Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 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.

I rise in support of H.R. 2417. Earlier today, several large truck bombs exploded in Istanbul killing the British Consul General and dozens of others, wounding at least 450, and causing substantial property damage. The attacks appear to have the earmarks of al Qaeda, and they make today's action even more pressing.

This bill is not perfect, but it represents a lot of hard work to come to bipartisan agreement on tough issues. In the past 2 years, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has completed a joint 9-11 inquiry and is currently reviewing prewar Iraq intelligence. These two reviews, among other activities we have undertaken, have pinpointed deficiencies in collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence that cannot be fixed one brick at a time; nor can meaningful intelligence improvements be made simply in response to the latest crisis. This bill represents progress; but, Mr. Speaker, systemic transformation is needed, and it hopefully will be the committee's primary focus in the coming year.

I am particularly satisfied that this bill requires a lessons learned study on Iraq intelligence as soon as possible and no later than a year from now. This House, just 2 days ago on a virtually unanimous basis, instructed the conferees to include this language, and we did. In the course of 6 months of review, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. A bipartisan letter earlier this fall details the preliminary view that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I hold. My own view is that estimates were substantially wrong and at a minimum the intelligence community overstated the strength of underlying data supporting its conclusions. Asking the intelligence community to do an introspective study is not an unreasonable request to ensure the credibility of our national security strategies. It will also ensure our troops and our leaders are served by the best intelligence.

In intelligence collection, the bill funds initiatives to improve technical and human collection. It pushes the intelligence community to hire and develop officers who speak foreign languages and who have deep experience in other countries and cultures, important issues raised in an unprecedented public hearing a few weeks ago.

In intelligence analysis and dissemination, the bill provides a new infusion of resources to modernize analyst infrastructure, including new information technology tools, training, and hiring new analytic expertise. There is also strong support for improving information- sharing across the IC and with State and local law enforcement partners.

The bill provides funds to support integration of watch list efforts across the Terrorist Threat Information Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Terrorist Screening Center, and other relevant players. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, to establish a training program to help local and private sector officials identify threats and report information to Federal partners. Information-sharing, as we have shown again and again and again, was a primary intelligence failure pre-9/11. This bill goes a long way to fix it.

I am pleased that the bill addresses the development of data mining efforts for fighting terrorism, while maintaining adequate privacy protections for U.S. persons. The defense appropriations conference report, which we have already voted on, terminated DOD's Terrorist Information Awareness program, but it transferred funds and

projects from that program to the intelligence community. For these programs, there are restrictions on mining databases containing information on U.S. persons, and I applaud those restrictions. But data mining, properly applied, is an excellent way to isolate who the bad guys are. It is also important to ensure that research and development on data mining tools continues, even while deployment awaits the full development of policies, guidelines, and procedures for use of these tools.

Let me be clear: I do not support deployment without limitations, but I think that R&D continues to be important. Responsible, respected groups like the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age and the Center for Democracy and Technology, along with scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation, all have concluded that data mining tools can be enormously beneficial for our national security, and that these operations can be done in a way that preserves privacy and protects civil liberties.

But it will not happen automatically. It will require real work from the administration, especially in view of the hole it dug for itself over the TIA project. The bill tasks the administration to come to grips with the policy issues posed by advanced data mining technology, requiring the administration to report to Congress with proposed modifications to laws and policies, and I hope the administration will embrace this opportunity.

The bill contains a provision to expand the definition of ``financial institution'' in the context of the FBI's authority to issue national security letters which compel the production of financial records without a warrant. The expanded definition closes a potentially significant loophole in the government's ability to track terrorist financing. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) on this point. On the other hand, however, I worry that language in the bill is not as clear as it needs to be that this authority to obtain records only pertains to the customer's financial relationship with institutions. I would have preferred this clarification to be in the statute. It is in the report language. I would have preferred the report language to be even stronger, and I remain concerned that the expanded definition leaves the potential, hopefully that will never be realized, for abuse in a classic fishing expedition.

The bill authorizes new personal services contracting for the FBI to allow it to more efficiently and flexibly surge capabilities against new missions. These powers granted to the FBI must not become a substitute for hiring full-time employees for the Bureau's long-term strategic needs or lead to other abuses in hiring practices. I spoke earlier this week with FBI Director Mueller and received his assurances that he will personally review this program and be sensitive to potential abuses. It is important to have strong standards and criteria alongside the increased flexibility.

The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has said, and I agree, that intelligence community reform, or transformation, must be a central focus of the committee next year.

Issues raised by our Iraq review and the Joint 9/11 Inquiry point to systemic challenges and raise fundamental questions of roles, missions, capabilities, and organization. These include whether the intelligence community should be headed by a Director of National Intelligence; whether the Nation would be best served by a domestic intelligence agency; the shortcomings of budgeting by supplemental; and our committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), made this point I thought quite effectively in our previous debate on the rule for this conference report. Also, strengthening the quality of HUMINT and other collection on hard targets; the roles and authorities of the Department of Defense in intelligence activities; and the roles and responsibilities of policy officials and intelligence analysts regarding objectivity of intelligence products.

Transforming the IC's approach to language and cultural expertise will also require special attention. I note the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), two committee members, and strongly support the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Goss) proposal for a major initiative focused on building these skill sets.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the best intelligence is key to stopping the insurgency and permitting reconstruction in Iraq today. It is key to addressing threats in Afghanistan today. It is key to countering threats from terrorism in Turkey and elsewhere today, and to addressing challenges in Iran and North Korea today and tomorrow. To produce less than our best intelligence is to protect national security less than is needed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to serve as ranking member of this committee. Our 2004 authorization conference report was approved unanimously by our Members, and I urge its strong support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. BOSWELL), our committee member who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague and classmate, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another committee member.

Mr. Speaker pursuant, to House Resolution 451, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2417) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference report for H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. And I want to personally thank members and staff of the committee for their industry, their skill, their professionalism, and their dedication in crafting what I believe is a strong nonpartisan bill which will see us well through the year.

Perhaps the job was made a bit more difficult this year given the attempts by some in the media and elsewhere to throw American intelligence capabilities into the meatgrinder of partisan Presidential politics, but I am confident that a review of this legislation will show just how successful the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been in putting the Nation's security needs first, rejecting the divisiveness, the partisan trickery and treachery that has been elsewhere.

H.R. 2417 authorizes funding for all intelligence and intelligence- related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System. Generally speaking, we have authorized funding for the National Foreign Intelligence Program in fiscal year 2004 at a level slightly above the President's request and substantially equal to that provided in the appropriations process.

There is much in the bill to recommend it to Members of the House. I would like to mention just a few of the important provisions and highlights.

First and foremost, this conference report supports the men and women in the intelligence community who are dedicated to protecting our Nation's citizens and their freedom, many of

whom do this work under a shroud of secrecy, carrying out very tough tasks and, in fact, heroic deeds with little, if any, recognition.

Intelligence is the fundamental element of the global war on terrorism. It is crucial to America's efforts in the hot parts of the war such as Afghanistan and Iraq, just as it is essential to protecting Americans overseas and at home, that is, offense and defense. This conference report funds many important counterterrorism programs.

Also of note in the fight against terrorism, we are witnessing history being made this day. This is the first intelligence bill to authorize funds for the intelligence functions of the new Department of Homeland Security. We on the committee are acutely aware of the vital need for intelligence community resources to be effectively marshaled in protecting the homeland. In the past year, the Federal Government has moved to realign national resources to better leverage capabilities in the war on terrorism. We have been hard at work on that. In addition to the establishment of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate over at the Homeland Security, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center was created and is under the control of the Director of Central Intelligence, and a new Terrorist Screening Center is being established and put to work at the FBI.

These resources, among others that we have been working on previously, will require continued investment and strong leadership to overcome a number of challenges including, by the way, the challenge of being the first of their kind. Our committee will continue to be actively engaged in defining how the intelligence community is evolving to meet the challenges of homeland security. We actually have no greater obligation.

Counterterrorism and counterintelligence are the driving forces behind section 374 of the conference report. This provision brings the definition of ``financial institution'' up to date with the reality of the financial industry. The current definition in the Right to Financial Privacy Act was crafted back in 1978. That was a quarter of a century ago. This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and spies to ``follow the money'' more effectively and thereby protect the people of the United States more effectively.

This conference report contains a provision that has received some degree of attention, section 405 dealing with the Central Intelligence Agency's compensation reform proposal. The conferees support the idea that improvements can be made, should be made, in the old GS system of pay and promotion. I certainly feel we can do better by the officers at CIA. However, it is important to replace the outdated system with a better one, not just a new one. So section 405 will assist CIA management in finding the right system by allowing important fine- tuning and workforce buy-in.

The conferees were concerned that CIA managers were rushing a bit into the implementation of an undertested and unevaluated compensation system. To address this concern, section 405 delays slightly the implementation of CIA's compensation reform plan to allow time for the review, evaluation, and for adjustment, where needed, of the compensation program currently being tested in a congressionally mandated pilot program which we have all been very interested in and are following very closely. I think the final result will be a better system for managers and employees alike and a significant improvement for the institution. If it takes a month longer to get there, I think it is going to be well worth the investment.

I could go on for some time detailing many other worthy provisions, but I will conclude my opening remarks here with the observation that this conference report reflects the committee's view that the U.S. intelligence community is making progress in many areas. In the past 3 years, it has recovered to a degree from the devastating cutbacks and budget personnel capabilities and frankly flagging political support that occurred during the mid-1990s. But as I have said, it will be a long road to recovery, and it takes time to build intelligence capability. It will take years of sustained effort and attention and reinvigorated political backing to rebuild a fully capable intelligence community that does all the things we need it to do for us. We are on the road to recovery. I am proud of that. Investment in timely intelligence is the best investment for our homeland and national security, and I hope most Members agree with that.

This conference report represents progress on that road, and I urge the House to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished vice chairman of the committee who is also chairman of our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security. He is indeed a busy man.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, and a man who has carried some of the more difficult projects that we have had to deal with in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. And that subcommittee has, indeed, been hard at work.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence and, obviously, a critical member of the team who has also been one of our world travelers to places that not everybody wants to go to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very dedicated member of our committee who is well known for other capabilities as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 and thank our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me this time.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his extraordinary leadership and the outstanding job that he does and also compliment our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for the good work that she does and the way in which both the chairman and the ranking member are able to work together. I too want to compliment our staff. I think they do a terrific job and work long hours on behalf of really tying to improve intelligence gathering and really keeping the Members posted on what is happening.

Never before have we needed or have we demanded so much of crucial importance from our intelligence community. The intelligence community provides the eyes, ears, and analytical brain power necessary to identify and prevent terrorist attacks. The cataclysmic events of September 11, 2001, provide a unique and compelling mandate for strong leadership and constructive change throughout the intelligence community. This bill adds to that impetus for change.

I believe our committee has authored legislation that strives to fully invest in and engage those economic, military, foreign policy, and law enforcement elements of our intelligence community in the war on terrorism. It strives to employ, integrate, and enhance the capability of the intelligence community to track down and destroy terrorist organizations both overseas and within the United States.

For instance, this legislation supports the attack on international financial support for terrorism, supports the unique analytical capabilities of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department and further develops these capabilities by establishing the Office of Intelligence Analysis within the Treasury Department. The last measure will streamline and centralize the U.S. Government's capability to track terrorist financial networks around the globe.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I am acutely aware of the vital need for our intelligence resources to be marshaled not only on the international front but also in our homeland.

In order to defeat terrorism threats to our Nation, all elements of government must communicate and coordinate more effectively among themselves. The conference report supports efforts to encourage the flow of information, measures including FBI efforts to make internal, structural, and technological changes to improve and expand the use of data mining and other cutting-edge analytical tools; authority for the FBI director to enter into contracts for needed services like language skills, intelligence analysis, and other high-value requirements relate to the flow of information not already available; the creation and nurturing of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center as a central office to monitor threats to the Nation; the inauguration of the Department of Homeland Security's office of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to facilitate timely sharing of relevant information with all appropriate Federal and State and, very importantly, local first responder authorities.

Our committees will continue to encourage the intelligence community development of clear policies and guidelines by which no resource is wasted, no credible terrorist threat left undetected, and threats to our homeland continue to diminish.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is very proud of the men and women that serve in the war on terrorism. I am convinced that the bill will make them more effective in their efforts to defend our country. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation.

I would be remiss, though, if I did not say something about what has taken place in what I would characterize as the politicizing of the intelligence gathering in the other body. Specifically, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has, I believe, tried to use intelligence gathering as a political vehicle for nothing other than political gain against the President and his team. This is wrong and I decry those who want to use the intelligence efforts of this country for political gain.

These political efforts are unprecedented and I hope the embarrassment brought to bear on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will put an end to the charade that has taken place.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will enter into the Record the memo that has been made public that came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and

believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as

follows:

(1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that

may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or

questionable conduct by Administration officials. We are

having some success in that regard. For example, in addition

to the President's State of the Union speech, the Chairman

has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz) as

well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the Chairman supports our investigations into

these offices, and cosigns our requests for information, is

helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will

find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far

greater when we have the backing of the Majority. (Note: We

can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are

pursuing).

(2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to

attach to any interim or final reports the committee may

release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we

intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have

already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by

senior Administration officials. We will identify the most

exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence

estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional

views will also, among other things, castigate the majority

for seeking to limit the scope of the

inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to

reopen the question of establishing an independent commission

(i.e. the Corzine amendment).

(3) Prepare to launch an Independent investigation when it

becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully

collaborate with the Majority. We can pull the trigger on an

independent investigation of the Administration's use of

intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once. The

best time to do so will probably be next year either:

(A) After we have already released our additional views on

an interim report--thereby providing as many as three

opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) Additional

views on the interim report; (2) announcement of our

independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the

final investigation; or

(B) Once we identify solid leads the Majority does not want

to pursue. We would attract more coverage and have greater

credibility in that context than one in which we simply

launch an independent investigation based on principled but

vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized

independent investigation, we continue to act independently

when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the Majority.

For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at

the request of the Vice Chairman; we have independently

submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing

further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's

concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an

important role to play in revealing the misleading--if not

flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior

Administration officials who made the case for a unilateral,

preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the

best prospect for exposing the Administration's dubious

motives and motives.

Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has granted the customary rule for consideration of conference reports to H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004. This is standard procedure. The rule is fair and without controversy as far as I know, and it does allow ample time for consideration of conference matters that have come up.

Mr. Speaker, as in past years, we thought it best to allow Members ample opportunity to review the bill and debate the issues they feel are important to our Nation's security. This was certainly exhibited earlier this summer when we passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Intelligence Authorization Act in the House. Our classified annex and staff have been made available to any Member of Congress interested in reviewing the underlying bill and the reports thereto.

Today we are at the culmination of this process. The conference report on H.R. 2417 is critical, it is must-do legislation.

The bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2004 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Account and Disability system.

In the past 2 years, our country has made very strong steps to improve our Nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities, as well as the analysis of the results of those intelligence-gathering capabilities. With that said, the attacks this morning in Istanbul are yet again a painful reminder that every day, we must not let down our guard. Rather, it emphasizes work that remains to be accomplished. We need to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and align them to deal with the threats that we face today.

This legislation convincingly moves us in the right direction by enhancing the depth and the capacity of all facets of our intelligence community. The bill provides for improved intelligence analysis and coordination. It continues the effort to increase our human intelligence resources, an area vital to the

security of our Nation during the war on terrorism, as we have seen discussed virtually every day.

In addition, H.R. 2417 augments the information shared between Federal, State, and local governments and encourages strong cooperation in the pursuit of joint counterterrorism activities to keep our homeland safe.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes possible the important work performed by dedicated intelligence professionals, people who are out and about right now taking very high risks to get us vital information so the right decisions can be made to nip terrorism in the bud before it strikes us again. It is the product of a bipartisan agreement that we deal with today and, as I stated previously, another prudent step in the right direction for developing our capabilities in the intelligence community.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule that will provide them with a fair forum for debate on this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), his remarks about a concern about disenfranchising authorizing committees by the use of supplemental appropriations and other such matters as has sometimes happened. I do believe that the authorizing committees provide a critical contribution, a valuable contribution to the legislation of this institution. And I think it is unfortunate that sometimes in the press of business that we sometimes bypass that wisdom and that contribution because of urgency or other matters, which are understandable, but which should be an aberration rather than the practice.

And I can assure the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and others who are interested that I am going to be spending some time and, hopefully, get a point or two across on the Committee on Rules that our view is that regular order is a whole lot better than supplemental appropriations.

The second thing I wanted to point out, very briefly, I am well aware this is not a perfect bill. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I and the members of the committee have worked very hard. We have excellent staff. This is not a perfect bill. It is a very, very good bill. It deserves the attention of the Members on the floor today. Certainly the rule is appropriate to bring it forward.

I think I can promise on behalf of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and all the Members that the minute this authorization bill passes we start on the next authorization bill. And there is plenty to be done.

There are a number of things we will hear about in the debate later today. These are things that we already have taken aboard, and we will be pushing hard on. So I am convinced that from the legislative perspective we are doing the job that the people of this country have asked us to take on in the oversight, and I am very proud to be part of that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the authorization legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

The conference report takes important steps to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to provide global analysis. I think it is an excellent report and an excellent effort on the part of the chairman, ranking member, and all Members and our staffs.

We are all aware that we are waging an aggressive war against terrorism. In addition, U.S. military forces are fighting the remnants of the former regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet we have global interests, for despite the immediate threats that we face, we must not devote all of our intelligence energies to Iraq and al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks on two primary points. The first is related to human intelligence. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I am sure, will cover that subject very well, since it is a primary responsibility of the subcommittee he chairs, so I will move to the second area. This relates to attacking the terrorists' finances. The gentlewoman from California talked about that to some extent just a few minutes ago. The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has been very supportive in the progress that is being made in this legislation through his leadership. I think the important point is what we have done through this legislation within the Treasury Department.

Terrorist networks like al Qaeda obviously cannot function without significant financial backing. These terrorists, supported by (A) a shadowy network of fund-raisers, money lenders and shakedown artists; (B) businesses and charities serving as front organizations; and (C) unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen.

Now, prior to the attacks of September 11, the Treasury Department was not organized or equipped to take steps such as the freezing of terrorist bank accounts or assets. Frankly, it has never been as high a priority in Treasury as it should have been. H.R. 2417, this bill, creates an Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of Treasury headed by an Assistant Secretary and tasked with the receipt, analysis, and dissemination of relevant foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information. In short, the conference report makes the Department of Treasury a real player, which can be an effective partner agency, in the global war on terrorism. This Members extends his appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services for working in a constructive manner to include this important provision in our legislation today. This Member also congratulates the staff for the exceptional work here.

I think that the leadership presented by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman, and the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, has been demonstrated in bringing forth a genuinely bipartisan product.

The conference report is a very serious effort to improve our intelligence capacity. Each and every member of the committee and its staff dedicated long hours to the drafting of this legislation. Each member recognizes the importance of our actions and responsibilities and things yet to come. This body can justifiably, I believe, be proud of the efforts of the HPSCI in this case and, in particular, the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges strong adoption of the conference report to H.R. 2417.

Together, these endeavors have severely tested the capabilities of our intelligence resources. However, America's interests remain global, and we must not devote all our energies to Iraq and al Qa'ida. The Intelligence Community must continue to provide timely, actionable intelligence on a host of potential threats--from nuclear proliferation threats on the Korean peninsula, to narco-traffickers in the jungles of Colombia, to collapsing regimes in West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a new world, and face new and more terrible threats. In many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat was the Soviet Union. Frankly, the Intelligence Community has been slow in adapting to this new environment. Our intelligence services did not reach out aggressively to recruit the ``human intelligence'' sources that could have provided us invaluable information. We lost far too many of the skilled analysts whose job is to provide early warning. H.R. 2417 provides much-needed funding to rebuild a dynamic, wide- ranging, global analytic capability. But we should be under no illusions--it takes years to develop skilled analysts who are able to ``connect the dots'' and provide our policymakers with timely information.