When the meeting was done--this was a very large general. He was maybe the largest human being I have ever had a meeting with.

He put his arm around me. His hand hit my chest. It was about the size of a big dinner plate. He asked me to go into the library. He wanted to say something to me. As we were walking into the library, I thought: I have seen this movie, I don't think it works out all that well for me.

When we got into the library, he said something that startled me--it shouldn't have, I suppose--but he said: ``It is great to finally see that America is admitting she is a nation in decline. We have been through it. We will give you all of the advice and counsel you can take.''

He didn't come to that conclusion on his own. America--maybe our political rhetoric, maybe our own actions, maybe our own sense of isolationism is the answer for us--helped him come to that conclusion.

A few years after that, seeing the world the way it was--Putin owns 20 percent of the country of Georgia, no intention of leaving; he annexed Crimea, certainly playing games in eastern Ukraine. The world notices when we stop believing in ourselves. I can't think of a better example of that to me in recent times. For all the debate about Afghanistan--should we or shouldn't we? Should we stay? Should we not? I have, certainly, my own definite positions on that.

In 2001, the average age, the average life span of an Afghan citizen was 43 years--43 years. Last year, it was 64 years. Nine percent when we got there--9 percent--had access to any form of health care. Today, 60 percent.

We asked women to come out of the back of their homes and participate in society, because we knew as a country you cannot isolate half of your population and be great at anything; you can't even be good at anything. We asked them and said we will be here, because we knew that was a long-term investment for the state's stability and security of Afghanistan.

When we got there, there were no girls in school, or almost no girls in school. Today, 9 million Afghan girls go to school 5 days a week. Thirty-seven percent of the labor force today are women in Afghanistan. It was about zero when we got there. One-quarter of their parliament is women.

We have these discussions about how hard it is and how difficult it is and maybe we should change direction and, I don't know, maybe that we are not the America that we used to be. And now we talk about just pulling up stakes and going home because it is easier. What a stain on our national character if we walk away from the women we asked to come out and engage oppression and brutality and ignorance because we just didn't think that we believed enough in freedom, democracy, and stability the way we used to.

I had a woman doctor I met there on the very first occasion I went who trained in America. She had been sentenced to the back of her house in Pakistan. She was an orthopedic surgeon. She had not been out of her house in 6 years. When the U.S. forces first got there and she heard the sounds of the guns, she said she took off her burka, she walked about 9 to 10 miles to the children's hospital and volunteered.

I happened to meet her at the children's hospital, a pretty tough place. They didn't have clean sheets. They didn't have antiseptic the way they needed. Remember, this is really early in the process.

I asked her if it bothered her to hear the sounds of the guns in the distance. I will never forget, because she grabbed my jacket that I was wearing and said: Last night, in this particular bed--and, by the way, there were two and three children per bed. They didn't have enough beds. And because they had chased all the nurses away, mothers would come in with their children and would have to stay in the hospital rooms. So think of small rooms, two and three children per bed, plus the mothers who provided some minimal care without the greatest of cleanliness conditions. You can imagine how tough this is.

And she grabbed my lapel and said: Last night, in that bed, I had to amputate the arm and a leg of a 9-year-old boy. I didn't have the right medical devices. I didn't have the right antiseptic. But if it weren't for the United States, he would have no chance at all, and none of the children here would have a chance at all.

So we have to ask ourselves: Are we going to let our politics become so small? We have let our politics become the thing that, if I can make you believe you hate someone else, I could get that someone else's vote.

Is that the America we are going to give to the next generations of Americans? We are going to find the one thing that divides us, or even if it doesn't, we will make it up and let you believe it does. We are going to decide that if you are of this race or of this color, you can't be for that party or this idea. I can't think of anything more small and more petty than that.

I think of the challenges of the world that lie before us, not only just here at home. We have some big problems here at home--$18 trillion in debt. Seventy percent of our budget now goes to entitlement programs, and it is growing. We have a Tax Code that is so convoluted, so ugly, so brutal American companies are leaving or, worse yet, they are not even starting. Social security is in financial trouble; Medicare, financial trouble.

China is now pushing out, being very aggressive in the South China Sea. It has invested 13 percent per year since 1989, 13 percent into defense and modernization of its military. Russia, you saw what they are doing. ISIS, you have seen what they are doing. They are now holding land the size of Indiana.

So many Americans don't want to be bothered with the world the way they see it. They think, if we just leave it alone and deal with some of the small and petty things that not only get debated here but get debated in State capitols and county conventions, that the world will be just all right, we will be fine. We will make our politics so entertaining it doesn't matter if we accomplish anything noteworthy. I worry about that.

Are we going to be that generation that walks away from the notion of individual freedom and personal responsibility? Are we going to be that first generation that says, you know, we rejected the idea of a big government? Is a big government big enough to give you everything that you need? Is a government big enough to take everything that you have?

This is really the only place in the world where you can start sweeping the floor, maybe not even speaking English, become the supervisor, go to school, learn a trade, become a manager, maybe own the place through your own hard work. You don't have to have a title. You don't have to know someone. You just have to be willing to try.

Are we really going to be the first generation that says that all was just too hard? Our engagement in the world was just too hard? The Marshall Plan, sending our young men and women to fight for something bigger than themselves to push back Nazi Germany, fascism, or imperialism in the East, just too hard?

There is a great story about a little town called North Platte, Nebraska, that when they had the opportunity--and remember, they were under government rationing, so they were rationing eggs and rubber and tires.

By the way, we have been in conflict for 10 years and nobody has been rationed one thing. You still get your tires and your eggs and your cheese. You can get anything you want. No show has been interrupted.

But in North Platte, Nebraska, during World War II, trains would go back and forth taking soldiers to the eastern conflict and to Europe. And that little town came together, farmers from that whole region, donated all the materials

that they had--eggs and cheese and flour and their time. They met every single troop train that came through North Platte, Nebraska. They, on their own, fed 6 million meals to young soldiers and marines and airmen, sailors whom they had never met. But they believed that was their contribution and something bigger than themselves to keep America who we were.

By the way, there was no government program. Nobody told them to do it. As a matter of fact, government made it a little harder than it should have been for them to do it on their own.

This is a funny place, America. You can start out without title, without privilege. You can be the House intelligence chairman because you care enough to get involved, work hard enough. You can start out as a traveler all over the world and do different things, become President of the United States, without title, without privilege. You can start an idea in a garage, work your heart out, be smarter than the guy next to you, become one of the richest men in the country, maybe the world. You can still start a chain. You can work two jobs. You can get an education if you want to get an education.

If you turn on the TV today, would you know that we are still the last best hope in the world? I am not sure I would. I certainly see all the things that separate us, all the things that divide us, all the problems that we want to make--sometimes even though they are intimately personal and real--bigger than they are. When we do that, the world watches. The world is starting to believe that we don't believe.

I had an occasion to meet an intelligence official from a foreign country whom I befriended. And, again, after one of those long kind of meetings that we had overseas, we were walking out to the car and he said: Congressman, do me a favor. Tell your countrymen don't give up on themselves. Who will help such a small country like us and take nothing for it--the Russians? The Chinese? It can only be you, the United States of America.

We have so much to be thankful for in this country, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the quality of the debate, by the size of our ideas, by the confidence in our future.

There is a study recently that Chinese citizens believe that corporations and business lead to success and are a part of the answer at an 84 percent rate. In the United States, it was 39 percent. We have a whole generation of Americans who just turned their back on the one driver that has led the one nation to take care of more people and do so much good and ask for nothing in return, because we spend far too much time talking about how bad we are and not how good we are or how good we can become.

You think of the debates not only in this Chamber but the Chamber aft, where they talked about a country that was ripping itself apart in a Civil War. 500,000 Americans gave their lives, again, for something bigger than themselves. And do you know what? At the end of the day, we were better for it. We became a better country.

Every time we reached one of those points in our history where we struggle, we get through it because we believe in something bigger than ourselves and we believe that tomorrow is going to be better than today and, yes, we believe that our best days are still head of us.

I hope we don't decide that these problems are just too big to handle anymore. I don't care if it is our domestic problem at home or our call to stand up for that last beacon of human dignity and invest in our military, not because we fight, but because we want to avoid a fight. Sometimes by showing up, you can help your neighbor and your friend by just standing there.

I have never met a diplomat yet that really likes the military engagement, and I have never met a diplomat yet that doesn't want the 101st Airborne over one shoulder and the 7th Fleet over the other. It is always the quicker way to ``yes.''

We have been given a gift. As we debate--and this Chamber will debate--in the months and years ahead, they will talk about what role we should play, about what big problems we should solve, about what encouragement we should provide to average Americans to stand up for both their right and their responsibility as citizens of the United States. Will we take it? Will we be the ones that click the light and let it go dark for that last shining city on the hill? I don't believe we will. I believe, as Winston Churchill noted, that America will always do the right thing after trying everything else.

We are in that process of trying everything else. But when you have had the great privilege, like I have, to meet these people all over the world, the people that work here--and it may be Peggy who keeps this place running, or Doris and Pat who keep the cloakroom functioning, or Capitol Police, or our clerks, or the people who process things, or our staff who answer the phone calls--they still believe.

You can go home and see people struggling to keep their businesses open. They still believe. You can look at the eyes of any fourth grader, fifth grader, or sixth grader--not necessarily a seventh grader because they think they have all the answers by that point--and know that they believe there is something special waiting for them. That something special they may not be able to quantify, but we all know it. It is the United States of America, the last greatest force for good.

I know it by visiting those men and women in the intelligence business who are working their hearts out and, by the way, deserve our full devotion of support for the very difficult work that they do, and the young men and women in our military, or the young folks in the following story.

I had the great privilege to travel downrange. When I showed up, someone asked me if I would mind promoting one of the soldiers who happened to be there from a sergeant E-5 to a sergeant E-6. It was in a very remote place in the world. They had to culturally dress in the garb of the locals. They weren't in their uniforms.

When I got there, the sergeant going through this decided that he wanted to be promoted in uniform. So we had to go to a small room that was tucked away. He put his uniform on. The windows were darkened out. There were a lot of folks and some small gear. Some of the folks were pretty big. We had one little 3\1/2\ by 5 flag. Two of the gentlemen were fighting to see who got to hold it behind him as I posted the orders for promotion. These were pretty big dudes. I wasn't going to get in the middle of that.

They finally worked it out and decided that one would hold one corner and the other would hold the other corner. They would stand behind him. So I cracked the chem light to read the orders. There were probably eight of us jammed in this little room with gear, windows darkened, and we were doing everything in hushed tones. Somebody began to whisper ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' I am pretty sure we were off key. I am pretty sure we even missed a verse. But I can tell you it was the most beautiful thing I have ever heard in my life.

These fine Americans who had been away from their families for about 15 months still believed in something bigger than themselves. They knew that their mission was as important as being home with their child at a baseball game, not because that is not where they wanted to be, but this is where their country needed them to be.

They are still there. We ought to be there with them. We ought to find that opportunity to stand and, in hushed tones, show courage and commitment to the United States. We ought to snap this trend of small and petty politics and stand up for one of the greatest nations on the face of the Earth. We ought to have big ideas to solve big problems and not let the small ideas be choked out. Let us find the better part of our angels in us to do something pretty amazing and pretty incredible as we move forward.

I believe in this Chamber and in this institution. I know it will happen. I know the people that I have had the privilege to serve with know it will happen. And I know that there are many ways for all of us to contribute. I certainly plan to be one of those. I hope you all decide that you will be one of those, too. Because I walk out that door in a few months no longer a Member of Congress, I will have an even more revered title in the world: citizen of the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, the United States of America.

God bless you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1681) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, S. 1681.

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

All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, Dutch Ruppersberger, for the great work done by him and the entire Democrat caucus of the committee as well as all of my Republican members for what is a good bipartisan national security bill.

I also want to thank Senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss for their work in the Senate to put a bill together that I think America will and should be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act is an annual blueprint for the work of the intelligence community. The bill sets the priorities for our critical intelligence efforts. Passing a yearly intelligence authorization bill is the primary method by which Congress exerts its budgetary and oversight authority over the intelligence community.

As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of this committee's recommendations are found in the classified annex to the bill, which is the same fiscal year '14 annex the House recently passed as part of a combined fiscal year '14 and fiscal year '15 intelligence authorization bill.

At an unclassified level, I can report that the annex for fiscal year 2014 authorizes funding that is slightly below the President's budget request level. Its funding levels are in line with the levels appropriated by the enacted appropriation act for the National Intelligence Program and the National Defense Authorization Act for the Military Intelligence Program.

The House recently passed its version of the fiscal year '14 bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The bill contained many of the same provisions in the same form as are contained in the Senate bill, S. 1681. And S. 1681 also contains a few additional provisions that were negotiated with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at a very interesting time in history. Al Qaeda has metastasized into dangerous affiliates, and safe havens have emerged in Syria, parts of Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is attempting to build a state across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq, including Syria, Jordan, and, unfortunately, Israel as well.

They already control a jihadist Disneyland the size of Indiana. Without leadership from the United States, this will quickly devolve into a full-blown sectarian war, which only helps ISIL's political ambitions.

ISIL does not recognize a border between Syria and Iraq, and we have to remain focused on ISIL across the region so that a safe haven does not emerge on either side of that border.

The goal of our counterterrorism strategy is to deny safe haven from which terrorists can plan attacks against the United States--they can finance; they get breathing space; they can further radicalize individuals from around the world.

Al Qaeda is also regaining a foothold in northeast Afghanistan, just as the President announced a complete withdrawal of United States military forces, and the counterterrorism capability that comes with it, by the end of 2016. We are about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan that we did in Iraq.

Uneven leadership in recent years has also emboldened adversaries like Russia and China, who are increasing their military and intelligence spending and are working to change the international order, to the detriment of the United States and our interests.

We rightly demand that our intelligence agencies provide policymakers with the best and most timely information possible on the threats we face. We ask them to track terrorists wherever they train, plan, and fund-raise. We ask them to stop devastating cyber attacks that steal American jobs. We ask them to track nuclear and missile threats. And we demand that they get it right every day of the year.

The dedicated men and women of the intelligence community are some of the finest patriots I have had the privilege to meet. And within budget constraints and the often unclear policy guidance from the White House, this bill seeks to ensure that they have the resources and the authorities necessary to keep our Nation safe.

I urge the passage of S. 1681 and reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman for joining us on the committee. It is sometimes long hours and thankless work, and I am fairly confident our IQ on the committee has doubled since she has arrived on the committee.

Penetrating questions, robust debate, curiosity that has no bounds, and her travel around the world has been critically important to the work we do on the committee, and the work that she has done on the committee has been exceptional in adding to the product that you see before us today.

I think that is one of the reasons it is such a good bill. I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her work on the 2014 fiscal bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my ranking member, and I want to thank all the staff--Republican and Democrat staff. These bills don't come together for the fond wishes of us Members alone.

We have very dedicated and committed staff who sit down and work through the issues, just the way the Members do, and we wouldn't have this product today if it weren't for that collaboration, and I want to thank all of them for that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dutch on a personal note. There is a lot to not like in this town, and there is a lot to not like in this place, but it shows you--and I think it shows Americans--that when you sit down and have mutual respect for each other, even though we disagreed on certain issues, you can come to a conclusion that is in the best interest of the United States.

Through forging that relationship, I think we forged a lasting friendship that I will always be grateful for, so I want to thank you for that.

Thank you for your work on national security, and thanks to all the staff who brought us here today. We have a lot more work to do, so we can't be too nice to them.

We are going to have to get a lot of pounds of flesh between now and the end of the year, to get a lot of work done.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask and encourage this body to support a bill that will provide national security safety for the United States for the following years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4681.

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

The Intelligence Authorization Act is the annual blueprint for the work of the intelligence community and America's military intelligence efforts. The bill sets the priorities for our critical intelligence efforts and the legal framework of guidance and oversight for those efforts.

Since the ranking member and I have assumed the leadership of this committee, we passed three intelligence authorization bills in a bipartisan fashion and hope to continue the tradition and trend with H.R. 4681. Passing a yearly intelligence authorization bill is the primary method by which Congress exerts its budgetary and oversight authority over the intelligence community.

As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of this committee's recommendations each year are found in the classified annex to the bill which have been available for Members to review. Among other initiatives, the bill increases funding to address insider threats and improve personnel security programs.

At an unclassified level, I can report that the annex for fiscal year 2014 authorizes funding that is slightly below the President's budget request level. Its funding levels are in line with the levels appropriated by the enacted appropriations act for the National Intelligence Program and with the National Defense Authorization Act for the Military Intelligence Program.

For fiscal year 2015, the bill increases the President's budget request by less than 1 percent and stays within the Bipartisan Budget Act funding caps. The modest increase reflects the committee's concern that the President's request does not properly fund a number of important initiatives and leaves several unacceptable shortfalls.

The legislative provisions that the committee and Congress consider each year are comprised of changes to statute that better enable the community to conduct its important mission and strengthen oversight mechanisms where needed.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a very interesting time in history. Al Qaeda has metastasized into dangerous affiliates, safe havens have emerged in Syria, parts of Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Al Qaeda is also regaining a foothold in northeast Afghanistan just as the President announced a complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces and the counterterrorism capability that comes with it by the end of 2016.

Uneven leadership in recent years has emboldened adversaries like Russia and China, who are increasing their military and intelligence spending and working to change the international order, as we speak, to the detriment of U.S. interests. Russia occupies 20 percent of the nation of Georgia, invaded and occupied Crimea, threatens invasion of eastern Ukraine. China is bullying its neighbors and expanding claims in the South and East China Seas through which 40 percent of world trade travels.

At the same time, North Korea continues its belligerent behavior, and Iran is maneuvering to preserve its capability to develop a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would threaten Israel with annihilation and send the Middle East into a dangerous nuclear arms race.

We rightly demand that our intelligence agencies provide policymakers with the best and most timely information possible on all these and other threats. We ask them to track terrorists wherever they train, plan, fundraise. We ask them to stop devastating cyber attacks that are stealing American prosperity and American jobs. We ask them to track nuclear and missile threats. And we demand that they get it right every time. Now we are asking them do it with fewer resources and with what can be described as confusing direction from our Commander in Chief.

The dedication of men and women of the intelligence community who volunteer to serve in some of the most difficult places on Earth are some of the finest patriots I have ever had the privilege to meet. And within budget constraints and unclear policy guidance from the White House, this bill ensures that they have resources and authorities necessary to keep our Nation and our people safe and accomplish their mission.

As this is the last authorization act I will advance as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I want to publicly thank my ranking member, my friend, Dutch Ruppersberger. I can't tell what you a privilege it has been to have a partner like Dutch in working through some very difficult issues at a very difficult time in our Nation's history.

National security policy should not be partisan, and we have done everything in our power to ensure that this committee at least takes as nonpartisan a view of national security as is humanly possible. It is an honor to work with someone who is also interested in governing and in making progress on an issue so important to our Nation's future.

I would like to thank the Chair and urge Member support of H.R. 4681, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her strong and passionate position that she takes on some of the counterterrorism strategy issues that are very well debated and certainly well discussed and well overseen in the spaces where appropriate and under the appropriate form and function to do that because they are significant. There is no aspect of that counterterrorism strategy that isn't reviewed both in policy leading up to the daily and monthly counterstrategy meetings that happen in the appropriate agencies and departments and as a part of regular oversight of these particular programs.

But I do think it is important to understand something: that all of the focus seems to be on the type of a weapon system that we have used or decided to use or may be using to fight what is a large and growing threat to the United States of America.

I think it was interesting that in the Boko Haram case of the 300 girls, it caught the world's attention, that you could have a group that would be so diabolical that they would kidnap 300 girls and sell them into slavery or force them into marriage and do other unspeakable things. Yes, that is right, that is who these groups are. This is the same group that has threatened the United States of America with terrorist attacks. It is an al Qaeda affiliate. We have watched them cut off the heads of other human beings for the purposes of intimidation, we have watched them cut off hands, we have watched them shoot little girls who get on buses to try to go and get an education.

We need to understand what threat faces the United States of America. Because our intelligence services have been so good and so aggressive, we haven't had an attack here in the same 9/11 fashion--and some of that, by the way, was just sheer luck preparing for the opportunity to catch them.

We need to step back and make sure we are understanding what we are trying to accomplish here and how we try to accomplish it. I think disparaging the very men and women who I know

spent hours and months and years in preparation for any counterterrorism strategy that we engage in, and do it in a way that is so responsible--I think Americans would be so proud if they had the opportunity to sit down and talk with these people about how they get to where they are.

But I will tell you, aspects of that counterterrorism strategy--some have been referenced--are the most impactful, disruptive activity we have been able to do to stop attacks against the United States and our allies overseas.

So I just again caution in this vacuum of safety and relative security that so many have given us, we should be cautious about what we are asking changes to do--and what that would mean for exposure of, say, U.S. pilots or U.S. Special Forces--that we have not had to do for some length of time and still accomplish the mission. By the way, I can clearly say that any reference to some mass civilian casualties or collateral damage is absolutely false, it is false, it is a false narrative for those who seek to stop an effort that we know, in fact, is degrading the ability for attacks against the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the ranking member for his work.

Let the American public understand what happens. There are so many aspersions thrown at the members who serve on the Intelligence and on other committees who must do their work in secret, and certainly, the staff fights through and works through all of these difficult issues.

There is plenty of oversight happening. It might not be on the front page of the newspaper. We call that ``disaster day'' in the business of trying to protect American secrets.

When the ranking member and I first took over the committee, we reinstituted all of the regular oversight patterns: counterintelligence matters, covert action matters, regular counterterrorism strategy updates, and reviews.

Again, every piece of that strategy that is implemented is reviewed by the committee, and it is certainly read and reviewed by me, personally, and, I know, by others on the committee as well.

There is a tremendous amount of effort and energy applied to trying to get this right, to making sure that two things happen--one, that they are comporting with the law. They want to do that despite what you might read in the newspaper. They want to do that.

They, too, have taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America, and they believe that following the law is the right way to do it. They want Congress' support for what they are doing, and they want the American people's support for what they are doing-- because it is so difficult and so hard to come to the right conclusions in a very murky and dangerous world--so that oversight does happen. It happens regularly.

I want to thank all of the members of both parties for rigorous debate behind those closed doors. There is no lovefest when those doors close and a ``let's just do what we have to do to get to tomorrow.''

The debates are real and vigorous, and we have different philosophies on how we move forward on some of these intelligence matters and collection matters and on how we balance privacy and civil liberties and security. All of that happens.

Sometimes, we find members who just don't agree, but what we do in that space is understand and try to get and make sure that we have all of the resources and all of the policies and all of the authorities our intelligence services need to be impactful to save the

United States and to, yes, maybe even save 300 girls or to, yes, maybe even allow for girls in a place like Afghanistan to get an education. That part needs to be right, too.

Nuclear proliferation--we have a cyber world that is the single largest national security threat to this country that we are not prepared to handle, and there are a lot of sidebar discussions that have nothing to do with the fact that nation-states are stealing our intellectual property--nation-states like China.

You have, according to public reports, countries like Iran that are probing financial institutions right here in the United States and are trying to do destructive attacks.

According to public reports, North Korea even attacked a bank in South Korea some months ago. You see China rising up in its influence in the South and East China Seas. You see potential conflict between Vietnam, Japan, and China.

These are serious, serious matters. Because they are so far away, I think sometimes we forget, and we come to talk about things that are important--in how we move forward in the intelligence business and how we empower them to do the work of the United States.

At the same time, this recent year of, I think, aspersion to the men and women who serve in these capacities is disheartening. This isn't a new thing. George Washington used the intelligence business to try to win the war against the British.

Ben Franklin is credited with the first covert action programs by trying to influence British and Tory opinion during the first years of the war. John Jay created the first counterintelligence unit to try to fight back against what the British were doing in spying against the Americans.

Jefferson and Madison had secret funds that they took, by the way, which we would no longer approve or support today--secret funds--in order to do covert action-type activities in the earliest days of the founding of our Nation.

We need to stop for a minute and think about what is at stake. I think the future and safety and security of the United States is at stake, and we have somehow, over the last year, decided that our intelligence services are the problem.

No. I have bad news. Actually, I have good news: they are part of the solution. If you don't want troops engaged in many countries, then you want to support your intelligence services, and you want them to be the best in the world.

If you don't want to have to engage in the withdrawal of certain diplomatic and economic and trade arrangements around the world, then you want the best intelligence services that you can possibly get. Here is the good news: we have them. We just need to stand behind them.

When they come home from doing hard things, when they lose their colleagues--and they do--they are not looking for a ticker tape parade in New York City. They know that is not going to happen.

What they do want to understand is that, when they turn around, the American population and the American citizens are standing with them. Even though Americans can't give them the ``attaboy,'' we can. Those of us who do this work, we can.

So I will tell them, on this floor today, on behalf of a grateful Nation, thank you for your service. Stop reading the newspaper. Keep doing your job. It will mean the difference of lives saved around the world.

We have so many challenges, and I only say this--and I wasn't planning to say this, Mr. Chairman--that someone came on this floor and said: I don't mind the intelligence people, but I don't like their culture.

These are people who are willing to risk their lives for that flag that stands in the well of this House. They were willing to give their lives for the Constitution they stuck up their hand to support.

Is that the culture we don't like and appreciate anymore in America?

There have been some bumps in the road, but we ought to applaud these people. We ought to sing their praises. We ought to thank them every single day that they are away from their families, in dangerous places, and risking their lives to collect that one piece of information that maybe saves the girls of Boko Haram or maybe saves the girls who get on their bus today in the United States of America.

I hope we shake ourselves out of this notion that we can just continue to beat them and disparage them and call them everything but great patriots and expect them to get up every day and do the job that they need to do to protect this country.

This bill, I think, actually does that. We give them clear guidance. We invest in technology that we need to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries around the world who, by the way, are trying to beat us and take advantage of us--places like space, places like cyber, places like HUMINT intelligence, and what they believe is a perceived weakness to deal with a rising tide of terrorists who want to kill Americans here at home.

This is an important bill because it is bipartisan. A lot of these issues that are talked about have been fought in the bowels of this House, basically. And we worked through it and we have come to an agreement that this is the right direction, in a bipartisan way, that will serve to protect the United States.

So, Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to strongly support this bill. Give them the tools, give Congress the oversight, and give America the ability to sleep well at night, knowing that very brave men and women will do the work that so many would not be interested in doing.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 604, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. I believe these amendments to be noncontroversial, and intended to enhance the underlying bill.

The manager's amendment is intended to make minor technical modifications to clarify two provisions that were added in markup.

I have an amendment that would require employees at senior level in the intelligence community to endure a ``cooling off'' period before being employed by a company that is owned or controlled by a foreign government that poses a high counterintelligence threat. It would also make them subject to reporting procedures.

This amendment stems from my concern that some senior level employees in the intelligence community retire or otherwise separate from the U.S. Government and take employment with foreign companies or foreign- controlled companies after holding positions where they likely learned very sensitive information that would be of value to those particular companies or governments.

It is not intended to be punitive prohibition on post-intelligence community employment but rather to establish a procedure to establish that sufficient time has lapsed to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety.

Mr. Carney has an amendment that would provide the Congress with a useful report on ways to improve the declassification process across the intelligence community. The intelligence community has declassified a massive amount of documents. Increased transparency through an improved declassification process will help rebuild the confidence of the American people in their intelligence agencies.

Mr. Connolly has an amendment that will add several best practices to the assessment our bill requires for intelligence community software licenses. This amendment is all the more important in light of current efforts to improve intelligence community information technology systems. Wise management of software licenses can help save the taxpayers' dollars while making sure our intelligence officers have the tools they need to do their job.

Ms. Jackson Lee has an amendment that will help us identify ways to improve the support contractors offer to the intelligence community. It may help us find ways to make the most of scarce resources, all the while ensuring that contractors do not perform inherently governmental functions.

Mr. Keating has an amendment concerning intelligence sharing between

Federal, State, and local entities, which has been a critical tool to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Joint terrorism task forces pool talent, skills, and knowledge from across the law enforcement and intelligence communities into a single entity that can respond with the flexibility and speed to stop impending threats.

Even so, we must always look for ways to improve intelligence-sharing relationships. This amendment requires a study of the efficacy of the memoranda of understanding signed between Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies. The study will help identify any obstacles to intelligence sharing between agencies and find improvements to existing intelligence-sharing relationships.

Ms. Kelly has an amendment to expand a grant program by the Director of National Intelligence to include predominantly black institutions. To succeed in their mission, the intelligence agencies need our Nation's top talent, and that means they must make full use of our Nation's diverse population.

These grants will help provide study programs in foreign languages such as Farsi, Pashto, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African dialects. Foreign language skills are critical for intelligence officers, as we all know.

Mr. Kilmer has an amendment that will require the intelligence community Chief Information Officer to make recommendations to the Director of National Intelligence based on the software licensing assessment required by section 307 of the bill. It will also require the DNI to issue guidelines to implement those recommendations. These recommendations and guidelines will help the IC implement the results of the important assessment that this bill will require regarding software licensing.

I will, therefore, support the amendment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to its veterans and to the retired members of the intelligence community. We should look for as many ways as possible to help them succeed in the job market. And I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment for promoting this. The amendment does, again, highlight the sheer level of threat we face from cyber crime, cyber terrorists, cyber espionage. We are being overwhelmed.

When you look at China, Russia, Iran, and now organized crime groups who are approaching nation-state capability, it is as bad as I have ever seen it. And, again, 85 percent of the networks across America are not protected by the government because they are private sector networks. The government, itself, is about 15 percent of those networks.

We need to find a pathway, A, to attract the talent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego) is talking about; and, B, we need to allow these private sector folks to protect themselves by gaining information, sharing information the government has that could protect those networks from cyber catastrophe.

It is happening each and every day. The next generation of cyber warriors are there. And I think this amendment will go a long way to recruit the right talent in the right place to help us meet this growing threat of the future prosperity, safety, and the security of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his interest. This is exciting news.

The bill is not crafted correctly, and it opens us up to exposing classified information to corporations that may be foreign-owned and operated by the very counterintelligence threat we seek to push back on. But thank you for this effort.

We should reject this. We should include resounding support for the CISPA bill that carefully drafted language to make sure that there is a cyber-sharing relationship, both between the government when it comes to malicious code and the private sector who, remember, is all by itself out there getting attacked by nation-states and large organized criminal groups trying to steal their information.

If you think about even the last month or so that General Alexander was the Director of the National Security Agency, just in that last bit of time he was there, the military sites, the government sites were hit 41 million times by people trying to cause destruction or break in and steal something. Again, this is as serious a problem as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we are not prepared to handle.

So that CISPA bill that I think you tried to get here--I mean, part of this bill is the redundancy department of redundancy. The second part is just not drafted correctly, and we would love to help you get to the right place.

This bill, I think, causes a little more harm than I think you realized without carefully considering how you construct a cyber- sharing malicious code relationship between the government and the private sector. It needs to happen. This way, it just exposes, again, the information to counterintelligence groups that we don't want to have it.

So I would strongly urge the rejection of the motion to recommit. But I want to thank the gentleman. I look forward to working in the next few months with the gentleman to make sure that we put in place a fighting chance, a fighting chance for the 85 percent of those private sector networks that are getting absolutely ravaged every single day by cyber attackers, by people who are trying to disrupt activities.

There are public reports that Iran is probing our financial institutions. Think about the idea if they were able or successful to go in and take down a financial institution that has trillions

of dollars every single day in global transactions, destroy data, manipulate data, and you don't know who owes whom what. Imagine the economic catastrophe that happens.

Well, guess what? This is not Orwellian. It is not next year, it is not 6 months from now, and it is not 10 years from now. It is happening today, and every nation on the face of the Earth is trying to get this capability--including al Qaeda. They are advertising to try to find the right people to develop a capability for a cyberattack to disrupt, to destroy, and to cause chaos.

This is as important an issue as I can think of, Mr. Speaker, that I hope we find some resolution on. Again, I have to strongly oppose this motion to recommit for the drafting errors I find in the bill. But I look forward to working with the gentleman on the CISPA bill that is in the Senate and passed by this House in a huge bipartisan way so that we can bring relief and security to the future prosperity of the United States of America.

With that, I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4681, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, June 2, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the other Judiciary Committee sponsors, and Leader Cantor for all of their hard work coming to a compromise with the Intelligence Committee that enacts meaningful change to FISA while preserving operational capabilities.

It is commendable that we have found a responsible legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so that we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the actions of traitors who leak classified information that puts our troops in the field at risk or those who fear-monger and spread mistruth to further their own misguided agenda.

Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last June, the Section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense, and often inaccurate, criticism. The bulk telephone metadata program is legal, overseen, and effective at saving American lives. All three branches of government oversee this program, including Congress, inspectors general, and internal compliance and privacy and civil liberties offices in executive branch agencies.

Despite the effectiveness of the program, and the immense safeguards on the data, many Americans and many Members of this body still have concerns about a potential for abuse. The legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflects hundreds of hours of Member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise.

In March, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Ruppersberger and I introduced legislation that was designed to accomplish these main priorities: We committed to ending bulk metadata collection of communications and other types of records. We committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put America at risk. We committed to providing an even more robust judicial review process for the program. And we committed to providing more transparency into the FISA process and the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The revised USA Freedom Act accomplishes the same goals, as well.

This legislation is intended to prohibit ``bulk'' collection activities under the authorities in question. ``Bulk'' collection means the indiscriminate acquisition of information or tangible things. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communications records or other tangible things. Rather, the prohibition applies to the use of these authorities to engage in indiscriminate or ``bulk'' data collection. These changes are intended to respond to concerns that these authorities could be used to permit a bulk data collection ``loophole.''

The bill bans bulk collection by introducing the requirement for a ``specific selection term.'' The ban on bulk collection, however, is not intended to limit acquisition of information through the traditional, targeted types of FISA or National Security Letters. The list of examples of what may constitute a specific selection term is non exhaustive, and we anticipate there will be other forms of discriminants than those contained in the legislation.

The legislation also creates a new mechanism for obtaining call detail records on a continuing basis for up to 180 days to protect against international terrorism. The legislation is not intended to affect any current uses of Section 501 outside of the bulk context, including for records related to foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person and clandestine intelligence activities.

We also assured that the language we are considering today permits a return of two hops to include using records identified by the government as the basis for the second hop. Additionally, it is important that when records are produced to the government they are produced in a form that will be useful--meaning that the government can set conditions on their production, including by determining the format and manner for production. This does not, however, mandate that companies change their business practices to store data in any particular form.

The USA Freedom Act provides the meaningful change to the telephone metadata program that Members of the House have been seeking. If we had the fortune of having a Commander in Chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program as is, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. With that not being the case, I believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world.

I urge Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate Michigan's United States Military Academy class of 2014 for completing the demanding requirements of West Point. They will soon receive their commission as 2nd Lieutenants in the U.S. Army and go on to serve our great nation, protecting American national security interests throughout the world. Their commitment to the Army and this country is admirable.

As a former officer in the United States Army, I commend them on this outstanding accomplishment. I take great pride in seeing Americans, young men and women like them, choose such a demanding, honorable path.

I wish them nothing but continued success and congratulate them again on achieving such a momentous accomplishment.

List of Cadets Graduating From the U.S. Military Academy at West Point

on May 28, 2014

Andrew E. Carlson, Troy; Andrew R. Fanko, Perry; Andrew J.

Lee, Novi; April C. Emerson, Stanwood; Benjamin M. Miller,

Clinton Twp.; Benjamin E. Schiff, Lakeville; Brenden A.

Plancon, Charlevoix; Cabot M. Howell, Birmingham; Calla E.

Glavin, Birmingham; Devon J. Compeau, Oakland; Garrett T.

Kastl, Hope; Ian M. Brambs, Farmington Hills; Jacob T.

Gleason, Warren; James M. DiMilia, Northville.

John G. Buckle, Northville; Justin W. Haggerty, Belleville;

Kyle A. Maxwell, Romeo; Matthew J. Hoff, Portage; Matthew A.

Thompson, Ann Arbor; Paul P. Hancock IV, Dearborn; Peter T.

Noreen, Cedar Springs; Quetzalcoatl S. Carrassco, Ypsilanti;

Ricardo J. Galindo,, Farmington Hills; Rita I. Snyder,

Rockford; Thomas A. White, Ann Arbor; Emily N. Clemons,

Grosse Ile; Joshua P. Herbeck, Ann Arbor; Charles M. Kelly,

Birmingham; Morgan K. White, Monroe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate TRW Automotive's Fowlerville, Michigan facility on earning Quality magazine's ``Plant of the Year in North America'' award for quality, safety and continuous

improvement. Employing more than 200 people, the Fowlerville plant manufactures slip control braking systems. The plant, like all of TRW's, can be recognized for its use of a visual management system that uses a color coded process to track production for safety and quality.

TRW had sales of $17 billion last year, and supplies dozens of major car manufacturers with safety and component parts. It has more than 65,000 employees globally. The Fowlerville plant, together with its neighboring plant in Fenton, contributed roughly $360 million in annual sales in 2012. The two plants share a management team, as well as best practices.

With dedicated effort to quality, Michigan manufacturers continue to prove ``Made in U.S.A.'' is not a thing of the past. I am proud of TRW's Fowlerville plant and I am proud of Michigan's manufacturing tradition.

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

I would like to begin by recognizing Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the other judiciary committee sponsors, and Leader Cantor for all their hard work and continuing to forge a compromise with the Intelligence Committee that enacts meaningful change to FISA while preserving operational capabilities.

It is commendable that we have found a responsible legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so that we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the actions of a traitor or traitors who leaked classified information that puts our troops in the field at risk or those who fearmonger and spread mistruth and misinformation to further their own misguided agenda.

Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last June, the section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense and often inaccurate criticism. The bulk telephone metadata program is legal, overseen, and effective at saving American lives. No review has found anything other than that. All three branches of government oversee this program, including Congress, the FISC, inspectors general and internal compliance and privacy and civil liberties offices in the executive branch agencies.

Despite the effectiveness of the program and immense safeguards on the data, many Americans and many Members of this body still have concerns about a potential for abuse. Remember, the whole debate here has been about the potential for abuse, not that abuse had occurred. The legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflect hundreds of hours of Member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise.

In March, the Intelligence Committee ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger, and I introduced legislation that was designed to accomplish these main priorities. We committed to ending bulk metadata collection for communications and other types of records. We committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put America at risk. We committed to provide an even more robust judicial review than exists today and process for that program. We committed to providing more transparency into the FISA process and the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The revised USA FREEDOM Act accomplishes the same goals as well.

The USA FREEDOM Act provides the meaningful change to the telephone metadata that Members of the House have been seeking. If we had the fortune of having a Commander in Chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. With that not being the case, and I believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world, I urge Members to support this legislation.

I want to thank all of those who came together to forge something that has been certainly a difficult process along the way. At the end of the day, something important happened here: a better understanding of the threats by, I think, more Members of Congress that pose every single day to the lives of American citizens by terror groups around the world. That rise in threat level is getting worse. The matrix for that threat level is getting worse.

It was important as we forged and, I think, met the concerns of so many and educated, I think, many on the misinformation that was out there, that we protect the core capability to detect if a foreign terrorist on foreign

soil is making a call to the United States to further advance their goals of killing Americans. I think we accomplished that today. It is not the bill I would have written completely, but I think we protected those operational concerns and met the concerns for those who had a mistrust of that metadata being locked away with the National Security Agency.

With that, I look forward to a thoughtful debate and reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who has been incredibly important, not only on forming this piece of legislation to find the right balance, but his work across North Africa on Boko Haram before it was even popular in bringing attention and resources to important intelligence problems around the world in difficult places, a good friend, a great Member, and a great patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for his diligent work on this issue since last summer. Mr. Reed's work, along with that of Mr. Stutzman from Indiana, was critical to ensuring that we struck the right balance on this legislation. We would not have been able to find that sweet spot that got us to such a strong bipartisan agreement without input from these and other Members interested in finding a solution. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his interest, his time, and his effort to help be a part of the forging of this important piece of legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly thank Mr. Langevin, who has done not only incredible work on this particular bill, but his work on cybersecurity should make Americans proud of his effort to move that ball down the field. Without his expertise on these matters, the United States would be a little worse off when it comes to national security. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and his work on cyber and other national security issues.

I continue I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

In the comity of the moment, with all the love extended and the group hugs and the high fives, I think it is important to America to understand how much effort--how proud I think they should be about the intensity of the debate and discussion over what this bill looks like because I believe everybody involved in this cares about civil liberties and privacy; they do, wherever you fall on it. And I do believe that everybody who is involved in this cares about our national security.

This debate--this fierce, intense debate--that happened off of this floor in committees, in negotiations over every word and every paragraph and every period, resulted in the bill that you see before us today that did get bipartisan support and buy-in for a very critical issue: at the end of the day, the national security of the United States and the public's trust in the intelligence agencies, which have the responsibility each and every day, in some very dangerous places around the world, to collect the information that keeps America safe.

At the end of this, I hope that people take away from this debate that those who believed that the first round of negotiations meant that our national security was in peril and those who believed in the first round of negotiations that our civil liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today. It is that important for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I only bring that up, and I thank all of those involved--the Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary, the Republicans and Democrats on the Intel Committee, and all of those who were involved in this negotiation.

I think they have done America a favor today, and they have brought back the institutional notion of negotiation and intensity of debate that brings us to a better place today. I think this bill is a result of that. America should be proud.

Now, we can move forward on other national security priorities that will

serve to protect Americans' and our allies' lives around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has ordered the bill H.R. 4681, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015, reported favorably to the House today with an amendment, and will file its report on the bill in the House next week. The bill is currently expected to be considered in the House next week.

Mr. Speaker, the classified schedules of authorizations and the classified annexes accompanying the bill are available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in Room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center. The committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration of the House.

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

I urge interested Members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. The classified annexes to the committee's report contain the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly.

It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of House rule XXIII, which only permits access to classified information by those Members of the House who have signed the oath provided for in the rules.

If a Member has not yet signed that oath but wishes to review the classified annexes and schedules of authorizations, the committee staff can administer the oath and see to it that the executed form is sent to the Clerk's office. In addition, the committee's rules require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement indicates that the Member has been granted access to the classified annexes and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Ms. Louise Dreuth. Louise is retiring from the federal government this month after more than 26 years of public service in the national security arena. She currently works in the Department of Defense as a senior congressional analyst in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence's Congressional Activities office.

Although Louise originally hails from New York, she graduated from high school and college in Montgomery County, Maryland, and has been a longtime resident of Bethesda. Since she entered the work force, Louise has had a varied and distinguished career, having worked in both the legislative branch and executive branch at different times. Notably, Louise began her government service as a Professional Staff Member on The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when the committee was first established in 1977. No doubt those were interesting and challenging times, as the new committee worked to establish ongoing oversight of the Intelligence Community. As a Professional Staff Member on the HPSCI, Louise played a significant role helping the committee develop its authorization bills, performing research, and contributing to the critical mission of thorough oversight.

Louise left the Committee in 1986 to work in the private sector for several years, but returned to the federal government in 1992 and joined the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), where she worked for 13 years in a number of increasingly challenging legislative and public affairs positions. Her work at MDA prepared her well to become the Chief of Communications for the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) when it was established in 2005. Shortly after CIFA was merged under the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2008, Louise joined the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI), where she is now. She has handled a busy, high-profile portfolio of counterintelligence and security legislative issues in OUSDI's Congressional Activities office for the past five years.

Most recently, Louise has led numerous congressional engagements related to the latest unauthorized disclosures of classified material. As so often was true during her career, Louise's role has been to advise intelligence professionals in the Department of Defense on how to communicate the impact of these leaks and what DoD and defense intelligence entities are doing to prevent future disclosures. Louise has also contributed to Congress's better understanding and oversight of these critical issues.

At the conclusion of her impressive career as a national security and legislative affairs professional, Louise is looking forward to spending more leisurely days with her husband Mike, their little grandson Ben, and their adult children Josh and Beth. I know Louise has been a very devoted daughter to her mother, and will now be able to see her more frequently.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Louise Dreuth for her dedicated public service. Over the course of more than 26 years in legislative and public affairs positions within the federal government, she has advised many national security and intelligence professionals on how to communicate important, complex issues to Congress and the American public. She has made direct and significant contributions toward positive relations between the legislative and executive branches of our government. Louise has consistently brought great credit upon herself and every office in which she has worked. I thank her for her service and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has ordered the bill, H.R. 3381, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, reported favorably to the House with amendments. The committee's report will be filed next Monday.

Mr. Speaker, the classified Schedule of Authorizations and the classified Annex accompanying the bill will be available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center beginning any time after this report is filed. The committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration of the House. I anticipate that H.R. 3381 will be considered in the House in the near future.

I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified Annex contact the committee's Director of Security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. This will ensure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire assistance during their review of these classified materials.

I urge interested Members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. The classified Annex to the committee's report contains the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for the fiscal year 2014 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly.

It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of House rule XXIII, which permits access to classified information by only those Members of the House who have signed the oath provided for in the rule.

If a Member has not yet signed the oath but wishes to review the classified Annex and Schedule of Authorizations, the committee staff can administer the oath and see that the executed form is sent to the Clerk's office. In addition, the committee's rules require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement indicates that Members have been granted access to the classified Annex and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of the information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.