Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Simmons amendment. Unlike some other amendments in this bill that are offered for partisan advantage, this amendment is offered by a former CIA officer with detailed knowledge of how the U.S. intelligence community works. To my knowledge, there are only three current Members of Congress who work with the CIA: our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the author of this amendment; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons); and me, who is detailed to the CIA from navy intelligence.

This amendment seeks to change our intelligence culture to become more effective in the age of the Internet. Today, every two-bit terror organization in the world has a Web site broadcasting information on its activities. Internet news, political parties, and foreign government sites all offer new material to our intelligence community.

For years in the cold war, our enemies collected open-source data on us, but we were forced to collect secret data on them. That is now changing. There is a wealth of open-source data on our adversaries. Every analyst in the community should be encouraged to use as much current and accurate

open-source data as possible; and I applaud the gentleman, who knows the CIA so well, for offering this amendment to keep our culture up to date with the current technology.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise not as a New Yorker, but as a Midwesterner and as someone with 16 years' experience in the intelligence community; and I rise to reluctantly support this amendment because it stands for the principle that our homeland defense dollars should be allocated against the threat and not allocated by State.

Our intelligence against al Qaeda should guide where we deploy these defenses. In point of fact, many States have never been mentioned by al Qaeda or any other major terrorist organizations, but other targets are always mentioned: New York City, the Seattle Space Needle, the Sears Tower, nuclear reactors in the United States, the largest airports, and, of course, the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, they did not, but that was not the point of the attack. The point of the attack, as I will go into, is always returning to the same targets, as it has in Kenya, as it has in Sudan, as it has in Tanzania.

Once the U.S. Marines and Army Special Forces overran the al Qaeda offices in Afghanistan at Tarnak Farms, we got a clear picture of what the terrorists target. We all know that Osama bin Laden struck the World Trade Center in 1993 and then struck it again in 2001.

As one political party holds its convention in New York City in 2004, we know it is a target again. We cannot let homeland defense dollars be spent where there is no perceivable threat. We do not have enough funding to fortify the whole country; therefore we must be guided by the intelligence.

If the intelligence showed that al Qaeda consistently targets Wyoming or Mississippi, then that is where the funding should be directed. But it does not show that. It shows that the targets are places consistently mentioned by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants which are known to him in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These targets, over and over again, are New York, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, and other key sites regularly mentioned by al Qaeda.

If we use the funding in this bill to fortify the wrong parts of this Nation, then we will be weak where we should have been strong. If we fortify the right places of our country, then we will blunt their attack, and we will protect the American people.

I believe the intelligence should guide this funding, and I urge support of the amendment.

Reclaiming my time, I worry that that process will be too slow, and that Osama bin Laden does not see this country as big State versus small State; Osama bin Laden does not see this country as urban versus rural. He knows of a few big targets. From his cave looking at the TV pictures, he has identified those targets; and we need to let our funding be guided to defending those targets so we can blunt the attack.

Mr. Speaker, ``China is a sleeping giant. Let her lie and sleep, for when she awakens, she will astonish the world,'' wrote Napoleon Bonaparte. I would like to title this speech ``The Case for a Special Relationship With China.''

Great nations almost always miss important changes outside their world. Such errors threaten their future in ways they never dreamed. History also has examples of leaders who saw challenges early and responded well.

The leaders of Great Britain's late empire entirely missed the rise of the United States. Britain suffered years of combat in World Wars I and II before their American allies joined the fight. During both wars, the British Empire teetered in the balance. Conversely, President Truman wisely perceived his challenge in the Soviet Union and responded well. His actions contributed mightily to the winning of the Cold War.

In the 19th century, not everyone missed the rise of the United States. As early as 1835, Alexander de Tocqueville saw in the future clearly when he wrote, ``Americans are already able to make their flag respected. In a few years, they will be able to make it feared.''

Looking from Westminster across the Thames River in 1870, the British Empire's leaders did not share de Tocqueville's view. It was an easy mistake for them to make. Queen Victoria presided over the largest economic block on Earth. In the glare of an empire where the sun never set, her ministers largely ignored the significance of their American cousins.

Well-schooled leaders of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were distracted by a number of small wars at

the fringe of their empire, Abyssinia, South Africa, Egypt and Sudan, to name a few. In 1868, The Illustrated London News warned, ``We can ill afford a perpetual succession of little wars,'' but few took notice. European continental leaders were equally unaware of the American change that was under way in their century. German Chancellor Bismarck discounted the United States when he wrote, ``There is a providence that protects fools, drunkards, children and the United States of America.''

After only one single Victorian generation, America's economy grew to be twice the size of Britain's. By 1900, many of the British Empire's leaders dimly perceived the threat from Germany but remained unaware of how their world had changed across the Atlantic. It was hard for many leaders to take America seriously when Belgium's Armed Forces outnumbered the U.S. Army.

As a result of their ignorance, England's leaders entered the First World War without the backing of the American arsenal. In 3 short years, from 1914 to 1917, they exhausted the wealth of the empire. Finally, America joined the allies of World War I, but only on President Wilson's terms. It took British leaders two generations of conflict to understand how important America had become to them.

Today, London's policy towards the United States is rightfully called the ``special relationship.'' Are there changes under way which call for American attention? Could the leaders of America's foreign policy make a similar mistake? In our vision of America's future, are there any countries deserving another special relationship?

Our history is filled with examples of countries where economic growth rapidly turned into political and military power. The rise of Japan, Germany and even some Gulf states show that economic expansion has an inevitable political and military impact. For the United States to be effective in foreign policy, the President needs advisers who see the world not just as it is but as it will become. When the White House advisers fail to outline strategic change, they doom our President to using short-term expedience to cope with a long-term threat.

With a clear strategic view, the advisers of President Truman served our country well. Writing his famous long telegram from the rubble of 1946 Moscow, U.S. Foreign Service Officer George Kennan correctly outlined the emerging threat from the Soviet Union. By removing President Roosevelt's friendly ``Uncle Joe'' veneer from Stalin, George Kennan warned his President clearly about the coming Cold War. The Soviet Union, in his view, was becoming a colossus, demanding more than short-term American expedience. The struggle between East and West could only be won with a strategic plan by the West.

Truman's answer to the challenge of the Cold War was massive. He backed his short-term military defense of South Korea with a long-term set of new institutions: the Marshall Plan, the Central Intelligence Agency, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Bank, the Strategic Air Command, the United Nations and the Voice of America, to name a few.

After four decades of struggle, the East abandoned the Berlin Wall. In the heady days after communism's fall, many felt the U.S. stood unopposed at the dawn of a new Pax Americana. Francis Fujiyama asked in the Washington Post, ``is this the end of history?''

History hardly ended, but the idea of American supremacy is now strong. America's Armed Forces won stunning victories: 1991 in Kuwait, 1995 in Bosnia, 1999 in Kosovo and 2003 in Iraq. Who can challenge America?

Despite our ascendency, we must ask the question, is there a major change in the world for which the U.S. should prepare? As Truman did in the 1940s, should the United States create institutions that respond to this change?

The American view of foreign policy has more to do with our European past than our Asian present. By a two-to-one margin, Americans believe that our policy towards Europe is more important than Asia, but our trade with Asia surpassed Europe a generation ago. Today, American trade with Asia totals 50 percent more than our trade with Europe. The U.S. State Department has just 579 full-time Americans stationed in Asia, compared to over 1,300 in Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union. Asian economies are both larger and growing faster than Europe. Beyond the Asian Tigers of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, the growth rates of China and India clearly show that most of our history in the 21st century will be written in Asia.

One country looms large across the future of the United States, China. China's absence from the first rank of world powers is a historical anomaly. Throughout recorded history, the Chinese people were responsible for many of the advances of modern society: paper, gunpowder, even spaghetti.

Seventy years before Columbus, China's famous explorer, Admiral Cheng Ho, mapped much of the Arab world from a ship that was twice the size of the Santa Maria. But for the Emperor's decision to recall the fleet, China would have discovered Europe, not the other way around.

As recently as the 1830s, China produced one-third of the Earth's wealth. Most of her advances and talent were squandered by corrupt governments, wars and a Chinese dictatorship. Despite a massive population and storied culture, China declined into socialist poverty. Under Mao, the Chinese people lost two generations of progress and were home to the worst famine of the 20th century. But following Mao Zedong's death, Deng Xiaoping led a Chinese economic reform of historic proportions. It is very difficult for many Americans today to understand the breadth and scope of this historic change.

When we accurately look at today's China, we note it produces more steel than the United States, consumes twice the grain of the United States, has built highways twice the length of Germany and France combined, graduates three times the number of engineers as India, and is home to over 200 million cable TV subscribers. It replaced Mexico as America's number two trading partner, and it replaced America as Japan's number one trading partner. There are 200 cities with populations over 1 million, and the economy doubles every 8 years. We now estimate that its economy will be larger than the United States in the next decade.

China is not only growing year to year, it has sustained a growth rate of over 9 percent annually for a generation. Given the difference in price of many domestic goods in China, economists now debate how to measure the size of the Chinese economy, using a traditional gross domestic product or a more up-to-date purchasing power parity to take into account the lower cost of Chinese domestic goods.

Either way, the effect of China's sustained growth has profound proportions. Under a GDP measurement, the United States economy now stands at $11 trillion, whereas China's economy stands at only $1.5 trillion; but using purchasing power parities, our $11 trillion economy stands next to China's $7 trillion economy.

Using purchasing power measurements, the International Monetary Fund projects China will be home to the world's largest economy as early as 2007, during the next American President's administration. Koishi Ishiyama recently wrote that China's rise can be compared to the Shock and Awe operation in Iraq.

Foreign direct investment did not significantly exist in China before 1980, and while such investment in all other developing countries fell in 2002, it rose by 15 percent in China, netting $52 billion in new investments.

The pace of China's growth is also accelerating. In the next 10 years, the City of Beijing will double its supply of housing. The Chinese highway system and the number of cable TV subscribers will also double in size. While this change is dimly seen in official Washington, it is having a profound effect on the Chinese people.

China's hosting of the 2008 Olympic games will be one of many upcoming international events in China. China last year became the third country on Earth to orbit a human in one of its own space vehicles.

Next year, China plans to orbit a two-man vehicle, the Shenzhou VI, on its way to building its own space station and lunar rover.

China's progress can be overstated. Over 200 million Chinese still live on less than $1 a day. There is a great gap now opening between the poorer western provinces of China and the new-found wealth of China's east coast. Environmental challenges also loom, including over 100 of China's cities with air pollution exceeding the World Health Organization's guidelines for sulfur dioxide.

The World Bank's World Development Report still ranks China at number 76 out of 129 countries measured for personal income; and despite progress, the World Bank estimates that Chinese per capita income totals just $1,000 per year.

Such low numbers, though, hide profound progress. Between 1978 and 1998, the World Bank estimates the number of poor people in the world fell by 8 million. The number of people who were poor outside China actually rose by 82 million. But the world's total numbers were compensated by the profound reduction in Chinese poverty. From 1978 to 1999, Chinese adult illiteracy fell from 37 percent to 17 percent, while infant mortality dropped from 41 per live births in 1978 to 30 in 1999.

Changes in China had an impact on Americans as well. Motorola now employs over 10,000 people in China and owns the country's best- recognized trademark. By last year, over 1,500 U.S. firms invested $25 billion in China. One U.S. corporate executive advised the Congress that his top three issues in Washington were China, China, and China.

The story of Wal-Mart shows the profound change that is under way both in China and in the United States. Unlike traditional retailers such as Sears Roebuck or J.C. Penney, Sam Walton recognized the importance of China and the advantage of its lower-cost merchandise. Relying heavily on Chinese suppliers, Wal-Mart grew to become America's largest employer. Selling in nearly every town in America, Wal-Mart doubled its purchases of Chinese goods to $12 billion per year. And last year, Wal-Mart sold 10 percent of everything that China made. In many ways, the face of all-American Wal-Mart is really the face of China, Incorporated.

There are many examples of how China's transformation influenced America's private sector. Like British merchant bankers who understood America's rise and bankrolled the Union Pacific Railroad, companies like Boeing, General Electric, Baker MacKenzie, and hundreds of other U.S. private sector interests understand what is happening and are risking a great deal to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the rise of China.

But this understanding is not well understood by America's government. Like their British Government forefathers that missed America's rise, there is little evidence that the Federal Government perceives or is moving to realign the world to the rise of China. Many European powers discounted turn-of the-century America and its puny Armed Forces. Many Americans likewise dismissed the capabilities of the People's Liberation Army and its potential to change the course of Asian history. By China's own plan, military modernization ranks fourth in their list of four modernizations.

Following the recent victories of America's Armed Forces, the raw size of a country's army is no longer evidence of its future prowess in battle. The People's Liberation Army, numbering 2.4 million, still stands as the world's largest; but it looks anachronistic and unable to enforce the will of China's leaders very far from its borders.

A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force under former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown estimated last year that China was ``at least 2 decades behind the United States in terms of military technology and capability.'' According to the Pentagon, Chinese military leaders closely studied NATO's operation over Kosovo and described it as the first ``no-contact'' war.

In the post-Cold War world, Deng Xiaoping gave a key directive to the Chinese security establishment based on his ``24-character strategy'' and that was, ``keep cool-headed to observe. Be composed to make reactions. Stand firmly. Hide our capabilities. Bide our time. Never try to take the lead, and be able to accomplish something.''

While seeking short-term opportunities with the United States, the Pentagon reported, ``China's leaders assert the United States seeks to maintain a dominant strategic position while containing the growth of Chinese power, ultimately dividing and Westernizing China.''

Much of China's military budget and plans were influenced by scenes of conflict in the Balkans and Iraq played out on televisions tuned to the 24-hour news channels. After the U.S. victory in Kosovo, China's leaders seriously considered upgrading the fourth-ranked priority they attach to their military. The army developed a new response doctrine called the ``Three Attack and Three Defenses,'' focusing on attacking stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and helicopters, while defending against precision strikes, electronic warfare, and enemy reconnaissance. Chinese Air Force chief of staff Lieutenant General Zheng Shenxia noted that without adopting a preemptive doctrine, the chances of a PLA victory are limited.

In November 2002, China overhauled its Politburo Standing Committee, the center of the Chinese Government decision-making. Every member of the politburo was replaced except Hu Jintao. Following this shakeup, senior leaders reaffirmed their emphasis on economic growth, but did increase funding for military modernization. Acknowledging its weakness in the face of such complete U.S. victories, Chinese leaders tempered their sense of vulnerability, knowing that unlike Kosovo, China is a nuclear power. Its 2002 defense White Paper, in contrast to its 2000 White Paper, did not explicitly criticize U.S. deployments in Asia.

The main mission of the Chinese military is to fight and win a conflict over Taiwan. In March 2002, Chinese Finance Minister Xiang Huaicheng announced a 17.5 percent increase in its official defense spending. While China reports an official defense budget of approximately $20 billion, its actual spending ranges to twice or three times that level, totaling $45 billion to $67 billion annually. The Department of Defense and the Council on Foreign Relations both estimate that annual spending in real terms could increase three to four-fold over the levels I just quoted by 2020. Most defense modernization spending occurs outside the public defense budget.

Chinese military spending in this range roughly equals the $65 billion spent by Russia and dramatically exceeds the $43 billion Japanese defense budget or the $38 billion British military budget. A three-fold increase in spending by China would put their military budget above all other nations, except the United States.

China's rising military budget masks a structural problem in its military. Since large armies no longer guarantee success, China has cut the size of her armed forces from 1997 to 2000 by reducing 500,000 men, including 11 percent of her naval personnel, 12 percent of her air force personnel, and 18 percent of her army personnel. Sixty of 100 maneuver divisions were collapsed into the remaining structure of 40 divisions and 40 brigades. The air force retired older aircraft, dropping from over 5,000 aircraft at the end of the 1990s to 3,500 now. Of the remaining aircraft, only 150 are modern fourth-generation fighters. China still regards its military as too ``infantry-heavy'' with an army so large as to ``impede rapid deployment and equipment modernization.''

By reducing the size of the armed forces, China provided funding dedicated to military modernization. The air force is adding advanced SU-30MKK fourth-generation fighter aircraft, AA-12/ADDER active-radar guided air-to-air missiles, and a new SU-30 naval variant capable of carrying air-launched, anti-shipping cruise missiles. The Navy added four SOVREMENNYY-class guided missile destroyers and produced its own new design SONG-class diesel-electric submarines, the first with quieter skewed propellers. It took delivery of four quiet KILO-class diesel-electric submarines and has another eight submarines under contract, all equipped with a new 3M-54E Novator Alpha anti-shipping cruise missile. Given the sum of investment and rapid modernization, China did forgo one important upgrade, and her navy has now shelved plans for its own aircraft carrier.

The pace of development accelerated for China's army. The land forces are developing a light tank, an amphibious tank, and an amphibious- armored personnel carrier, all added to over 1,500 type-96 main battle tanks that are already delivered. This kind of new equipment is now flowing to China's revamped three airborne and two marine brigades.

The Ministry of Defense now emphasizes recruitment, retention, and more training for officers and key NCOs. Training now emphasizes small- scale specialized maneuvers under the new doctrine of fighting a limited war under high-tech conditions. All infantry divisions now have armor, up from only half in 1997.

Since 1989, China has been cut off from most U.S. and European military technology. Its defense establishment cannot innovate as fast as it could if it had access to foreign equipment. China's leaders responded with a foreign policy emphasizing cooperation and good relations with the United States. Over time, such a strategy could reopen their access to key Western technologies, even in the military field.

The transformation of China's new military power is clearest in its missile force. China maintains a limited force, including 20 nuclear missiles capable of hitting targets in the United States. A number of U.S. Government agencies project that this rise in the missile force will lift by a factor of three to over 60 missiles capable of striking the United States, using the new CSS-4 Mod 2 ICBM. This Chinese force will be augmented by the brand-new solid-fuel DF-31 ICBM and an entirely new generation of Chinese nuclear submarines, the 094-class, carrying a naval variant of the DF-31. China is also developing two other classes of solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is also developing a heavy-lift space launch vehicle, capable of lifting 25 tons into low orbit by 2007.

These developments pale when compared to China's expanding arsenal of medium-range missiles all aimed at Taiwan. China currently has a force of 450 such missiles and is adding 75 each year. Beyond large nuclear additions to China's armed forces, China places a very high priority on information warfare. The PLA believes that the U.S. Department of Defense is too dependent on networks that are vulnerable to attack. By attacking these systems, planners in China's army believe the U.S. forces could be degraded ``anonymously.''

The anonymity of information attacks could play a key role even now. The House of Representatives recently reported regular attempts by computer systems located in China to enter the main computer server of the House Committee on Armed Services. The Pentagon may have referred to this when it recently reported that China ``places unusual emphasis on a host of new information warfare forces instead of information superiority and the system of systems approaches popular in the United States.''

There have been several official references about leveraging China's growing presence on the Internet, including references to a ``people's war'' in ``net warfare'', suggesting a stronger role in nationalist hacking.

China also has a commitment to electronic warfare equaled only by the United States. Unlike many countries now totally dependent on U.S. leadership in this exotic field, China is developing electronic jamming aircraft for several variants and may have several programs to develop escort jammers on transports, tactical aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms. It has equipped the Su-30 with anti-radiation missiles that work on the same principle of U.S. weapons that were so crucial to our own victories. China's anti-radiation missile, the FT- 2000, is described in their sales brochures as an ``AWACS killer.'' The PLA is also producing state-of-the-art technology to improve intercept, direction finding and jamming. It may also be producing jammers for use against America's most successful weapon, the satellite-guided JDAM munition that so accurately uses the U.S. Global Positioning System.

Their efforts also include producing laser weapons, such as the man- portable ZM-87, advertised for blinding human vision and electro- optical sensors, radio-frequency weapons and possibly a ground-based anti-satellite weapon. They have also invested considerably in developing short- and medium-range unmanned aerial vehicles, including an unmanned combat aerial vehicle.

According to the Chinese military publication Junshi Wenzhai, China has already produced an ``Assassin's Mace'' or trump card to counter U.S. superiority in the Western Pacific. One article identifies five major, quote, Assassin's Maces, unquote, including fighter bombers, submarines, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and mines designed to destroy foreign aircraft carriers. These systems would be backed by new research by China on other technologies, including kinetic energy and low-observable platforms.

This research can be accelerated by acquiring foreign technologies such as the recent activities of two Chinese students at universities collecting information on Terfenol-D, an invention of the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames laboratory.

These developments show that China's growing economic power may already be translating into military power. It is clear that most large American companies already perceive the size and importance of China. What is not clear is if the U.S. Government has made a similar intellectual leap to understand the new geography of the 21st century.

In 2002, the U.S. State Department conducted a major study of the needs of the U.S. Government in China. The Beyond China 2000 Action Plan cut 55 people from permanent U.S. Government desks in China. The State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs noted the decision reflected, quote, hard-nosed decisions, unquote. Congress recently ordered the State Department to review the future needs of the U.S. Government in China by 2010. In its February report, it is difficult to see what measures the State Department used to justify reducing the size of the U.S. Government in China.

In 1975, the new U.S. liaison officer in Beijing under Ambassador George Herbert Walker Bush, who later became president, processed 651 non-immigrant visas to the United States. In 2003, U.S. consular officers handled 320,000 such applications. From a handful, the number of Chinese students rose to over 60,000 in the U.S. last year.

Only 38 Americans registered with the Beijing liaison office in 1975. Today, over 3,600 Americans are registered in addition to over 1 million American tourists visiting China each year. The State Department admitted to Congress noting that staffing in the U.S. embassy in Beijing and the Consulates General is currently inadequate to the growing workload.

The workload of the U.S. Government in China is growing for other reasons. In 2001 alone, China joined the international coalition against terrorism, the World Trade Organization, hosted the Asian- Pacific Economic Conference, and won the bidding of the 2008 Olympic games. These issues came in addition to key concerns regarding nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, intellectual property, and religious freedom.

The State Department projects that the number of U.S. Government agencies wishing to station personnel permanently in China will rise from 12 agencies to over 20 by 2010. Several agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, developed but then halted plans to deploy in China. The United States broke new ground on a new embassy complex last February. With the new embassy, the State Department plans only a modest increase in official Americans stationed in China from 960 to 1,200.

Plans to expand America's eyes and ears in China do not depend only on the size of our embassy in Beijing. They also depend on increasing the number of Americans in the diplomatic service who can master a very difficult language. In 2000, the State Department launched its China 2000 Initiative. The mission of the Initiative was to develop infrastructure to meet the projected physical and human needs, including language. This Initiative is very small, modestly increasing the number of Chinese students in the State Department annually from only five to only 15. The Initiative also includes some advanced training for just five students in Beijing and a mail program for lessons to

only 30 other students to maintain Chinese language proficiency.

Such efforts appear grossly inadequate compared to China's central role in the 21st century. With the largest trade surplus, the largest economy, the largest military budget outside the United States, China deserves a special relationship with the United States.

In November, 2002, a task force under Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi released their report designating China as Japan's top foreign policy priority for the future. The decision makes sense for Japan but, given China's growth, its position on the U.N. Security Council, and the future size of its economy, it may make sense for the United States to do this as well.

Our country has been the home of the world's largest economy for 130 years, but that is about to change; and this change will be one of the most profound shifts of the new century. There was a time early in the history of the United States when our national income was not at the top of the international heap. Today, under our Pax Americana, it may be difficult for us to reconnect with our forefathers and mothers who were forced to depend only on diplomacy in the face of very long odds.

Avidly, we retell parts of U.S. history, the Revolution, the Civil War, and the victories of World War I and II, all to stoke American pride; and these examples are used to confirm the superiority of our own ideals. But American history has less-well-known examples of when we struggled without our traditional advantage in material and money.

I put this question to the House, when was the last time that U.S. Armed Forces faced a military from a country whose economy was larger than our own? One summer day in August, 1814, comes to mind. British soldiers and marines marched on in Washington in one of the last acts of the War of 1812. U.S. forces met them in what we now call the Battle of Bladensburg. The battle went so badly for the Americans that British called it the ``Bladensburg races'' because U.S. forces ran away so quickly. Britain's 85th Foot Regiment still displays eagle-flagged standards of two American regiments captured that day. The following day British forces burned the Capitol and Executive Mansion to the ground.

History reminds us that the United States has not and will not always be the Nation on Earth with the largest economy. With an America of unquestioned commercial dominance, we can afford to make diplomatic mistakes. In a world where America holds fewer cards, we cannot afford miscalculation.

We are quickly nearing a world in which China will play a central role in the diplomatic life of the United States. British diplomats before the world wars would have scoffed at the notion of their American cousins playing a central role in world politics. Let us hope that the new American diplomats of the 21st century understand how quickly the post Cold War world has changed.

Our President Truman set the record of his time for being an unpopular president. In 1946, he stood at just 32 percent in the polls. Thankfully, he steeled his heart and made the tough decisions needed to design a successful campaign through the Cold War against the Soviet Union. America and freedom won the Cold War without fighting World War

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 28 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 4, 2004, at 12 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, a base in my district was the poster child for the first base closings bill. People back home demanded that the base be saved, but it was closed and our civilian economy took off. Over $300 million was invested in that community by the new housing and activity at the closed base.

We lost another base in the second base closings bill. New investment there was not $300 million; it was $800 million in new investment. Over 20,000 soldiers are needed for the war on terror, but instead soldiers guard bases we do not need. We are at war, and it is time for the Congress to treat the military budget as a defense bill and not a jobs bill. Base closings save the taxpayer $1.7 billion and the next round will save $3 billion.

This amendment supports the policy of President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Joint Chiefs Head General Myers. We need more beans and bullets for Americans in uniform, not pointless guard duty outside an empty building at a base that died long ago.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis amendment authored by the distinguished gentlewoman from San Diego, the Pacific home of the United States Navy.

When I put on the uniform, I did it to defend the Constitution and the rights it protects for Americans. I must say that I have an emotional attachment to the rights of Americans in uniform. Our current law denies reproductive rights for women in uniform, just when they need it most, when they are deployed overseas.

I was stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey for part of Operation Northern Watch against Iraq. The thought of forcing my fellow women in uniform to seek care in some Turkish clinic when we have a perfectly good U.S. military hospital on base is a tragedy. Imagine when you need care most being forced to communicate in Turkish or Korean or Arabic to get care guaranteed to you by the United States Supreme Court.

Women in uniform should have equal rights. No, no. Women in uniform should have more than equal rights, especially when they are on the frontier of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Member of Congress led the House in the Pledge of Allegiance using his own personal version. He left the phrase out ``under God'' from our Pledge. While he may not love ``under God'' in our country's pledge, God still loves him.

God still loves him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to a business leader from the 10th Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. William F. Aldinger, CEO of Household International--and now HSBC North America--on his recognition by the Friends of Adam Smith (FOAS) for the 2004 Business Citizen medal tonight.

I have had the pleasure to get to know Bill over the past several years and I am thrilled the FOAS has recognized his leadership in community service, involvement and public policy. By visiting their headquarters in Prospect Heights, Illinois, to learn how they serve over 50 million customers, I have seen how Household has helped empower its employees to play a more active role in politics and good government by conducting internal voter registration drives.

With almost 6,000 employees in Illinois--and 50,000 throughout the United States--I have seen first hand how Household-HSBC is active in their community under Bill's leadership. Whether with Junior Achievement, the American Cancer Society, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Habitat for Humanity and many more, Household-HSBC employees are constantly working to make their communities better places to live. Finally, I believe the Business Citizen medal is not just an award for Bill Aldinger, but all his employees. Congratulations Bill, and all members of the Household-HSBC North America team, and keep up the great work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Dr. C. Douglas Parks on his retirement from the Aptaskistic-Tripp School District 102 in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. After thirteen years as Superintendent and nearly forty years in public education, Dr. Parks is retiring, committed in both belief and practice to that idea that all children can learn. The vision and leadership he has provided ensure that School District 102 is and will continue to be a world class learning environment.

During Dr. Parks' tenure, he worked to expand opportunities for learning for all children, believing that every student should have a supportive environment, every student should be involved both individually and collectively in learning, and that every student can be empowered through learning. He has remained committed to developing a foundation of respect, pursuit of excellence, accountability, fairness, trustworthiness and honesty in his district. Besides applying these principles to academics, he is also committed to improving the quality of life for his students, because he believes that the learning environment has no boundaries.

I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Parks for being such a positive influence in District 102, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to transfer ownership of environmentally sensitive land at the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois, to a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve the environment. This bill will preserve some of the last remaining pristine wilderness along the lakeshore north of Chicago for generations to come.

The bluffs, ravines, and beachfront at Fort Sheridan are a treasure that deserves to be protected. Preserving this land as a park will benefit not only the people of the surrounding communities, but the hundreds of military families who make their home at the Fort. The Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, is committed to making the Navy a good steward of the environment and he understands the responsibilities associated with control of large parcels of government-owned land. This bill not only will ensure the preservation of the land, it also relieves the Navy of the responsibility for maintaining property that has no military value.

As urban sprawl and development pushes outward from our cities, our military bases are quickly becoming some of the last wide open, wild spaces. This encroachment pushes countless species onto these bases, making it even more important to conserve these critical ecosystems. I will continue working to find practical ways to protect and preserve the environment and critical habitats in the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I congratulate The Friends of the Des Plaines Public Library on their 50th anniversary. They have enriched the town of Des Plaines, Illinois for the last 50 years as an integral support system for the Des Plaines Public Library.

In April of 1954, a planning committee of the American Association of the University Women founded The Friends of the Des Plaines Public Library. They have been active in expanding the Des Plaines Library since The Friends' inception, most recently helping with a move to a larger building in 2000.

The Friends' original purpose was to stimulate public interest in the library, as well as collect data on the history of the town. Today they also provide extra financial support for the library for items not normally available through conventional budgetary provisions. The Friends raises funds using semi-annual book sales, and uses them to support programs and purchase items for the library, such as a microfiche reader, display cases, original artwork, a sound system, and other items.

In 1957 The Friends were involved in the Library's 50th anniversary, and compiled a large file on the history of Des Plaines from 1833 on, including photographs, family histories, and industrial development. This compilation has since become a part of the Des Plaines Historical Society. Since moving into the new library in 2000 The Friends has donated, supported, funded and purchased items for more than $53,000. In honor of their 50th Anniversary and all The Friends that have come before them, they will be presenting the Library with a bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln. This statue was sculpted in 1933 for the Chicago World's Fair by Guido Rebechini, and will go in the library's atrium on permanent display.

Thank you, The Friends of the Des Plaines Public Library, for all your hard work for the library and your community. Your constant dedication and commitment is worthy of the highest commendation. Best wishes on your 50th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. C. Douglas Parks on his retirement from the Aptaskistic-Tripp School District 102 in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. After thirteen years as Superintendent and nearly forty years in public education, Mr. Parks is retiring, committed in both belief and practice to that idea that all children can learn. The vision and leadership he has provided ensure that School District 102 is and will continue to be a world class learning environment.

During Mr. Parks' tenure, he worked to expand opportunities for learning for all children, believing that every student should have a supportive environment, every student should be involved both individually and collectively in learning, and that every student can be empowered through learning. He has remained committed to developing a foundation of respect, pursuit of excellence, accountability, fairness, trustworthiness and honesty in his district. Besides applying these principles to academics, he is also committed to improving the quality of life for his students. Recently, he supported an innovative nutrition education initiative for healthier living.

I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Parks for being such a positive influence in District 102, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Congress passed an unfunded mandate on most local communities in America that maintain quiet zones in their communities. When the regulations were first drafted, they would require trains entering the City of Chicago to blow their train horns on entering the city until arriving into the station. This upset the people of Chicago. It upset the Mayor of Chicago.

One university study showed that the original train whistle regulation would trigger so much noise pollution in our communities that it caused property losses to rise to $1 billion in Chicago lands alone. A redraft of this regulation offered some help, but at first glance the cost of implementing this regulation for Chicago communities rose from $4 million to at least twice that.

My amendment would not change Federal safety standards, but it would allow a State to implement this regulation.

Half of all quiet zones are in Illinois. This is an important issue to my constituents, to the Speaker's and to Ranking Minority Member Lipinski's.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer this amendment today that would give governors the option of enforcing train quiet zone standards at this level. However, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment but would ask the chairman of our subcommittee to engage me in a colloquy on this.

Mr. Chairman, many of our communities have quiet zones to protect their environment from needless noise pollution by trains. The Federal Government is poised to put forward a regulation that eliminates our local community quiet zones unless new, expensive, and very complicated rules are met. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can work together to address this issue in conference so that local communities are not overburdened with unfunded Federal mandates and cumbersome Federal regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I renew my unanimous-consent request to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 183 years of the Greek people's freedom and independence, and their noble revolution from the Ottoman Empire in March of 1821. As Greeks and Greek-Americans celebrate Greek Independence Day, I join them and my colleagues in recognizing this great nation.

Nearly 400 years ago, the Greek people embarked on a powerful revolution against the Ottoman oppressors. The ancient Greeks forged a mighty wave of democracy and freedom following the fall of Constantinople, culminating with Bishop Germanos of Patras raising the Greek flag at Agia Lavras.

Today, 183 years after Greece's successful and bold revolution, she continues to prove herself a loyal ally of the United States, while standing firm in her advocacy of democracy and freedom. Greece is one of only three nations in the world beyond those of the former British Empire to be allied with the United States in every major conflict of the 20th Century. The United States is fortunate to have such a longstanding and reliable ally.

As we continue to eradicate the global threat of terror, Greece again stands firm with the United States. Our efforts in the war against terror would not be as successful without the continued assistance from our allies in Greece.

I join my colleagues in saluting and thanking the Greek people on this 183rd year of freedom and independence. To Greece, our free and democratic ally: ``Cronia polla hellas''.

Madam Speaker, I believe the Federal Government must return to a balanced budget, not just as a goal of sound financial policy, but also as the sacred moral fulfillment of commitments that we have made to the American people.

I am pleased to be joined here by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who has joined across the ideological spectrum of our party to make sure that we have a budget that not only cuts the deficit, but that is enforced to make sure that the commitments we make under that budget are actually fulfilled.

I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, before we go into some of the other reforms we have talked about, people have asked, if the Republican leadership is in control of Congress, why can it not enforce its own rules? What we have seen time and time again is the leadership many times is defeated by a majority on the House floor. This is a lot easier if we make a supermajority requirement to enforce the decisions that we have already made.

Madam Speaker, the example of the rain forest is a powerful one that we focused on. But we have another reform that we have seen difficulties with: a line-item veto, which allows the President to identify pork barrel spending and eliminate it. But we have a fix.

Madam Speaker, this is the same way that we now close military bases, which was so difficult before.

We also talked about how, in the budget presentation to us, that the executive branch, the budgeteers, automatically include an inflation adjustment, so that we do not actually see clearly some of the increases that are in the budget.

We have that to make sure that we show that what you got last year is higher than what you have got the previous year. This year is higher than what you got last year.

But we have a number of other problems in presenting the financial condition of the budgets. And that is that, as yet, we do not have a good picture of the full debts and liabilities of the Federal Government.

We have that.

We also are talking about changing the rules of Congress. There are some rules of the Congress that are never waived. Any Member can raise a point of personal privilege, and that has never been touched. But there are other rules of the Congress that are routinely waived. We make changes to affect the budget.

Now, we are talking about a basic principle that should be obvious to everyone. The rules should be the rules. But we have embodied these ideas in a number of pieces of legislation.

I wonder if the gentleman could talk about his bill that has come out.

I want to applaud the gentleman for his bill, which is now approaching 80 cosponsors. The companion legislation that I have introduced has 17. So we are now on our way to almost half of Republican Conference supporting comprehensive budget reform.

These reforms have been agreed to by dozens of Members on our side of the aisle and some Democrats because it is essential that this be a bipartisan reform effort to make sure that the rules really are the rules, to remove the spending bias in the Federal Government, so that we can get ahold of the spending picture and present it clearly to the American people; and to also make sure that we can root out some traditional, ages-long pork barrel spending included by the Congress, which a few powerful Members can support, but the body as a whole would never support, for example, a rain forest in Iowa City.

For us, it is important that we not only put forward these reform principles, but we put them in a broad principle, across party lines, and make sure that in the coming days we have not only passed a budget, but we pass legislation which allows easy enforcement of the budget. The budget should not be difficult to enforce. It should be very easy to enforce by a group of dedicated Members, fiscal conservatives who are watching the long-term bottom line of the U.S. Government.

I thank the gentleman for participating in this.

First, I think this is critical that we not only vote on a good budget this week, but that we bring up our legislation for budget reform in the coming weeks

I thank the gentleman very much.

This government, our government, has the prime duty given by the Founding Fathers to provide for our common defense. If we fail in that duty, we fail all other duties inherited by a free people. And I think that is the essential point that I want to make here. This is about honoring the promises that we have already made.

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Our districts abut and it does prove that there is some common wisdom that comes from America's heartland.

As our special operators/warriors will no doubt note, our government has the primary duty given by the Founding Fathers to provide for our common defense; but if we fail, then all of our other duties are failed.

In the last century, we, Republicans and Democrats, Americans, added a second mission to our Federal Government. And that was to provide for the retirement security of Americans who worked hard and became members of what we now call ``The Greatest Generation'' that saved the world from fascism.

These commitments to protect our families and older Americans call on most of the resources of the Federal Government. If we cannot afford to meet those commitments, we fail the most fundamental bond between Americans and their government. These commitments are on such a massive scale and duration that it calls on us all to be fiscal conservatives. We know that the Federal Government cannot do everything, but it can and must meet the duties of national and retirement security wealth.

In our history, we have not built a perfect record of balanced budgets. This chart shows some of the history, and you see for a lot of our history we have not had a balanced budget, deep deficits obviously during World War II and parts of the Cold War.

Most of our deficits early in our history dealt with whether the country was at war or at peace, but the deficits of later years have something entirely different at fault.

In the 19th century, this Congress faced entirely the opposite problem. We had a high tariff against foreign goods, and that hurt our economy, but built up a massive Federal surplus. In the 20th century, we built up massive debts, but they were largely to fight and win the world wars. Our debts consumed a fifth of the Nation's income, but I think they were absolutely necessary to secure victories in 1918 and 1945.

The Korean War, the mounting cost of the Cold War and the Vietnam War did push the Federal Government into the red. These costs were staggering and seemed never ending until the Cold War was ended on America's terms in 1991.

Our national security duties faded, but only briefly until forced by other challenges in Kuwait and Haiti and Bosnia and Kosovo. But these challenges hid a growing structural change in the way our government spent the taxpayers' funds.

Imagine a rain barrel. Water inside represents Federal tax dollars. A pipe above the rain barrel brings in more water, Federal tax receipts. If we raise taxes, the pipe gets bigger and more water goes into the barrel. If we cut taxes, we narrow that pipe.

Around this mythical barrel are 13 ladles. These ladles represent the 13 regular appropriations bills. These bills are used to fund the traditional part of the Federal Government. Each part of our government from the FBI to the FAA to the FDA is supplied out of these 13 bills.

For most of our government's history, these 13 bills, represented by the 13 ladles around our barrel, were how we funded Washington; but in the 20th century, we invented entitlement programs, programs making beneficiaries entitled to Federal spending, for example, Americans over 65 entitled to health care under Medicare.

The best way to think about these entitlement programs is to imagine they are holes drilled in the bottom of the barrel. Expand an entitlement program, as we did giving a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and you widen the hole in the bottom of the barrel.

The analogy of our rain barrel with holes drilled in its side leads us to a clear picture of what is happening to the Federal budget. We are spending more money through automatic spending of entitlements than we are through the regular appropriations bills, the ladles I talked about. We are spending a lot more through entitlements.

Our budget this year will total $2.5 trillion. Only $820 billion, roughly one-third of the budget, will be spent under the regular appropriations bills of the Congress. Two-thirds of our budget will be spent in automatic spending through entitlement programs. Our entitlement programs increase their spending even when we do not improve benefits. That is because the number of people entitled to these programs is rising.

Today, roughly 35 million Americans have most of their health care paid by Medicare, but America's baby boomers are aging, and since the first baby boomer was born in 1946, they become eligible for Social Security and Medicare in just 5 years. The number of people eligible will rise from 35 million to over 70 million. This increase in beneficiaries puts an enormous strain on our budget.

Americans should know that our government uses different accounting rules than a private company. If a company promises a pension to one of its employees, it must show the cost of that promise for the entire life of the retiree on the company's books. But that is not how the Federal Government works. We only calculate the cost of our pension promises for the next year, and we estimate the cost of our promises over 5 years.

This method of government accounting leaves much of our financial position in the dark, where Americans cannot learn what is being done on our behalf. If you were an accountant for the Federal Government and you accounted for our finances the way any family-owned business in America does, then it would show that our government is $30 trillion in the red.

Many politicians, like one of those that just spoke on the floor this evening, talked about the surplus of the 1990s. The surplus existed only on paper. It did not stand up to analysis. Every dollar of the so- called 1990 surplus and more was needed to honor the promises that have already been made by our government.

So where do we go from here? First, we begin where I began by looking at the two basic commitments of our Federal Government, that we provide for the national defense and we provide for retirement security. National defense in time of terror is not cheap. Our victory in Afghanistan was won by a seaborne Army against a country with no coastline. Such victories are possible, but not inexpensive.

In the post-September 11 world, we could not guarantee that every terrorist in the United States had been caught, and therefore, we were forced to defend the homeland at great cost. For example, an airport screening machine costs $2 million and O'Hare Airport needed 50, requiring $100 million to secure just one of the Nation's 4,000 airports.

Like our grandmothers and -fathers of World War II, we had to protect our families, even with borrowed money. That was necessary in the edgy days after September 11, but now it is time to return to a bottom line so that we can ensure that our capacity for honoring those most basic commitments can be met. This House must review a budget to meet our most important obligations while returning our finances to balance.

The Congress will consider several budgets this week, from both sides of the political aisle. I have my preferences, but we stand here tonight to make a more basic point, above partisan rhetoric in a presidential year.

Process matters as much as policy. We have a choice between adopting a budget and not. If we do not adopt a budget, the record of the Congress is clear that we will spend much more than otherwise. Our history shows that we spend less with a budget plan than without. Ironically, any budget plan is more fiscally responsible than no budget plan. This sets a bipartisan imperative that, in the end, the common good is served when we come together on a revenue and spending budget plan.

My second point on process is even more obvious. We must not only adopt a budget, we must enforce it. Far too often, Congress has made tough decisions on a budget and then waived its restrictions in end-of- year legislation or additional supplemental appropriations bills.

This week, Congress will debate a budget and will debate all sorts of specific numbers on defense and veterans and the Environmental Protection Agency and the like, but once we adopt a budget, we must make a change. We must make sure that we add tools to both the executive and legislative branches to make it easier to enforce the budget we have already passed.

Here in Congress, we have subdivisions between Democrats and Republicans; and Democrats are further subdivided into liberal progressives, main line and conservative Blue Dog factions. Republicans are also divided between conservative study group Republicans and moderate Main Street Republicans. I am a member of the moderate Main Street Republican group, and the problem of balancing our budget is so important that we have not let divisions divide our rank and file.

Republican moderates and conservatives joined together to talk about and put forward 12 consensus principles to reduce spending. These principles were drafted into legislation.

One bill, H.R. 3925, was authored by myself, cosponsored by 17 of my colleagues. My learned colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) authored the other major piece of legislation on this with 80 cosponsors.

We set forth some basic principles: that budgets should be enforceable in law; that if we are estimated to miss our targets, then we should have automatic spending reductions to reassure taxpayers and markets that what our budget said it would do it will actually do. We should not put in superfluous numbers that are ignored by the political process, but numbers that count, and those are a number for the Committee on Appropriations, a number for entitlement programs and especially that rainy day fund number.

We know that this country will go through hurricanes and floods and fires. We even know some of the national security challenges we will face. We need to plan for that now so that we can control our budget.

Our budgets presented to us now under the old pro-spending rules automatically include an inflation adjustment that hides spending increases. We need to show the American people exactly how much we spent last year and how much we are going to spend next year without any inflation adjustments. We need to also block spending outside the budget, with pay-as-you-go rules, to make sure that anyone proposing a program which costs more is forced to actually have a way of actually cutting another program to pay for their increase.

We must make sure that we cut pork barrel spending programs by learning the lessons from the Supreme Court and from the military base closing legislation to allow the President to send up a list of rescissions that can be presented for a clean up-or-down vote in the people's House to make sure that we can knock out pork barrel spending included in large bills by powerful Members of Congress.

We need to show the government's full debts and liabilities to make sure the American people know that right now we stand $31 trillion in debt and we cannot afford to add any more new programs or new spending. We must clearly show the debt owed to our public, and most importantly, for the rules of the Congress, they need to be the actual rules that cannot be waived.

I am very happy to be joined here not just by my colleague from Wisconsin, but also my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who has led on this and helped us come to a broad-based conclusion on how we fund bipartisan reform to make sure that when we pass a budget we actually stick to it.

First, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, the gentleman is saying that minority members of the committee offered amendments that would have cost the taxpayers an extra $28 billion, which the Republicans defeated?

Madam Speaker, some tough choices were made. The overall budget, outside of the Department of Defense, froze Federal spending. Some will say that is a cut, but actually the same level of financing was provided that we did last year as a part of fiscal discipline.

Is that a cut?

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to look at this budget plan coming up, and people may differ with the details of the budget, but my understanding is this budget cuts the deficit as a percentage of GNP by half. We may want a more aggressive action by the Committee on the Budget; but in a time of national security crisis with so many Americans in uniform still on the field, we have some pressing national security needs that we need to make sure that we meet our obligations to Americans in uniform. So this budget sends us in the right direction, but we only meet that right direction if we actually enforce the budget that we put in place.

The series of reforms that we put in in H.R. 3925, or other pieces of legislation, reform legislation, I think are essential to make sure that we assure markets and taxpayers that we actually mean what we say, that we hit our targets that we have told everybody in the budget resolution that we are going to do, and so that people take the word of Congress very directly.

I wanted to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for joining me. This will be a very hot debate in Congress with regard to the specifics of the budget; but the debate is not over, and we have not completed our full mission until we

have actually also passed reforms to make sure that it is much easier and not harder to enforce the budget which has actually been adopted by the Congress.