Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time to discuss this very important issue.

The PATRIOT Act has sparked important discussion about protecting ourselves from terrorists and protecting our civil liberties. It is clear we can make reforms to better ensure we are giving law enforcement all of the tools they need while maintaining the appropriate safeguards to protect the very freedoms we cherish.

Last week as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) as the chairman, I was able to include a reform so the PATRIOT Act ensures greater judicial oversight of government wiretaps. The so-called John Doe roving wiretaps are a critical tool in our efforts to fight terrorism because they allow surveillance when neither the target's identity nor location of the interception is known.

This amendment allows these wiretaps to continue, but requires the government to report back to the courts with an explanation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the rationale of the wiretap. This will allow greater oversight of the wiretaps without impeding the government's need to obtain information on potential terrorist plots quickly. If we focus on commonsense reforms, we can protect our communities from terrorists, and we can protect our civil liberties.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for this amendment. This section of the PATRIOT Act authorizes expansive authority for John Doe roving wiretaps, taps of phones and computers when neither the location nor the identity of the target are known.

The Issa amendment further improves the amendment that I offered during the Intelligence Committee markup of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. My amendment, I am pleased to say, was unanimously accepted by the entire committee and is included in the base bill before the House today.

The Issa amendment appropriately defines the term ``reasonable period for filing return'' as not more than 15 days. It assures the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, we often call it the FISA court, will receive information related to John Doe roving wiretaps in a timely manner by removing any ambiguity associated with the term ``reasonable.'' It makes it clear to every FBI agent, DOJ lawyer and judge from the start, this is a 15-day limit on providing the court with information related to John Doe roving wiretaps. This is a good fix to a good provision that further strengthens the amendment to the PATRIOT Act.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the gentleman from California for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate sharing with the committee I used to serve on.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we just came from talking to Iowa corn growers a few minutes ago, and this is a terribly important thing to Iowa and many States which I will mention as we discuss this very important matter.

Today we have the opportunity to support and extend the vitality of the Nation's economy by supporting the upper Mississippi River locks and dams projects included in this bill.

The upper Mississippi River waterway system is in severe need of update and repair. Until these projects are completed, many of our farmer owners who ship out of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri will continue to experience costly delays and inefficient transportation.

This legislation is crucial to preserving U.S. agricultural competitiveness in markets worldwide.

Last year we saw an emergency closure of Lock & Dam 27 in Granite City, Illinois. The effect of a 2-week closure at a single site can be felt in the pocketbooks of many of my constituents. If we do not act now to repair these locks and dams, we continue to risk shut-down at any number of sites, the effect of which would be disastrous.

Barge traffic on the Mississippi River represents the most efficient, most cost-effective, most environmentally sound means of transporting commodity goods from this region of the country to market. If we move away from the barge traffic, the expense we would have of creating new roads and rail to accommodate this traffic would be daunting. Each year hundreds of millions of tons of commerce move through the upper Mississippi River system; this is equivalent to roughly 67,000 barges. To replace barge traffic with truck and rail traffic would require 1 million rail cars or 4 million trucks. This is the most cost-efficient way to support and maintain the agriculture economy in our Nation.

The 2005 Water Resources Development Act is important in many ways; but at its heart it is about job creation, reducing the burden of transportation costs of American producers, promoting U.S. agriculture exports, and supporting the most environmental friendly mode of transportation.

For the good of our environment, the good of the economy, and the good of the Nation, I strongly urge support of the upper Mississippi locks and dams project.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very special day. I congratulate and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and my dear friend from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis). Perhaps this is one of those times where everything has been said but maybe all of us have not said it yet, but I think it needs repetition. We have been at this for a while. It should have happened some time ago. Efforts were actually made.

Can you imagine the feeling that went on there in the Southwest when the general rode in and said, ``I've got a message. Well, it's 2 years old, but you're free.'' I cannot imagine how they must have felt. It celebrates ideals that all Americans share. The desire for freedom and self-determination are at the very soul of the American dream. I think we all understand that. Throughout the history of the United States, we have grown as a Nation and a people. Learning from our past, as has been said, learning that freedom and liberty are ideals we must to work for and there is yet work to do.

Since the first Juneteenth celebration in Galveston, this remembrance has grown into a regional, national and global celebration of freedom. In my own State of Iowa, the seventh State to recognize this independence day, Juneteenth is met with multiple days of education, history, camaraderie, celebration and community spirit.

Last Saturday in Evelyn Davis Park, one of the favorite places in Des Moines, Iowa, the African-American community and many others, the mayor, myself, others, we came together to celebrate and to share together and to enjoy this really national remembrance. A week prior at the Fort Des Moines Hotel, Dr. Myers, Reverend Myers, if you will, came to key-note speak to us and give us the background and history of the other efforts that have been made. I am very, very proud of the efforts that he made to come all the way from Alabama, a man who has given his life work to try to make life better for those that are wanting to climb the ladder of success.

I am very proud of my African American constituency in my home State of Iowa. Gary Lawson, chairman of the Iowa Juneteenth committee, has stayed focused and stayed on this, and so when we talked about this over time and we came to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), we were really in concert that this needed to be done.

If I may, I would like to share a couple of names here: Minnie Mallard, Reverend Keith Ratliff, Reverend Elder Day, Linda Carter- Lewis, Ako Abdul-Samad who is on our school board, Kim Baxter, Jonathan Narcisse, Mary Ann Spicer who is very active in many activities with the African American community, Odell McGhee, Willie Glanton, France Hawthorne, Cheryl Bolden, State Representative Wayne

Ford, Amelia Morris, Rudy Simms, Floyd Jones, Dr. Mary Chapman, Odell Jenkins, Barbara Oliver-Hall. Of course, I have mentioned Reverend Ronald Myers. I am sure I have left some out and I probably should not have gone there, but I am very proud to have worked with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) on House Concurrent Resolution 160 recognizing Juneteenth.

History must be regarded as a means of understanding the past and solving the future. It is my hope that we will pass this resolution today. Each one of us should speak to our two Senators and press them to have quick action in the Senate and get this over to the President for his signature. This is the right thing to do, long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 2475. It may not be a perfect bill, but there are many, many good things in it. I am very pleased that the bill before us today no longer includes a provision that would have undermined the authorities of Ambassador Negroponte, the newly appointed director of National Intelligence. My colleagues and I put a lot of effort into passing an intelligence reform bill last year as was just discussed. We worked hard on giving the director of National Intelligence all the authorities he needed to make the intelligence community function as a community, including the authority to transfer people to new intelligence centers if and as needed. To tie Ambassador Negroponte's hands before his organization has been stood up, it did not seem like a smart thing to do. I would not have supported this bill had the provision limiting the DNI's personnel transfer authorities not been taken out of the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for their efforts to remove this provision and I thank 9/11 Commission chairmen, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, for clearly stating their opposition to it. I look forward to us addressing the other recommendations by the Commission. It is also my belief that the DNI has to control the money to be able to fulfill his charge of responsibility.

I am pleased that this year's authorization bill also fixes the number one issue my colleagues and I raised last year, full funding for counterterrorism operations. H.R. 2475 authorizes full funding for the intelligence community's counterterrorism operations this year. That should remove impediments to the intelligence community's ability to plan their operations. Maybe this will be the year we are able to hunt down Osama bin Laden. I certainly hope so, and I know we all feel that way. The world will be better off once he is taken care of.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from California for leading the Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan fashion. National security must be a bipartisan issue and that is the direction the committee is returning to.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their great work on this important piece of legislation. They both have done a fine job faced with very, very difficult budget realities. We recognize that. However, we hope that this might be considered.

Mr. Chairman, during the Memorial Day district work period, I traveled my district to announce the introduction of H.R. 2659, the Safe Children Safe Communities Act which we introduced on May 26. This legislation seeks to provide $300 million in grants to States based on their population to implement better and more comprehensive sex offender registries and tracking systems. Now, the amendment I have offered today does not seek $300 million, but I believe it will help provide the States with needed resources to update their records.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to increase funding for the Criminal Records Update Program by $2.5 million. My amendment offsets this increase in funding by reducing the Department of Justice general administration salaries and expense account by $2.5 million.

The subcommittee has funded the Criminal Records Update Program at $25 million for FY 2006, which is an increase of $334,000 over the previous year. However, this falls drastically short of the administration's request by some $33 million.

Mr. Chairman, the goal of this program is to ensure accurate records are available for use in law enforcement, including sex offender registry requirements. The program helps States build their infrastructure to connect to a national record check system both to supply information and to conduct checks.

Mr. Chairman, during my time traveling my district, I have spoken to countless law enforcement officials; and during our conversations we have agreed on many issues. This is not a Republican issue; this is not a Democratic issue, national, State or local. It is all of it together. It is all of it together to protect our children.

We are in 100 percent agreement: we must work together at the Federal, State, and local levels to ensure the safety of our children.

I realize times are tight when it comes to spending, but if we can spare any additional dollars to ensure communities and our children are safe, then we absolutely must do it.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to say I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) with our committee, the fresh leadership, and his working together with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is doing a great job for us as ranking member. It is good to see my neighbor and friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) participating as he is standing in for Mr. Boehlert.

Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission examined ways that terrorists are trying to attack us and pointed out problems with how our intelligence agencies tackle this threat. Our intelligence community was set up more than 50 years ago to deal with threats from the Soviet Union in the Cold War. I personally participated in rewriting FM 101-5 when I was instructor at Command General Staff. We knew we had to change, we had a new threat, the Cold War.

Today we face new threats and our intelligence agencies need to adapt. The 9/11 Commission showed us a way to do that.

I believe H.R. 10 is too weak. It does not do enough to address the threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction our country faces. I offered an amendment in committee last week to improve the bill's provisions on the budget authority of the National Intelligence Director. It was voted down on a party-line vote, even though the same provision is part of the bipartisan Senate bill that passed 96 to 2 yesterday.

I think the issue of budget authority is actually a simple one. The National Intelligence Director needs the authority to do the job we are asking him to do. That means power over the intelligence budget. And to be effective, to be allowed to do his or her job, they must have authority over the budget.

With weak authority, the National Intelligence Director will inevitably be weak, exactly as the Director of Central Intelligence has been weak for half a century.

There have been many, many studies of intelligence reform over the decades, and most of them have urged stronger budgetary authority for the Director of Central Intelligence. The 9/11 Commission strongly recommends that the National Intelligence Director be fully in control of the budget, from developing it to implementing it, to ensuring that the National Intelligence Director has the clout to make decisions.

Over in the Senate, the Collins-Lieberman bill keeps faith with those recommendations. H.R. 10 does not. I hope that we will be able to improve the bill, amending the budget provisions and other provisions that are far too weak.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 4569, a bill to provide for the development of a national plan for control of sudden oak death, a disease that has threatened oak stands in California but is now potentially a threat to trees in other parts of the country. While we work to contain this disease, it is important that the necessary commerce in oak nursery stock be permitted to continue within reasonable bounds. This bill should help advance both of these important goals.

Our success in this matter is important to all Americans. Whether you are in the forest land business or just enjoy the shade of a majestic oak gracing your lawn, we all have an interest in this important issue. I want to commend my colleagues from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and (Mr. Scott) in particular, for their work in bringing this legislation before us today. I encourage all Members to vote for the passage of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to represent those in my district, an extension of the Sac and Fox Tribe, Meskwakis, great Americans, Native Americans, and a number of those that live in that settlement, as they refer to it there, in Tama County, Iowa, that I know that served as I did in Vietnam and other places. And I associate myself with the comments that have been made already by my colleagues. They have provided and will continue to provide a great service to our Nation. They always have. They are willing to step up and be counted and do their part and many times do more than their part. I found them to be very self-giving, to be sure; that the freedoms they enjoy at this time, regardless of the historical circumstances, they love our Nation, and they serve it with honor and distinction, and I am satisfied that they will continue to always do that.

So I appreciate the effort that has gone in to presenting this to us today, and I think that this is the right thing to do, and we probably ought to do this more often. So I am proud to share in these compliments to Native Americans. I urge adoption of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Cramer in introducing H.R. 4855, a bill to create an Independent National Security Classification Board.

As a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been privy to many of our nation's most precious secrets. Much of the information and reports provided to the Committee has been properly classified by the Executive Branch. I and many of my Intelligence Committee colleagues, however, have been concerned that some decisions to keep certain information classified are not based on the need to protect national security. Instead, they may have been motivated by a desire to shield officials from accountability and otherwise keep information away from those who have a right to know-- concerned citizens. Such action serves only to stifle public debate and undermine the integrity of the system. It is unacceptable.

The proper test is one that balances national security requirements with the public's interest in receiving information. Unfortunately, this has not been done in the recent past. While serving on the House and Senate Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, I witnessed first-hand the struggle related to declassification of information of great import to the families who lost their loved ones on 9-11 and the general public. The 9-11 Commission, which will release its report later this week, faced similar struggles.

The time has come to establish an independent panel of experts to review classification policies and decisions and requests for declassification of information. Such a panel is needed in order to restore integrity and accountability to the classification and declassification process.

H.R. 4855 would establish an Independent National Security Classification Board. The Board would be comprised of three national security classification experts, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Independent Board would be charged with reviewing and making recommendations to reform standards and procedures related to the classification of national security information. The Board would submit proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and the Executive Branch for comment and revision, and then implement the new standards and process once they have had the opportunity to comment. The Board would then begin to implement the new system, reviewing and making recommendations on current and new national security classifications, subject to Executive Branch veto that must be accompanied by a public, written explanation.

The balance in this proposal would help ensure that the public and Congress have access to an Independent Board for national security classification matters while leaving undisturbed the constitutional prerogative of the President, our Commander-in-Chief, to appoint the Board and to veto the Board's classification decisions.

This same measure was introduced by a bi-partisan group of Senators. I hope H.R. 4855 will attract similar bi-partisan support in the House. Because of the critical need to address the issues associated with the classification of national security information, Mr. Cramer and I, both Members of the Intelligence Committee, believed it imperative not to delay introduction of this bill. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I did take some notice of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I appreciated his remarks about the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). I agree. I think he has done an excellent job. But none of us are perfect. I think there was an exception here. I actually thought that he would plus-up this counterterrorism budget.

But here we are, and I rise to oppose the rule on the Intelligence Authorization Act. In particular, I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), mine and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), which would fully fund the counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies.

I wish the Republicans had been willing to debate this issue head on, rather than hide behind a procedure.

As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the current bill authorizes less than one-third of the funds the intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. The intelligence agencies will have a tough time accomplishing their mission if they do not receive full funding for the counterterrorism operations.

At CIA, these funds do not go to the paper clips and photocopiers. They go towards mounting counterterrorism operations on every continent. They go towards collecting information on preventing terrorist attacks. They go towards funding operations in Afghanistan, to prevent resurgence of the terrorist sanctuaries in the remote mountains. They go towards working with partner governments on counterterrorism. They go towards capturing key al Qaeda leaders.

When there is uncertainty about funding, according to the agencies' testimony, it causes the agencies to hold off on operations, potentially putting lives in danger and ruining intelligence collection operations.

The administration officials have admitted they are not fully funding counterterrorism in this bill, but will send a request for the rest of the funds after the election, while at the same time urgently warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, what should the American people expect us to do? Is it acceptable to wait until after the election, when we already know what we need to do?

No, it is not acceptable. The American people expects us to debate these issues fully and openly and not hide behind procedures. If, as the administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. this summer, my colleagues in the majority will wish they had debated and settled the Peterson amendment, rather than squashing the debate. We will all wish that we had acted and fully funded counterterrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I fully urge the rejection of this rule, so that the important issues like the shortfall for counterterrorism in this bill can be properly debated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his hard work. I agree with some things that have been said about the gentleman's good work. I actually thought, and I do not say this in anything but a gentleman's way, I thought he would accept our idea to fully fund counterterrorism. He surprised me, but I still do not take away from his good work, and I want him to understand that.

But the debate over the Intelligence authorization bill this year has been a hard fight. There are some serious disagreements about what the best bill to protect the American people ought to look like.

I believe this bill has not gone far enough to strengthen intelligence and strengthen oversight.

We, in this House and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, have not shied away from standing strong and debating these issues head-on. I believe what the American people deserve is our best effort to support what we believe is right.

A lot of good work has gone into the bill. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, I am glad to see funding and support for analysis.

As we have reviewed the intelligence on Iraq's WMD, it has become clear to us that analysis did not have the ability to examine the reliability of sources. It now appears, for example, that all four sources that Secretary Powell relied upon to describe Iraq's mobile bioweapons facilities were not solid. I hope that this bill's support will improve the quality of analysis so that a future Secretary of State has better intelligence at his or her disposal.

I am also pleased to see investment in long-term HUMINT needs, the hiring and training of new case officers. The demands of the counterterrorism campaign have been great and the intelligence agencies have worked hard to meet those demands, but the war in Iraq has stretched our resources. According to The Washington Post, one of the largest intelligence efforts since the Vietnam War is under way there.

I am concerned that the demands Iraq has placed on our intelligence resources have left large parts of the world alarmingly undercovered.

While this bill makes long-term investments, the bill falls short on addressing some of the most urgent needs. This bill only provides one- third of the additional funds the intelligence agencies say that they need to fight terrorism.

The President will not send the rest of the funding request to Congress until after the election, at the same time that he is urgently warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. To me, this state of affairs is unacceptable.

I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, What should the American people expect us to do? They expect us to do what is right to provide them safety through funding counterterrorism. I hope the President will send this supplemental funding request to Congress before then so we can get on with the business of protecting the American people.

I had hoped that this bill would have been stronger, stronger in its support to the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it as we go through the conference.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process. I look over there at people I have a lot of confidence in, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and many others, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). There are things that we have said that we really have wanted to do over this process was to plus up the money for counterterrorism, simple as that.

I say to the chairman, I really thought that would go. I realize he did not have a lot of warning, but I did not think it took a lot to do. When we went to the Committee on Rules yesterday, and we made our presentation there, I said clearly, and the ranking member agreed, I did not care who got the name on this thing. It did not make any difference. If the chairman of the Committee on Rules wanted it, we did not care. But we thought for the good of the country we needed to plus- up the counterterrorism.

Because the threat is out there. We are told about it all the time. We think about three major events that are coming up. And I even shared a little bit with one of my grandchildren what I would do if they wanted to go to one of those.

Now, the country is in peril. We got a lot going for us, I do not need to start that argument, but all we wanted to do was to plus-up counterterrorism and make it more viable and make it happen for the safety of this country.

Mr. Speaker, at the close of business this week, we will journey back home to our districts. There, we will meet with our constituents and hear their concerns so that we may better serve them. We will also celebrate Memorial Day with them. Memorial Day is a very special day for me and my family, as I am sure it is for millions of other families across our great nation.

Prior to my years in public office, I proudly served my country in the United States Army. During my twenty years as a soldier, I served a number of overseas tours, including two tours in Vietnam. The years I spent wearing the uniform of my country will always be special to me, and the brave Americans I knew as a result of my service will always have a special place in my heart.

I would like to take this opportunity today to reflect upon the sacrifices our brave servicemen and women have made in the past and are making today as they honorably serve overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what it is like to serve in a hostile environment far away from the comforts of home, separated from your loved ones. I also know the joy they will feel when they return home to their families. However, war does not promise that everyone who serves will return home. War does not promise that families will see their brave soldiers again.

This Memorial Day, Iowans will join together with the rest of the nation as we honor those soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States, uphold our Constitution, and advance the cause of freedom around the world. We will honor GySgt. Jeffrey Bohr, Lance Cpl. Ben Carman, Pvt. Michael Deutsch, PO Trace Dossett, Sgt. Paul Fisher, Pvt. Kurt Frosheiser, Pfc. David Kirchhoff, Spc. Joshua Knowles, Sgt. Bradley Korthaus, Pvt. Kenneth Nalley, Spc. Aaron Sissel, CW4 Bruce Smith, Cpl. Michael R. Speer, and Pfc. Brandon Sturdy, brave Iowans who lost their lives serving in Iraq. I thank them for their sacrifice, and I, along with the rest of our nation, offer my deepest condolences to their families.

God bless our brave and honorable servicemen and women and their families. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I appreciate it.

And I want to say at the outset I rise to support the resolution. When I look over there, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and a whole bunch of others, they are my heroes. But we have some on this side of the aisle too. I think of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), I think of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a lot of us as well as a lot of my colleagues.

This is not a partisan thing. We support the troops. No question about it. I was a little appalled this morning as I heard my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and his comments. But I still support the troops.

Our troops in Iraq are to be commended for their courage and their valor. I do say the same about the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community. I visited with them in Iraq. It is truly inspiring to see what they have accomplished. And the Iraqi people are to be commended for their courage in the face of Saddam's cruelty.

But I agree with the remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the proposed resolution ought to do more. It is time the President set about fixing the problems in intelligence that are already known to exist. This will do much more to secure the peace in Iraq than just commending the troops and the Iraqi people which, of course, is very important.

For example, the DCI has acknowledged that we did not have enough human intelligence. In addition, the sources we did have too often gave us bad information. There are also some indications that we may have dismissed potential sources of information because they were not telling us or we did not believe or did not want to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Closed societies of Iraq are among the most difficult of intelligence targets. No question about it. Terrorist groups are equally difficult to penetrate. However, there are steps we can take to improve our ability to recruit sources of information on these hard targets.

The intelligence community is developing new ways of deploying human intelligence collectors. In urging the President to take steps now to fix intelligence, we can encourage these efforts which will yield benefits in Iraq today. The proposed resolution ought to do this. Why not? We can. We should.

I do support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, for their leadership and untiring efforts to work together and produce this very meaningful bill. Plus I have never seen better and more dedicated staff than I have seen on this committee, and I appreciate them very much.

It is basic: we have to have the best possible intelligence to enable our troops and protect our Nation again a basic must-do. So I rise in support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004. What is the bottom line of this bill? The bottom line is that it funds important new intelligence capabilities while demanding accountability and improvement in certain areas.

Here are three examples: first, the conference report requires the intelligence community to conduct a review of lessons learned for military operations in Iraq. Based on the committee's reviews so far of prewar intelligence on Iraq, there were some serious deficiencies in collection and analysis that needed to be fixed, must be fixed. The lessons learned provision is essential and will identify new tools and techniques needed.

Second, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I want to strengthen HUMINT collection efforts around the world. In our efforts and briefings and in our committee members' oversight trips to Baghdad and other places, members have talked to dozens of intelligence officers who are fighting the war on terrorism and fighting to win the peace in Iraq. I admire their bravery, their patriotism, and their selfless dedication to duty.

This conference report provides them with tools they need to accomplish their mission. It expands language and cultural expertise in the intelligence agencies. It asks the administration to set up a process for reviewing the laws and guidelines associated with data mining. And it supports new tools for sharing information through the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and with local officials to the Department of Homeland Security and local FBI joint task force on terrorism.

Finally, the conference report includes measures that will strengthen the capabilities of defense human intelligence. Through further transformation and reform, defense HUMINT will become more flexible, agile, readily responsive to the Department of Defense intelligence requirements. This is a good bill that will protect Americans. I am pleased to support it.