Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on the Committee on Rules and for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the previous question, which I understand will be offered, because it deprives our colleagues of the opportunity to strengthen the Intelligence Authorization Act.

Strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on terrorism; and make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33- year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of our enemy. Our brave men and women of the intelligence community are on the frontlines fighting that enemy.

They risked their lives for our freedom, and they deserve our unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule deprives them of that support.

H.R. 4548 provides less than one-third of the key counterterrorism funding the intelligence community has told us it needs to fight the war on terrorism. Less than one-third. Members of our committee had proposed an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism operations. This rule denies us the opportunity to consider that amendment.

I think it is irresponsible of us to shortchange our counterterrorism efforts, particularly when we know al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are planning attacks against us right now. By providing one-third of the counterterrorism funding, the majority's bill essentially says to the brave men and women of the intelligence community, you can count on operations for 3 or 4 more months, but after that, that is rough, until next April. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does, and that is not acceptable.

A better rule, a much better rule would have allowed the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) of our committee to fix this bill with an amendment that would have provided for 100 percent of the funding that the intelligence agencies say they need. Their amendment would have done away with the dangerous practice of budgeting by supplemental, of saying let us kick this problem down the road. And in this case, let us kick it down the road until well after the November election.

A rule limiting amendments may be appropriate for other legislation, but this legislation is different, and here is why. As you know, Mr. Speaker, much of our work is classified and, therefore, is not discussed in the open. However, a large portion of our work on the intelligence policy is unclassified and is contained in the public portion of our legislation. This information does not compromise our intelligence sources and methods, and for that reason we asked the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to hold the markup of the public portion of our bill in public.

On a party-line vote, the majority refused. Therefore, these amendments have never been debated or voted on in public, even though they are not classified and even though they would, if adopted, be part of the public part of our bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is no secret law in the United States, and it is anathema to this House to stifle open debate about important policy issues. For that reason, it is important that the full House have the opportunity to debate these amendments. This rule kills that debate, shuts down any effort to fully fund counterterrorism, and tries to sweep this issue under the rug. Well, this issue is too important, too vital to our national security to be swept under the rug.

The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence offered five amendments, all of which were good, all of which would have strengthened the bill and strengthened our oversight. All but one were rejected by this rule. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because instead of having a rule that could bring us together under one bipartisan banner, we have a rule that ensures this bill will trigger a bitter partisan divide.

In case the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the Republicans have not noticed, the terrorists did not check our party labels before launching their attacks against us on 9/11, and they will not check them when they launch the next attack. I would have hoped that we could debate the bill not just as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans. And for the sake of the country and for the sake of national security, I am sorry that the majority let us down.

Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on terrorism. And make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33-year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of our enemy.

Our brave men and women in the intelligence community are on the front lines fighting that enemy. They risk their lives for our freedom and they deserve our unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this legislation deprives them of full support. This bill provides less than one-third of the key funding that the intelligence community has told us they need to fight the war on terrorism. Less than one-third.

I want to use my time to engage the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) in a brief dialogue on this important issue. I would like to ask my colleague directly, on my time, Mr. Chairman, does this bill provide all of the counterterrorism funding that the intelligence agencies have told our committee they need for the coming year? Yes or no.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that response, but the classified schedule of authorizations in the majority's bill specifically states that the additional funds are only for the first quarter of the year. Well, that is woefully inadequate.

The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) all proposed an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism. Let me demonstrate exactly what this full funding amendment does. The majority's bill funds only first quarter ops tempo for counterterrorism. The full funding amendment, which we hope to offer, funds a full year for counterterrorism.

The majority's bill gives the CIA 11 percent less than fiscal year 2004 funding, whereas the full funding amendment we had hoped to offer gives the CIA 5 percent more than 2004 funding. The majority's bill funds only 5 percent of the NRO's CT budget, 19 percent of NSA's CT budget, 26 percent of NGA's CT budget, and 35 percent of the CIA's CT budget. The full funding amendment funds 100 percent of these budgets.

Finally, the majority's bill provides no supplemental funding for critical CT HUMINT support functions whereas the full funding amendment provides full funding for all the HUMINT support functions.

In short, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4548 is too weak. What is the President going to tell the American people when they learn that we are going to have a gap in counterterrorism funding next year? There could be a gap of 3 to 4 months before we pass a new supplemental. And during that gap, our Nation will be at unnecessary risk at a time when, for example, we will be having events like the presidential inauguration and the Super Bowl.

The majority has twisted itself into a pretzel trying to justify this weak bill, all the while bemoaning the harmful impact of budgeting-by- supplemental on our intelligence community's ability and our committee's ability to do robust oversight.

Jim Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations, gave a speech this week in which he said that, ``there is no end in sight'' to the terrorist threat we face. Terrorism is no longer a one-time emergency. It is no longer something we should scramble around to fund. It is our way of life. It is our central national security challenge. And if the White House or the majority does not understand that, then we are in serious danger.

In our committee we offered several amendments to strengthen intelligence and strengthen oversight. They were common sense measures. Yet, all of them were rejected on party line votes.

Mr. Chairman, we know terrorists are actively planning to attack us again. We know there is nuclear material out there that is unaccounted for for sale to the highest bidder. We know the next attack will be followed by the usual Washington hand-wringing about why we did not do more.

The rule under which we debate today has squandered an opportunity to do much more. We have lost an opportunity to strengthen intelligence, to strengthen congressional oversight, to retire the soon-to-be-vacant DCI position and replace it with a 21st century organization capable of integrating 15 intelligence agencies into one intelligence community and to keep full faith with the brave men and women who are on the front lines at this hour risking their lives for our freedom.

This bill is weaker, far weaker than the American people deserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the House Committee on Armed

Services, the committee on which I was honored to serve for 6 years.

Mr. Chairman, those of us on this side of the aisle feel it is important to fund stronger intelligence in the global war on terror, and it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a dedicated member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) that our amendments were shared in advance and our views on budgeting by supplemental have been known for years and are shared by the majority.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a courageous member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a dedicated member of our committee, who is ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a reasonably recent and very dedicated member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the last speaker for his sincere efforts at bipartisanship.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to assure her that I understand and fully support the general principle reflected in her point and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I also want to assure the gentlewoman that, as this bill moves forward, we will be mindful of the issue and will try to be helpful.

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

(Ms. Harman asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to our last speaker that the DOD appropriations bill is a $400 billion bill, a small fraction of which is for intelligence. In my view, that is not the place for this debate about fully funding counterterrorism intelligence. The intelligence bill is where we should make our stand. And I do appreciate the gentleman from California's (Mr. Hunter) clarification, as he just said, that the additional counterterrorism funding in his bill is only for a couple of months.

That is the point we are trying to make, Mr. Chairman. We all are patriots. We all support the troops. We all support our intelligence personnel. We just think that the primary mission of the intelligence community ought to be funded in the base bill, the one we are voting on today.

Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Authorization bill represents the culmination of many months of work by our community to provide the intelligence community with the resources it needs to safeguard our national security. It also presents an opportunity to lay down important oversight markers so that we can fulfill our constitutionally mandated duty to provide oversight of the intelligence community. The Intelligence Committees were created for precisely this reason, and if we simply become a rubber stamp for the administration, then we might as well cease to exist.

At the outset, let me commend our diligent staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and late nights, and let me commend all members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for their focus and dedication to getting it right. Four of them, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), will leave us this year, and I wish them fair winds. I also want to explain the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Hastings) absence. Our thoughts are with him as he cares for his ailing mother.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has been very difficult, certainly for me. As everyone here knows, over five terms in Congress, I have voted for every intelligence authorization bill and every defense authorization bill, and I have often worked to try to plus-up amounts in those bills. The brave men and women of the intelligence community rely on us. Without us, they cannot do their job. I have traveled around the world and visited with them, and their bravery and courage speaks volumes about how much they love this country.

For all of these reasons, I stand here today with a heavy heart because I feel that unfortunately and needlessly, this bill could have and should have provided for stronger intelligence and stronger oversight.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could just respond to the gentleman, and I would be happy to yield again if I have any more time if he wants to respond to what I have to say, I appreciate that comment, but mine is a bit different. I understand that we may not fully know what we need. That is why we have supplementals. But in this case we do fully know what we need. We know what the agencies in the intelligence community need for counterterrorism because they have told us, and the amendments we wish had been in order had an unclassified piece, which basically says we should fully fund counterterrorism, and a classified piece, where we carefully allocated across the intelligence community all the money these agencies have told us they need. They told us it is hard to plan for their year without knowing for sure that they will get money.

And the last point I want to make to the gentleman, and I do appreciate what he is saying, is that I do not think we will pass another supplemental until sometime after the first quarter of next year. We will be gearing up in a new Congress, and if we pass the supplemental in next March or April, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, we may have a gap in funding counterterrorism just at the time when we have the presidential inauguration and the Super Bowl, and those are huge events were maximum counterterrorism efforts are needed.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask to control the time on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment to restore the level of funding requested for NDIC, the National Drug Intelligence Center. I was concerned to learn that these funds had been cut, as have others for key satellite programs, and I am pleased that the chairman has now decided to restore the level of funding the Center needs to carry out its important counternarcotics mission. Hopefully we will address other shortfalls that some on our side have identified in the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make an additional comment about a subject the chairman raised at the end of general debate, and that was when he called additional budget authority monopoly money. I certainly share his view that we should appropriate the funds that we authorize. That is why this side wants to authorize additional funds and then hopefully to get them appropriated. I have spoken to the highest levels of this administration about my keen view that the amount of money to fully fund counterterrorism for fiscal year 2005 is not so great.

It is not a big budget buster, certainly not as big as many other requests made by this administration.

I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the room, for whom I have high regard. It would be my hope that sometime soon, even perhaps in the defense appropriations bill that comes out of conference, we will increase the funding for counterterrorism for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it has our support.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment, but I will control the time on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the author of this amendment for his carefully crafted amendment and excellent remarks. I believe it is imperative that we maintain an effective and efficient process for designating foreign terrorist organizations and understand better the threat posed by those terrorist organizations and their links to weapons of mass destruction.

I understand, as the gentleman said, that the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on International Relations have been working on a stand-alone bill to require the Secretary of State to review designations every 4 years, not every 6, as this amendment provides.

I think this additional flexibility would be a good thing and would suggest, for example, that a bill, which I assume will be taken up at another time, should include a provision allowing the Secretary of State to remove groups from the list of foreign terrorist organizations if they renounce terrorism. This is one way of using our soft power instead of relying solely on military power to influence groups on the list. I would hope that these details and others could be worked out separately, or in the conference on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that from 1999 to 2000, I served as a member of the so-called Bremer Commission on Terrorism, headed by former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, who now serves as civil administrator in Iraq. The issue of listing groups and states as terrorist actors was something we considered carefully. In fact, we spoke out about one such state.

I think this is an excellent tool to help defeat the threats we face. I really want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for offering this improvement to our intelligence authorization bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, though I will not object, I want to be sure that the language that has not been read is consistent with the language I just reviewed.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on this side; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) not only for the amendment but for, as he said, engaging the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in a constructive effort to improve the amendment, and I think it is a lot better. Frankly, I wish that our bill that we are considering and voting on today had engaged the minority more constructively at an earlier stage; I think it would have been a lot better.

I do support the Boehlert amendment. I fondly remember our trip, six countries, 6 days. I think the gentleman left out Sicily, so we might add 7 countries in 6 days.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thought our Sicily stop was outstanding, which is why I brought it up.

But I think that the improvements made to this amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) are noteworthy. What he did, as I understand it, was to insert a bit of the history here, the role of sanctions initiated by President Reagan, the role of international legal negotiations to get Libya to renounce terrorism and turn over terrorism suspects to international courts, and the role of diplomacy in previous administrations and by the British and others before the beginning of this administration. Though this administration did play a role, and I commend it, in President Qadhafi's stunning decision to do the right thing, that should be reflected, and is, in this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will put two very important articles on this subject in the Record. One is by Dr. Flynt Leverett entitled ``Why Libya Gave Up the Bomb'' from the January 23, 2004, New York Times; and the second is a Middle East Institute Policy Brief by two former assistant Secretaries of State and former ambassadors, Martin Indyk and Edward S. Walker entitled ``What Does Libya's Disarmament Teach About Rogue States?'' dated April 7, 2004.

Finally, let me make two other points. We have seen in recent days troubling allegations that Colonel Qadhafi was himself involved in ordering assassinations of Saudi leaders. These

are, of course, press reports. But these stories remind us that the success of our policies toward Libya remain an open question, and I am sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) agrees with me that we need to be clear-eyed and diligent to make certain that these promises by Colonel Qadhafi are kept, and that in other respects, he does not convert to any of his old habits.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments and strongly agree with them.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just mention that on that trip that was described, we did spend a day and evening in Baghdad. It was my second visit. We met with troops, but we also met with all of our intelligence personnel at the scene in addition to the leaders of the CPA. What is troubling about that, and I believe the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has commented on this in another appearance, our appearance yesterday in the Committee on Rules, because the timing of our trip was February 2004. While we were in Baghdad, General Taguba was doing his investigation of prison abuse and so forth in Baghdad, and we were never told by these intelligence leaders that that investigation was ongoing. That was wrong. That diminishes our oversight, and those folks whom we support as robustly as we can need to be fully candid with our committee, especially when we are seeking them out to try to help them.

Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that I support the gentleman's amendment as improved by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

[From the New York Times, 23 January 2004]

Why Libya Gave Up on the Bomb,

(By Flynt Leverett)

Washington.--As President Bush made clear in his State of

the Union address, he sees the striking developments in

relations with Libya as the fruit of his strategy in the war

on terrorism. The idea is that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's

apparent decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction was

a largely a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, which

thus retroactively justifies the war in Iraq and holds out

the prospect of similar progress with other states that

support terrorists, seek weapons of mass destruction and

brutalize their own people.

However, by linking shifts in Libya's behavior to the Iraq

war, the president misrepresents the real lessons of the

Libyan case. This confusion undermines our chances of getting

countries like Iran and Syria to follow Libya's lead.

The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to

the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's

first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should

even be given to the second Clinton administration. Tired of

international isolation and economic sanctions, the Libyans

decided in the late 1990s to seek normalized relations with

the United States, and held secret discussions with Clinton

administration officials to convey that message. The Clinton

White House made clear that no movement toward better

relations was possible until Libya met its responsibilities

stemming from the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over

Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

These discussions, along with mediation by the Saudi

ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan,

produced a breakthrough: Libya turned over two intelligence

officers implicated in the Pan Am 103 attack to the

Netherlands for trial by a Scottish court, and in 1999

Washington acquiesced to the suspension of United Nations

sanctions against Libya.

Then, in the spring of 2001, when I was a member of the

State Department's policy planning staff, the Bush

administration picked up on those discussions and induced the

Libyans to meet their remaining Lockerbie obligations. With

our British colleagues, we presented the Libyans with a

``script'' indicating what they needed to do and say to

satisfy our requirements on compensating the families of the

Pan Am 103 victims and accepting responsibility for the

actions of the Libyan intelligence officers implicated in the

case.

We also put an explicit quid pro quo on the table: if Libya

met the conditions we laid out, the United States and Britain

would allow United Nations sanctions to be lifted

permanently. This script became the basis for three-party

negotiations to resolve the Lockerbie issue.

By early 2003, after a Scottish appeals court upheld the

conviction of one of the Libyan intelligence officers, it was

evident that our approach would bear fruit. Indeed,

Washington allowed the United Nations sanctions against Libya

to be removed last summer after Libya reached a compensation

agreement with the Pan Am 103 families and accepted

responsibility for its officials' actions.

But during these two years of talks, American negotiators

consistently told the Libyans that resolving the Lockerbie

situation would lead to no more than elimination of United

Nations sanctions. To get out from under the separate United

States sanctions, Libya would have to address other concerns,

particularly regarding its programs in weapons of mass

destruction.

This is the content in which Libyan officials approached

the United States and Britain last spring to discuss

dismantling Libya's weapons program. The Iraq war, which

had not yet started, was not the driving force behind

Libya's move. Rather, Libya was willing to deal because of

credible diplomatic representations by the United States

over the years, which convinced the Libyans that doing so

was critical to achieving their strategic and domestic

goals. Just as with Lockerbie, an explicit quid pro quo

was offered: American officials indicated that a

verifiable dismantling of Libya's weapons projects would

lead the removal of our own sanctions, perhaps by the end

of this year.

The lesson is incontrovertible: to persuade a rogue regime

to get out of the terrorism business and give up its weapons

of mass destruction, we must not only apply pressure but also

make clear the potential benefits of cooperation.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take

this approach with other rogue regimes, notably Iran and

Syria. Until the president is willing to employ carrots as

well as sticks, he will make little headway in changing

Iranian or Syrian behavior.

The president's lack of initiative on this point is

especially disappointing because, in the diplomatic aftermath

of the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has a singular

opportunity to effect strategic realignments by both Iran and

Syria. Well-placed Iranians, including more pragmatic

elements of Iran's conservative camp, have indicated through

diplomatic channels and to former officials (including

myself) their interest in a ``grand bargain'' with the United

States. Basically, Tehran would trade off its ties to

terrorist groups and pursuit of nuclear weapons for security

guarantees, a lifting of sanctions and normalized relations

with Washington.

Likewise, senior Syrian officials--including President

Bashar al-Assad himself, in a conversation in Damascus last

week--have told me that they want a better strategic

understanding with the United States. To achieve this,

however, Washington needs to be willing to spell out what

Syria would get in return for giving up its ties to

terrorists and its chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.

As Mr. Assad told me, Syria is ``a state, not a charity''--if

it gives up something, it must know what it will gain in

return.

One reason the Bush administration was able to take a more

constructive course with Libya was that the White House,

uncharacteristically, sidelined the administration's

neoconservative wing--which strongly opposes any offer of

carrots to state sponsors of terrorism, even when carrots

could help end such problematic behavior--when crucial

decisions were made. The initial approach on the Lockerbie

case was approved by an informal coalition made up of

Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and

Secretary of State Colin Powell. Likewise, in the lead up to

the negotiations involving Libyan weapons of mass

destruction, the neoconservatives at the Pentagon and in the

shop of Under Secretary of State John Bolton were left out of

the loop.

Perhaps a coalition among members of the State Department's

bureau of Near Eastern affairs and the National Security

Council's more pragmatic elements can chart a similar course

involving Iran and Syria. However, until the administration

learns the real lessons of the Libyan precedent, policy

toward other rogue regimes is likely to remain stuck in the

mind of ideology.

Flynn Leverett, a visiting fellow with the Saban Center for

Middle East Politics at the Brookings Institution, was senior

director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security

Council from 2002 to 2003.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on our side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment, though I wish it had included a clear statement about the importance of U.S. obligations to adhere to international laws, conventions and treatises to prevent torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of human beings.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most troubling aspects of this whole detainee issue, besides the absolutely reprehensible abuse of prisoners, is the all-out assault on the rule of law that is clearly revealed in legal memos that seem to justify abuse and even torture of detainees.

None of us is naive here, and as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe in the importance of interrogations and understand that interrogations can yield information that protect thousands or millions of Americans. We have to interrogate prisoners, but over the many years of our country's history, we have always done those interrogations consistent with the rule of law, and only recently have some very troubling memoranda surfaced at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the Defense Department that raise questions and that actually assert that the President of the United States in his role as commander in chief could actually be above the law.

I thought, Mr. Chairman, that we had defeated that idea at Runnymede centuries and centuries ago and that our country was built on a foundation of the rule of law, and I worry, Mr. Chairman, that if we do not observe the rule of law, not only do we undercut our moral authority, but we endanger our troops who might be treated just the way some of our people are treating other troops.

Now, let me add quickly that the beheading of Americans and other nationals is absolutely outrageous, and nowhere do I think that behavior is consistent with even rational or humane behavior. It is abhorrent and appalling, and I strongly condemn it.

But in conclusion, I think it is important that we support this amendment, but I think it is also important that as we do support this amendment, we think about the fact that the rule of law must always apply as we treat detainees and proceed with the important work of interrogations.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas that I appreciate his comments welcoming my comments. That, again, is in the spirit of bipartisanship. We all do better when we are bipartisan.

I would just also make a comment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I certainly agree that a lot of material is in our committee spaces, but we will consider an amendment later this afternoon on this subject of the committee's ability to oversee the detainee problem. Some of us remain skeptical that our committee has gotten all the material we need and certainly skeptical that we have gotten adequate candid testimony from administration officials.

I would also point out to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that while we were in Baghdad, we should have been told about some issues directly relevant to our jurisdiction, such as this issue of ghosting of detainees as described by General Taguba in his report, and that is the placing of detainees without revealing their numbers or their identity in prisons so that, as I understand it, the International Red Cross and other outside observers would not be aware of their existence. This is a serious issue directly relevant to our jurisdiction. I believe that it was known to those we met with in Baghdad and they should have informed us; at least that is my personal opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another member of our committee to comment on the Johnson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I see no additional speakers on our side. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will control the time on our side.

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

Let me just say to the sponsor of the amendment that all of us in this House, on a bipartisan basis, recognize and respect and honor the heroism and sacrifice of the men and women in the intelligence community. I have spoken to it two or three times already today. That is not the issue. The issue is additional language in this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie.

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

I want to agree with the comments of the last speaker and commend his service as part of the Central Intelligence Agency. He brings great expertise to this House, and I as one Member value it enormously.

He may not know that the Bremer Commission on which I served recommended that the Deutch Guidelines not apply in the case of recruitment of terrorist spies. We, too, found that, though well- intended, and I believe they were well-intended, those guidelines inhibited the aggressive recruitment of people who had the qualifications to penetrate the worst terrorist organizations, which we need them to do. Yes, these are unsavory characters, and yes, we need them, provided that they are reasonably vetted so that we know that they are reliable, but nonetheless, yes, we need them. I do not want to be heard to be ambivalent about this at all.

A few years ago, our committee found that those guidelines had not been rescinded; and on a bipartisan basis, we directed that the DCI rescind them and replace them, and that was done at our direction. That was one of our impressive bipartisan actions, and so I would just point out that, while the language of this amendment commending our people in the field who take risk on our behalf is excellent, the problem we are having on this side is with the findings that very narrowly focus on a very few years of history.

The history is longer, and let me say in the spirit of bipartisanship that we all got it wrong after the Cold War. We all thought the world would be more peaceful. We all thought there would be a peace dividend. That is why the 41st President, President Bush, began to draw down both the Defense and Intelligence budgets, anticipating a more peaceful world, which obviously did not come to pass.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much more time do we have?

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

I would just point out to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) that the findings section of this amendment claims there was a funding reduction in the Intelligence budget of 11 percent between 1993 and 1995. This narrow period matches a period when President Clinton was in office and Democrats still controlled the Congress.

But the decline commenced in the first Bush administration, in 1990, as the Soviet empire was collapsing. And the trend continued through the 6-year period of Republican control of Congress until 9-11.

It is good that we have increased the budget. I hope everyone in this House supports those increases. Certainly those of us on this side of the debate are talking about full funding of counterterrorism, because it turns out that the world was not more peaceful after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world was more dangerous, and all of us underestimated the lethality of the threats we faced.

In hindsight, we all, over three administrations, should have done a lot more. In foresight, hopefully together on a bipartisan basis, we will.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not think we have any further speakers on this amendment, but I would like to enter into a dialogue with the amendment's sponsor to suggest to him that we might agree by unanimous consent that the sense of Congress in his resolution be the entire resolution.

We strike the findings, because our side feels that they are not complete and that some of them may be misleading. And that, as I said, on a bipartisan basis we all were wrong in 1990 when the wall came down and we expected a more peaceful world.

Would the gentleman be amenable to striking the findings and having his resolution be the Sense of Congress, as he has drafted it, which I would predict would be adopted unanimously?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in that answer only because I think there is plenty of blame to go around over three or four administrations and findings that made that clear, I think, would be more helpful.

Let me reiterate my strong view, and the view of everyone that I can imagine on our side, that we support the men and women of the intelligence community. That is something I have said over and over and over again in our committee briefings, hearings, and travels. Everywhere we go around the globe, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I and others have traveled to places like Pyongyang, and Baghdad and Kabul and Libya and elsewhere. We have always thanked the men and women of the intelligence community with whom we have met.

I wish that this would have been drafted on a bipartisan basis with what we would view as a fairer statement of findings over a longer period of time. I think that that would do more honor to the capable men and women who are now in harm's way. So I regrettably urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him for this amendment and rise in support.

I do agree with Chairman Goss that our committee is already studying these issues. I also agree with Chairman Goss that these are touchy issues because we certainly want to communicate our strong support for the Government of Pakistan which has, after all, been an ally of ours in this very, very difficult global war on terror and which continues to take major risks on our behalf. So, yes, that is true.

On the other hand, I believe it is important to run to ground key questions, including the breadth and scope of the proliferation headed by A.Q. Khan, the number of customers, the degree of cooperation with other rogue states, and whether at any level there was complicity of the Pakistani Government. These are tough questions, and I think that what is requested in this amendment, which is a report on these questions, will certainly burden the agencies. Yes, it will. On the other hand, it will give us some answers that we need.

On balance, I think it is commendable that we focus additional attention on the damage done with respect to proliferation around the world by A.Q. Khan and his network and we recognize that there is a place, I think the place is now, in our consideration of these issues to get the clear answers we deserve.

I support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of congressional oversight, I believe that information should be readily available to those congressional committees of jurisdiction conducting investigations, including investigations of the U.N. oil-for-food program. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut and feel it is very constructive.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our committee.

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

As I have stated earlier and others on our side have stated, we support this amendment. We think congressional oversight matters. Committees can make a big difference, and on a bipartisan basis we think this amendment should be supported by the whole House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I believe that having the CIA Inspector General conduct an impartial independent audit of the intelligence reporting on this matter is a good idea, and I support his amendment.

Let me just mention something that I do not believe has come up the debate, and that is that there is a real difference pre-war and post- war. From my review of the sources provided to our committee on the nature of this relationship, I have concluded that pre-war there were contacts but no operational relationship. Post-war is a different story. Post-war there is an operational relationship between terrorists and folks on the ground in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer there, but there is a massive both recruiting and enabling effort in Iraq for terrorists around the world. Iraq has now become fly paper.

Let me just suggest to the amendment's sponsor that the results of the audit should be made public. I think that might help eradicate some of the confusion that has been discussed.

I think his amendment is a public service, and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want the gentleman to know that I support his amendment.

For years the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has extolled the virtues of open-source reporting, as he calls it, OSINT. Often they are the most reliable form of intelligence available, as his charts illustrate. Yet, in spite of this, I believe the intelligence community has not invested sufficiently in open sources of information, and I am pleased that this amendment is being offered, and I think it improves the bill we are debating.

On that subject, Mr. Chairman, let me just return to an earlier conversation about full funding of counterterrorism. While we have been spending the last 4 hours on the floor, a letter was received from the DCI, George Tenet. It was addressed to me and to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), and he states in his letter that he is planning to release it. It is a comment on the majority report language to the bill, and I just want to quote in part.

He says, this is a letter dated today: ``I find it hard to accept that any serious observer would believe, as the committee apparently does, that there is an unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts or that we are placing too much emphasis supporting the Nation's Iraq effort at the CIA. I am deeply disappointed at the way the report has chosen to question the leadership and capabilities of the clandestine service.''

Now, these are the opinions of DCI George Tenet. I would just point out at this point in the debate that the minority was never consulted about the majority report. We filed our own report, and I would just like the record to reflect that these are the reactions of DCI George Tenet to portions of the majority report.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my support for this amendment and point out one of the ironies, which is that our committee has been learning much of what it needs to do its oversight from open sources, rather than from the regular channels. I am glad we have open sources. Otherwise, we would have very little information. So that is just another reason why the gentleman's amendment is so useful, and I strongly support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I strongly support his amendment. I supported it in committee; I support it now.

We have not had full cooperation from the administration. We have not had candid testimony from witnesses. I would not say that this is a petty gesture. I think it is a profound gesture to insist that the oversight prerogative of our committee be respected and that the rule of law always apply to the interrogation of prisoners.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend his service to the Congress and to the other body when we were both staffers. And I share his heat. I was standing on this floor just half an hour ago or so saying we all got it wrong. Mentioning the fact that starting in the first Bush administration and continuing in the early part of the Clinton administration, unfortunately, we disinvested in some critical parts of our intelligence and defense because we thought the world was safer.

And to see the chairman of this committee, my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), distort the record on the floor of the House is really surprising to me, stunning to me. I do not believe we on this side have done that. I think we have fairly shared across many administrations the mistakes that were made.

As my colleague from Florida has pointed out many times, Mr. Chairman, what changed at 9/11 was the audience. Then, finally, there was the political will to act in ways that many of us on a bipartisan basis thought were the correct ways way before 9/11. I commend the gentleman from Florida for thinking they were correct before 9/11. But, sadly, four hours of debate is reaching a very sorry end here.

The facts are the facts. The record should be accurate. And we on this side are trying to create an accurate record. And one of the things we have been urging is full funding of counterintelligence in this budget and that counterintelligence, the facts will show, is not fully funded.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a revote on the Sam Johnson of Texas amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

I want to explain to this House my request for a re-vote on the Johnson of Texas amendment. Like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), I believe that interrogations within the rule of law are essential to protect American lives. However, clause 7 of his amendment, upon rereading, I think was a bit difficult for many of us. It says, ``the abuses were not part of United States policy,'' and I think that statement is premature until we review all of the documents and get additional testimony on the matter. That is why I requested another vote.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), that votes on the debt ceiling should not be part of the rule and will oppose it; but the underlying legislation, the fiscal year 2005 Defense Department appropriations bill, is worthy of support. Given Congress' constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, this is perhaps the most important appropriations legislation we consider each year.

We could not ask for two more capable colleagues to have as managers of the bill. As in previous years, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) have risen above partisan politics and brought a Defense bill to the House floor that reflects America's defense priorities.

Specifically, I applaud the committee's work in funding the Future Imageries Architecture program, the Arrow Weapon System, and in fully funding the F-15C radar upgrade. I also appreciate the committee's robust support for missile procurement. I am concerned that the bill reduces funding for some important classified satellite programs, but remain hopeful that any issues can be resolved prior to conference with the Senate.

The centerpiece of the Defense appropriations bill is, of course, $25 billion for the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration only requested funds to get us through the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. They say additional funds will be requested after the November election. Nonetheless, the Committee on Appropriations is working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained and - equipped.

In contrast, the Intelligence authorization bill, which we will consider later this week, significantly underfunds critical counterterrorism programs. We need an authorization bill that fully funds the intelligence community's requirements. The bill voted out of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a party-line vote last week funds less than one-third of the American counterterrorism needs.

Mr. Speaker, this continuing practice of funding the intelligence community in bits and pieces has been roundly criticized by Members on both sides of the aisle. The intelligence agencies tell us this practice makes it impossible to plan, forcing them to rob Peter to pay Paul until additional funding is available.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge support for the Defense authorization bill

and hope that later this week we will do better to build a bipartisan Intelligence authorization bill that fully funds our counterterrorism needs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro. I support the principle embodied in the amendment: to deny the benefit of large government contracts to U.S. companies that purposefully locate offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.

But in this case, Accenture did not do this. Accenture is a combination of foreign and U.S. companies and claims it chose Bermuda, in 2001, as a neutral location.

The USVISIT contract is with the U.S. subsidiaries of Accenture, and with many other U.S.-located companies, all of whom employ Americans and pay U.S. taxes. We should not interfere with it and disrupt this important program.

Mr. Chairman, although I have reservations about some of the priorities reflected in this Homeland Security funding bill, it is important legislation and I intend to support it. But, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the appropriations process is about priorities. That being the case, I'd like to talk about some of the priorities that, in my view, have been overlooked in this legislation.

Like every parent, the first thought that raced through my mind on 9/ 11 was of my children. Where were they? Were they safe? How could I reach them, or they me? Given the likelihood that an emergency could occur while our kids are at school and parents are at work, teaching age-appropriate skills about how to respond is critical. Growing up during the Cold War, I remember the drills, and sharing what I learned with my parents and younger brother.

Such training is needed today. And there is a program in California, Mr. Chairman, known as FLASH, which is specifically designed as a public school curriculum to teach students, parents and teachers how to prepare and respond in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

I am very disappointed that the bill does not include modest funding for implementation of a Federal version of FLASH. Surely, a program of such obvious importance should be able to find a home in the Federal Government. I hope that before the end of this Congress, my colleagues will adjust their priorities and fund a Federal pilot-program that mirrors California's FLASH program, along the lines of H.R.----.

Another priority of America's hometowns is providing our local police, fire and emergency personnel with the tools they need to protect us. One of the most important of those tools is interoperable communications--ensuring the ability of our first responders to communicate with one another. Interoperability is more than a public safety issue. It's a national security issue, and to our first responders it can be an issue of life or death. Thousands of lives are potentially at stake. We have all heard the tragic stories of firefighters who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 because NYPD helicopters circling overhead could not radio them that the towers were glowing and beginning to collapse.

This bill falls short of meeting America's interoperability needs, providing just $21 million for programs that help facilitate communications for first responders. I urge my colleagues to at least double funding for first responders in conference, and I hope we will soon be bold enough to overcome opposition to make needed emergency spectrum available by 2006, the date it was promised.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative to complete the national threat and vulnerability assessment, required by law and central to creating one integrated strategy for homeland defense. With a real understanding of our security needs and vulnerabilities, based upon a comprehensive assessment, funds would naturally flow to those regions and priorities that provide maximum security to the American people. This bill is necessary, but it could be better. In light of the serious threats we face, we must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in offering a tribute to former President Ronald Reagan. He is rightly remembered as a larger-than-life figure--a man who conquered first Hollywood, then California, and then Washington, DC, and whose message of freedom and democracy spread around the world. Though I did not know him well, I did know his daughter Maureen very well, and she is also missed.

President Reagan was naturally possessed of the qualities that make a great leader. As Governor of California and later as President, he used a blend of humor, kindness and boldness to communicate with the American people, to challenge and defeat the Soviet adversary, and to promote his uniquely American vision of how things should be.

While I disagreed with a number of his policies, I always admired his ability to convey his ideas and his power to persuade.

The enormous outpouring of emotion and love for this man comes as no surprise. When we think of Ronald Wilson Reagan, we will remember his infectious optimism and grace, and his belief that there is always a better day ahead for America.

Mr. Speaker, Arnold Plank was my wonderful friend. He was blessed with smarts, passion, vision and athletic prowess.

Arnold was among a handful of my constituents who captured my attention early in my political career. He made a huge difference to my life and my ability to serve the people of the 36th Congressional District. For him, education was an adventure and an opportunity. His special gift was his ability to share that passion with others.

He's left us much too early, and leaves a huge void. Somehow, running a 1OK will be less fun and much harder without him. Just having him at my side seemed to make my feet feel a little lighter.

My thoughts and thanks are with Arnold's wife Janice, his daughters Rhonda and Lisa, and their four grandchildren. My thoughts are also with the school kids, parents and administrators who benefited from knowing Arnold, and with those who, sadly, will miss an extraordinary opportunity to learn from him.

Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration I have decided to support a 2-year delay in the BRAC process. Let me be clear that I remain a supporter of BRAC and my vote against this amendment is not a vote against base closures.

BRAC plays a vital role in ensuring that we have a modern military that is prepared to fight the next war, not re-fight the last war. It is critically important that the tooth-to-tail ratio of the armed services be reduced, with unnecessary facilities eliminated and resources directed to where they will be most effective in fighting the war on terror. However, I believe there are several reasons why a stay in the process would be the most sensible course at this time.

First, our military forces are currently stretched to the limit as they fight the war on terror on more than one front. We have asked our forces to fight a global war and they have risen to the occasion and performed admirably. But as they fight the global war on terrorism, they are encountering uncertain circumstances and unforeseen obstacles. The real-time lessons that we are learning in the war on terror will help the BRAC determine what our military priorities should be in the future.

The BRAC law was adopted before September 11, 2001. The terrorists attacks on this country significantly altered U.S. national security priorities. Our armed forces are responding to these new demands, but I am afraid that if BRAC moves forward with the next round of base closures as planned, it will be during a period when the U.S. military is undergoing critical changes in tactics and organization. As a result, any reduction will be done without knowing what kind of base structure will be needed in the future.

Second, I am extremely concerned by the way this Administration is funding the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. This President has funded the entire Iraq war by supplemental and, by all accounts, he plans to continue funding in this manner in the future. The funding-by- supplemental-only process prevents Congress from determining the exact costs of the war. It also makes it impossible for Congress to determine, by proper oversight, whether the President's priorities are the right priorities for our military to win the war on terror. If Congress has difficulty determining what our armed forces' needs and requirements are, the next round of BRAC commissioners will find it even more difficult to decide which facilities are vital to winning the war on terror.

I am also concerned that the current BRAC guidelines do not accurately reflect the military's priorities for fighting the next war. For instance, the BRAC guidelines should include recognition of the value of intellectual capital and the synergy between the skilled civilian workers in various communities. Especially the critically important roles and missions the civilian workers support at our military bases.

In the post-9/11 environment, I would like to see the BRAC guidelines broaden the concept of joint operations to include base functions and installations currently or potentially critical to the Department of Homeland Security. BRAC should also consider the costs of base closures as they relate to finding new sources for supplies and professional expertise at military bases.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the disproportionate contribution California has already made to the streamlining of the military's base infrastructure. Obviously, no state wants to have bases closed. Bases mean jobs and increased income for states and local municipalities. In the past BRAC rounds, California has experienced 29 base closures, including the closure of Ft. Ord--the largest closure in history. This is a factor that should be considered in the next round of closures.

For all of these reasons, I believe it would be prudent for Congress to postpone the next round of BRAC to allow for a study of the needs of our post-9/11 military and the guidelines that best reflect those priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership on this issue, and rise in strong support of the Cunningham-Harman amendment.

Let me tell you a story about four exceptional people who shared several things in common. What are the things that Jose Gutierrez, Jesus del Suarez, Francisco Martinez-Flores, and Jose Garibay had in common? They all loved this country, they all served in the U.S. Marine Corps, and they all died fighting for this country in Iraq. Something else they shared, Mr. Chairman--none of them were U.S. citizens.

The amendment we are now considering appropriately recognizes these four young men and the thousands of other noncitizens whose service and ultimate sacrifice often goes overlooked.

Based on legislation that Representative Cunningham and I introduced last fall, this amendment authorizes construction of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring the noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Many of our military heroes, past and present--from the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond--were, like Jose, Jesus, Francisco and Jose--born outside of the United States. In fact, an estimated 20 percent of Medal of Honor recipients--the Nation's highest military honor--are immigrants.

Among the hundreds of U.S. service men and women we have lost in Iraq, at least 24 are foreign-born.

A quote etched at Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater translates from Latin to read, ``It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.'' Those words hold just as true for our foreign-born patriots who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country.

Our amendment honors the memory of these young men and all of our noncitizen heroes. It is the least we should do for them, their families and in acknowledgement of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the defense authorization bill, but strong opposition to this rule.

Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we are considering leaves out many important amendments which many on our side had hoped to offer. I had one which would have postponed additional expenditures for a ground-based missile system in Alaska which has not met operational testing requirements, and would have put those funds into port security. My amendment reflects the views of 49 Admirals and Generals whose letter to the President is dated March 26.

In my view, as ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the potential

damage from a radiological device coming in through our ports is a much greater risk than the risk of a missile attack from North Korea.

There are, however, some good amendments put in order, one of which I strongly support. The Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment, which we have offered every year for the last decade, would treat military servicewomen as women in America are treated, by allowing them their constitutional right to the full range of legal reproductive health care in foreign military hospitals, provided they pay for it. Current law prohibits this and requires servicewomen who put their lives on the line on austere fronts in the war on terror to seek approval from their commanding officer in order to travel elsewhere in order to obtain an abortion, as medical facilities may be inadequate or unavailable.

I view current law as unconstitutional. I think it is ridiculous at a time when military women are performing incredible service around the world that they still are treated differently from women in America. So I urge strong support of the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the March 26, 2004 letter to President Bush from 49 Admirals and Generals:

49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement

March 26, 2004.

President George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the

deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic

missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become

operational before the end of September 2004. You explained

that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states

that may attack us with a single or a limited number of

ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived

the operational testing requirements that are essential to

determining whether or not this highly complex system of

systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March

11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for

the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting

Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10

critical technologies of the GMD system components have been

verified as workable by adequate developmental testing.

Another important consideration is balancing the high costs

of missile defense with funding allocated to other national

security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense

initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of

about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has

been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal

Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with

$3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed

for missile defense over the next five years, with much more

to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to

testing it adequately can increase costs significantly.

U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source

of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly

unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or

allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile

armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking

annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike.

As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to

prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of

mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the

militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone

operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD

system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated

programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing

nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and

borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons

of mass destruction into the United States.

Signed:

Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G.

Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.).

Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General

Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson

(USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollinsworth (USA,

ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt.

General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John

A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe

(USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.),

Lt. General Thomas M. Rienze (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral

John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith,

Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.),

Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General

Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.).

Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General

James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw

(USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major

General William F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William D.

Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA,

ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear

Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C.

Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN,

ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear

Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond

E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr.

(USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.),

Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General

Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P.

Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir

(AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF,

ret.).

Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig.

General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvan E.

Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.),

Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General

Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H.

Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA,

ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General

Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a Concurrent Resolution that calls on Congress to clarify our national security spending priorities and regain a sense of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, my resolution recommends that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

The Defense Authorization bill as reported by the House Armed Services Committee authorizes increased funding for ballistic missile defense and the deployment of ground-based interceptors without additional testing. I think this is a mistake from both a budgeting and a national security standpoint.

Let me be clear that I am a strong supporter of missile defense. As a member of the Armed Services Committee from 1992-98, I urged increases in BMD R&D accounts. I support the Patriot Missile Defense System. I am a principal supporter of the Arrow Anti-Missile system, the first Member of Congress to have seen it deployed at Palmerchim AFB in Israel, and a strong proponent of the Third Arrow battery.

However, I do not support rushing to deploy a new U.S. system that has neither received adequate testing, nor been proven effective.

In August of 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating that only two out of the ten critical technologies needed for the successful implementation of a ground-based missile defense system, or GMD, have been proven reliable. That report also indicated the administration's intent to deploy ground-based interceptors before all the critical technology has matured.

Before we deploy such a system, we should be absolutely sure that it is effective and sustainable. The expected five-year cost of the ballistic missile defense system is $53 billion. In this budget environment, the last thing we need is a $53 billion weapons program that plays no substantial role in our protection.

The resolution I introduced yesterday would authorize funding for ballistic missile defense programs for fiscal year 2005 at fiscal year 2004 levels, and require the administration to determine that all technologies are operational before moving to deploy ground-based interceptors. My resolution also calls on Congress to bolster homeland security by agreeing that we should authorize at least $500,000,000 for port security programs for fiscal year 2005.

From a national security standpoint, we have higher priorities than deploying an untested missile defense system. America's seaports remain vulnerable to terrorist attack and infiltration. Cargo containers are susceptible to being used to smuggle terrorists or dangerous materials into the United States, or as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction.

The Intelligence Community has warned that the United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction delivered by ship, truck, or airplane than by a ballistic missile.

I am not alone in my assessment of the GMD program and the importance of port security. In March of this year, 49 retired generals and admirals--including Ret. Adm. William J. Crowe--sent a letter to President Bush asking that he postpone operational deployment of an untested GMD system, and transfer the associated funds to securing our nation's ports and borders from terrorist attack.

I support strong, sensible and effective homeland security. Any strong national security strategy must include both effective ballistic missile defense and strong port security measures. I am also an advocate of fiscal responsibility. This resolution calls on Congress to take a step toward fiscal responsibility while providing much-needed funding for port security programs, and still allowing for the development of an effective ground-based missile defense system.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 428, and ask unanimous

consent to attach the letter I referred to to my remarks.

Waging Peace.org,

March 26, 2004.

President George W. Bush,

The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement

Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the

deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic

missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become

operational before the end of September 2004. You explained

that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states

that may attack us with a single or a limited number of

ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived

the operational testing requirements that are essential to

determining whether or not this highly complex system of

systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March

11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for

the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting

Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10

critical technologies of the GMD system components have been

verified as workable by adequate developmental testing.

Another important consideration is balancing the high costs

of missile defense with funding allocated to other national

security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense

initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of

about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has

been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal

Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with

$3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed

for missile defense over the next five years, with much more

to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to

testing it adequately can increase costs significantly.

U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source

of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly

unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or

allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile

armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking

annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike.

As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to

prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of

mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the

militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone

operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD

system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated

programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing

nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and

borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons

of mass destruction into the United States.

Signed:

Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G.

Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.).

Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General

Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.). Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson

(USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollingsworth (USA,

ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt.

General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John

A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe

(USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.),

Lt. General Thomas M. Rienzi (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral

John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith,

Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.),

Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General

Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.).

Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General

James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw

(USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major

General Williams F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William

D. Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA,

ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear

Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C.

Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN,

ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear

Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond

E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr.

(USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.),

Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General

Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P.

Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir

(AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF,

ret.).

Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig.

General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvin E.

Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.),

Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General

Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H.

Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA,

ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General

Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act--or MICRA. With it, California charted a bold and creative course toward responsible medical malpractice reform.

In my view, the entire country would do well to follow California's lead, and it makes sense to have Federal legislation on the subject. But this particular bill includes the very same flaws contained in legislation I opposed last year--and I cannot support it.

H.R. 4280 is overly broad, and the cap on punitive and noneconomic awards is not indexed and does not reflect its current value.

While H.R. 4280 adopts the structure of MICRA, it is weighed down by restrictions on certain causes of action against HMOs, nursing homes, and insurance companies--areas in which California has enacted significant protections for patients. And the $250,000 cap on punitive and noneconomic awards must be adjusted upward.

In the past, I voted for other medical liability legislation. I did so with the hope and expectation that improvements would be made in conference with the Senate to narrow its egregious provisions or that, in re-introducing the bill, these changes would be made.

Mr. Speaker, once again the closed process by which we are considering medical malpractice reform belies any desire by the majority to make the improvements I and many others believe are necessary.

As the daughter and sister of medical doctors, I understand the chilling affect unlimited medical liability awards have on the practice of medicine.

But I cannot support H.R. 4280 in its present form, and I urge the leadership to postpone a vote on this legislation to open up what has thus far been a closed process and incorporate the ideas of members like myself who support common-sense medical liability reform.

Medical professionals should be able to practice in a climate of certainty, and patients should be charged reasonable rates for quality care. This is what I support for every community in the country. This is not what H.R. 4280, in its present form, delivers.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTH) paid, in full, the balance of the federal loan that financed construction of improved access for cargo container traffic from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. I congratulate the Authority for retiring this debt 28 years ahead of schedule.

Approved by Congress as part of the 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act, the loan provided crucial support for the $2.4 billion construction project. Together, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise the largest port complex in the United States, handling more than 40 percent of the Nation's imports. Last year, for example, the Port of Los Angeles, which I represent in part, handled more than 7.1 million cargo containers a 17\1/2\-percent increase over the previous year.

Moving these containers safely and efficiently from both ports to points east is a Herculean task. The Alameda Corridor, which opened in April 2002 on time and within budget, comprises railroad and highway improvements and, in particular, a 20-mile grade-separated rail line that relieves congestion and mitigates the impact of cargo container movement on neighboring communities.

Financing of the Alameda Corridor would not have succeeded if it were not for the persuasive bipartisan efforts of the entire Los Angeles congressional delegation. On many occasions, I joined then- Representative Steve Horn, who represented the Port of Long Beach, Representatives Jerry Lewis and Lucille Roybal-Allard and the late- Representative Julian Dixon, key members of the appropriations committee, and my colleagues Juanita Millender-McDonald and David Dreier, in pressing for enactment of the federal loan at key points in the legislative process.

I also want to praise Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta for his leadership as Secretary and as both the chairman and ranking member of the House Public and Transportation Committee during his tenure in the House. His unfailing support of this project has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.

Mr. Speaker, with cargo volume forecasted to dramatically increase as a result of the worldwide economic recovery, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are poised to take advantage of increased trade from the Pacific Rim. The Alameda Corridor project demonstrated the constructive roles both the federal and local governments can play in meeting the needs of expensive, complex but nonetheless important projects for moving containers to markets overseas and elsewhere. Indeed, plans are already underway to extend the Corridor eastward--a plan I strongly support and which will further enhance the economy of southern California and the Nation.

My congratulations to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, and to all the individuals and local officials who supported this project, for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and commend him for his leadership, along with that of the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, a committee on which I was privileged to serve for 6 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, though I wish it had called for a thorough investigation by Congress of the acts described in it. Our Nation is strong, not only because of our military might, but because of our values. In peacetime, those values may seem easy to uphold, but in wartime, they are inevitably going to be tested. To keep us strong, we must reaffirm to the American people and the world that those values permeate everything we do as a Nation, at home and all over the world.

We are not naive. We know that the fog of war is thick, and we understand, certainly those of us on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence understand, that interrogation is an integral part of gathering intelligence about the enemy. Good intelligence hopefully prevents and disrupts attacks. That saves lives.

Many of us on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence care deeply that we get it right. I have traveled to Guantanamo three times to assess the effectiveness of our interrogations and to assure that detainees are being treated properly. While I strongly disagree with the lack of legal status for Guantanamo's detainees, I have been increasingly impressed by the tangible improvements in prisoner treatment and by the yield from interrogations.

I have been to Baghdad twice, again focused on intelligence issues. There was no hint in my second visit to Baghdad in February of this year, a month after the devastating photos were delivered to the Pentagon, that anything was amiss with respect to interrogations in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I were doing our job to make sure things were done right, but the failure to alert us to the circumstances that led to the request of General Taguba to prepare his report was a failure by the intelligence community to keep our Committee informed. It was a failure by the executive branch to keep Congress informed.

After everything this country has been through over the past 3 years, the horrors at Abu Ghraib made crystal clear the need for major intelligence reform. It is not acceptable for people to retreat into ``chain of command'' stovepipes. It is not credible that a few bad apples carried out what the Taguba report calls ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse'' without any explicit or implicit tolerance from those who supervised them.

Tom Friedman writes today, ``We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world.''

Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are initiating a call to action.

The problems plaguing American intelligence are too grave, and the potential damage to U.S. national security, force protection in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, too important to justify delay.

These problems require urgent attention from the President--who has the power to fix some identified problems with our intelligence now-- and from Congress, which built our Intelligence Community five decades ago to fight an enemy that no longer exists.

But those of us in Congress must also do our part.

That is why we are introducing a major legislative proposal--the Intelligence Transformation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4104)--a set of critical and urgent reforms for the Intelligence Community.

The highlight of this proposal is the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (a ``DNI''), who has budgetary and statutory authority over the entire Intelligence Community. This is not a new idea. And it is not a Democratic idea. It was one of reforms recommended by the bipartisan, bicameral 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry.

But our legislation does more. We are also proposing ``jointness'' in collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence. We believe that one of the major deficiencies in our Intelligence Community is the fact that there are fifteen intelligence agencies--operating with different rules, cultures, and databases--that do not work as one, integrated Intelligence Community.

We also believe that our Intelligence Community must leverage the power of information technology to help our intelligence professionals share data in real-time. The United States has the best IT capabilities in the world, but we have scarcely touched that potential to help the IC do its job.

Finally, the Act would create a new WMD Proliferation Threat Integration Center (PROTIC) to provide integrated tasking of collection and analysis on the WMD proliferation threat.

At a time when much of Washington is fingerpointing, we hope this legislation today will add some light to the heat surrounding the subject of intelligence failures.

We had hoped to produce a bipartisan bill--and we believe that it will ultimately be a bipartisan bill because it is good policy and because of its bipartisan parentage. We shared our legislative ideas with the majority on our Committee, but we did not want the legislative year to pass while awaiting their response.

The terrorists and the enemies of the United States will not wait until after November to plot their attacks--nor will they check our party registration before they launch those attacks against us. We cannot afford to wait. This task is urgent. We must act now.