Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.

Yes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency comes, obviously, at an absolutely critical time in our Nation's history.

The documented intelligence failures prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and leading up to the war in Iraq have left the intelligence community's credibility bruised and their image tarnished, which none of us wants.

The community's objectivity, their independence, and their competency have been called into question. That is fair in some cases. As a result, a bipartisan call for reform has steadily grown to the point where the Congress is on the threshold of passing landmark legislation, I believe and I hope, to create a stronger, better managed intelligence community before we adjourn this year. I do not think we should stretch it out and wait. I think we should do it, and do it now.

The next Director of Central Intelligence will be the most important person for that position ever confirmed by the Senate. Our decision on who should lead the Central Intelligence Agency, and the other 14 intelligence agencies, according to the law, should not be a rubberstamp job.

The importance of this position requires a thorough examination of the nominee's record and his ability to carry out the weighty responsibilities of the job.

As I have indicated, never before in the 57-year history of the intelligence community has there been such a need for a Director of Central Intelligence with unimpeachable character, proven leadership and management experience, and strong national security credentials.

The new Director will face, in my judgment, no fewer than four major challenges: waging an unrelenting offensive clandestine campaign against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations around the world; supporting ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; managing an intelligence community in a state of transition; and, restoring the intelligence community's lost credibility.

The next Director of Central Intelligence must be extraordinarily qualified in order to successfully carry out these and other national security tasks.

I simply say all of this to say the stakes are enormous. Perhaps most importantly, the next Director of Central Intelligence must be nonpartisan, independent, and objective. This standard is not simply this Senator's; it is what the law, the National Security Act law, requires specifically in language.

I know of no other position of importance in Government requiring that independence, objectivity, and non-partisanship as a requirement for confirmation. The very first responsibility of the Director of Central Intelligence under the National Security Act--and these are the words--says that his advice to the President, the executive branch, the military, and the Congress must be timely, must be objective, and must be independent of political considerations, and based upon all sources available to the intelligence community. That is the law.

I have reviewed Representative Goss's record closely. I have gone over his writings and his speeches of the past 10 years. We have just completed two open hearings, which I thought were good hearings, in the Intelligence Committee, where Representative Goss was asked questions about his past record, his commitment to reform the intelligence community, and his ability to be forthright, objective, and independent.

Representative Goss is, without question, qualified in many respects. He is a fine person. I have been able to work with him well over the past few years--that is not one of the requirements, but it happens to be true--both in the joint congressional inquiry into 9/11, and also in House-Senate conferences. His past employment with the Central Intelligence Agency, doing extremely dangerous work, and his 7-year tenure as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have given him both an insider's and outsider's perspective of the intelligence community. There is no doubt that he is an extremely knowledgeable person with respect to the inner workings of the Central Intelligence Agency and the other agencies he is nominated to manage.

But Representative Goss's record is troubling in other regards. I wish to speak about them. He has made a number of statements relative to intelligence matters--many in the past year--that are, in fact, highly partisan and displayed a willingness on his part to use intelligence issues as a political broadsword against members of the Democratic Party. Again, ordinarily, that is kind of routine around here, but with respect to the Director of Central Intelligence, that should not be and cannot be according to the law. When taken collectively, this list of partisan statements and actions on intelligence matters raise a serious doubt in my mind as to whether Porter Goss can be the type of nonpartisan, independent, and objective national intelligence adviser our country needs.

What is the public record of the person the President has nominated to be the next director of the CIA? Has he been independent, objective, and nonpartisan on intelligence issues, again, as required by law?

In March of this year, Representative Goss coauthored an intelligence op-ed piece entitled ``Need Intelligence? Don't ask John Kerry.'' In this political attack piece, he made a number of highly charged political allegations relating to intelligence spending. These are quotes from the Congressman:

. . . when Democrats controlled the Congress, the cuts were

deep, far-reaching, and devastating to the ability of the CIA

to do its job to keep America safe.

. . . during the Clinton years, the Intelligence Community

was given a clear message that if they failed in politically

risky operations . . . there would be no backing from the

Clinton White House or the Democratic-controlled Congress.

And then Representative Goss targeted Senator Kerry, who he claims ``was leading the way to make deep and devastating cuts in the intelligence community's budget'' and ``was leading efforts in Congress to dismantle the Nation's intelligence capabilities.'' Severe criticism. A few months later, in a June 23, 2004 statement on the floor of the House, Representative Goss claimed that ``the Democratic Party did not support the Intelligence Community.'' And in the same June floor debate, he offered the following justification for his claim:

My comment is that when there was opposition to

intelligence and, year after year, efforts to cut the

intelligence budget, they did come from the Democratic side

through the period of the 1990s.

I have gone back over the record and determined that Representative Goss's election year claims mischaracterize the intelligence record of both the Democratic Party and Senator Kerry, in my judgment. He also failed to point out his own record as a member, and eventual chairman, of the House Intelligence Committee during this time. Had he stated the intelligence record factually, it would have taken the sting out of his political attacks and created an entirely different picture than the one he painted.

It is true that during the first two years of the Clinton administration, the intelligence budgets declined. That is true. This was a period of deep cuts in almost all areas of Government, as we tried to grapple with the legacy of the previous 12 years of uncontrolled deficits. Over the next 6 years, however, the Clinton administration's budget increased every single year for intelligence. During that 6-year period, fiscal years 1996 to 2001, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, and the Congress cut the President's request in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2001. In 1999, the Republican-controlled Congress initially cut the intelligence budget, but then passed a large one-time supplemental appropriation.

In fiscal year 2001, the Republican-controlled Congress returned to its pattern of cutting intelligence funding. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress once again passed emergency supplemental funding. By that point, the Democrats had a majority of the Senate--briefly.

Representative Goss voted for every Intelligence authorization bill and every Defense appropriation bill during this period. So he must have thought that the so-called underfunding President Clinton was requesting was acceptable.

Now, I want to look at exactly what Senator Kerry proposed in 1994, and I want to contrast that with a bill, H.R. 1923, introduced by Representative Solomon that had as its first cosponsor Congressman Goss.

In 1994, Senator Kerry introduced a bill to cut the deficit by $45 billion over 5 years--at a time when Congress was searching for ways to undo the 12 years of uncontrolled deficits under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Senator Kerry's proposal would have rescinded $1 billion from the 1994 Intelligence appropriations and then increased intelligence spending over the next 4 years by the inflation rate. Representative Goss's proposal in 1995 would have cut not less than 4 percent of the personnel from all intelligence agencies in each of the following 5 years. After the initial cut in 1994, Senator Kerry's proposal would have provided significantly more funding for intelligence than was appropriated by the Congress controlled by the Republicans, beginning with the fiscal year 1996 budget.

Representative Goss's proposal, on the other hand, would have resulted in dramatically lower intelligence funding and, in fact John Kerry's proposal would have resulted in $8.8 billion more for intelligence than Congressman Goss's lead-cosponsored bill.

And worse, all of the cuts Representative Goss proposed in 1995 would have been achieved by firing 20 percent, by law, of America's intelligence officers at the very time the terrorist threat from al- Qaida was growing. In fact, had the Congress followed the Goss plan, the intelligence community would have had tens of thousands fewer intelligence officers in the year 2000: fewer intelligence collectors in the CIA, NSA, and elsewhere; fewer intelligence analysts across the community; fewer intelligence officers in the military service; and fewer counterterrorism officers in the FBI.

The Goss plan would have made, using his own words, in fact, ``deep and devastating cuts in the intelligence community budget.'' But this year, an election year, Representative Goss chose to level that charge against the Democratic Party as a whole and Senator John Kerry by name. Why? When asked at the nomination hearing to reconcile these facts with his charge that it was the Democrats who did not support intelligence, Representative Goss simply said, ``The record is the record,'' about four or five times. He also refused to admit that his accusations might have been in error.

When asked whether anyone from the White House or the President's reelection campaign asked him to write the March editorial and to give the June floor statement against John Kerry, he said he couldn't recall.

Representative Goss's unwillingness to be forthright in his answers on this matter were troubling to me and a number of my colleagues on the committee. His dismissive answers to tough, but as I said repeatedly, I thought fair questions lacked candor.

I was left with doubt that as Director of Central Intelligence, he would have a forceful and independent voice on intelligence assessments that do not necessarily support a political agenda, if there is one, of the current President.

There are other instances where Representative Goss, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, played the partisan blame game. It is against the law for the Director of the CIA to

be involved in such. That was then. He is being confirmed now. Does this man's life change completely after 15 years from partisanship to total nonpartisanship?

In 1999, when it was disclosed that the Chinese espionage efforts against our Department of Energy weapons laboratories may have resulted in loss of sensitive nuclear weapons design information, a counter- investigation was begun, eventually resulting in charges being brought against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee.

Representative Goss repeatedly laid the blame for this espionage activity on the Clinton administration's failure to protect national security. In the final days of the 2000 Presidential election campaign, Representative Goss took to the House floor and stated:

We have in the Clinton-Gore administration seen a cultural

disdain for security.

Again, Representative Goss's statements on important intelligence issues mischaracterized the record in the attempt to score political points.

The Cox Commission, which Porter Goss served on as vice chairman, found that the security problems at the Department of Energy weapons laboratories predated the Clinton administration and that the Chinese espionage collection program against the weapons lab began in the 1970s.

The Cox Commission report also noted it was the Clinton administration that issued Presidential Decision Directive 61 requiring the Department of Energy to improve counterintelligence programs.

Evidently, mentioning these points was not helpful to Representative Goss when he was making sweeping statements about ``a cultural disdain for security,'' which is highly offensive to me as a Democrat who is vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I think all Republicans and all Democrats care desperately, seriously about what happens in intelligence.

In the rush to assign partisan blame, Representative Goss ignored the record. In a number of other statements, Representative Goss erroneously singled out the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats for cutting human intelligence programs in the 1990s that, in turn, he said, limited the intelligence community's ability to carry out its mission.

Yet it was Representative Goss himself who said in 1998 that human intelligence collection programs needed to be cut by the time the 1990s began. His comment specifically was:

I am convinced that the U.S. clandestine service, the CIA

Directorate of Operations was in the mid to late 1980s too

large.

When the identity of Valerie Plame, an intelligence officer with the CIA whose clandestine identity is protected by law from unauthorized disclosure, was leaked and published by columnist Robert Novak, Representative Goss was asked whether the disclosure warranted investigation. His response was stunning. He said:

Someone sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an

investigation.

The whole basis for the law protecting the identity of covered intelligence community employees from being disclosed is to protect the lives of American intelligence officials that are endangered if their true identity is known to our adversaries.

As a former CIA case officer and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Goss knows this. For him to make such a statement, with its clearly implied shot at President Clinton, was wrong, inappropriate, and insensitive to the gravity of the matter. I hope Representative Goss, if confirmed by the Senate to lead the CIA, will have a more serious attitude toward the outing of CIA employees undercover.

When Richard Clarke, the coordinator for counterterrorism for the National Security Council from 1993 to October 2001, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that was clearly damaging to Bush administration claims, Representative Goss, and others, questioned his integrity and claimed he may have lied before the joint congressional inquiry in closed session, vowing to declassify his testimony to prove it.

These claims were never substantiated, and when the National Security Council forwarded to Chairman Goss, as requested, a declassified version of Richard Clarke's testimony on June 25, nearly 3 months ago, he took no action to publicly release it so that allegations of perjury and the like could be laid to rest.

While the Senate voted to support the creation of the independent National 9/11 Commission, which eventually became the Commission led by Governor Tom Kean and Representative Lee Hamilton, Representative Goss opposed the measure on the House floor.

When the Senate and House Intelligence Committees met in the fall of 2002 to conference this issue, he continued to oppose the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission stating that the issue would be decided ``above my pay grade.''

When the Senate Intelligence Committee undertook an investigation into the use of intelligence--not the collection, analysis, and production of intelligence, but when you hand it to policymakers--the use of intelligence by the administration officials prior to the war as part of our broader Iraq intelligence inquiry, Representative Goss made disparaging comments about two Democratic Senators in particular who, like many others in this body, are profoundly concerned about the veracity of public statements made about the U.S. intelligence agency, calling them ``two old attack dogs gumming their way through artificial outrage about something they should know a lot more about and be more responsible about.''

What makes this particular criticism curious is Representative Goss's lack of action on the issue of pre-war intelligence. Despite assurances over a year ago that the House Intelligence Committee was evaluating the intelligence community's performance on Iraq since the end of the gulf war, Chairman Goss failed to issue the promised report on the failures and mistakes leading up to the war.

Chairman Roberts and I, in a thoroughly bipartisan fashion, did so in a 17-to-0 vote. I think we are both proud of that, and justifiably so, along with our colleagues on the committee. The House produced nothing. They produced press releases, but nothing else.

When both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, as committees with shared jurisdiction, began holding difficult but necessary oversight hearings into the improper treatment and interrogation of prisoners in Iraq, Representative Goss viewed our actions with disdain, saying:

I am not comfortable with what the Senate is doing . . . I

do honestly question whether or not they have balance over

there on this issue . . . We've got a circus in the Senate,

which is always the likely place to look for this circus.

Porter Goss chose to denigrate the Senate's investigation, while the House chose to largely ignore the matter and not ask the tough questions about what happened inside Abu Ghraib prison and at other detention facilities in Iraq or elsewhere.

All too often, Representative Goss's statements and actions as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee seemed designed to protect the administration by avoiding contentious issues which could be embarrassing to the administration and placing blame on Democrats for shortcomings in the intelligence community.

Not surprisingly, one thing missing from Representative Goss's records is any public statements on intelligence critical of Members of his own party or the administration. During his nomination hearing, Representative Goss assured the committee that these partisan inclinations of the past would not prevent him from carrying out his duties as Director of Central Intelligence. He said he understood the Director must be an independent adviser to the President and the Congress, beyond reproach and beyond the reach of politics.

While I appreciate his testimony and commitment to being a nonpartisan Director of Intelligence, I cannot say with absolute certainty that he will be exactly that. I must vote on his record. I cannot vote on his promise, and I do not think the Senate should. His record is his record. He said it.

The truth is, Chairman Goss and I have a very good working relationship, one that I expect will continue and improve in the future. We had a good exchange in recent days, even during difficult nomination hearings. In contrast to those who wish to gloss over this issue, Porter Goss himself understands exactly the dilemma that I and

many of my colleagues face with this nomination. He knows this is one of only a handful of positions in the entire U.S. Government that requires by law nonpartisanship and objectivity, and in this case the demand is all the greater because it is about our national security.

Porter Goss openly acknowledged in his testimony before the committee this week that he has at times approached national security issues with excessive partisanship, and he expressed regret about that. And I respect that. I believe Porter Goss knows that in essence, on this whole question of independence, he is asking us to take it on faith, so to speak, that he can make a clean break from the last 10 to 20 years of his political career.

I hope he is right. I very much want him to be right about that, but at end of the day I do not think taking it on faith is enough for this vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee when it comes to such a critical position of Director of Central Intelligence. It does not meet the legal standard, and it does not meet my obligation, in my judgment, as vice chairman.

These are troubled times for the intelligence community in our country. In so many ways, we are still recovering from the tragedy of 9/11. We are grappling with the tragic impact of flawed and exaggerated intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, and we are struggling still to understand the truth about what is happening in the world.

Just yesterday, our President surprised and shocked many of us by dismissing outright the highest level of consensus view of the intelligence community when he said they were ``just guessing'' about the gravity of the situation in Iraq.

In light of all of this, I believe I owe it to the men and women of the intelligence community to send a clear and strong signal about the paramount importance of independence and objectivity. It needs to be said not only in words but in action. So I will vote against the nomination of Porter Goss to be the next DCI.

I sincerely hope Porter Goss will prove my vote wrong, and I told him that. In fact, I intend to work with him in order to help him prove me wrong. But based on his record of partisanship, based on the dictates of the law, and based on my own strong conviction against mixing politics and intelligence at the CIA, I must vote no.

I yield the floor.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.

I yield such time as the Senator from New Jersey wishes to express his views. I yield him that amount of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls that take place during the consideration of the Goss nomination be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to confirm Mr. Porter J. Goss, of Florida, to be the next Director of Intelligence.

On August 10, 2004, President Bush nominated Porter Goss to be the next Director of Central Intelligence, or the DCI. In doing so, the President stated that Mr. Goss ``is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorism. He knows the CIA inside and out. He is the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our Nation's history.''

The Goss nomination was received in the Senate on September 7. On September 14 and September 20, the Select Committee on Intelligence held extraordinary open hearings on this nomination that were televised and widely covered in the press.

At the September 14 hearing, Mr. Goss was introduced to the committee by both of Florida's distinguished Senators, Bob Graham, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Bill Nelson, who is well known to the Intelligence Committee as an interested and informed supporter of our efforts.

That both Florida Senators reached across the aisle to support this nomination is a testament to the wide bipartisan support that it does enjoy.

After 2 days of thorough and wide-ranging public hearings, the Goss nomination was placed before the Intelligence Committee membership for a vote yesterday morning.

In yet another impressive display of bipartisanship, the committee approved the Goss nomination and ordered it reported in a vote of 12 to 4. At this time, I would like to congratulate the Intelligence Committee members of both parties for their sober, penetrating, and thorough consideration of this nomination. The committee's handling of this nomination is very much in keeping with the bipartisan spirit that has animated its work during a very difficult year of challenges in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and in other areas around the world.

This bipartisan spirit did produce important steps forward, such as the committee's report on Iraq WMD, in understanding intelligence problems and gaps and also making recommendations in that regard.

As such, the committee's work will certainly help Mr. Goss as he strives to make the intelligence community better and to produce the best possible intelligence product. I want to say I also appreciate Mr. Goss's efforts during his 2 days of public hearings to respond to members' concerns and questions. He took these hearings very seriously and with attention to detail demanded by consideration for a position that has in the past been part of the Cabinet.

In my opinion, during his confirmation hearings Mr. Goss showed the qualities we want to see in a good DCI. They are coolness under pressure, a willingness to look at alternative views and, very importantly, a willingness to ``take a few licks'' for past judgments.

Most important of all, he demonstrated his ability to put the lawmaker's so-called partisan hat aside and take up the strictly nonpartisan duties of this critical executive branch office.

As I noted at Mr. Goss's first public hearing on September 14, the role of the Director of Central Intelligence is of paramount importance to the security of this Nation. It is also one of the most challenging jobs in the executive branch today.

Obviously, this Nation is currently engaged in a war not only in Iraq, not only in Afghanistan, but elsewhere around the globe. In this war, for the most part there are no trenches. There is no barbed wire. There is no well-defined no man's land. On the contrary, in this war of shadows and darkness, intelligence defines the front line and indicates its weak points and gaps.

Recently, a distinguished former National Security Adviser remarked to Senators that during the last 3 years our world has changed dramatically. In the old world, the threats were posed by nation states and organized military forces. In our new world, the greatest threats may be domestic. These threats may come from nation states and their agents and terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. Organized military conflict is only one of many threats.

In our new world, we are not fighting against nation states but against a network of disparate terrorist groups that operate not only in the shadows but at times right in our own midst. Whether Afghanistan or Iraq or here at home, defeating this enemy depends primarily upon the ability of our intelligence services to locate, to penetrate and, yes, to destroy the terrorist cells. We are involved in a world war which requires timely and actionable intelligence to ensure victory and the safety of the American people.

The Director of Central Intelligence is personally responsible for producing this intelligence. As we fight Islamic terror, other global threats continue to menace our Nation, and among them are these: The development of nuclear programs by adversary regimes such as those in Iran and also North Korea; the steady transformation of the People's Republic of China into a power capable of challenging our interests broadly and exercising influence over the region; and the continuing worldwide expansion of WMD technology.

The Director of Central Intelligence is also responsible for producing intelligence to keep the President and policymakers informed about these threats.

And if that were not daunting enough, Mr. Goss has been nominated for a position which in all probability may not exist for much longer. As Senators know, the President and many in the Congress now support the creation of a new national intelligence director. There has been a great deal of discussion among my colleagues about reform. Above all, we must ensure that a national intelligence director is something more than a weak and ineffective figurehead.

Most of the debate outside the Intelligence Committee has centered on how to grant increased authority to the new national intelligence director while leaving the structural status quo undisturbed.

Many on the Intelligence Committee believe this is simply unworkable. In other words, significant structural change is vital to real reform. I believe strongly that we must create a new structure. This new structure must accommodate the diverse activities of our intelligence agency by giving direct responsibility and control of primary intelligence disciplines and the corresponding agencies to a truly empowered national intelligence director and his assistants. And true empowerment includes both budget authority and line authority to direct and control the activities of the intelligence activities. One without the other may leave us with an intelligence head who can neither succeed nor be held accountable, and that would be a most unfortunate outcome.

We don't know how or when reform will finally be enacted. Until then, however, we need a strong Director of Central Intelligence with the necessary skills to manage a community which needs reform. Porter Goss understands these issues. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he helped create momentum for reform.

Porter Goss will be a good man to have in the intelligence community driver's seat as Congress, in cooperation with the executive branch, goes through the consideration of major reform. His unique background will serve him well as he meets these and other challenges while directing our intelligence community.

For over 40 years, Porter Goss has been serving his Nation, his State, and his community. As an Army intelligence officer, a clandestine CIA case officer, a newspaper man, a county commissioner, a U.S. Representative, and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss has done his duty with skill, with honor, and with integrity. I believe, and Members on both sides agree, that his experience makes him uniquely suited to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence.

I have known Mr. Goss personally for 16 years. I served with him in the other body, the House of Representatives. I have worked with him on a weekly

basis since I joined the Intelligence Committee. I have formed a strong opinion about his fitness to lead the intelligence community.

One of Porter Goss's most important characteristics is that he does not ride in a partisan posse. In that sense and in many others, the President has selected an outstanding public servant to be his principal adviser on intelligence.

In concluding my opening statement on the Goss nomination, I would like to underscore an important point. If, as I earnestly hope, the Senate approves this nomination today, this body will not simply have performed a routine pro forma duty. On the contrary, Porter Goss's confirmation as the DCI represents perhaps the most important changing of the guard for our intelligence community since 1947. This confirmation represents a fresh start for our Nation's intelligence community. He will be the first Director of Central Intelligence in a new and hopefully better intelligence community. It is not the same entity that George Tenet inherited when he was confirmed by this body 7 years ago.

It is not the same entity that existed on September 10, 2001. The intelligence community has undergone vitally important changes since the terrorist attacks of 2001. These changes are the result of many factors: statutory requirements, Executive orders, and other major changes in policy. That snapshot that we took of the intelligence community back on September 10, 2001, and the snapshot today is much better in terms of improvement. A key factor is the vigilance and dedication of the intelligence community rank and file, to include those men and women who, today, as I speak, are putting their lives at risk in remote and dangerous places to protect our Nation.

Still other changes are on the immediate horizon as Congress considers major intelligence reform. So let us understand clearly what we do here today. Porter Goss, as the new DCI, will lead a new intelligence community into a new chapter. Senate confirmation of Porter Goss does not mean simply painting a new name on the mailbox at Langley. It represents the opening of a new era for the intelligence community. The errors and omissions of Iraq are well known. They must be corrected.

Steps have been taken and will be taken to ensure that. The errors and the omissions of 9/11 are very clearly and thoroughly described in both the joint inquiry that was conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the 9/11 Commission Report.

These errors and omissions must and will be corrected. Porter Goss's task will be to build, inspire, and open a new chapter in our intelligence activities. We must never forget the errors of the past or their human cost. Likewise, we should not dwell on them or allow them to paralyze us. We must grapple with them and overcome them. That is what is happening now, with structural intelligence community reform. Porter Goss's task will be to open the new chapter and lead the intelligence community into that fresh start.

Today, perhaps our highest legislative priority is to repair what is broken in the intelligence community. We must not let this laudable desire immobilize us.

John McLaughlin, the Acting Director, has done a professional and commendable job as the Acting DCI. He, no less than the rank and file of the intelligence community, needs long-term, permanent leadership, and we need it now.

One of the concerns voiced by the 9/11 Commission was that it takes too long to put key intelligence community officials into place. In the case of this nomination, I believe the Senate definitely got the message. The watch word for this nomination since the beginning has been goodwill and bipartisanship. As I stated at the beginning, Senators Graham and Nelson of Florida introduced and strongly endorsed this nominee at his first confirmation hearing. We had an impressive bipartisan vote on this nomination in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, the Honorable Ms. Jane Harman, has pointed with pride to her committee's involvement in intelligence reform under Mr. Goss's chairmanship. Expressions of support for this nomination have come from both sides of the aisle and both sides of Capitol Hill.

This nominee is ready to go to work and he is needed. I urge the Senate to confirm him as soon as possible. I, personally, and I think I speak for the members of the Intelligence Committee, look forward to working with Porter Goss, the next and possibly last DCI.

I understand the vice chair is waiting to speak, but I ask his indulgence to permit Senator Chambliss to speak first.

How much time does the Senator request?

I yield him such time as he would consume.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he may use to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

I yield as much time as he may need to a valued member of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I will be happy to soon yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, a valued member of the Intelligence Committee.

On the issue of the HPSCI activity, the House intelligence activity, in regard to reform and other intelligence challenges during the last 3 Congresses, which has been brought up, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Survey of Activities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence During the 107th Congress. I also commend to my colleagues the Survey of Activities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the 106th Congress and the 105th Congress.

Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Utah and thank him for his service on the Intelligence Committee.

Also, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his excellent commentary, more especially highlighting Mr. Goss's independence and the fact he will be a nonpartisan DCI.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I now yield as much time as the distinguished Senator from Maryland may use. I thank the distinguished Senator for her service on this committee as she always provides the committee with very candid, independent, and right-on views. I am delighted to yield time to her at this time.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for her very forthright statement. Like the Senator, I understand the point raised by Senator Lautenberg and would only make two points about the notion of Porter Goss's alleged lack of independence from the administration.

First, Mr. Goss sent a very candid letter to DCI Tenet, along with Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, expressing deep concern about our intelligence on Iraq. That letter is not the work of a shrinking violet, I can assure you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Second, the independence issue was thoroughly explored at Mr. Goss's confirmation hearing as of this week. Mr. Goss has assured the committee--and I do believe him, knowing him for 16 years in the Congress--that he has the integrity, as Senator Mikulski put it, to look the President in the eye and say no.

Mr. President, at present, it does not appear either side has a Member requesting time, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield such time to the distinguished Senator from Florida as he might consume and thank him for his contributions, not only with his strong interest in the Intelligence Committee and the leading intelligence issues and challenges we face today, but for his service on the Armed Services Committee as well, for working with me with regard to Captain Spiker and other issues. I look forward to his comments.

Mr. President, seeing no other Senators requesting time now, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, it is my understanding, or I can ask the distinguished Senator--

He would be able to finish his remarks at 3, in time for the meeting?

No.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. President, I believe the chairman of the committee had indicated a desire to yield 5 minutes, or what time the Senator may consume, to Senator Allard of Colorado. It would be my intent to follow Senator Allard.

I yield to the chairman.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I also commend the chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the very difficult job they have been performing, leading the Intelligence Committee. It has to be one of the toughest jobs that I have witnessed in the Senate. It takes time, it takes experience, and it takes intellect to be able to deal with the issues that come before this committee.

I also commend them for the way they have handled this particular nomination. They were patient. They gave every Senator ample time to make their points and ask questions, and they have been commended by Members of both sides of the aisle for the way they handled the nomination. That is why I think the nomination was approved by the Intelligence Committee, and why I believe this nomination will be confirmed by a wide margin.

Before I get into a little more discussion about why I support Porter Goss to be head of the CIA and director of intelligence, I will talk about my overall concerns regarding the intelligence area.

As a member of the leadership over the years, I was able to have briefings and meet with Director Tenet. There are specific requirements in the law that certain Members have to be notified when particular actions are taken. I always took those matters very seriously and spent the time that was necessary to get those briefings. For the last year and a half, I have been on the Intelligence Committee. I must confess that when I went on the committee, I thought I would be a big defender and big supporter of our intelligence community, because I think that what they do is so important. I do support the men and women who work in that community.

But I must say, over the last year and a half, I have developed many concerns about how that job is being done, how the Congress does its job. I didn't appreciate how important oversight is regarding intelligence matters, how important it is that a Senator develop expertise to be able to ask the right questions, do the oversight, and understand what is going on.

I have come to the conclusion that our intelligence community is not set up properly and we are not doing our job in the Congress. We can point fingers and blame somebody else, but a lot of the problem resides here in this body and in the Congress--not because we don't try to do our job, but we are not organized properly to do it. We have this multifaceted process of so many committees claiming jurisdiction, and with good reason. Armed Services needs to be aware of what's going on, as do Foreign Relations, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs. Is there anybody who doesn't have their finger in this intelligence pie a little bit? Basically, nobody is doing the oversight job properly, because the members of the Intelligence Committee are not there permanently; they come and go and are on the Committee maybe 2 years, 4 years, or 8 years. Once you get to where you know what to ask and what is going on, you leave the Committee.

Frankly, I think the CIA and the intelligence community's attitude is: Don't give them anything; give them a little bit of a courtesy, a brush-off, and we will get what we want from the appropriators in the end.

I think we have real problems in the intelligence community and in the Congress, and we need to fix them. I don't have a magic design. I want to hear what the experts have to say and see what legislation is proposed. I know this: Something has to be done in the way the intelligence community operates. You cannot operate under a construct where you have 15 different agencies and 80 percent of the money going to the Defense Department, with the director of intelligence having little or no control over the money or many of those intelligence agencies.

We need major changes, and we need them now. I am concerned about concerns that were raised yesterday that if we do not do this right, if we rush to reorganize the intelligence community, we could do damage because the job of gathering intelligence has to go on every day. Men and women are putting their lives on the line to gather intelligence. We need to be careful, but we need to press forward with change.

I know this body is loath to change anything. Any kind of reform is looked at suspiciously: Oh, we can't do that; it has always been done this way. I have taken the time over the years to look at a lot of these issues, and it has not always been done this way. A lot of what we do and say around here, which some say is sacrosanct and cannot be changed, is relatively new. It evolved over the years.

At some point, you have to say there is a higher priority, that there is something more important than turf or jurisdiction or the way it was or is being done.

What is most important is how we are going to do the best job for the men and women in uniform, men and women in intelligence, and for the American people. So I think we need to make necessary changes.

The important point is that we have to have somebody in charge. We have good people in the CIA doing the job. We have an Acting Director who is a good man doing a good job. But we do not need an Acting Director forever. We need a man or woman in charge making decisions, making changes that need to be carried out even without legislation that overhauls the whole operation, and we need it now.

This is a dangerous time we are in. We need to not only confirm this nominee right away, but we need to do it overwhelmingly. We need to show him, we need to show the agencies, and we need to show the departments that he has the confidence of the American people through their representatives in the Senate. We are dealing with very important issues, and it is so important that we have leadership at the top. We need to do it right away.

We have a good man who has been nominated. A lot of thought went into his selection. I know the President sought out the counsel, advice, and the thinking of a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, in the House and Senate, before he went forward with this nomination. He has nominated a man who is uniquely qualified to be the Director of Intelligence.

Porter Goss is the right age. He is in his mid-sixties, still young enough to do the job, and old enough to know what needs to be done. He has a background of military experience, where he was in Army intelligence for 2 years. He worked in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA for many years. Most of this is in the Record, but I think it is worth repeating so that my statement will make sense, hopefully, in its entirety.

When he left the CIA, he continued to be involved in trying to serve his fellow man and his community. He was a leader in his hometown in Florida. He served on the city council, was mayor, was a member of the board of commissioners, and has served in Congress since 1988, which is a pretty good period of time. He eventually became chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where I know he did a good job.

I have watched him. I have watched him deal with difficult issues. I have watched him take a leadership role, and I have watched him work with the ranking member of that committee and with Democrats, and I have been impressed with the job he has done on the Intelligence Committee in the House.

So he knows the CIA. He knows it from having been in Army intelligence, he knows it from having been in the CIA, and he knows it from the position he held as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He knows where the problems are because he was there, and he knows how to strengthen the intelligence community and make it better. He is no stranger to the difficulty and the complexity of foreign intelligence.

When I look back on some of the former heads of the CIA, frankly, some of them did not have much of a background in that area. But here is a man who is uniquely qualified. He has been in the intelligence community. I know that some people say that if you are in the institution, you are part of the problem. But, my experience leads me to ask, how can you solve a problem if you do not really understand an institution? There are some in Washington that say, if you know the subject, whether it is transportation or oil or intelligence, you should not be in government because you have been coopted.

I think absolutely the opposite is the case. Practical experience is invaluable. You have to understand the culture, you have to understand the people, and anybody who has paid close attention to the intelligence community in recent months and years knows what changes should be made and have to be made.

Porter Goss, a Member of Congress, has been critical of the intelligence community. He does not sugar-coat it. He has called the human intelligence program dysfunctional. He has spoken the truth about the way we have funded the CIA, which he says has not been adequate, it has not been done in the right way, and we have not put enough emphasis on human intelligence. In fact, Congress stopped this nation from having the human intelligence we needed, if we go back and look at the results of the Church Commission some 30 years ago. Once again, we are part of the problem.

He knows we need to do more in linguistic training, and he has raised these questions as chairman of the committee and in his communications with the DCI.

His confirmation would bring stability and experience to the intelligence community. One thing that worries me, as I have talked to some of our intelligence personnel, is a certain concern about whether they are really appreciated, and are the old experienced hands going to stay, or are they going to leave. I have noticed some of the intelligence people I see are getting younger, younger, and younger. They need a firm and experienced leader. They need a person who has been there with them, understands their needs, and appreciates the job they do, and Porter Goss would do that.

He does support what Congress is about to do. We are going to create a national intelligence director position, and we are going to pass legislation that is going to reorganize the intelligence community at some point, maybe sooner than later.

Again, he has the right attitude and supports the position I believe that Congress is going to be taking.

There are those who have questioned his independence. Is he a partisan? Is he a politician? Whatever happened to congressional courtesy? Over the years, I have supported Members of the other party from this body and the other body, even though they have sometimes been very partisan politicians, very aggressive in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate, but I knew them to be good men and women, and I knew when they took on a different role. When you are in Congress, when you are in politics, you are a politician. That is not a damnation. That is somebody involved in the art of government. When you are a member of a party, sometimes members of the other party get under your skin, and you speak out.

I noticed over the years, Porter Goss has not been one of those rabid partisans. He has been very calm and very stable. Sometimes he gets a little upset. Maybe he thought perhaps the Senate was getting carried away with some of our hearings recently. On occasion, I have thought we did a little grandstanding in the Senate, and I said so even though it was sometimes directed at my own party.

I know he is an independent thinker, and I know he will put his job as head of the CIA, uppermost. He will put his political past and his partisanship behind him. He also will be a man, I believe, who can go in and meet with the President at those early morning meetings and say: Mr. President, this is what we know, this is the truth about the situation, and if you go this way, you are going to have certain problems.

He has that stature, he has that credibility, and he will have the independence to do that.

I think having served so many years, having been on the Intelligence Committee, and having the record he built at the Intelligence Committee, is proof that he will be independent to do that job for the American people. I believe he will be more candid with the Congress.

Quite often when we had testimony before the Intelligence Committee, I felt as if I did not get a complete story. Frequently, testimony was less than fully satisfactory or sufficient. Porter Goss is going to be able to speak to us on a level basis, not from the perspective of a former staff member. He was one of us, and he will not try to fool us. I think he will tell us the truth.

By the way, I think we will be very comfortable telling him: Mr. Director, we don't believe that. We will be able to be very candid with him. I believe he will show flexibility as we move from where we are to where we need to be.

He has been questioned about the positions he has taken, but he satisfied the members of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 12 to 4 with several Democrats voting for his confirmation. They asked him the tough questions. They had their reservations, and those reservations have been satisfied.

I cite one point of how he dealt with the former Director. On September of 2003, he wrote a letter to DCI Tenet pointing out concerns he had with intelligence. He joined with the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee in the House, Congresswoman Harman, and indicated there were significant deficiencies with respect to the intelligence community's collection activities concerning Iraq's WMD programs and ties to al-Qaida prior to the commencement of hostilities there.

So he did not wait until after the fact; he raised concerns when they needed to be raised. If my colleagues have taken a look at that letter, it certainly shows independence and it was the kind of thing that the DCI needed to hear at that particular time.

So I can attest from experience, from observation, and from a written record that this Congressman will be an independent, thoughtful, strong voice at the CIA.

I urge my colleagues, let us have our discussion but let us have a vote and let us make it overwhelming. Let us do it now because we need strong leadership and we have the right man to do this job. Porter Goss will provide leadership for the intelligence community. He will be able to work with Congress and he will help give the intelligence community the ability to do an even better job.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. President, I believe Porter Goss is the right man certainly in this crucial time in the history of our intelligence community.

Porter Goss spent over a decade at the CIA. He had the opportunity to see it from the inside, to work there in a distinguished career. For the last few years, he has had the opportunity to serve in the Congress, to serve on the Intelligence Committee in the House, and then for the last few years as the chairman. I think it is significant that he has been the chairman for the last few years at the same time many of us have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, when the force of history has compelled all of us to examine as we have never done before the role of the intelligence community in the world we live in today, a world confronted by the failures of the intelligence community, where we have taken a magnifying glass for the last several years as Members of the House and Members of the Senate to see exactly what is wrong with the intelligence community. There has only been a handful of people who have had that experience. Some of them are in this room today.

Porter Goss has distinguished himself in that exercise as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as the leader in the House when we went through the joint Senate-House investigation. I had the chance to watch him through that endeavor. I had the chance to watch him learn, as all of us did, about the tragedy of September 11 and how the intelligence community did not function the way we want it to function.

In Porter Goss we will have someone who knows the community from the inside, but also has stood back, been on the other side, been on the outside, and has looked at it to see what is wrong, and has looked at it in a critical time in our history. I think that is so very important as we begin the task as a country and he begins the task as the new Director of the CIA to bring about needed reform.

This is a tough job, but I believe Porter Goss is a tough man. I believe he is the right man. Some people might say this is an impossible job. I do not know if it is an impossible job, but it is a very difficult job. Let us think about it for a moment.

This is the man who walks in to see the President every morning, walks in to the Oval Office and greets him, gives him the intelligence report. I think we all understand there has to be a chemistry between the President and the Director; that if there isn't, that relationship--and we have seen that in the past with Presidents and Directors, sometimes there isn't that relationship--if there isn't that relationship, they do not talk and the country suffers.

There has to be a relationship of trust, of confidence. Yet that same man who comes in to see the President every morning where there has to be that relationship, that trust, that rapport, is also a man who has to tell the President what the President does not want to hear; a man who has to have the guts to do it; a man who has to look the President in the eye and have the guts to tell the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, Mr. President, that is not the way it is; or maybe a more difficult thing to say, Mr. President, we messed up, we were wrong 6 months ago or 3 months ago, what we told you was not right; or maybe this is the toughest thing of all to say to the President, Mr. President, we don't know.

And when we look at some of the problems, some hypothetical, some factual, some of the things that occurred, those have been some of the problems. That man has to also be able to look at the President of the United States and say, Well, here is what we think it is, but also there are people in the intelligence community who have a minority view. That man has to have the guts to tell the President that as well. That is a difficult job.

This man also is the person who protects us every day in this world because he is the one who has to be in charge of putting together all of the intelligence. And today it is the intelligence that protects us just as much as our national defense. The facts he comes up with, our intelligence community comes up with, are our first line of defense today. Yet we are telling this man today, if you get this job, at the same time you are carrying on this war on terrorism and you are providing these facts, we expect you to go as fast as you can to carry out reform.

Further, we tell this man that he has to deal with whatever today's crisis is. What we are focused on, of course, is terrorism today. But he has to deal with the long-term crises--nuclear proliferation, what is going on in China, you pick the challenge. He has to be 5 years out, or 10 or 15 years out, and he had better not get it wrong.

This is a new era for the CIA, a new era for the intelligence community which came to maturity in the Cold War, the Soviet Union versus the United States. We sort of understood in those decades when we developed that

intelligence community. Official cover worked pretty well. The new head of the intelligence community has to continue that change, continue to change away from that. We have to move out from the official cover to a nonofficial cover. That is just one of the changes that has to take place. It is a tough job.

I think when you vote on someone's confirmation, a lot of this is kind of a gut check. You don't know what the exact issues are going to be in the future. This is an intensely personal job, as I have pointed out. The person who runs the agency, I suspect we are going to end up giving a lot more power. If Porter Goss is confirmed, he may end up with an entirely different job later on. He is going to run a big intelligence community, but it is also an intensely personal job in that relationship with the Congress and that relationship with all of the consumers. And the ultimate consumer, of course, being the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.

I think it gets down to a lot of the person. What do you think of this guy, or woman if that be the case? Can they handle it?

I think it is helpful to talk to some of the persons who know this person best. I was struck by the testimony of the two Senators from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, of course, the senior Senator, but also significantly the chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee of the Senate, and a pretty harsh critic of the intelligence community and of the administration. This is what he had to say:

Let me say at the beginning that I am not unbiased. I

believe that Porter Goss is an exceptional human being and

will be an exceptional head of our Central Intelligence.

Senator Graham also said:

Mr. Chairman, I have known Porter Goss for well over two

decades, and I can tell you from personal experience that he

is uniquely qualified to be here today as the President's

nominee to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence. He

is a man of great character, unusual intelligence, a

tremendous work ethic, and an outstanding personal and

professional standard of integrity.

Senator Graham added that as Governor of Florida, when he first met the nominee:

Party affiliation did not matter then. What was necessary,

good men and women who could carry out a difficult task.

My colleagues, I believe party affiliation does not matter today. The challenge that Porter Goss, on a much magnified scale, will face as Director of Central Intelligence is very analogous to the challenge he faced 20 years ago in restoring integrity to his local community and completing a very complex project.

As to Porter Goss's fitness to serve as an independent, unbiased DCI, this is what Senator Graham of Florida said.

. . . when it comes to the intelligence community,

Congressman Goss has, in my judgment, a balanced perspective,

a perspective gained both as an insider and then as an

outsider. For a decade, early in his career, Congressman Goss

served our Nation in both the Army and the CIA. He knows

firsthand the value and the risk of clandestine operations.

Since he has been in Congress, especially as a member and

chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence, he came to know the agencies from an oversight

capacity.

Senator Graham continued:

Some have said he is too close to the intelligence

agencies, that he would be too protective of the status quo.

Well, most of you served with Porter and myself on the joint

inquiry into the events of 9/11. I believe you would join me

in saying from that experience Porter is a man who will be

independent in his judgments and unflinching in his criticism

where he believes they are necessary.

Senator Graham concluded with these words:

I am confident he will not be a part of the problem but

rather a leader in taking us toward principled, thoughtful

solutions when it comes to reforming the intelligence

community. I strongly recommend the confirmation of Porter

Goss.

Senator Bill Nelson also participated in the September 14 Goss confirmation hearing. These are some of the things Senator Nelson had to say:

I think we need intelligence reform. I think we need it

now. And I think Porter Goss is the man to lead the effort.

Senator Nelson also called Porter Goss:

. . . a uniquely gifted individual whose public life has

been illustrative of being nonpartisan, fair, and

independent.

The Senator further pointed out that:

Those characteristics in this town that is so highly

charged with partisanship are sorely needed in a Director of

Central Intelligence.

Those statements are from his two colleagues on the other side of the aisle from Florida.

I think sometimes it is good to know and talk to people who know someone best.

Mr. President and Members of the Senate, let me conclude by saying I have known Porter Goss for a long time. I have dealt with him on issues not just in the area of intelligence. Sometimes you get to know people in the Senate and the House working in Congress on a variety of issues.

Porter Goss and I had shared a tragic situation when we had constituents, hemophiliacs who acquired AIDS because they had to take massive amounts of blood because of their condition. The blood was tainted. It is a long story. I will not go into it now. But the blood was tainted because we thought there was an error made by the Federal Government, that the Federal Government did not become involved early enough, that the Federal Government made mistakes.

I had constituents. I listened to their tragic story. Porter Goss listened to some constituents of his. So we both moved in our respective bodies to try to bring about some help for these folks. I saw how compassionate he was and how strongly he felt about the issue and what he did about it and how he took that passion and feeling he felt for those folks in wanting to do something about it. I worked with him. I traveled with him to Haiti, the poorest country in this hemisphere. I have seen his compassion for the people of Haiti.

I have worked with him on the Intelligence Committee. I will be honest with you, I have had the occasion, many times, to pick up the phone and call across the Capitol and ask Porter: What is really going on in the intelligence community? What is really going on at the CIA? I will tell you, each time he had an insight that was unrivaled, or rivaled by very few people I have talked to, of what was really going on inside the intelligence community. That is an insight that came about from his years of experience inside the community and his years of experience of watching the community in the oversight capacity while being on the committee and of being the chairman.

He has a passion and an understanding of the intelligence community and of what needs to be done to change it. He understands the importance of human intelligence. Long before it was fashionable in this town to be saying, oh, we have to have more human intelligence, Porter Goss was pushing, pushing, and pushing the intelligence community for more human intelligence.

It may not have been flashy, it may not have been with a lot of big speeches, but he was there. He understood it. He understood what the needs were. This man gets it. If you want someone to lead the reform of this community, if you want someone who understands what the problems are, who can do it from the inside, if you want someone who will have the guts to report to the President of the United States and tell it like it is, Porter Goss is your man.

So, Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today to recommend to my colleagues, based on my personal experience with this man, what I have seen over the years, that we vote for his confirmation. He has a tough job and, yes, it may be almost an impossible job, but I think he is the right man at the right time at this point in our history.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for his sterling leadership on this issue and for this piece of legislation as we recognize June as National Homeownership Month.

Today the House takes up this important housing resolution to recognize National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. In addition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), I certainly want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, for his leadership; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member on the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), our chairman on the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, homeownership is a dream that millions of Americans strive to achieve every year. Our national homeownership rate has risen dramatically during the past 50 years and now stands as a record 68.8 percent. This is an extraordinary accomplishment that all Americans should be very proud of.

But in the midst of this record housing boom, there are yet millions of American families, particularly low-income families and minority households, who have been left behind and unable to make this dream a reality.

So as we celebrate June as National Homeownership Month, this Congress must seize on opportunities to help more Americans reap the benefits of owning their own home.

I will just enter into the Record this article from the front page of my home newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, yesterday, which is headlined ``Black Women Find Places of Their Own,'' written by Janet Frankston, an Atlanta Journal Constitution staff writer. And it starts with this story that I think is very appropriate as we start this. It says: ``The day before she closed on her three-bedroom house, Thommi Odom couldn't eat. `Even at the day of closing, I was physically sick,' said Odom, a 30-year-old information technology manager originally from Savannah. `Just the whole process, knowing I'm ultimately responsible, was very scary.'

``Now, more than 5 years later, Odom has tripled her income and is looking for her second house, an upgrade from her 2,036 square foot home in Lithonia. And now she's not even blinking at the finances.''

She is building wealth, but it started with the purchase of a home.

America's families and neighborhoods and our national economy all prosper from homeownership. Homeownership enables families to build wealth that transcends generations. Homeownership transforms neighborhoods into centers of civic engagement and community strength, and housing is a vital part of the national economy, accounting for about 14 percent of the gross domestic product. Indeed, it is housing that has played an essential role in the economy and the economic recovery over the last 2 years, creating new jobs and serving as an engine of economic growth.

And there is such great news from my home area of metro Atlanta, which I represent. And I represent 11 counties, and of those 11 counties, eight of them are among the fastest-growing counties in terms of homeownership in this Nation. The number of African American homeowners, for example, has increased by 97 percent in the 1990s; yet there is a lot of work to do with African American homeownership that is fluctuating as we speak.

For Hispanics it increased 258 percent, and for Asians it increased 241 percent. These numbers compare to an increase of 38 percent for white homeowners. From 1997 to 2002, conventional mortgage loans to African American women increased by 114 percent.

Clearly, the homeownership gap is closing, and this Congress should be proud of the work that we are doing. But there is much more work to do. We must pass the Financial Literacy Act, which I introduced, and I am working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), subcommittee Chair; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

The House of Representatives can take an important step to expand homeownership opportunities by also passing H.R. 3755, the Zero Downpayment Act of 2004. This legislation, which I introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), would help thousands of families get into homes by helping them overcome one of the top obstacles of homeownership: assembling the necessary funds for a down payment.

H.R. 3755 enjoys strong bipartisan support and passed by the House Committee on Financial Services by voice vote. By swiftly passing this legislation, the House will be paying fitting tribute to National Homeownership Month by helping thousands join America's ownership roster.

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 21, 2004]

(By Janet Frankston)

The day before she closed on her three-bedroom house,

Thommi Odom couldn't eat.

``Even at the day of closing, I was physically sick,'' said

Odom, a 30-year-old information technology manager originally

from Savannah. ``Just the whole process--knowing I'm

ultimately responsible--was very scary.''

Now, more than five years later, Odom has tripled her

income and is looking for her second house, an upgrade from

her 2,036-square-foot home in Lithonia. And she's not even

blinking at the finances.

``Making the payments is easy,'' she said, sitting in her

living room with a group of black girlfriends who are also

homeowners. ``The maintenance is difficult.''

In 2003, unmarried women were nearly twice as likely to buy

homes as unmarried men. Single women make up the second-

largest group of homebuyers, according to a nationwide survey

by the National Association of Realtors. In metro Atlanta,

Odom's demographic, single African-American women represent a

particularly fast-growing group.

From 1997 to 2002, conventional mortgage loans to black

women increased in 114 percent in metro Atlanta, a draw for

middle-class blacks from across the nation. That growth

greatly outpaced mortgage loans to white men and white women,

which increased in the region by 35 percent and 26 percent,

respectively. Mortgage growth in the region was highest among

single black men, but they bought fewer homes than single

black women.

Women are buying homes as they gain access to more and

better-paying jobs. They like the tax advantages and want to

start building wealth. And they benefit from a societal shift

that accepts their marrying later or not at all. That shift

is especially prevalent among black women, 64 percent of whom

reported being single in the most recent nationwide census

survey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has consistently provided sterling leadership to make sure that all Americans have access to home ownership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is a strong voice for working people, to make sure all people have access to housing, and especially those in the lower income and housing projects, of which he represents 80 percent.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in this afternoon's discussion on this very, very important piece of legislation, to own a home is the foundation for wealth building in our country. We are making great progress, but there is yet much more that we have to do, especially when it comes to the minorities, African Americans, and Hispanics, particularly.

But I am so proud to be a part of the Committee on Financial Services and on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for we are making great progress, and not only making sure that we address the issue of homeownership, but, in addition to that, making sure that we put policies and programs in place that will make sure they maintain those homes and to build on that progress.

A measure that we have in our committee, the Financial Literacy Act, is to make sure that people are not taken advantage of when they do own a home. Very important. A key point of that bill is to set up a toll- free number so that individual homeowners will have access to get information and know where to call to get information before they sign on the dotted line. And it is so important that at the other end of that phone line that there be a human being, not a recorded voice, but a human being answering and responding to that measure. We are very proud of that bill.

Our housing counciling bill under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); our zero down payment which eliminates the down payment for those FAA- guaranteed mortgages; and again, an issue that was pointed out by my distinguished friend, the gentleman from California, as well as my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and that is we must expand FHA loan limits to include high-cost areas like California and Massachusetts; and we are working on that.

Mr. Speaker, free credit reports, and some financial education creative matters that we are working on that I want to mention very briefly as I close. We have got to get down to the nitty-gritty with our young people and start financial literacy programs in the early grades; and I am proud to work with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), in putting forward a piece of legislation that will require financial literacy, age-appropriate, K through 12; and we will get that funded by using the Global Fund of Securities and Exchange Commission. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is working to make sure that we set aside monies in the Treasury Department to make people aware of financial literacy programs.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is doing a wonderful job, and I am so delighted that we are here with this legislation, H.R. 658, to recognize Homeownership Month as the month of June.

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

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