Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, I have closely studied the proposed free trade pact between the United States and Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, commonly referred to as CAFTA.

After careful consideration, research, and meetings with national security experts and representatives of Missouri agriculture, labor, and business, I have decided to vote in favor of CAFTA. While this legislation is far from perfect--no trade pact ever is--my support comes down to two issues.

First, CAFTA is a national security issue. As the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, I have the opportunity to consider not only the military component of national security, but other elements as well. Our security depends upon the success and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. We must exert leadership, especially in our own hemisphere.

Just 20 years ago, civil wars, communist insurgencies, and military dictatorships oppressed and destabilized much of Central America. Because conditions in Central America are critical to our national security, the

United States has actively supported these nations during the transition from insurgency and military rule to democracy. However, these new democratic governments cannot be taken for granted. Threats to their existence remain, notably from countries in South America that are suffering the effects of civil war, narcotics trafficking, and communist inspired agitation. Turning our backs on a region only recently freed from the grasp of dictatorship would diminish our international credibility and would send the wrong message to the world at a time when our troops are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to build stable, democratically-elected governments.

As former President Jimmy Carter said, ``For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward and to help those leaders who want to modernize and humanize their countries.''

Second, the market access provided by CAFTA will benefit American agriculture, which is of primary importance to those of us who care about the future of rural America and want to promote a strong rural economy. Currently, 99 percent of, agricultural products from CAFTA countries enter the United States duty free, while U.S. farm exports face significant barriers in these markets. Many of these commodities are produced in Missouri, where agricultural exports totaled $1.24 billion in 2003 and account for one-fourth of farm cash receipts.

Under CAFTA, U.S. farm products--like pork, poultry, soybeans, corn, and beef--will receive preferential access to Central American markets, giving Missouri's agricultural exports a significant economic advantage over agricultural exports from our competitors in South America, Europe, and Canada. It is projected the CAFTA could increase agricultural exports in the Show-Me State by $33 million annually once the agreement is fully implemented in 2024.

Again, no trade deal is perfect. Clearly, some improvements could be made in the bill, especially on the labor protection side. But, as I studied CAFTA and heard from national security, agriculture, labor, and business leaders, I became convinced that this trade agreement is critical to U.S. national security and to rural America.

June 8, 2005.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

To Representative Bill Thomas: As you prepare for your

initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade

Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the

Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for

this progressive move. From a trade perspective. this will

help both the United States and Central America.

Some 80 percent of Central America's exports to the U.S.

are already duty free, so they will be opening their markets

to U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining

products. Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will

rise by over $15 billion and those in Central America by some

$5 billion. New jobs will be created in Central America, and

labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.

Some improvements could be made in the trade bill,

particularly on the labor protection side, but, more

importantly, our own national security and hemispheric

influence will be enhanced with improved stability,

democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in

Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and

now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the

promotion of democracy and stability in the region. From the

negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing

of human rights at a time when the region suffered under

military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free

elections in the region, Central America has been a major

focus of my attention.

There now are democratically elected governments in each of

the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this

agreement, the presidents of each of the six nations had to

contend with their own companies that fear competition with

U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not

only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting

market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S.

presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn

its back on CAFTA it would undercut these fragile

democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and

make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S.

For the first time ever, we have a clause to reinforce

democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward

and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize

their countries. Moreover, strong economics in the region are

the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.

I appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they

will be helpful in your important deliberations.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Speaker, change is a constant here in the House, and I suppose that's a good thing. It keeps fresh ideas and energy coming in. But sometimes it sure is hard to say farewell to trusted friends.

As you know, I never miss an opportunity to quote my fellow Missourian Harry Truman. In this case, the occasion is bittersweet.

Harry Truman minted one of the axioms of Washington. ``It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.''

To many in Washington, Mr. Speaker, that phrase may sound quaint.'' After all, so much of service in Congress is about credit. We issue press releases every day to make sure the folks back home know we're working for them. Much of what we are able to do is tied to the credit we get for our achievements.

Let me tell you about someone for whom that's not true.

Jim Schweiter has lived Harry Truman's words, not only during his service here but throughout his career. Jim is retiring from the Armed Services Committee staff at the end of next month. Thanks to our bipartisan structure, he has the official title of counsel. But for the last five and a half years, he has been, in effect, the minority staff director. And he has been my close and trusted friend.

Jim came to the Armed Services Committee from the Air Force in 1988. He brought with him a law degree and experience as a trial lawyer and judge advocate. But he also brought some things you can't learn.

Jim brought sound and mature judgment, informed by the kind of strong moral compass that informs both what should be done and how it should be done. When confronted with a difficult policy question, Jim frequently asks ``What is in the best interest for the Republic?'' I believe the Republic is the better for many of the policy issues on which Jim has had a hand. Jim has been involved in many aspects of the committee's work, serving with the Personnel and Investigations subcommittees, and later as General Counsel and ultimately as Minority Staff Director. In these roles, Jim has never done just what was required of him. He has always sought creative and sound legislative solutions when he saw a way of improving a situation. Though the Reserve Office Personnel Management Act in which he played a key role and the future management and professional development of Judge Advocates are just two examples of the legislation he has helped enact, Jim has frequently been directly involved in improving the lives of our military men and women.

The Armed Services Committee is near unique in the House for its integrated staff and the degree of its bipartisanship. In this, Jim could stand as the exemplar. He served as General Counsel to both Chairman Ron Dellums and Chairman Floyd Spence and provided exceptional advice to both. He embodies what we mean by professional bipartisan staff.

He also exemplifies a spirit of service to this House and to the Nation. When I asked him to return to the Committee after his distinguished service in the Department of Defense as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Jim did not hesitate. In the time since he has returned, he has not only provided wise counsel at every turn, he has demonstrated strong leadership to the rest of our staff. They are a true team because of that leadership.

Beyond all his other attributes, Jim brought an unwavering patriotism to his position. That might have something to do with Jim's late father, Major General Leo Schweiter, who jumped into Normandy on D-Day and continued distinguished service through Korea and Vietnam. It might have had something to do with growing up in the shadow of the Army War College. But mostly, I think it's just Jim.

While Jim is retiring, there is no doubt that he will continue to have an active career. To the Armed Services Committee, Jim has brought a fierce intellect, an encyclopedic knowledge of House procedure, and an outstanding rapport with both members and staff. Jim's skills could easily carry him through many more careers--as a parliamentarian, a law professor, or a professional hunter--to name just a few. I hope he gets a chance to try them all.

I suspect Jim's heart may be most in the last of these pursuits. Like so many who grow up in central Pennsylvania, Jim is a dedicated outdoorsman. He hunts with his close friends and he has hunted with members of Congress, including our current Chairman Duncan Hunter. He is no more at home than walking the woods. While Jim's new home of Minneapolis won't give him much opportunity to watch his beloved Baltimore Orioles play at home, it will continue to give him many chances to be where he wants to be during hunting season.

Mr. Speaker, as this good servant of the people moves on, and as this invaluable friend gets a little farther away, it is a time of sadness for me. But it is also a challenge to the House. I hope that we can remain the kind of House that continues to inspire and attract people the caliber of Jim Schweiter, people who know that the good of the nation and the merit of ideas come before all else. He is an example for us of what the House should be--and what America deserves.

I know I speak for everyone on the Armed Services Committee in thanking Jim for his years of service and extending my best wishes to Jim and his wife Donna on the next phase of their lives together.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the gentlewoman's amendment before us. In doing so, I would like to speak some common sense about where we are. Oh, I will vote for it, but if I were drafting it, I would draft what I think is the correct issue before our country and before our military forces. I have a difficult time in understanding some phraseology in the amendment that is before us which calls for an ``early withdrawal,'' whatever that may be.

The issue is, when will we have the Iraqi security forces fully trained to take over the important mission of security for their own Nation? That is the issue before us.

On June 13, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, setting forward the fact that we need to speed up this process. We need to make sure that we do all we can and to get our allies, whether they be in the Arab nations adjoining Iraq, or whether they be NATO nations, involved more and more in helping to train the Iraqi security forces. General David Petraeus, one of America's outstanding military leaders of our day, has the mission of training those Iraqi security forces and he is working very, very hard with the training forces that he has. He is a fine officer. He is a great leader. It is a mammoth task. But only this year, he has produced slightly over 5,000 fully trained Iraqi soldiers who can handle missions on their own. This is totally inadequate.

We must do a better job speeding up this process, because one of two things is going to happen if we do not speed it up. This is the issue before us. Number one, we are going to lose the American people. That, of course, would be disastrous for our effort in Iraq. Number two, we are going to put such a strain on the United States Army that some will term it as broken.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a race against time. We are either going to lose the American people's support, or we are going to break the Army. This month, the Army's recruiting numbers are far below its goal. It is an unmistakable trend. Although retention is holding, it is shaking the very foundation of the American social structure. Army marriages have broken up under the strain of unsustainable operations tempo, and the divorce rate is increasing, signs of sure trouble ahead.

So we ought to be discussing how we speed up the process, how we urge our

NATO partners to get involved in training. We understand that some 300 of those NATO partners will be coming in to help train, but we need more than that.

That is the issue we should be debating at this moment, not using the phrase ``withdrawal,'' though I will support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in order to recognize and honor one of Missouri's favorite sons, Admiral Vern Clark, United States Navy, our 27th Chief of Naval Operations, as he prepares to turn over the helm of the United States Navy to his successor.

Admiral Clark, the longest serving Chief of Naval Operations since Admiral Arleigh Burke held that office nearly 45 years ago, has rendered distinguished service to the government of the United States and, in my view, ranks among the most superb of a long line of outstanding Navy leaders.

Born in Iowa and raised in the great states of Missouri, Nebraska and Illinois, Admiral Clark is a graduate of Evangel College and holds a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Arkansas. Like so many of his predecessors from our Nation's heartland, Admiral Clark determined to go down to the sea in ships; a determination that has ultimately redounded to the eminent advantage of the country that he has served so well for more than 36 years. From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, his enduring contributions to the Navy and the Nation, along with his wise, discerning military judgment mark his long career.

Upon earning his commission in August of 1968, Admiral Clark served aboard the destroyers USS John W. Weeks (DD 701) and USS Gearing (DD 710). As a Lieutenant, the Navy saw fit to give him his first command, USS Grand Rapids (PG 98), and he has been in command at every opportunity thereafter, including command of USS McCloy (FF 1038), USS Spruance (DD 963), the Atlantic Fleet's Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center, Destroyer Squadron Seventeen, and Destroyer Squadron Five. After being selected for flag rank, Admiral Clark commanded the Carl Vinson Battle Group/Cruiser Destroyer Group Three, the Second Fleet, and the United States Atlantic Fleet. All told, Admiral Clark has spent more than half his commissioned service doing what he does best, leading the men and women who have, in his exceptional words, ``volunteered to wear the cloth of the nation.''

Ashore, Admiral Clark has served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Systems Analysis Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Surface Warfare) and as the Administrative Aide to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. He served as Head of the Cruiser-Destroyer Combat Systems Requirements Section and Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer for the Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and he directed the Joint Staffs Crisis Action Team for Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Admiral Clark has also served as the Director of both Plans and Policy (J5) and Financial Management and Analysis (J8) at the U.S. Transportation Command; Deputy and Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director of Operations (J3) and subsequently Director of the Joint Staff.

His tenure as Chief of Naval Operations has been underscored by remarkable strength and a clear vision for the future. Anticipating the tremendous challenges of the rapidly changing post-Cold War strategic environment, he set a course for deep and fundamental transformation, enhancing the readiness and responsiveness of the Navy. His relentless pursuit of excellence and willingness to not only embrace change, but to lead it, were key factors in shaping the most powerful maritime force in our history; a force that is built upon a solid foundation of the growing and thriving young Americans who have flourished under Admiral Clark's leadership. An unwavering sense of duty, the highest ideals of honor, and a profound devotion to country have characterized this man's service. And I think he would be the first to tell you that those long years of service would not have been possible without the unwavering support of his wife, Connie. She has devoted her life to her husband, to her family and to the men and women of the Navy family. She has traveled by his side for these many years visiting the Fleet. Her sacrifice and devotion have served as an example and inspiration for others, and we will miss them both.

With these words before the House of Representatives, I seek to recognize Admiral Clark for his superior leadership and unswerving loyalty to the Navy and to this great Nation. In the time-honored tradition of the naval service, I now ask you to join me in wishing Vern and Connie Clark ``fair winds and following seas'' as they continue their extraordinary journey through life together, and to thank them both for service so faithfully rendered.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend Mr. Hugh Brady, a member of the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee, whose honorable service to this body and to our country deserves our sincere appreciation.

Hugh recently departed Capitol Hill for the private sector after many years of selfless service. While here, he epitomized what it means to be a professional staff member. He is uniformly recognized by his peers and by industry and executive branch officials as an expert in the fields of the Federal budget, missile defense, and the nuclear weapons- related activities of the Energy Department. It is also no understatement to say that many Armed Services Committee members, including me, John Spratt, and Silvestre Reyes have come to rely on the wisdom of Hugh's advice, and it was invariably on the mark. Nevertheless, Hugh is the kind of person who never sought public recognition. Instead, he labored tirelessly in the background to insure those of us in the spotlight had access to the most sound policy analyses and advice possible. On the rare occasions when we might pursue another course, he unfailingly adopted that course as his own immediately and worked to support it with all of his energies and expertise.

Those of us who know Hugh know that this approach has been his modus operandi since he arrived on the Hill in 1985, soon after graduating Magna Cum Laude from Hamilton College in New York and a brief internship at the State Department. After two years in the office of Representative Ben Gilman (R-N.Y.), Hugh left to attend to pursue a master's degree in public administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Upon graduation he received a prestigious appointment as a Presidential Management Intern and subsequently worked in the Navy Comptroller's Office and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Hugh returned to Capitol Hill in 1992, working first in the office of Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.) as a legislative assistant focusing on national security and international affairs. It was not long before he moved to the Budget Committee as an analyst for defense and international affairs. From there, Hugh moved to the Armed Services Committee, where he primarily worked on the Strategic Subcommittee on issues concerning space, ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy, budget matters and defense issues within the Department of Energy. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recognize what an important portfolio that is, with a myriad diverse and complex issues that directly affect our national security. Yet, Hugh mastered it with aplomb.

Typical of Hugh's mastery of substance, as well as his understanding of politics, was his successful effort to establish an equitable worker's compensation program for Energy Department Employees who were exposed to harmful substances while working in nuclear weapons complex. Despite high program costs, budgetary considerations and cross cutting political concerns on both sides of the aisle, Hugh shepherded this legislation into law, where it has received almost universal critical acclaim.

On the personal side, Hugh is a lifelong New York Yankees fan who has remained devoted to the team even as their league standing plummeted and their performance on the field declined to the point that his colleagues have ridiculed their play. Still, he never let his fervor for the Yankees interfere with his work, or with his role as a devoted husband and father. With that said, then, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can appreciate that perhaps nothing attests to Hugh's great professionalism more than the fact that he stalwartly managed to come to work the day after Game 7 of the 2004 American League Championship, when the outcome could have killed a Yankees fan of lesser constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we are so very fortunate to have people like Hugh Brady, who dedicate themselves to providing us Members of Congress with the very best support imaginable. It is staff members like Hugh Brady who enable Members of Congress to do work so well and who make the House of Representatives the great institution that it is. We do not mention their contribution frequently enough. We miss opportunities to thank them, but they think nothing of it. Instead, they continue to go forth and serve the country as best they can, and the American people are so much the better for it. Hugh Brady has been such a selfless public servant. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all Armed Services Committee members in extending to him our deepest thanks.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the outstanding service of Colonel John C. Goetchius, who will retire this October after 29 years service while working for the United States Army and the Secretary of the Army Legislative Liaison. Colonel John Goetchius is a decorated and distinguished soldier.

Colonel Goetchius began his career as a United States Military Academy graduate, Class of 1976, and was immediately selected to lead our Nation's sons and daughters. During his career, he has endured the hardships of deployments and separation. As one of many testaments to his professionalism and accomplishments in defense of our Nation, in 2002 he was awarded the Defense Superior Service Award for his leadership as the Commander of the United States Military Group, EI Salvador.

Most recently, Colonel Goetchius served the soldiers and civilians of the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison (OCLL) in the capacity of the Executive Officer to the Chief of Legislative Liaison. Colonel Goetchius's last assignment was a capstone of nearly 30 years of service to the United States Army. As the Executive Officer Colonel Goetchius was the principal assistant to the Chief of Legislative Liaison, responsible for the formulation, coordination and execution of policies governing the Army's relationship with Congress. He personally coordinated the efforts of the seven Division 100 person OCLL Organization with wide ranging responsibilities to manage all U.S. Army Congressional contacts. Colonel Goetchius played an active role in communicating Army requirements, programs and policies to the U.S. Congress during a period of historic defense transformation and extremely high operational tempo.

Mr. Speaker, as Colonel John C. Goetchius prepares to retire from the Army, I know my colleagues will join me in commending him for his outstanding service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the fine accomplishments and storied history of the Alamo Scouts. The Alamo Scouts were the forerunners of the Army Special Forces ``Green Berets.'' Without their determined efforts, the United States Army's path to victory in the Pacific would have been much harder.

I mention the Alamo Scouts today not only because they were the soldiers who had the skill and tenacity to accomplish the most top secret missions of World War II, but because as the years go their numbers are dwindling. I feel that it is important that all here today recognize the accomplishments of The Alamo Scouts and that we all pay tribute to them before they are lost to us forever.

The Alamo Scouts' role in history has remained obscure for many years, though their role in defeating the Japanese was crucial. Their training was rigorous and their missions were top secret. Of the thousands of soldiers who the military selected, only 138 men completed their training and became Alamo Scouts. Men like Robert L. Shirkey, Zeke McConnell, and Conrad Vineyard completed their training and went on to participate in missions that saved the war. It was an Alamo Scout, Galen C. Kittleston, who discovered the Cabanatuan prison camp that led to the release of hundreds of prisoners of war who would have surely died otherwise. It was an Alamo Scout, Robert Shirkey, who discovered that General Tomoyuki Yamashita, The Tiger of Malaya, had returned to Northern Luzon. This gave General MacArthur the information he needed to recapture the Phillippines.

Most remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that despite the Alamo Scouts' daring and dangerous missions and despite the weeks and months spent behind enemy lines, not one Alamo Scout was ever killed in action. Even though they had the ability to defy death on the field of combat, many Alamo Scouts are no longer with us. Of the 138 original Alamo Scouts, only about 20 are still with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you, along with the other members of Congress, will join me in honoring the Alamo Scouts and recognizing their invaluable contribution to America's success in World War II.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of the Honorable Mitch Geisler of Marshall, MO.

Mr. Geisler served a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. He was Chief of Police, President of the Missouri Chiefs of Police Association, and attended the FBI Law Enforcement Institution, from which he graduated in 1957. After his many years of service in the area of law enforcement, Mr. Geisler began a career in finance. He worked 27 years for Wood and Huston Bank, where he retired as senior vice president.

Mr. Geisler then served as Mayor of Marshall for 12 years. During his term as Mayor, Mr. Geisler held an active role in the expansion of the Marshall Municipal Airport. He also worked with Marshall-Saline Development Corporation to attract businesses and industry to the Marshall area.

Mr. Geisler was very dedicated to the growth and development of his community. He was a 15-year member of the church board at St. Peter Catholic Church and the first president of the Mercy Academy School Board. Mr. Geisler was also a 50-year member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. This allowed him to fly with the Blue Angels Navy acrobatic and demonstration team.

Mr. Speaker, Mitch Geisler had a steadfast dedication to his family, church, community, and career. I know the members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I compliment my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for this amendment, which is also co-sponsored by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

This amendment is important because it will force this body to look hard at American policy in Colombia. Since Congress began funding support in Colombia under the Plan Colombia in fiscal year 2000, we have spent approximately $4.5 billion in counterdrug and military support. That is a lot of money, a lot of money under any circumstance, and it is certainly at a time when we are fighting two wars elsewhere.

Given the magnitude of what we have spent and the fact that Plan Colombia will expire this year, we should be asking some really tough questions. Such as, is the amount of money spent in line with the benefits to the United States and to our national security, and are the Colombians doing enough to provide for their own security?

Funding for Colombia was initiated in order to stem the flow of drugs to our country. Yet, the United Nations figures show that decreases in cultivation in Colombia have been more than matched elsewhere in that region. There has been no decrease in drugs coming into the United States.

Funding was also intended to promote peace in Colombia. Certainly on that front, there is some progress. I believe President Uribe is trying to do the very right thing for his country, and we should support his efforts, which we are. The question is whether we should support it at the cost at a time when our military and our foreign aid dollars, our defense dollars are spread so thin across the globe.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, with this modest cut to overall aid to Colombia, should force a rethinking of our strategy in Colombia on whether we are achieving goals important to our own national security. At the same time, we need to ask whether the Colombians are doing all they can to provide for their own future security. Let me say that again. At the same time, we should ask whether the Colombians are doing all they can to provide for their own future security.

Their tax revenue continues to be at very low levels. Fewer than 750,000 Colombians contribute to their national defense through the tax base of a population of 42 million. Many Colombians with high school educations continue to avoid military service. The Colombians should be taking on more of a responsibility for their own effort. This amendment does not cut all funding for Colombia. Far from it. But it does send a clear signal that the American dollars invested are not yielding the results we need to.

At a time when we are engaged in two wars globally, we must even be more careful about where we are spending our resources, our dollars. We must urge our colleagues to support the amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the fine accomplishments of a fellow Missourian and Sigma Chi brother, Mr. Cyril Wrabec.

Mr. Wrabec will be graduating in May 2005 from the University of North Dakota's School of Aerospace Sciences with a Bachelor of Science Degree, Summa Cum Laude, in Commercial Aviation. He has been an exemplary student and has been named to the President's Honor Roll five times. While at the University of North Dakota, he spearheaded the re- establishment of the UND Flying Club.

Mr. Wrabec is a brother of the Beta Zeta chapter of the Sigma Chi fraternity at the University of North Dakota. During his time as a brother, he has served two terms as president of the fraternity.

Community work has been an important part of Mr. Wrabec's life. In his home state of Missouri, he provided an aviation course for school children and has been an active volunteer at his church. Also, he is a Certified Homeland Security Volunteer Pilot.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wrabec is a fine, young man, and I know my fellow Members of the House will wish him all the best in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. She is doing such a superb job on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We thank her for her efforts, along with the chairman as well.

Let me say I rise in support of this intelligence authorization bill. In doing so, I want to make a few observations about the state of our national intelligence capabilities, as well as some comments about the bill.

Within the span of 2 years, the United States had two very obvious and public examples of intelligence failures: the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; and the completely incorrect conclusions reached about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. These and other failures have been recognized by both the 9/11 Commission and the Robb- Silberman Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Last year's intelligence reform bill was an important first step in rectifying deficiencies in our intelligence capabilities. I believe intelligence is the tip of the spear. It is the tip of the spear in helping our warfighters. The new Director of National Intelligence represents an important benchmark in the creation of a Goldwater- Nichols-like structure for our intelligence community.

The Goldwater-Nichols law, as we all know, altered command relationships among our military services in such a way that has fostered joint operations and enabled our military to become the very best in the world.

I am optimistic that the new director of Intelligence will be able to unify the group of disparate intelligence organizations that comprise the intelligence community to produce better capability, communication, and inoperability than has been the case in the past. I am also pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra) have been able to resolve their differences over the transfer of personnel who perform intelligence functions.

While the establishment of the director of National Intelligence is an important step, I believe much more remains to be done if we are to really improve our intelligence capability. First, I think Congress needs to do a better job of overseeing our intelligence operations than it has in the past. My own view is that some of our intelligence failures could have been avoided with vigorous congressional oversight.

Second, we need to aggressively follow up on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

We need to expand our efforts to secure international stores of nuclear materials, particularly in the nations ofthe former Soviet Union. Governor Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, recently said there is no greater danger to our country than a terrorist group acquiring these materials. I want to echo his concern that we must be sensitive to the fact that intelligence activities can sometimes intrude upon the lives of Americans. In a free society, we must have checks and balances. I think we need to appoint a Federal civil liberties board to prevent and redress constitutional abuses by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Although last year's law created a civil liberties board, the administration has yet to name any members to the board, something that is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill I believe members should support. I commend the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Hoekstra, and the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Harman, for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize Colonel John Peabody who has served our Nation's Army with distinction for over 25 years. He will shortly be leaving his current post at the Pentagon and transferring to the State of Hawaii.

Colonel Peabody is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. John continued his education through the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College, where he earned his Master's Degree in Strategic Studies. He also has earned degrees from EI Colegio de Mexico and Howard University.

Colonel Peabody has field proven leadership capabilities and an exemplary warrior ethos. He was first assigned to the 193rd Infantry Brigade in Panama where he served as a Sapper Platoon Leader, Company Executive Officer, and Aide-de-Camp. Later, he served as the Logistics Support Command Engineer, Somalia. He also was the Political-Military Division Chief of the J5, US Southern Command in Panama. During Operation Iraqi Freedom he commanded the 3rd Infantry Division's Engineer Brigade totaling over 3,000 engineers with ten attached units. Currently, he is assigned to the Army's Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, where he is the Programs Division Chief.

Colonel Peabody is a model soldier and his many awards and commendations stand as testimony to that. His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Joint Meritorious Service Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service and Expeditionary Medals, the Presidential Unit Citation, Master Parachutist Badge, and Ranger Tab.

I know that the members of Congress will join me in honoring Colonel John Peabody and wishing his family and him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and let me commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership in offering it, because he has been such a noted expert on this entire area, and I think that this is a step in the right direction.

As he has noted, in the very contentious Presidential debate, the two candidates agreed on one crucial thing. They agreed that the most dangerous threat facing our Nation was nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Yet funding for the program to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union does not reflect the magnitude of this threat.

The Department of Defense requested $415 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program this year, roughly the same as it was last year. The Spratt amendment would recognize we need to take this threat much more seriously by putting the resources into it that would allow us to secure more sites faster.

President Bush and President Putin have met in Bratislava; and last February, they pledged to further their cooperation on nuclear security by establishing a plan for security upgrades of nuclear facilities through and beyond 2008. Funding this amendment would help in that agreement.

The amendment does this without doing harm to our missile defense capability. The Spratt amendment will not affect the deployment of the 30 ground-based intercept missiles scheduled for 2006.

I have supported a strong ballistic missile defense system. I strongly believe that this amendment allows that capability to go forward, but I also believe that our ability to protect this Nation from terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction is much stronger if we put all of our resources into it that we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize the long and distinguished career of Major Steven O'Dell who is retiring after serving our nation's military with distinction for 25 years.

Major O'Dell as born in St. Joseph, Missouri. Major O'Dell received a BS in Criminal Justice from Missouri Western State College and a Masters of Science Degree in Adult and Continuing Education from Kansas State University. Major O'Dell was commissioned in August 1980. He also attended the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Major O'Dell has received numerous decorations and badges for his outstanding efforts in the United States Army. These decorations and badges include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and the Southwest Asian Service Medal. Major O'Dell has not been able to achieve this level of distinction on his own, however, and I would be remiss if I did not recognize the support, love I and encouragement that his family has offered to him throughout his career.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Major O'Dell for his exceptional commitment to his fellow soldiers, the United States Army, and the safety and security of America. As he prepares for the next stage in his life, I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing Major O'Dell, his wife Julia and their daughters Sarah, Amanda, and Katherine all the best.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Virginia will yield for a colloquy, I fully understand, as the gentleman knows I am a co- sponsor of this amendment with the other gentleman from Missouri, and I think there are several good reasons for it and that the economics of the case would compel that this proceed and that the amendment be adopted.

As I understand it, the chairman, and we also heard from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) a few moments ago, would be willing to work on this, because this is an exceptional situation. I think the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman, recognizes that.

What would the chairman be willing to do to see that this gets a fair shake? Because we have 25 employees out there that are doing such a magnificent job, I just hate to see them go down the drain when, truth in fact, it just should not happen.

If there was ever an amendment that ought to be adopted, but I understand the gentleman's position because you would have 15 dozen of these amendments coming up here every time this bill is brought up, but would you tell the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) what you are willing to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.