Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as Greece celebrates its 183rd anniversary of freedom and the successful struggle for independence, I join my colleagues in congratulating the people of Greece and in extending heartfelt congratulations to those of Greek descent everywhere.

Greek Independence Day--like America's Fourth of July--is a celebration of a love of freedom and self-government. As the world's first democracy, ancient Greece was a model and a source of inspiration to our Founding Fathers.

In addition to shaping our early beginnings, modern Greece has been a strong friend and ally to the United States. Millions of Greeks have immigrated to the US and the contributions these families and individuals have made to our nation and communities have been immeasurable.

As a member of NATO, Greece has helped ensure the security of Europe's southern flank. But, in addition to a strong relationship that is steeped in common culture and philosophy, the US and Greece are also connected by recent history. On September 11, Greece lost twenty-one citizens at the World Trade Center. We share in their grief and note that, since then, Greece has stepped up its efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad. And, on the eve of the Olympics, Greek officials are working hard to ensure the safety of the thousands of visitors who will be in Athens celebrating these historic and exciting games.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues who are also committed to strengthening US-Greek ties and to working on issues of mutual interest. There are many international as well as regional challenges we can only solve through cooperation and mutual respect.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time and commend him for his service in this Congress and particularly his excellent service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to consider a resolution on the eve of the Iraq war anniversary. I agree that the world has much to be glad about with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the end of his despotic regime. And I certainly hope that the Iraqi people will create a transparent, democratic form of government for the first time in their history, a chance that they have now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I for one, and I believe this entire Congress, will stand by them and must stand by them and support them as they make this transition. We must stay the course.

But there is more to this subject on the first anniversary of the Iraq war than H. Res. 557 acknowledges. Much more. On the anniversary of our military action in Iraq, we need to be talking about more. That is why many of us wanted an open rule and certainly an open process so that we could contribute to the language contained in this resolution.

As ranking member of one of the key committees with jurisdiction over this subject, that is, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would have welcomed the opportunity to share some of my ideas to fashion a great resolution which I believe would have passed this body unanimously. I consider myself a passionate bipartisan on questions of defense, national security, and intelligence; and I think that my ideas, if I had had a chance to communicate them, would have been accepted.

For example, I am one of many Members here who has visited Walter Reed to see the wounded from Iraq. These are very courageous kids. Thousands have been wounded. I would have liked us to acknowledge them and their courage.

I visited the families in my district who have lost family members in Iraq. I would have liked to acknowledge those losses and those families.

I have visited Iraq twice. Some have been there more. In addition to acknowledging our troops, I would have liked to acknowledge the intelligence community personnel who take such risks on our behalf and the civilians working selflessly there.

I worked in 1999 and 2000 as a member of the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by Jerry Bremer, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. I might have liked to acknowledge him and his selfless service in Iraq.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me, and I will address this along with other Intelligence Committee members later in the debate, that I would have liked to acknowledge the important role that intelligence products play in force protection now in Iraq and why those products need to be better. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I think many would share this, good intelligence is a force protection issue.

And so it seems to me on the first anniversary of our action in Iraq that we should acknowledge the need for better intelligence products and the need for this administration to fix right now, not next year but right now, the way we source and analyze intelligence. That is a suggestion I also would have made on a bipartisan basis if I had been permitted to participate.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we commemorate the first anniversary of the action in Iraq, we need actions and not just words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about how we can improve this resolution, but I would like to say to the able gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), the chairman of our committee, that some of the things he just said in his opening remarks might deserve amplification. It is true that during the 1990s, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress approved cuts in funding for intelligence. So strong was this bipartisan position that often no one called for a recorded vote; Intelligence budgets were approved on a simple voice vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is correct that overseas intelligence operations were canceled and that the core of our overseas intelligence operations declined by about 25 percent. But what he failed to mention is that those cuts were ordered by the 41st President, President Bush. They were supported by more than 95 percent of Republicans in Congress, including the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss).

What I am here to say today, however, is that this resolution could be improved if it called for steps now on a bipartisan basis to fix what are obvious intelligence problems. In addition to commending our troops, we should be calling for action to make them safer.

Had I been consulted on this resolution, I would have suggested adding a clause calling on the President to acknowledge the obvious problems with our intelligence and to take steps to fix those problems now. Had I been consulted, I would have insisted on adding language applauding the brave and

dedicated cadre of people serving in Iraq and around the world as intelligence officers. They work in the shadows with little thanks and recognition.

Mr. Speaker, the terrorists are clearly not waiting for us to fix our intelligence, witness today's tragic bombing in Iraq and last week's bigger tragedy in Madrid. The insurgents in Iraq are not waiting for us to fix our intelligence. Ask the young men and women at Walter Reed Hospital.

The North Koreans and Iranians are not waiting for us to fix our intelligence. Their nuclear weapons programs are far more advanced than Iraq's ever were. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of our committee, acknowledged this morning, the world is not safe just because we removed a brutal dictator. We all know this. It will not be safer until we fix our intelligence.

After deep study on the Select Committee on Intelligence, it is clear to me that our senior leaders remain in a deep state of denial. There are no discernible signs from the President or the Vice President acknowledging the obvious flaws in our intelligence systems and committing our country to fix the problems now. Force protection in Iraq depends on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence to counter terrorism and insurgency. We must do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan comments of the last speaker, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Committee on Intelligence and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the last speaker for his wonderful remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our able rookie.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another able member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the last speaker that I think this resolution should include words of praise for the members of the intelligence community who take risks on our behalf in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to say first off that I am sure that is what the last speaker intended. He is a good friend, a member

of our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and I am certain he did not have me in mind when he was suggesting that there is excessive partisanship about our intelligence budget.

I call myself a passionate bipartisan on intelligence and security matters, and I take a back seat to no one for my efforts to try to work out agreements on a bipartisan basis to fix our intelligence.

As I said earlier, in my view, the proposed resolution does some good things, but it also should be calling for action to keep our troops and other personnel serving in Iraq safe.

Just a few hours ago, Mr. Speaker, a devastating car bomb destroyed a hotel in Baghdad. The casualty reports are still coming in, but at least two dozen people have died. Better intelligence is essential to protecting our troops in Iraq and ensuring that we ultimately succeed there. It is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism.

There are good ideas from both sides of the aisle that should be discussed and debated this year. What should we be doing? In my view, let us try six things:

First, the President should direct intelligence agencies to scrub weapons of mass destruction intelligence on all major targets and release updates on areas of concern. Now.

Second, the President should direct intelligence agencies to improve collection and vetting of information. Now.

Third, the President should require intelligence agencies to improve the way they analyze intelligence and convey information to policymakers. Now.

Fourth, the President should direct a review of the activities of various DOD offices, particularly the Office of Special Plans, to see whether they fed unreliable and unvetted intelligence to him, the Vice President, or his senior national security team.

Fifth, the President should take immediate steps to strengthen and reinvigorate international inspections.

And, finally, the President should consider longer term changes to the leadership organization and business methods of the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have been a call to action in support of our troops, in addition to an expression of our heartfelt gratitude.

We could have done much, much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997. Proponents of this bill claim it addresses violence against pregnant women.

Let's be honest here. H.R. 1997 is not an anticrime bill, it is an antiabortion bill. This bill does not address the women who are victims of violence. In fact, this bill makes no mention of the woman and the harm to her that results

from an involuntary termination of her pregnancy.

Legislation that truly addresses the devastation of a pregnancy lost due to a violent crime should focus on the attack on the woman and resulting harm to her fetus, as does the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Zoe Lofgren).

I rise in support of this amendment, as it ensures efficient prosecution of the criminal wrongdoer and would not undermine the legal principles underlying a woman's right to choose.

Mr. Speaker, if what we are trying to do is protect pregnant women, then let us protect them. Let us not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking their rights under the guise of protecting unborn fetuses.

The Venice Family Clinic and Westside Family Health Center, both located in my district, have programs in place that identify pregnant women at risk of domestic violence and work closely with the family throughout the pregnancy and for at least 1 year after the baby is born. These programs have had positive results at reducing domestic violence before it occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say goodbye to a dear friend and neighbor.

Earlier this week, I received news that local activist and businessman Sandy Elster passed away at his Venice, California home at age 86.

Sandy was a true progressive, who cared intensely about policy. He volunteered for my first congressional campaign and was generous with both his time and ideas. He was unafraid to speak out, whether he agreed or not with my positions. Indeed, I know that many of my views were shaped by the discussions we had during our bike rides and brunches along our coastal bike path.

Sandy was known, in particular, for his environmental activism. In recent years, he was a consultant to the Metropolitan Transit Authority to develop a non-polluting, mass transit system. He drove one of the first electric cars, the EV-1, made by General Motors, and later became an advocate for the hybrid Toyota Prius and persuaded his friends to buy it.

Sandy also led local efforts to protect the California least tern, a small gray and white seabird that was added to the endangered species list in the mid-1970s. After moving to Venice in the early 1970s, he helped cut through red tape to erect a fence around a plot of sand about half the size of a football field to keep dogs, cats and other predators away from tern eggs and chicks. Today, the least tern population is stable and growing because of his stewardship.

I know that one of his proudest accomplishments was seeing then- President Ronald Reagan sign the U.N. Genocide Convention--an agreement whose ratification he spent many years working to secure. But beyond making genocide a crime under international law, he believed it important that our citizens know the horror of genocide, its roots, and the need for vigilance. During the 1980s, he was instrumental in the campaign that resulted in legislation to require California's public schools to teach about genocide to students in seventh through 12th grade.

It's emblematic of Sandy's active life that the service to his memory was held at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club. He was an avid tennis player and biker, and I found it challenging to keep up with him.

My thoughts are with his spectacular wife and partner of 56 years, Ernestine, and his family. Sandy was very special.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I would just point out that Members on our side strongly support the women and men in the field who work in our intelligence community. I assume the prior speaker is aware of that.

We also, to my knowledge, have not produced any memos around here that could be characterized as divisive. We are all pulling in the same direction, and that is, hopefully, to enhance our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a senior member of our committee and a senior member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there is an additional speaker on the other side, and then the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) obviously has the right to close. I would reserve our time until all speakers but the chairman have spoken.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am the concluding speaker on our side, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say first that the views of the prior speaker are views I share. I am sad to hear that he will oppose the bill, but I certainly agree that we need to be sure we are narrowing the reach of these national security letters and limiting them only to financial transactions. It is important that we find terrorists.

It is important that we track terrorist financing; but it is, by my lights, risky to fail to include additional language in the bill or the report that would make clear what our intent is. I hope this new authority will not be

abused. I will certainly be watching it carefully, and I do appreciate the fact that the prior speaker expanded on what abuses could potentially occur.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the women and men who work in our intelligence community around the world. I have been to austere places all over the world, and I have met women and men who work in the most dangerous conditions who put our security first, ahead of theirs, and who leave their families at home and take enormous risks for our country. I salute them. I know how dangerous their jobs are. I appreciate what they do every single day.

And particularly, let me say today to our intelligence community in Iraq and in Turkey and places that are under siege, I really appreciate what they are doing. I thank them very much.

I also want to say thank you to the members of this committee. All of them work hard. There is bipartisanship in this committee, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the partnership we have had over some years now.

Let me thank the hardworking staff on a bipartisan basis. Every one of them works enormously hard, and I would just like to recognize the eight minority staffers, most of whom are sitting around me right now: Suzanne Spaulding, the minority chief of staff; Bob Emmett; John Keefe; Beth Larson; Marcel Lettre; Kirk McConnell; Wyndee Parker; and Ilene Romack. Thank you every day for what you do.

Let me just make three concluding points. First, facing tough issues. It is absolutely critical at a time when security risks are expanding around the world that we face tough issues; that Congress face tough issues and ask tough questions; and that the intelligence community, which tries hard but has not always delivered perfect products, face tough issues, go through this lessons learned exercise and learn from wrong judgments that were made or inadequate collection that occurred so that the next products that are prepared by good people can be the best possible products. Please let us face tough issues.

Second of all, I want to make the point that our oversight in this committee on a bipartisan basis requires constructive criticism of the intelligence community. We have done this over the years. Last year, we issued a tough report. The Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, of which I was ranking member and Mr. Chambliss, who is now in the other body, was chairman, issued a tough report on some of the problems in intelligence leading up to 9/11. That report was constructive criticism. Some of the recommendations we made have been heeded; some have not. Constructive criticism, asking tough questions are things we properly should do.

Finally, let me suggest again to the intelligence community that it is important to engage in dialogue with this committee. Shrill press releases are not dialogue. Quiet conversations, talking about how we see things, what we think can be improved, why it needs to be improved, will get the job done.

This bill provides many new resources, many, many new resources, and is carefully crafted to suggest best directions for the intelligence community. We have confidence in the people who work there. We are proud of them. We thank them. We are trying to help them do better.

I urge support of this authorization conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct this bill's conferees to insist upon section 344 of the House-passed bill requesting an intelligence ``lessons learned'' report and to include a requirement that this report be submitted as soon as possible.

Section 344 of the House bill requests within 1 year of enactment a report from the Director of Central Intelligence on intelligence lessons learned as a result of military operations in Iraq. But as we know all too well, the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and -women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan today. There is an urgent need to identify what policymakers, military forces, and the intelligence community can be doing better today rather than months or years from now.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is not over, and daily reports from Baghdad continue to be grave and disheartening. In the last several weeks, we have seen suicide bombings of the International Red Cross headquarters and several Baghdad police stations, a rocket attack on the al-Rashid Hotel where Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz was staying at the time, mortar attacks inside the U.S.- controlled Green Zone in central Baghdad, the downing of five U.S. Army helicopters, a suicide bombing of Italian military police in An Nasariyah, and a steady stream of improvised road-side explosive devices directed against U.S. and coalition soldiers.

Coalition forces are being attacked up to 35 times a day. As of today, Mr. Speaker, 181 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq by hostile fire since the President announced the end of major combat operations on May 1. Clearly, our intelligence efforts on the ground are not where they should be. We are only now setting up information sharing fusion centers. We have just recently begun to increase the number of analysts and intelligence experts. The bottom line is that we still know very little about the nature of the insurgency.

Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we are to prevail in this continuing conflict, and I and other members of the Committee intend to do everything possible to provide our forces with the very best intelligence. Lessons learned with respect to both prewar intelligence and intelligence support to the war fighters during combat operations are a key ingredient in that effort. The intelligence community must understand what worked well and what did not work so well so that improvements in intelligence support to U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq today can be made as quickly as possible. Lessons learned are also important if future intelligence assessments of Iran, North Korea, and the war on terrorism in general are to be credible.

The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) has said, and I agree, that intelligence community reform, or transformation, must be on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's agenda next year. That effort should be informed by an understanding of where U.S. intelligence in Iraq needs to be better.

In the course of a 5-month investigation, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. We found that sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum, the intelligence community overstated the strength of the underlying data supporting its conclusions.

Our Senate counterparts are engaged in a similar effort to identify intelligence shortcomings and recommend changes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have prepared their own assessment of strategic lessons learned from the Iraq war, and I strongly supported the Defense Authorization bill's requirement of a ``lessons learned'' report from the Department of Defense by March of next year.

Unfortunately, the intelligence community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar intelligence. With American lives on the line, the problems with prewar intelligence must be addressed and analyzed now. An intelligence ``lessons learned'' study cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search in 9 months or a year from now. Regardless of what he finds, we already know there were problems with collection, analysis, and the way policymakers used the information.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct because the best intelligence is key to stopping the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will then permit reconstruction and implementation of true self- government.

I am hopeful that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will accept my motion and that we will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to expedite the report and to implement its findings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those remarks and agree that this is not a one-time deal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), ranking member of the Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), an excellent committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), another committee member, the ranking member on the Intelligence Policy and National Security Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

May I inquire whether the chairman is going to have speakers? I am curious how we are going to proceed here.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the former chairman of this committee and a great expert on intelligence matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers. I plan to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the chairman for accepting this motion to instruct and for years of partnership on the committee trying to do the Nation's business in the right way. These are very hard issues; and they require sober thought, careful articulation and collaboration with the intelligence community. We intend to offer criticism where we can offer it constructively and to engage in an ongoing dialogue with the intelligence community.

It is an honor to serve as ranking member of this committee. I respect its traditions and all the members, and staff who work so hard. Let me say to our friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), that I agree with him. There are very good people in the intelligence community.

When the chairman and I recently sent some constructive criticism to the Director of Central Intelligence, our letter started with a long paragraph about how good the people are who do our work for the intelligence community. But it is my view that these good people can do better and they can do better if we ask tough questions in a constructive fashion and if we can help them learn from things they have not done as well as they possibly could. So that is what we are talking about here.

We are talking about requesting a lessons learned report as soon as possible so that by looking backward on some things that were done not as well as possible, we can look forward where we have ongoing force protection issues in Iraq and huge intelligence challenges in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, and do things better. Good people with better tools performing better.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe we should freeze-dry this debate. It was substantive. It was serious. Like the chairman, I did not agree with every single word that was said, but I think every single word that was said was said with seriousness and with substance, and that is the kind of debate that we should have around here. And, oh, by the way, we also should have outcomes like this because the chairman has accepted this motion to instruct. I hope that should we end up voting on it, the vote will be unanimous or near-unanimous and that will, by my lights, be a very big victory for this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from California, Mr. Cunningham, to honor our nation's veterans with introduction of the ``Memorial to Noncitizen Patriots Act.''

George Washington once said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.''

Honoring our veterans is a process that begins on the battlefield through ensuring that our troops have the best training, equipment and other support. It continues as we welcome them home upon returning from war, when we fly the POW-MIA flag, when we care for them and their families and, ultimately, when we lay them to rest with appropriate remembrance and tribute.

Our country, while divided in its views on specific military actions, is united in its support for our service men and women who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom.

Many American military heroes, past and present, were born outside of the United States. From the thousands of noncitizens who fought for the Union Army during the Civil War, to the 36,177 noncitizen members of today's Armed Forces, these men and women have sacrificed for our country and the preservation of our precious freedom.

To date, we have lost 17 noncitizen service members in Iraq. Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez from Lomita, California, in my Congressional District, was born in Guatemala and lost his life this spring. Like Corporal Gutierrez, all of these men and women have fought just as bravely as their American-born counterparts and have dedicated themselves to serving the country they are proud to call their own.

It is time that we appropriately recognize their bravery, valor, and patriotism.

I am pleased to pay tribute to Corporal Gutierrez and other foreign- born noncitizen patriots who died in combat with the introduction of the ``Memorial to Noncitizen Patriots Act.'' This legislation would authorize construction of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring the service and sacrifice of noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Arlington, the nation's premier military cemetery and shrine honoring the men and women who served in the Armed Forces, is a particularly fitting place for this tribute. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this bill.

This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons, weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation.

Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our forces with the best intelligence possible.

The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process.

Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength of the underlying data supporting the conclusions.

The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search. Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection, analysis and the way policy makers used the information.

I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this request.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.

As the former representative of the Port of Los Angeles, and currently the representative of the communities neighboring the Port, I know the critical role the Coast Guard plays in protecting the nation's ports and sea-borne commerce.

Indeed, even before the events of September 11, the women and men of the Coast Guard worked tirelessly to ensure safe and secure operations in and around the Port of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Bay. Since that date, the role of the Coast Guard has increased in pace and intensity.

The bill before us recognizes the operational tempo of the Coast Guard and helps ensure that it has the assets and personnel to do its critical job.

I also want to point out the bill's endorsement of the Marine Exchange of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Since 1923, the Marine Exchange has maintained a continuous 24-hour operation providing detailed records of all vessel arrivals and departures of the busiest habor complex in America. Jointly with Coast Guard, the Marine Exchange operates a Vessel Traffic Information Service. This program uses state of the art electronic tracking equipment and radar and radio systems to manage all commercial vessels that travel through San Pedro Bay. The Marine Exchange VTS is the first public-private VTS partnership operation in the country that is funded by industry.

This bill notes that it is a national model for other ports to study, evaluate, and emulate and authorizes the Coast Guard to enter into similar cooperative agreements elsewhere in the nation. The VTS keeps the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach safe, more efficient, and environmentally protected by assisting with the movement of over 35,000 vessel transits annually and I commend its executive director, Capt. M.H.K. ``Manny'' Aschemeyer, and all those associated with the Marine Exchange for a job well done.

Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to the Chairman and Ranking Member for including in the manager's amendment a proposal first suggested to me by the City Council of Torrance, California. That proposal recognizes the linkage between the critically important roles of both the Coast Guard and the nation's cities in the fight against terrorism and recommends the Coast Guard name a class of vessels in its Deepwater program in honor of specific U.S. cities.

It is my hope that the Coast Guard will respond favorably to the sense of Congress language included in the bill and, in fact, name one of its new ships in honor of the city of Torrance, which has been on the forefront of honoring our Armed Forces and is strategically located on the shore of the Pacific Ocean.

Madam Chairman, I urge passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues Mark Kirk, Curt Weldon and Howard Berman in introducing today a resolution expressing Congress's deepening concerns about Iran's nuclear program.

For many years, I have been persuaded by the available evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, starting with

transfers of nuclear and missile technology and expertise from Russia. Indeed, it was my resolution in the 105th Congress (House Concurrent Resolution 121) that called on the President to demand that the Government of Russia take actions to stop governmental and nongovernmental entities in the Russian Federation from providing missile technology and technical advice to Iran in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime.

Evidence continues to accumulate raising questions about Iran's intentions, notwithstanding that country's signing of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Recently, environmental sampling by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility revealed the presence of two types of highly enriched uranium that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. And, earlier in the year, IAEA announced that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium.

These developments prompted the Director General of the IAEA to express concern over the failure of the government of Iran to report material, facilities and activities at its nuclear facilities, including those that have the potential to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons. As a result, last month, the IAEA board of directors adopted a resolution calling on Iran to provide that organization, by October 31st, with a full declaration of all imported material and components relevant to the uranium enrichment program and to grant unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, concerns about Iran's intentions are further underscored by Iran's successful test earlier this summer of the 800-mile range Shahab-3 missile and the persuasive evidence that is it seeking to produce a 1,200 mile Shahab-4 missile.

Coupled with Iran's known support for terrorist groups, it is clear to me and my colleagues that Iran poses a serious national security threat to the United States and its allies and other countries in the region. We can't idly wait for developments to unfold.

The concurrent resolution we introduce today clearly expresses Congress' view that the President must use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It also calls on the members states of the United Nations, particularly Russia, to join together to dissuade Iran and, if necessary, to impose sanctions if Iran does not fulfill its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency by October 31.

Failure to act can only encourage Iran to pursue a dangerous and destabilizing course. Iran must cease all efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities until it is able to verify that it is not continuing to engage in a nuclear weapons program.

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

Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request, in its present form, is profoundly flawed, and if it is not improved by responsible amendments, among them one I have proposed, I will reluctantly oppose it.

I take a backseat to no one when it comes to support of our Nation's defense and our intelligence community, but I believe there are better options to support our troops and rebuild Iraq, while respecting the American taxpayer in the process.

Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families deserve better.

Among my concerns are deficiencies in prewar intelligence that have not been acknowledged by the administration, let alone fixed. If our intelligence is flawed, our forces presently in Iraq are at risk, and our predictions about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and North Korea will lack credibility.

Second, we have only belatedly reached out to those with extensive experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the sixth such rebuilding effort in a decade; yet lessons learned from earlier experiences have been largely ignored.

Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international reconstruction strategy, one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries capable of contributing to a successful result.

Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request, the President has again bypassed the annual budgeting process and its critical constraints.

Fifth, we owe it to our veterans to fully fund their needs. My amendment would do this in the context of a balanced budget framework.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I

support finishing the job, but we must not provide this administration or any other with a blank check.

Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request in its present form is profoundly flawed--and if it is not improved by amendment on the House floor, I intend to oppose it.

I take a back seat to no one when it comes to my support of our Nation's defense and our intelligence community. But I believe there are better ways to support our troops and rebuild Iraq while respecting the American taxpayer in the process.

Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families deserve better.

Members of this body rightly have complained about the Bush administration's lack of a sustainable strategy for Iraq and the lack of a sincere attempt to explain the supplemental's details.

The failure to spend funds wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan is already having a profound effect on our fighting men and women there. Earlier this week newspapers reported that ceramic inserts for soldiers' flak jackets--to be paid for with $300 million already appropriated--still have not been delivered and might not arrive until December. This is irresponsible. U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets of daily attacks; wearing the inserts is literally a matter of life and death should they be hit by assault rifle fire.

I also have serious concerns about our policy going forward.

First, deficiencies in pre-war intelligence have not been acknowledged by the Administration, let alone fixed. If our intelligence is flawed, our forces are at risk. And our predictions about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and North Korea will lack credibility. This supplemental does nothing to fix these problems.

Second, we have only belatedly reached out for those Americans with extensive experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the sixth such rebuilding effort in a decade. Yet, lessons learned from earlier experiences have been largely ignored.

Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international reconstruction strategy--one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries capable of contributing to a successful result.

Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request and demanding that the crisis requires its immediate passage, the President has bypassed the annual budgeting process and its fiscal constraints. It is even more troubling in this case since the Administration resisted for months the call for openness and honesty about the true costs of managing post-war Iraq.

Fifth, we owe it to our veterans and those soldiers returning from the war on terrorism to fully fund the benefits to which they are entitled--and to make up the $1.8 billion shortfall in health care funding in the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill.

Since 9/11, I have called for a wartime budget that would fully fund the war on terror as well as reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq within a balanced budget framework. Americans are prepared to make hard and responsible choices. Every previous war has been paid for by the generation that fought it, and not by saddling our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt.

The United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere--and I support finishing that job.

To this end, I would support, as I believe many other Members would, an incremental approach to the supplemental package--one that provides funding in installments and only after certain benchmarks and milestones are met.

But I am not prepared to provide this Administration with another blank check.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the conference report to ban so-called partial-birth abortions.

Regrettably, Congress poised to pass, and the President is prepared to sign, a bill that can only be described as unconstitutional.

I urge my colleagues not to be deceived by this legislation.

Partial birth is not a medical, factual, or legal term. Let's be frank--it is a political term.

This is not a debate about so-called partial-birth abortion or late- term abortion. This is a debate about efforts to roll back a woman's constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

The so-called partial birth abortion ban contained in this bill is intended to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade and I believe will be found unconstitutional by the courts.

Even the sense of the Senate language included in the Senate-passed bill reaffirming Roe v. Wade has been stripped out of this bill.

Supporters of this bill argue that language defining the partial- birth abortion procedure has been tightened and that findings included stating that the procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's health.

This is simply smoke and mirrors. The bill is unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down similar laws. Women are entitled to the right to the safest abortion procedure available. To ban one particular procedure is to deny women--in consultation with their doctor--that right.

Just as its authors intended, this bill would apply well before viability, banning a safe method of abortion that is often used in the second trimester.

In addition, it fails to include language providing an exception to protect the health of the mother.

I am distressed that more than 30 years after the Supreme Court's historic Roe decision, we are considering legislative measures that could revert us back to the time of dangerous back alley abortions.

Before voting, I hope that my colleagues will remember the struggles women faced before Roe.

Let us not forget the women who were injured or who died from unsafe procedures. This bill could well return us to that era again.

I urge my colleagues to uphold a woman's constitutional right to choose by voting against final passage of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of time will not fade from our memories the horror we witnessed 2 years ago today.

Nor will it diminish our feelings of sadness for those who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a remote field in western Pennsylvania.

For California's South Bay, where LAX--the destination of three of the four hijacked planes--is located, four of my constituents were killed.

We remember these individuals and comfort their families: Anna Alison of Torrance, Chandler ``Chad'' Keller of Manhattan Beach, Stanley Hall of Rancho Palos Verdes, and John Wenckus of Torrance.

We also remember several other individuals who worked in the 36th district but lived elsewhere. Their coworkers remember them fondly: Ruben Ornedo, who worked at Boeing, and Peter Gay, who worked for Raytheon Electronics and commuted to El Segundo weekly from the east coast

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we have taken concerted action to defeat terrorism. Brave members of our Armed Forces and intelligence communities are working to bring the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks to justice.

But we have much still to do.

And however difficult that task, we are inspired by the heroism of the first responders who gave their lives that day--by the thousands who are prepared to do the same should another attack occur--and by the memories of so many people who died.

As we mark this anniversary, to paraphrase Tennyson, America will ``strive . . . seek . . . find . . . and not yield'' in the face of this new threat.

Indeed, America will prevail.