Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there are few images more glamorous in our popular culture than that of the debonair spy. There is a reason that James Bond movies have been audience favorites for more than 40 years. But this is one case where art does not even come close to imitating life.

There is nothing romantic about the state of America's intelligence. It is a tired, rusty, bureaucratic, multi-headed beast that is letting down the American people. Fifteen different Federal Government agencies are a part of our intelligence apparatus, and that does not even include the ad hoc intelligence team the administration gathered to advance its phantom case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Fifteen agencies. That is 15 chains of command, 15 unique institutional cultures, 15 fiefdoms. It is a recipe for disaster, for turf battles, and ego clashes which stand in the way of the most critical work imaginable: Keeping the American people safe.

According to Bob Woodward's book, former CIA Director George Tenet told the President that he had a ``slam dunk'' case for war. In reality, Tenet could not get the different players on his own team to pass the ball to one another.

Here is what I want to know: If organizing the hodgepodge Department of Homeland Security was so important that people were called unpatriotic for opposing it, then why is it not just as urgent to unite U.S. intelligence under a single umbrella?

Earlier this week, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence considered H.R. 4104 introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), which would have restructured the intelligence community. This bill would have coordinated the 15 intelligence agencies, making them accountable to a single Director of National Intelligence. The bill further integrates the agencies by promoting information sharing and creating incentives for cooperation between them. But the Republicans on the committee shot this bill down.

In the same meeting, the majority rejected an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism intelligence, instead providing only 25 percent of the additional funds that are needed. It is appalling that many of the same folks who were vigilant about keeping a tight lid on intelligence information have offered nothing more than a shrug at the news that Ahmad Chalabi revealed to the Iranians that he had intercepted their secret communication codes. It is unthinkable to me that on the heels of some of the most colossal and embarrassing intelligence failures in American history, the majority is eager to stick with the status quo.

This is a situation that is crying out for reform. We failed to connect the dots that might have enabled us to intercept the 9/11 plot. Our Iraqi intelligence in the run-up to the war was based on mistakes, at best; outright deception, at worst. The administration wants to rewrite the Constitution to say who can marry whom, to give tax breaks to the Americans who need them the least, to read our e-mail and examine our library-borrowing habits, neither of which has anything to do with detaining terrorists, but when faced with a genuine problem, like the state of American intelligence, one that truly endangers the American people, they do not have the will to act.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to act. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And to meet every one of its goals, SMART security will rely on a robust, efficient, integrated intelligence community.

Until we get serious about overhauling U.S. intelligence, I fear that that very term, U.S. intelligence, may become an oxymoron.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Isabelle Wadsworth of Petaluma, California, on the occasion of her 90th birthday. A good friend, a wise woman, and a great mind, Isabelle's active life is a model for all of us who value community leadership and visionary spirit.

Born in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1914, Isabelle earned a BA at the University of Arizona and an MA at Northwestern University. In Arizona, she met her future husband, John Wadsworth. They married in 1937 and headed for California shortly thereafter. Initially, John managed a paint store in Santa Barbara and then served in the U.S. Army Air Corps until 1946. During the War, Isabelle moved to Sonoma County where John joined her later. Their daughter Sandra was born in 1948. The couple enjoyed a 63-year marriage. John passed away in 2000.

In 1943, Isabelle began work as an office manager at Sonoma Title Guaranty, eventually joining the Board of Directors from which she retired in the 1960s. Her concern for her community resulted in the creation of Petaluma People's Services, which she helped launch in 1963. Today the organization successfully offers a broad range of services such as counseling, housing, employment assistance, senior services, and other programs.

As a director at Sonoma County Mental Health Services, Isabelle was instrumental in the establishment of Oakcrest, a county mental health facility. She also served on the Sonoma County Grand Jury and was active in the League of Women Voters. She remains politically involved today, following the news closely and commenting freely on the issues.

Daughter Sandi describes Isabelle as ``an inspiration and a mentor to me. She taught me the value of being a well-rounded person, exposing yourself to as much as you can and learning about everything.''

Mr. Speaker, Isabelle Wadsworth is an inspiration to many of us, especially women who share her passion to make a difference. Her community leadership shows what caring people can accomplish. Happy Birthday, Isabelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 634, a resolution congratulating the Kenyon College Ladies Swimming and Diving Team for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Women's Swimming and Diving National Championship.

In March, the Kenyon Ladies captured the national championship for a record 20th time in just 21 years. The Ladies' record 20th national championship came a month after placing second to Denison University at the North Coast Athletic Conference, NCAC, championships in mid- February.

I want to extend my congratulations to head coach Jim Steen, who has a remarkable record. Coach Steen has won a combined 41 NCAA titles with both the Lords and Ladies swimming and diving teams at Kenyon over the past 28 years. Seven former Kenyon swimmers are now college head coaches, while nine others are assistants. Since Steen's arrival in 1976, more than 300 Kenyon swimmers and divers have become all- Americans.

I also want to congratulate team standouts Beth Galloway for winning the 100-yard back stroke and setting a new NCAA record in this event and Agnese Ozolina, who captured first place in the 200-yard individual medley. Together, these two seniors hold 23 national titles.

I also want to extend my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to Denison and Emory universities, who won second and third place in the final overall team standings this year. Winning the championship has cemented Kenyon University's place among collegiate sports dynasties.

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

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

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 635, a resolution congratulating the Kenyon College Men's swimming and diving team for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Men's swimming and diving National Championship. This spring, the Kenyon Lords won a record 25th consecutive NCAA division title, the most titles held by any team in any sport in NCAA competition. Imagine that. My colleagues must be so proud over there.

Since 1980, the Kenyon Lords have won 200 individual and 85 relay titles at

NCAA events. I want to congratulate Head Coach Jim Steen, who has been the driving force behind the Lords impressive drive for 25 quests. Not only has Coach Steen won more national NCAA titles than any other coach, but he has also prioritized academics and a strong work ethic for his Lords and Ladies teams.

The Lords have received 1,445 All-America honors, as well as 83 academic All-America awards. They have also won 85 relay team national championships, 54 conference titles, and 13 out of 18 record holders in Division III at NCAA events.

I also want to congratulate Emory and Carnegie Mellon Universities, who finished second and third in the overall team standings.

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

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 630, a resolution congratulating the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Ice Hockey National Championship.

In March, the Gophers won their third consecutive national title, defeating the Harvard Crimson 6 to 2. I want to congratulate Shannon Miller, the 2003 American Hockey Coaches Association ``Coach of the Year,'' in leading the Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team to their third national title in just 4 years.

In addition to the titles, Coach Miller holds the top spot among all women's college hockey coaches with a .818 winning percentage.

I also want to congratulate Krissy Wendell, who led the Golden Gophers with a goal and 3 assists and scored a total of 8 points during the national semi-final and championship games. Due to her excellent play, Wendell was named the ``outstanding player'' of the tournament.

In addition, Wendell's Gopher teammates, Natalie Darwiz, Jody Horak, Allie Sanchez and Kelly Stephens also took home NCAA All-Tournament honors.

I also want to congratulate the Harvard women's hockey team for their strong performance at the Final Four on Ice this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), an athlete himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 449 to honor the lifetime achievements of Ray Charles. I join my colleagues in mourning his recent passing, and I thank my lucky stars that I have seen him in concert many times. Ray Charles overcame childhood poverty, the loss of his eyesight at age 6, and the loss of both of his parents by the age of 15 to become a 12-time Grammy award-winning performer.

Ray Charles was a gifted pianist and saxophonist, but his greatest gift was his songs. He sang the blues, country, rock, big band swing, jazz, even classical. Many credit Ray Charles with the beginning of soul music when he combined gospel and rhythm and blues in his first recording, ``I Got a Woman.''

Ray Charles' version of ``Georgia on My Mind'' became the official song of his native State of Georgia and his performance of ``America the Beautiful'' gave new life and a new audience to a patriotic standard that we did not know before. But whatever Ray Charles sang in whatever style, he started from his very roots, the black American music that became the soul of his music.

It is fitting that Members from both sides of the aisle join together to honor Ray Charles, because he was not political. His music was his politics, and it embraced all listeners equally. Ray Charles' music broke down all barriers, and united his audience in appreciation. Ray Charles will be deeply missed. We are fortunate that his music will live on forever and forever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 13, which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) introduced to recognize the importance of blues music.

The blues is an entirely American art form. It began with slaves as a way of communicating their experiences, their faith, their pain. The earliest form of the blues is thought to be the field holler, which gave voice to the extreme suffering and oppression in the construction camps of the South. The field holler grew into the spiritual, which became the basis for the blues.

The blues began as an oral tradition and were not written down until the early 1900s when W.C. Handy began performing and publishing songs that he had heard. Handy's ``Memphis Blues'' and ``St. Louis Blues'' are credited with spreading the popularity of the blues among African American audiences.

In the 1920s, the blues became a national craze. Recordings by Bessie Smith and Billie Holiday, leading blues singers, sold in the millions, and the influence of the blues can be seen both in jazz and in pop music today.

Although the blues is deeply rooted in the American black experience, listeners of all backgrounds can identify with the loneliness and the longing of the blues. The blues is truly universal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4589 as an interim continuity of assistance to those who need help getting back on their feet. I think you all know I was one of ``these'' people 30 years ago when, as a young mother with three children, ages 1, 3 and 5, my husband left us. I was working full-time, but to get my children the health care, the child care they needed, even though I was employed, I turned to welfare to make up the difference in my income. Eventually, I worked my way out of poverty, got a college degree, started my own company, and now I am a Member of Congress. I believe others should have the same opportunities that I had.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to debate welfare reauthorization, we have to remember that our goal must be to move women and their families from welfare to self-sufficiency, preventing the ongoing pattern of welfare to poverty. That is why I support making States accountable for helping families become self-sufficient by creating a standard to determine just how much a family needs to survive without public assistance in any particular State. That is why I want mothers to have access to educational opportunities and job training, to give them the skills they need for jobs that pay a livable wage. And that is why I know how important it is to provide quality child care, including care for infants and care for parents who work weekends and evenings.

In my personal situation, my children had 13 different child care situations the first year that I went to work. That was the worst year in our lives. And today, 35 years later, quality accessible, affordable child care, particularly for low-income women reentering the workforce, is almost vacant.

Mr. Speaker, States and families need to know that these welfare extensions are going to last longer than 3

months. States need to plan their budgets and families need to know what they can count on. That is why we need a clean, multiyear extension that ensures continued, accessible welfare services, an extension that would do no harm to our Nation's poorest families while preserving the services that they have now and that they need.

The base bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) refers to does not accomplish this, and the other body knows it. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important than helping our families get out of poverty and to become, on their own, self-sustaining and independent.

So I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the temporary relief through H.R. 4589 until the time we can do it right.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the defense appropriation bill will increase funds by $15 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, program, known here as Nunn-Lugar. This program has succeeded at reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the States of the former Soviet Union. My amendment will take $15 million from the Missile Defense Program, the single largest defense program in our Nation's history, and transfer it to CTR. We are taking funds from a program that has not been proven successful and we are transferring them to a program that has been proven extremely successful.

Mr. Chairman, in November 1991, to address the massive quantity of nuclear material left over in the former Soviet Union, Congress initiated CTR, and as I said, commonly referred to as the Nunn-Lugar program. CTR enlists the Department of Defense with the task of dismantling nuclear warheads, reducing nuclear stockpiles, securing nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. The Defense Authorization Act of 2004 specifically authorized $50 million for proliferation threat reduction projects outside the former Soviet Union.

The extra $15 million for CTR could be used to engage Iran and North Korea. It would take the first steps toward working to demolish their nuclear weapons and infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, in 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the former Soviet Union. These conditions raised the serious concern that nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union or that Soviet nuclear scientists might be able to export their expertise or actual nuclear materials to rogue nations or terrorist groups.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

And North Korea.

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment and save everybody a lot of time. Is the chairman willing to talk with me on this, too?

Mr. Speaker, when the Soviet Union collapsed in the fall of 1991, the chief threat to the United States, the possibility of a massive nuclear exchange, ceased to be. Now the biggest threat posed by the Soviet Union is the massive quantity of nuclear materials that still exists within its former borders.

In 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the former Soviet Union. These conditions raised a serious concern that nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the boarders of the former Soviet Union or the Soviet nuclear scientists might be able to export their expertise or actual nuclear materials to rogue nations or terrorist groups.

Congress responded in November of 1991 by initiating the Nunn-Lugar program, which is commonly referred to as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, CTR. CTR enlists the Department of Defense with the task of dismantling nuclear warheads, reducing nuclear stockpiles, and securing nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union.

Under CTR, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly tasked to create nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle them. Since 1991, CTR has dismantled nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, 479 ballistic missiles, 435 ballistic missile silos, 97 bombers, 336 submarine launched missiles, 396 submarine missile launchers, and 24 strategic missile submarines.

This program clearly works. That is why I have introduced the SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of aggressive posturing, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes.

The Defense Authorization Act for the year 2004 specifically authorized $50 million for proliferation threat reduction projects outside of the former Soviet Union. Along the same lines, SMART security would replicate CTR in possible future nuclear states like Iran and North Korea. SMART security would respond to the threat of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, not with threats of warfare, but rather through a peaceful negotiated program, similar to the one that has been successful in the states of the former Soviet Union, in which the U.S. works with these countries toward the common goal of reducing the world's supply of nuclear weapons.

We need to engage burgeoning nuclear powers on a nation-to-nation level for the purposes of nonproliferation, and we need to take the initial steps towards demolishing their nuclear weapons and infrastructure. In the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than scaring them into submission.

If we are going to throw our weight around the world demanding that other nations cease their weapons programs, we must make sure that we are setting an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. We must maintain our commitment to existing international treaties, like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried, and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, not our nuclear capabilities, but our commitment to peace and freedom and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic; SMART security is smart and will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, the border between India and Pakistan has commonly been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint. India is thought to have at least 50, maybe as many as 120, nuclear warheads; and Pakistan is thought to have 30 to 70 warheads, but the two countries took a step towards nonproliferation on Sunday when they signed their first confidence-building agreement on nuclear weapons since 1999.

As part of the agreement, both countries will keep open a permanent telephone hotline to warn the other in advance of tests of nuclear- capable missiles. The confidence-building measures also included an agreement to continue the moratorium on testing nuclear warheads and a promise to continue nuclear talks.

While largely symbolic, this agreement is significant because it represents the desire of both India and Pakistan, two countries consistently at odds with each other, to avoid a devastating nuclear exchange that could kill hundreds of thousands of people.

The United States could take some valuable lessons, Mr. Speaker, from this India-Pakistan agreement. At the same time these two countries are seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, the United States is funding millions of dollars in research on new nuclear weapons.

Specifically, in this year's budget request, President Bush asked for over $100 million for research and testing of new nuclear weapons, including the robust nuclear Earth penetrator and so-called yield nuclear weapon. Fortunately, these funds were initially rejected by the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, President Bush just does not seem to get it. While countries like India and Pakistan have taken the first step to making the world safer, our President seems to think the only good defense is a good offense.

But how strong does our offense need to be? We already possess 9,000 strategic nuclear warheads. How many of these weapons of last resort do we need before we feel secure? How much money do we need to spend on new nuclear weapons while neglecting important domestic programs before we decide that we have finally spent enough?

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, a more sensible way, a way more rooted in the best American values, and there is.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. We need to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. On that point, the President and I agree; but we must avoid equating our security with aggression and military force.

The United States possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile, but nuclear weapons are not the answer to our problems because conflicts between nations require a more delicate touch.

Instead, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes.

The United States must set an example, Mr. Speaker, an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons.

We must maintain our commitment to existing international treaties like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty,

the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We must support and adequately fund programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles and secure nuclear weapons in Russia; and we must replicate this successful program in other troubled countries like North Korea and Iran, because not every country will proactively choose to give up its nuclear program. In the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than scaring them into submission.

The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy.

SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, not relying on her nuclear capabilities, but our commitment to peace and freedom and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic. SMART security is smart and it will keep America safe.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 8: Page 19, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount insert the

following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about a group of Americans that we do not always take the time to recognize, our Nation's first responders.

This group of brave men and women are our first line of defense against terrorist attacks and disasters. They are our dedicated firefighters, police, emergency technicians, and health care workers who are the first on the scene when disaster strikes.

First responders work around the clock to protect their communities. Unlike most working folks, they are always on call in case of emergency. In fact, many of these dedicated individuals died in the World Trade Center on September 11 because response was so effective they arrived at the scene and were scattered throughout the buildings when the buildings collapsed.

As we know, disaster requires the highest level of cooperation between different agencies, meaning the difference between lives lost and lives saved. Because conditions during major disasters are unpredictable, Mr. Speaker, first responders require the most advanced equipment to ensure that they are well protected: equipment including self-contained breathing units, protective clothing for hazardous situation, interoperable radio units so different groups and communities can communicate during a crisis, thermal imaging units so we can determine if people are stuck in buildings or trapped under falling debris, and trained, available health care workers and technicians adequately supplied with vaccines, medicines and provisions.

One would think that in a post-September 11 world, Congress would fully fund these response efforts; but that is simply not happening. In fact, the homeland security appropriations bill that came before this House today actually reduces funds for first responders.

Despite the majority party's rhetoric, their rhetoric of supporting first responders, most Republicans fully supported President Bush's 2005 budget proposal which would cut $800 million in grants to first responders. Talk about misplaced priorities. We are spending $5 billion every month for the war in Iraq, but cannot find the funds to provide $3 billion this year for our first responders in the homeland security bill; $3 billion is the amount needed to fully fund the programs that are necessary to keep them safe.

These are people who safeguard our most precious landmarks like the Capitol Building and the Golden Gate Bridge. Clearly our budget priorities are way out of whack when we cannot provide for those who selflessly protect their communities every single day. This, I believe, is travesty.

Every year we lose an average of 100 first responders to terrorist incidents and disasters. With better equipment,

more detailed interagency coordination, and more frequent practice exercises to prepare first responders for the real thing, many of these deaths could be prevented. But this requires adequate funding.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, a more intelligent way, a way to prevent the needless deaths of the men and women who are our first line of defense. And there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stand for Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism.

Instead of spending billions on new bunker buster nuclear weapons and the President's beloved missile defense system, which would not provide an effective defense against a full frontal missile attack, SMART security calls for stronger and smarter investment abroad in peacekeeping and conflict prevention programs, and at home a homeland security program that provides first responders with the equipment and tools they need to provide security to their community.

SMART security means supplying adequate funds for first responders. We should be providing them with the exact equipment they need, the exact equipment and tools they are requesting. The Bush doctrine of misplaced priorities has been tried, and it has failed miserably. It is time for a new national security strategy.

SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, including the brave men and women who offer their time, their bravery, sometimes their very lives, to provide the first line of defense in times of catastrophe. Being smart about our Nation's security means recognizing that real security starts at home with our first responders.

Mr. Chairman, our first line of defense against terrorist attacks would be our first responders, our police, our fire, our health care workers. They are the first on the scene. They must be prepared for whatever emergency arises, but despite the President's rhetoric supporting first responders, his 2005 budget cuts $800 million from first responder grants, and the bill before us tonight cuts 7 percent of the funding for local emergency personnel. This is going in the wrong direction, and it is because of the tax cuts for the best off in the country. If we were not doing that, we would probably have enough money for those programs.

While we need at least $98 billion to meet the demand for self- contained breathing units or protective clothing or hazardous chemical attacks, the Federal Government is providing less than 15 percent of these critical funds. Who will pay for this? Local governments of course.

Mr. Chairman, funding for first responders is crucial because they need to protect our local communities, because they are the ones that are first in line of defense. We are shortchanging them. They are our brave men and brave women. They are parts of our communities. They protect our communities, and we are shortchanging them while we are cutting taxes for the very best off in this Nation. Shame on us.

Mr. Speaker, American troops are being court-martialed daily for their role in the heinous crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq. For sure, their role in these incidents is embarrassing and shameful.

But if we are searching for the true culprits for these abuses, which include the sexual assault, forced sodomy, and death of Iraqi prisoners, we need look no further than August 1, 2002.

That is the day the Justice Department advised the White House in a memo to Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush's top counsel, that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.'' The memo also stated that ``necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability'' for the use of torture.

It is not just the physical abuses that took place in Iraqi prisons that is appalling. The thing that is just as appalling is that legal abuses took place here at home too within our own government, when high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice affirmed the use of torture as a war tactic.

The White House and the Pentagon approval of torture is not only shameful, it also flies in the face of America's human rights standards. And what happened to the United States setting a positive example for the rest of the world?

That is not what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have us believe. Rumsfeld wants the American public to think that the use of torture was isolated to Abu Ghraib; that by merely court-martialing those directly responsible for inflicting the abuse who he called ``a few bad apples,'' well, now we have gotten to the bottom of it.

But the fact that torture occurred in separate places and under the command of different interrogators leads many to believe that a more systematic failure took place. And I believe that the discovery of the Justice Department's appalling sanctioning of torture confirms that belief.

Furthermore, an investigation by the New Yorker Magazine detailed a Pentagon operation that encouraged the physical coercion, otherwise known as torture, of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq.

This information was also substantiated by Newsweek Magazine, and do not forget about the memo that called the use of torture ``justified.'' What more evidence does one need to understand that this administration condoned and approved the use of torture?

There is an eerie pattern at work here. First Guantanamo Bay, then Abu Ghraib. Now we are learning that prisoners in Afghanistan have been subjected to torture by American soldiers. It is becoming very clear that the really ``bad apples'' are at the top of the barrel. They are, in fact, in the White House.

There has to be a better way, Mr. Speaker, a more intelligent way, a way rooted in the values that we hold dear in the United States, and there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create smart security for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation; and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations,

with an emphasis on women's health and education.

SMART security means interrogation, not torture. It means an open government, one we can trust to do the right thing; not one that will hide behind Justice Department memos condoning torture and secret Pentagon plans on how to use torture to America's advantage during war.

The situation in the Middle East requires the best America has to offer. SMART security relies on the very best of America: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart about our future in this country. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe and honored by the rest of the world.