Boehner Supports Earmark-Free FY 2009 Intelligence Authorization Bill

Statement

Boehner Supports Earmark-Free FY 2009 Intelligence Authorization Bill

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) today released the following statement supporting the FY 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act:

"This legislation funds critical human intelligence assets necessary to fortify our national security and protect the American people. Coupled with recent passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) modernization legislation, passage of this measure sends a message to our enemies around the world that America is committed to arming our intelligence officials with the tools they need to protect American citizens at home and abroad. I am particularly pleased that this measure does not take valuable resources away from our intelligence professionals and waste them instead on pork-barrel earmarks like Rep. Murtha's infamous National Drug Intelligence Center. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) was instrumental in keeping this authorization bill earmark-free, and I commend him for his ongoing efforts to ensure critical intelligence funds are spent wisely and responsibly.

"I am disappointed that the House did not adopt a Republican proposal to require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress and to the American people on the national security implications of our nation's soaring energy prices. As America becomes more dependent on foreign sources of energy, we also find ourselves at the mercy of many regimes hostile to the United States. Congress and the American people deserve to know just how serious the threat of rising energy costs is to our national security, and by opposing this Republican proposal, the Democratic Majority has once again proven its cavalier attitude about skyrocketing energy prices."

NOTE: The House GOP proposal would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues relating to rapidly escalating energy costs, including:

1. Short-term and long-term outlook for prices, supply, and demand for key forms of energy;

2. Plans and intentions of key energy-producing and exporting countries with respect to production and supply;

3. National security implications of rapidly escalating energy costs;

4. Potential use of energy resources as leverage against the United States by Venezuela, Iran, or other potential adversaries;

5. National security implications of increase in funding to current or potential adversaries as a result of increased energy prices;

6. Assessment of likelihood of directly or indirectly increasing financial support for terrorist organization;

7. National security implications of extreme fluctuations in energy prices; and

National security implications of continued dependence on international energy supplies.

Source