Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Greater Lansing Business Monthly, which this month will mark the 25th anniversary of its founding by mid-Michigan entrepreneur Chris Holman.

Twenty-five years ago, Mr. Holman saw the need for a publication that would promote, publicize, and support local companies, provide a forum for ideas, and keep members of the community informed of the services and products offered by businesses in the area.

The first issue of The Greater Lansing Business Monthly hit the streets in June 1987. In its 25 years of existence, the magazine has become known for its consistent quality and for the positivity of its content.

The magazine is distributed to all non-resident addresses in the cities of Lansing, Mason, Holt, Grand Ledge, East Lansing, Haslett, DeWitt, Williamston, and Okemos. Readership has gown to an estimated 40,000 per month.

The Business Monthly's content includes feature stories centered around a theme each month. Whether the topic is banking or business travel, health care or hospitality, articles highlight the quality products and people of the Greater Lansing area. These stories highlight successful businesses in the community and the people who comprise the companies.

In response to market needs, The Greater Lansing Business Monthly has become involved in many other endeavors. For example, The Greater Lansing Business Index & Survey provides an in-depth look at mid- Michigan's economy. Other projects include CEO networks, the Greater Lansing Entrepreneurial Awards, the Greater Lansing Business Showcase and the Greater Lansing Business + Sports Luncheon. The magazine is also represented on more than a dozen boards in the area. The magazine enjoys a 92 percent awareness and readership rate among businesses in the Greater Lansing market.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring The Greater Lansing Business Monthly and its staff for 25 years of exceptional service to mid-Michigan employers and their customers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I'll reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

I object.

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

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

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

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

The intelligence community shall take all steps necessary

to protect and ensure that--

Sensitive information pertaining to economic, financial,

and consumer information is protected from cybersecurity

attacks.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Bradley Nornhold was a founding teacher at KIPP Ujima Village Academy when the public charter school opened in 2002. In the past ten years, Brad has been a transformational force in the lives of the students in Northwest Baltimore. As a middle school math teacher, his results speak for themselves. In 2011, his seventh grade students produced the highest math test scores in the city as measured by the Maryland School Assessment. Brad makes no excuses and leaves no child behind. 100 percent of his students passed the test. The advanced scores were the fourth highest in the State of Maryland.

But test scores do not tell the whole story. Brad's students embrace the work that it takes to produce such results, and believe that the

work they do will pay off in the future. KIPP Ujima Village Academy serves a student population where 87 percent of the students live below the poverty line, as measured by free or reduced priced lunch applications. The school's mission is preparing these students for college by giving them the academic and personal skills necessary to succeed in the most rigorous college preparatory high schools. Brad makes that mission a reality every day. Because of the work ethic and focus he has taught them, all of his current eighth graders have gained acceptance to private or public college preparatory schools with admission requirements. Every one of them will be going to a high school in which they had to earn admission. And most of his students will be starting their freshmen year in sophomore geometry. Of his 78 eighth graders, 51 have already taken and passed the High School Assessment for freshmen algebra.

Brad's efforts for his students do not end with eighth grade graduation. His former students visit on a weekly, if not daily, basis. They come back to see their teacher, talk about math, and inspire his current students to follow their path to college. The students of KIPP Ujima Village Academy have been privileged to call Mr. Nornhold their teacher. For many of them, their life paths will be forever changed because of the time they spent in his classroom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor U.S. Army Colonel Chandler C. (Skip) Sherrell who is retiring after 26 years of service to our nation as an Army Aviation Officer. During his distinguished career, COL Sherrell served the nation in peace and war in numerous positions of steadily increasing responsibility. COL Sherrell has led soldiers in combat, trained soldiers for war, and served as an advisor and assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), and as a DoD Fellow to the United States Congress. He has served his Nation in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Germany, and Korea, as well as in demanding assignments in the United States. His decorations for his service include awards for valor. He is an outstanding Army aviator, leader, and soldier, and he is deserving of our recognition.

COL Skip Sherrell concluded an outstanding career by serving for two years as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM). He brought a wealth of expertise in aviation operations to the AMCOM Command Group. Prior to joining AMCOM, COL Sherrell performed one of the most demanding and critical assignments of his career, serving as the Commander of Task Force (TF) 49. TF 49 was the Army's designation for a composite Aviation Brigade, formed from many units to perform combat operations in Iraq. In twelve months of intensive flying in multiple locations across Iraq, COL Sherrell led TF 49 to complete mission success with an impressive safety record--an outstanding achievement.

COL Sherrell served in a role that few Army officers experience: working as the Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Serving as a liaison to Congress as the personal representative of the CJCS is an important position, but more importantly, he also served as a soldier's advocate on Capitol Hill for equipment modernization and improved systems and protection.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring COL Chandler C. (Skip) Sherrell's exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of U.S. Army Colonel Richard E. Crogan. His dedication to soldiers as a leader, warrior, and innovator has had a profound and lasting effect on United States Army Aviation. As the Commander for the Aviation Center Logistics Command (ACLC), COL Crogan supported an Army at war by providing maintenance, sustainment and logistics support and proficient U.S. and Allied Aviation Officers.

COL Crogan was responsible for oversight and quality assurance on the largest aviation service support contract in the U.S. Army. He was tasked with maintaining 587 rotary wing aircraft, providing over 500 launches every day to support an ever increasing need for army aviation. COL Crogan was personally responsible for providing the aircraft required to professionally train aviators and provide the Army's next generation of great warriors. Aviation maintenance is an expensive proposition and COL Crogan's innovative leadership and creative solutions have shown a total cost savings during his command of more than $750,000,000.

COL Crogan's great leadership contributed significantly to the elimination of the flight training backlog at Fort Rucker which reduced the time aviators spent training from 22 months to 12 months. Aviators will now report to their units ten months earlier to begin missions and the Army will see enormous cost savings in a time of fiscal reduction. COL Crogan raises the bar for those around him, as demonstrated by ACLC winning the Army Chief of Staff Supply Excellence Award in 2011.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Colonel Richard E. Crogan's exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments U.S. Army COL Richard E. Crogan. His dedication to soldiers as a leader, warrior, and innovator has had a profound and lasting effect on United States Army Aviation. As the Commander for the Aviation Center Logistics Command, ACLC, Colonel Crogan supported an Army at war by providing maintenance, sustainment and logistics support and proficient U.S. and Allied Aviation Officers.

Colonel Crogan was responsible for oversight and quality assurance on the largest aviation service support contract in the U.S. Army. He was tasked with maintaining 587 rotary wing aircraft, providing over 500 launches every day to support an ever-increasing need for army aviation. Colonel Crogan was personally responsible for providing the aircraft required to professionally train aviators and provide the Army's next generation of great warriors. Aviation maintenance is an expensive proposition and Colonel Crogan's innovative leadership and creative solutions have shown a total cost saving during his command of more than $750,000,000.

Colonel Crogan's great leadership contributed significantly to the elimination of the flight training backlog on Fort Rucker which reduced the time aviators spent training from 22 months to 12 months. Aviators will now report to their units ten months earlier to begin missions and the Army will see enormous cost savings in a time of fiscal reduction. Colonel Crogan raises the bar for those around him as demonstrated by ACLC winning the Army Chief of Staff Supply Excellence Award in 2011.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring COL Richard E. Crogan's exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor U.S. Army Colonel Chandler C. (Skip) Sherrell, who is retiring after 26 years of service to our nation as an Army Aviation Officer. During his distinguished career, COL Sherrell served the nation in peace and war in numerous positions of steadily increasing responsibility. Colonel Sherrell has led soldiers in combat, trained soldiers for war, and served as an advisor and assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), and as a DoD Fellow to the United States Congress. He has served his Nation in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Germany, and Korea, as well as in demanding assignments in the United States. His decorations for his service include awards for valor. He is an outstanding Army aviator, leader, and soldier, and he is deserving of our recognition.

COL Skip Sherrell concluded an outstanding career by serving for two years as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM). He brought a wealth of expertise in aviation operations to the AMCOM Command Group. Prior to joining AMCOM, Colonel Sherrell performed one of the most demanding and critical assignments of his career, serving as the Commander of Task Force (TF) 49. TF 49 was the Army's designation for a composite Aviation Brigade, formed from many units to perform combat operations in Iraq. In twelve months of intensive flying in multiple locations across Iraq, Colonel Sherrell led TF 49 to complete mission success with an impressive safety record--an outstanding achievement.

Colonel Sherrell served in a role that few Army officers experience: working as the Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Serving as a liaison to Congress as the personal representative of the CJCS is an important position, but more importantly, he also served as a soldier's advocate on Capitol Hill for equipment modernization and improved systems and protection.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring COL Chandler C. (Skip) Sherrell's exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3523.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Never a problem have I seen when it comes to our national security, Madam Chair, that we are just not prepared to handle.

In just the last few years, nation-states, like China, have stolen enough intellectual property from just the Fed's contractors that it would be equivalent to 50 times the print collection of the Library of Congress. We have nation-states that are literally stealing jobs and our future. We also have countries that are engaged in activities and have capabilities that have the ability to break networks, computer networks, which means you can't just reboot. It means your system is literally broken. Those kinds of disruptions can be catastrophic when you think about the financial sector or the energy sector or our command and control elements for all of our national security apparatus.

This is as serious a problem as I have seen. So, last year, I and my partner--Dutch Ruppersberger, the vice chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee--agreed that this was a significant enough problem to the future prosperity of America that we'd better do something about it.

We needed to stop the Chinese Government from stealing our stuff. We needed to stop the Russians from what they're doing to our networks and to people's personal information, data, and resources. We needed to prepare for countries like Iran and North Korea so that they don't do something catastrophic to our networks here in America and cause real harm to real people.

So, in a bipartisan way, we set out to do something very, very, very narrow. When the government spies overseas, it collects malware-- viruses, software that is dangerous to our computers. That means they can either steal our stuff--the personal information off of your computer--or they can steal the secrets that make your business viable, the kinds of secrets that give people jobs.

So wouldn't it be great if we could take that source code, that software and share it with the private sector so that they could put it on their private systems, like they do every single day to try to protect networks, and have that added advantage of that extra coverage from that malicious source code? The good news is this happens every day. If you have Norton or McAfee or Symantec or any other antivirus protection on your computer, it has patches of information that they know is really bad stuff, and every time you turn your computer on, it updates and tries to protect your computer, your personal information.

That's all this is. It is adding to that patchwork some zeroes and some ones that we know is malicious code that is either going to steal your information or break your computer or something worse. That's all this bill is. It draws a very fine line between the government and the private sector. It is all voluntary. There are no new mandates. There is no government surveillance--none, not any--in this bill. It just says, if we know we have this source code, shouldn't we be obligated to give it so it doesn't do something bad to the companies and individuals in America. That's all this bill does.

We have worked collaboratively with hundreds of companies, with privacy groups, with civil libertarians. We have worked with government folks. We have had hundreds and hundreds of meetings for over a year. We have kept this bill open in an unprecedented transparent way to try to meet the needs of privacy concerns, civil libertarian concerns, civil liberties concerns. We wanted to make sure that, with this bill, people understood exactly what we were trying to do, how simple it is, and how crucial it is to the future defense of this great Nation.

Without our ideas, without our innovation that countries like China are stealing every single day, we will cease to be a great Nation. They are slowly and silently and quickly stealing the value and prosperity of America.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

One credit card company said that they get attacked for your personal information 300,000 times a day--one company. We have a company that can directly show you stolen intellectual property. This one particular company estimated 20,000 manufacturing jobs that they lost for Americans, which were good-paying jobs, because countries like China stole their intellectual property and illegally competed against them in the marketplace.

This is as bad a problem, Madam Chair, as I have seen. I think you'll hear throughout the day this has been a responsible debate and that it has been a responsible negotiation to get to privacy concerns and our ability to protect your information on your computer through this series of zeroes and ones, the binary code on our computers.

Again, I want to thank my ranking member for his partnership and his work. He has been exceptional to work with on something on which we both agree and on which we agreed, in a bipartisan fashion, was a danger to the future prosperity of America.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) who is on the Intelligence Committee and has a tremendous expertise on counterterrorism issues.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I do.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Lots of misinformation about this bill today. I respect the gentleman from Georgia greatly for his efforts. I heard the gentleman from Texas talk about searches and seizures. And this is the good news: there are none of those things in this bill. None.

You know, if I knew that your house was to be robbed, I would expect that if the police knew, that they'd pick up the phone and call you and say, you are going to be robbed. Take precaution. We'll be their shortly.

This bill just says, if we have this nasty source code, these zeroes and ones, I want to give it to you so you can protect your systems. That's it. No monitoring, no content, no surveillance, nothing. That's not what this bill is about.

I understand the passion about it. That's why we've taken a year to forge this bipartisan effort to get where we believe privacy is protected. It is paramount that we do that, that our civil liberties are protected. It is paramount that we do that.

But we at least take down the hurdle to share nasty source code or software that's flying through the Internet, that's developed, and it's very sophisticated, by the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians and other groups and non-nation-state actors that are going to steal your personal information.

That's all this is. It's sharing bad source code so you can put it on your system so you don't get infected. End of story.

I wish people would read the bill, all of it, every word of it. I think you'll find the carefully crafted language to make sure that our rights are protected, that the Fourth Amendment is protected.

And by the way, just like the Army, the Navy, the Marines, your FBI is protecting you. That's what this bill allows it to do, simply that.

So, as I said, I respect greatly the gentleman from Georgia. There's a lot of atrocities I think he lived through in his life that no one should have to live through. We took those things into consideration when we wrote this bill, and that's why we've got so much support and so much technical company support, companies like Facebook and Microsoft and all of those groups.

So I hope people read the bill and support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I do want to thank the ranking member and both staffs from both committees who have been tireless in this effort to get it right and to find that right place where we could all feel comfortable.

The amendments that are following here are months of negotiation and work with many organizations--privacy groups. We have worked language

with the Center for Democracy and Technology, and they just the other day said they applauded our progress on where we're going with privacy and civil liberties. So we have included a lot of folks.

It has been a long road. It has been the most open and transparent bill that, I think, I've ever worked on here. We kept it open to the very end to make sure that we could find the language that clarified our intent to protect privacy, to protect civil liberties, and to just be able to share dangerous information with victims. That's all this bill is. The whopping 13 pages it is does only that. So I appreciate the comments today. I look forward to the amendment debate.

Again, Mr. Ruppersberger, it has been a joy to work with you on this particular issue.

As an old Army officer once told me, once you find a problem, you are morally obligated to do something about it. We set about it a year ago to make America safe and to protect your network at home from people stealing it, breaking it, and doing something worse.

So, Madam Chair, I look forward to the debate on the amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to first compliment Mr. Langevin for working with us on the cybersecurity bill. He has been an instrumental force in pushing this cybersecurity issue to the front and in getting the language that we have that finds that right balance.

My concern with this, which is why I thought, at least, the President's advisers who were recommending to him that he veto the bill were misguided, is that now we have done something in this bill that is fairly unique. It is all voluntary, and we have separated the government and the private sector. The government is not going to be involved in private sector networks, and they're not going to be involved in the government networks. Perfect. That's exactly the balance we found.

With this, it crosses both of those, and it gets us to a place that I think we need to have a lot more discussion on, and you can see by the level of debate just on this issue how people are really nervous about the Federal Government getting into their business.

This, I'm afraid, opens it up to that. Here's the good news. We believe this is already covered in the bill as far as the sharing component, and you replace the word ``utility'' with something that isn't defined, ``critical infrastructure, owners and operators.'' We're not sure what that is, and in some cases you could extrapolate that to be even the local police, who argue they're part of the national security infrastructure. Does that mean local police are going to get very sensitive foreign cyberintelligence information? And why would they have it? We don't know the answers to those questions, and that's why we're having such a hard time with this amendment.

I would argue that there does need to be a Homeland Security bill, and it really shouldn't be done in the Intelligence Committee. It should be done in the Homeland Security Committee.

So I would love to work with Mr. Langevin as the process works its way through the Homeland Security Committee and believe that that should be fully debated.

Remember, when you start getting regulation into the private sector, including private networks, that, I argue, is troublesome and very worrisome to me, and something I would have a hard time supporting.

So, I look forward to working with the gentleman. I would have to oppose this amendment, but I want to thank you for all your work on the cyberissue and, clearly, this cyber information-sharing bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I would just remind the gentleman that the definition does not go back anywhere in this bill to that. It leaves it open, and when you start, again, crossing that valley between the government and the private sector, it causes serious issues--as you can see, the people who are very concerned that the government is going to get into regulating anything on the Internet.

I would say this is no pride of authorship. I don't know if Mr. Ruppersberger and I could have any more authors participate in our bill than we have.

The problem here is very real and very substantive. And that's why I think both the gentlemen, who have as much passion and care and commitment to this issue as I've seen, need to work that issue on the Homeland Security Committee so you can do it in a way that won't rise to the level of the objections that we have seen when just the suggestion of regulating outside of the purview of national security comes into discussion.

That's why I would hope the gentleman would exercise extreme caution when taking that walk. It is perilous for the government to get into regulating the Internet, and I oppose that completely. That's why we have these problems, I think, arise from it. I think, if these are issues that they can get over, that this should have substantive debate. Remember, this very narrow bill took 1 year--1 year--of work and negotiation and discussions to get it to where we are today.

So, I would encourage that maybe more thought ought to be put in it, and I would look forward to working with both gentleman as they introduce and work their bills through the Homeland Security Committee, as I think would be appropriate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank Mr. Pompeo for working with us. This was an amendment negotiated with Mr. Ruppersberger and myself and Mr. Pompeo to clearly define the intention of the bill, and I think it offers protections. I think we should all strongly support Mr. Pompeo's amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I strongly encourage the support of this amendment. It's a simple amendment we negotiated. It is clarifying language again on FOIA.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Thank you, Mr. Quayle.

Again, this is an amendment worked out with Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Quayle, and myself. Ms. Eshoo is also on the amendment.

This is in consultation with all of the privacy groups and the civil liberty groups. We wanted to make sure that the intent matched the language. And we think this is a limiting amendment on what it can be used for, which is very narrow, is very specific; and we think this enhances already good privacy protections in the bill, and I strongly support it and would encourage the House to strongly support the bipartisan amendment.

Madam Chair, I just want to rise in strong support of this amendment. I appreciate Mr. Mulvaney's working with the committee.

This is a limiting amendment, and I think it, again, is in response to making sure that the intent of the bill meets the language of the bill, and this is well done to continue to protect privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and still allow for the government to share malicious source code with the private sector.

I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with us. This, again, was a negotiated amendment. The gentleman approached us with concerns to make sure that the IG report adequately reflected and allowed us to perform the adequate oversight. This amendment does that. I appreciate his work and effort, and I think this strengthens the bill and continues to provide the oversight and protection of civil liberties and privacy for all Americans.

This is an important amendment, and again, I think it alleviates some of the concerns. They were misguided, but this locks it down, makes it very tight and makes it very clear on the limiting of this information, which is the intent of this bill. So I think this amendment addresses the privacy and civil liberties advocates' claims that the liability protection in the bill with respect to the use of cybersecurity systems could be read to be broader than the activities authorized by the legislation.

As I said, that was not true, certainly not the intent. This amendment makes that very clear in the bill that that would not be its purpose, and it is a limiting amendment. I strongly support this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment as well.

I want to thank the distinguished former chairman and member, Mr. Goodlatte, for his commonsense amendment. Again, this is working to make sure that this bill is restricted for both information use, privacy, and civil liberties, and why the coalition, I argue, continues to grow because of the good work of folks like Mr. Goodlatte. It's bipartisan in nature, and I would strongly urge the body's support for the Goodlatte amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3523, pursuant to House Resolution 631, amendments No. 10 and No. 5 in House Report 112 454 may be considered out of sequence.

Madam Chair, I want to, again, thank Mr. Turner for this important clarification amendment and working with us to improve the status of the bill to make sure that we are able to protect America's networks and increases the ability for us to protect privacy and civil liberties.

I appreciate the gentleman's good effort, and I would encourage the House to support the Turner amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

If you thought it was good for the businesses to require Facebook to give them your passwords, you'll love this. If not, you should go apoplectic. I think that's an awful practice on Facebook. This is worse. I want to read just from the law. Notwithstanding any other provision, it allows them to:

acquire, intercept, retain, use, and disclose

communications and other system traffic that are transiting

to and from or are stored on the Federal systems and to

deploy countermeasures with regard to such communications and

system traffic for cybersecurity purposes.

This is dangerous. It's dangerous. For the very narrow bill that has been misrepresented from what we do, this is Big Brother on steroids. We cannot allow this to happen. This would be the government tracking communications or your medical records from the veterans' association. It would track your IRS forms coming in and out of the Federal Government. This is exactly what scares people about trying to get into the business of making sure we protect our networks, but we can't do it by trampling on privacy and civil liberties.

This is awful. I am just shocked, after all of this debate and all of this discussion on our very narrow bill, that my friends would come up with something that wholesale monitors the Internet and gets all of the information which we've fought so hard to protect on behalf of average Americans.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I appreciate the gentlelady's effort. Again, we were pretty careful in this year-long process of trying to find a very narrow solution because of all of the challenges that come with trying to get a piece of legislation across the House to the Senate to the President's desk.

I argue that the Homeland Security Committee should engage in a critical infrastructure debate. Here's the problem: it's not defined for the purposes of this bill. So we don't know what that means. We've been very careful to separate the government from the private sector. There is no government involvement in the private sector networks. It is just information, malicious source code-sharing. That's it.

This, we're not sure where it goes. Many in industry believe that they're talking about the backbone of the Internet. Are they talking about the backbone of the Internet? We don't know. It's not well defined. That would mean, then, that the government for the first time gets into the backbone of the Internet. I think that's a horrible, terrible idea.

So I don't think that's what the gentlelady intends, but the problem is that's not what the language says.

I look forward to working with the gentlelady as she works through those issues on Homeland Security because these are hard. They are tricky. Sometimes a word will get you in trouble, as we have found along the path here, and as it should. We should be really careful about how we're doing this.

So I would encourage the gentlelady to work with us. I know Mr. Ruppersberger, since we've been through this, we can provide some help along the way, and we look forward to the product that you all work on that is geared toward the infrastructure piece. Again, this was never intended to solve all the problems. It was intended to be a very narrow first step to say, Hey, if your house is being robbed, we want to tell you before the robber gets there. That's all this bill does. It tells if your computer is going to get hacked and your personal information stolen, we want you to have the malicious code so you can protect yourself. That's all this bill does.

So we get a little nervous when it starts crossing that divide that we've established between the government and the private sector. You start crossing that divide, we think you can get into some serious trouble in a hurry without very clearly defined language and definition.

Unfortunately, I have to oppose the amendment, but I look forward to working with the gentlelady on a very important issue, infrastructure protection, as the Homeland Security does its work.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the gentlelady, and I look forward to that opportunity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Today, 300,000 times somebody will be trying to get into our credit card companies--300,000 times, one company. In just the last few years, just in defense contractors, foreign nation- states have stolen more intellectual property, which will end up protecting this country, equivalent to 50 times the print collection of our U.S. Library of Congress. Anonymous is attacking businesses, and today attacked Wall Street because they're anti-capitalists. There are people out there today who are literally robbing the future of America for our jobs, our prosperity, and our economic prowess in the world; and they're doing it by design.

A year ago, we set out to try to do something small. If we have some bad software--some bad, malicious virus information--shouldn't we be obligated to share that with the private sector so they can protect themselves? Absolutely.

If we don't do this, a nation-state like China has geared up its military and intelligence services for the very purpose of economically wounding the United States--by draining our intellectual property dry. They have done it by stealing pesticide formulas. They have done it by stealing pharmaceutical formulas. They have done it by stealing intellectual property when it relates to military hardware and then have copied it, and it has cost us a tremendous amount of more money to have had to go back and redesign it.

So we can play games. We can do silly things. This amendment actually does nothing to protect a person's private password at home. Nothing. Not one thing. But it is serving to try to obfuscate and maybe send it back to committee and come back.

This has been a bipartisan bill, and I can't tell you how disappointing this amendment is to me. I have worked with Mr. Ruppersberger and the members of this committee. I have worked with the privacy groups. We've worked with civil libertarians. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at us. By the way, this does nothing, or this would have been thrown at us, too. You know why? Because it doesn't do anything. I get it. Sounds great. You're going to run out and do some bad things with it.

But this is our Nation's defense. This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country. We've done it since 9/11. We did Homeland Security. We've done the Patriot Act. We've done other things that this body and the other body and the President of the United States signed to protect this country, as our Constitution tells us to do for the common defense of this great Nation.

I will tell you something. We can have this debate. We can talk about a bill that does absolutely nothing to protect someone's private password at home, or we can get about the business of trying to give the private sector just a little bit of information to protect people's private information in the comfort of their homes, so that we can protect this Nation from a catastrophic attack.

The director of the national security didn't say ``maybe,'' didn't say, ``could happen.'' They said it will happen.

This is the one small thing we get to do to prepare for a whole bunch of folks out there that want to bring this Nation down.

We ought to stand together today in a bipartisan way. We ought to reject all of the confusion and obfuscation and all of the things that they're saying about this bill that just are not true. We ought to stand here and say, We respected the fact that you kept the government stuff government, and the private stuff private, and you're not mixing it up, and you're not surveilling. You're doing none of those things. You're just sharing some pretty bad information so that they can apply it to their patches that happen on your computer every single day, thousands of times a day, to try to keep viruses off your computer, and that's it.

We've spent a lot of time today trying to go in a different direction. People are upset that there aren't things in the bill. Okay. I mean, the Buffett rule isn't in the bill. I don't think that ought to get a veto threat either.

This is where we are. This is that first small threat.

I'm going to ask all of you to join us today. Reject this red herring, this obfuscation, and stand with America. They need it. There are 3 million businesses with all of the associations telling us, Please, give us that classified secret malware information that your government has so we can protect the people we have as customers and clients. They're begging for it because they're getting killed every single day. It's happening right this second.

This is our chance to stand up. This was a bipartisan effort. If you really believe in bipartisanship, if you believe that's the future of this Chamber, and that's the dignity of the very Founding Fathers that gave it to us, then today is the day to prove it.

Reject this amendment, stand for America. Support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3523, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 3523, the Clerk be authorized to make the change that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates. His service to our Nation is the standard by which all U.S. Army Aviation Command Sergeant Major careers are measured. His ability to develop solutions to complex and inter-related problems coupled with his unequalled leadership, technical expertise and devotion to duty set him

apart from his peers. From his time as a helicopter repairman in an Aviation Battalion serving in peacetime and in combat, to his capstone assignment as the Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Command Sergeant Major Yates was recognized with the same superlative by every Commander--the best maintenance Non- Commissioned Officer with whom they have ever served.

Command Sergeant Major Yates served our Nation for over 3 decades, at all levels of leadership which allowed him to capitalize on his talents and abilities to serve Soldiers, his unit, the Army and his country at every opportunity. He is truly a selfless servant, caring only about the welfare of others and never seeking accolades for himself. He demonstrated the capacity to be a transformative leader in an organization even when he was new to the unit and the mission. In the execution of his duties, he was recognized for his unequalled ability to diagnose maintenance problems and determine repair requirements.

Command Sergeant Major Yates first demonstrated his ability to lead an organization in combat while assigned as First Sergeant in Task Force 118, a ground-breaking special operations aviation unit, during Operation Prime Chance. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. This operation pioneered the first use of 0H58D Helicopters in ship board based combat operations.

During his Divisional assignments, he was noted by all levels within his chain of command as the single best Aviation Maintenance NCO with whom they had ever worked and as the ``epitome of commitment to maintenance excellence.'' One outstanding feature of CSM Yates' career is his constant service in the toughest units in the Army. During his career, CSM Yates served in the 1st Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 24th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and the 82d Airborne Division. He served for 21 total years at Fort Bragg, earning Jumpmaster Wings and the Combat Action Badge while deploying in support of Operations Prime Chance, Desert Shield & Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.

Because of his proven record in solving strategic level problems and his unparalleled expertise in Aviation Maintenance, Command Sergeant Major Yates was selected by the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) to be the AMCOM Command Sergeant Major, the senior Aviation Maintenance NCO in the Army. He immediately became an invaluable member of the AMCOM team, and his leadership in Aviation Maintenance was crucial in the organization's support to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operations over the Horizon (OTH).

During his tenure as AMCOM CSM, he personally worked multiple initiatives that proved crucial to supporting Warfighters. When AMCOM was tasked to assume the supply and maintenance management mission at Fort Rucker, CSM Yates assisted in identifying the necessary green suit structure needed to properly supervise the large force of contractor personnel. Stated simply, if any portion of AMCOM required senior leadership attention, CSM Yates provided it, and always provided sound, timely, and well researched advice to the three Commanding Generals he served.

In support to the Global War on Terrorism, Command Sergeant Major Yates made multiple visits to the CENTCOM Area of Operations to assist the Combat Aviation Brigades and the Aviation Logistics hubs. He spent months in Iraq and Afghanistan, operating independently and by his own initiative to provide direct support from AMCOM to the Aviation Brigades. He was the eyes and ears of the commander to the field, gathering information on how best AMCOM could support units in the fight. Likewise, he was the voice of the Commanding General, ensuring standardization to maintenance and logistics practices across the Army, focused on the areas that most significantly affected the Aviation Soldier.

From the individual Soldier to the highest echelons of Army Aviation, Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates demonstrated a technical prowess, unyielding devotion to the Army's mission, transformational leadership, and unwavering support to the Soldier. He reached the pinnacle of his profession, and was truly the best Command Sergeant Major to have ever done his job.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates' exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his Nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Mrs. Reba Rogers who has been an Army spouse for over 26 years. She was an integral partner in her spouse's successful career which included commanding formations from the company level to Army Service Component. Throughout her spouse's service, she remained steadfastly dedicated to serving soldiers and their families in many capacities, particularly as a volunteer leading Family Readiness Groups (FRG), the Army Officer Wife's Clubs and at community thrift shops. During times of peace and conflict, she was a source of strength and inspiration to those whom she served.

Reba's caring spirit, genuine concern and constant willingness to assist soldiers and their families no matter how small or great the need, at all hours of the day and night contributed greatly to the combat readiness and mission focus of each unit she served with. Soldiers always knew the needs of their families would be met.

Reba has actively volunteered thousands of hours to the military community through her invaluable work at community gift and thrift shops. Of special note, she was the chairperson of the Redstone Arsenal thrift shop sponsored by the Redstone Arsenal's Women's Club where soldiers and their families benefit from a variety of needed items. Furthermore, she also held a special seat with Huntsville, Alabama's Crestwood Hospital helping to serve the local community as well as a key member of the Huntsville Botanical Gardens.

Over 26 years of devoted service to soldiers and families, Reba Rogers' substantial contributions greatly enhanced the preparedness and readiness of every unit she served. Reba's dedication and spirit of volunteerism are in keeping with the highest tradition of selfless service and reflect great credit upon herself, the Army Materiel Command, and the Department of the Army.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Reba Rogers for her dedicated service of 26 years. She serves as an inspiration to many and a guiding light to all. Mrs. Rogers' dedication and spirit of volunteerism are in keeping with the highest tradition of selfless service and reflect great credit upon herself, the Department of the Army and the United States of America. May she know that her nation is greatly appreciative of her dedication, and wishes her the best in all here future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1892) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a good day for the United States, certainly a good day for the men and women who serve so proudly in our intelligence services that work tirelessly to keep America safe. This is a good day to bring the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill to the floor today. This will be our second intelligence authorization bill since January of this year, when I became chairman and my ranking member took his position as well for the House Intelligence Committee, and it will be the 29th bill in our committee's history.

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

Passing an annual intelligence authorization bill is vital to keeping the laws governing our intelligence operations up to date. The FY12 bill sustains our current intelligence capabilities and provides for the development of future capabilities, all while achieving significant savings.

The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing the country from many threats that we face today. Effective and aggressive congressional oversight is essential to ensuring continued success in the intelligence community.

The intelligence authorization bill funds U.S. intelligence activities spanning 17 separate agencies. This funding totaled roughly $80 billion in fiscal year 2010. The current challenging fiscal environment demands the accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs that can only come with an intelligence authorization bill.

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

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

This has been a strategy for a tough fiscal climate. After passage of the Budget Control Act, the committee revamped the bill it reported out of committee back in May to double its budget savings. As a result, the bill is significantly below the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 and further still below the levels authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2011. These savings--and this is important, Mr. Speaker--were achieved without impacting the intelligence community's important mission, as the cuts of the 1990s did.

The bottom line is that this bipartisan bill preserves and advances national security and is also fiscally responsible. The secrecy that is a necessary part of our country's intelligence work requires that the congressional intelligence committees conduct strong and effective oversight on behalf of the American people. That strong and effective oversight is impossible, however, without an annual intelligence authorization bill. And I want to thank both of the staffs for the Republicans and the Democrats, and the members from both the Republicans and Democrats on this committee for coming together in a bipartisan way on the important issue of national security. And I thank my friend, Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking member, for his leadership in getting us not to one, but to two authorization bills within just 10 months. And that's no small accomplishment, as you might know, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the issue of cybersecurity, an incredibly important issue, one that this committee spends a great deal of time on. And the ranking member and myself and many members of this committee have co-authored a bill--and many Members of this House--to give that first important step to protecting Americans' networks from both economic espionage and attack of those particular networks.

I can't think of anything that is more pressing than that particular issue, and I appreciate the gentleman's working with us on that particular issue and being a leading voice here in Congress on that particular issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The ranking member brings up an important point about how complex this bill is and the level of threats and the degree of threat that this great country faces every day and really the importance of our investment in the technology that we need to keep ahead of enemy nations who seek to do us harm.

This bill embodies the fact that there will be members of the intelligence community whose job it is to find those Russian spies-- like the illegal alien Russian case that was here--that are attempting to do bad things to the United States. The same with Chinese spies and Iranian spies, and the list is very long. And, unfortunately, it's not a spy novel; it's not a movie. These things are real. They happen every day in the United States, and we are a target of those nation-states as they seek to steal our secrets.

This bill provides those protections, and that means that we have to invest in space. It means that we have to invest in our cybersecurity capability. It means that we have to invest in our HUMINT collection, meaning recruiting others who will help us identify and ferret out those who seek to do us harm.

It means that we have the challenges of trying to make sure that al Qaeda, who has expressed an interest in a radiological bomb, doesn't get their hands on those types of materials. It means that we have to be careful about nuclear weapons being proliferated around the world by either force security or, worse yet, nation-states who encourage that type of activity.

It is no simple job being an intelligence officer or being in the intelligence community here in the United States.

I think this bill is an accurate reflection on how we move to the next place, but also an important reminder of the important work that they do, often in the shadows. The men and women who conduct this important work certainly deserve our support and all of the resources that we can muster to make sure that they're successful in their endeavors.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman and look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from California on those activities when it comes to our overhead architecture. There are programs worthy of investment, and the technology that we apply to this particular effort is incredibly important.

We always need to stay ahead. America always needs to be number one, and this bill reflects that. I think the work of the gentleman certainly is reflected in this bill as well, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure that we don't have crowd-out when it comes to future technology. I think it's incredibly important.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the members of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, for their fine bipartisan effort on this national security bill of real significance. Many, many hours on behalf of both the Democrat staff and the Republican staff to get this right. When we had to trim back some finances from the community without impacting the mission, that is no small challenge, and I think this product is a testament to all of the work on behalf of both staffs, and both members, Republican and Democrat, to get us here.

I want to take this time to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss for their work as well on this particular bill. We wouldn't be here today if it weren't for that bicameral and bipartisan effort, again, on this national security bill.

General Leave

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. 1892, as it will be adopted.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Senate

has passed H.R. 1892, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, with amendments, including amendments to the classified Schedule of Authorizations and classified Annex.

It is my understanding the House will consider the Senate amendment to the bill tomorrow by suspension of the rules. The Committee on Rules has posted the legislative text of the Senate amendment online for review by all Members.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, the amended classified Schedule of Authorizations and classified Annex accompanying the bill are available for review by all Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center at any time.

The committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review the classified material prior to its consideration in the House. I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified Annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time for that viewing. This will assure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire any assistance during their review of these classified materials.

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 and met the requirements provided for in the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored, yet saddened today to come to the floor to honor the short life of Angelo Zoltan Schwartz. The son of Lawrence Sanson Schwartz IV and his wife Allison, Angelo suffered from a rare bone disease, Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI). He was born on Monday, November 28, 2011 at 11:29 a.m., just one minute after his twin sister Cecilia Anne Schwartz. Angelo was 4 pounds 15 ounces and was delivered at INOVA Fairfax Hospital in Virginia.

OI, which is a condition causing extremely fragile bones, was the main cause of Angelo's shortened life. Due to this condition his rib cage was fractured in utero and he succumbed to respiratory failure on December 1, 2011 at 3:45 a.m. Over his 64 hours of life, Angelo made a huge impact on everyone who met him, including the nursing and hospital administration staff, who worked together to modify hospital policy to ensure that the Schwartz family could spend as much time together as possible.

Angelo is loved and will be missed by his entire family including his grandparents, Debrah and Barry Shulman of Fayetteville, New York; Joanne and Lawrence Schwartz III of Anaheim Hills, California; and his parents Allison and Lawrence Schwartz IV, and his sister Cecilia Anne Schwartz of Alexandria, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man that needs no introduction in Michigan, nor the transportation and intelligent transportation network in the country.

After 34 years of public service to the Road Commission for Oakland County, Brent Bair will be retiring at the end of the year. A pillar of the community, Mr. Bair has a long and distinguished resume.

Serving as the Managing Director of the Road Commission for Oakland County, his department is responsible for the largest county road system in Michigan, second in size to the state highway system, and currently operates the second largest system of adaptive traffic signals in the nation. He is widely respected as a leading expert on road funding in Michigan and has been an advocate on behalf of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and ITS funding. He is a founding member and past president of the Intelligent Transportation Society of Michigan as well as an active member in and former chairman of the national ITS association, ITS America.

As the Chairman of the Intelligent Transportation Systems' Caucus in the House of Representatives, I have long looked to Brent for advice and guidance on good governance and ITS policy. Early on I recognized the benefits to including technological advances in our cars, highways and infrastructure. Through educational programs and ongoing efforts by Brent and ITS Michigan, Congress has recognized that in this economic climate of doing more with less, ITS solutions are an important step towards fiscal responsibility and more importantly, smart solutions.

A tireless advocate for his community, Brent Bair will be missed. I wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.