Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was called away on official government business, as a result, I was not able to be present for rollcall vote 431. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. I request that this statement appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this funding is real money that will bring real relief to the people in Florida who have been devastated by Hurricanes Charley and Frances and who need help. As Governor Bush said to us, we have developed a case, perhaps, of ``hurricane amnesia'' in recent years in Florida. We certainly no longer have that. In my district alone, Charley severely damaged homes, four hospitals, cut a barrier island in two, left thousands without power, left thousands without employment, changing life forever for some people.

Just 3 weeks later, another massive hurricane slammed many of the same areas that had already been wrecked by Charley. Charlotte Harbor was hit twice hard. As I took stock of the devastation one day after Hurricane Charley hit, I found remarkable the terrible damage, the scale of destruction, and how people's lives were affected. But I was more impressed by the response, local, State and Federal, all working together; and it was hot, and it was miserable. It was amazing to see how well they were doing.

And they are still there. This ordeal has consumed the entire State of Florida, and Governor Bush has been steadfast in these times of crisis and we thank him. I commend and thank him especially for his strong leadership not once but twice; and I pray not for a third time, and hope Ivan will go elsewhere. Our Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson also have done a fabulous job. They have met the challenges directly on the ground and, working as legislators, they have served our State and our country with great distinction.

Hurricanes are a part of life in Florida. It comes with the territory. But the past 4 weeks have been extraordinary. Not since 1950 have two powerful hurricanes hit Florida in the same year, let alone the same month. FEMA's relief funds need to be replenished now, and this funding will do just that. Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, a great Floridian, has given us the leadership response that has been effective and instantaneous. Delegation Chairman Clay Shaw has organized us to work together. We are grateful. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. The PATRIOT Act is not designed to be a Draconian assault on our rights, despite the description some have given it. Rather, it is a necessary fool which allows for effective communication between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Let me say that again: it is an effective communication tool between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Those of us who have studied what went wrong on 9/11 came up with a very dramatic conclusion which was published in a joint report put out by the House and Senate which said the problem was communication, there was a wall that needed to be taken down; and in fact the PATRIOT Act helped accomplish this, and it was a useful legislative contribution by the United States Congress as the legislative body to help fight the war on terrorism.

We have agencies that set forth every day in our country with the goal of keeping America safe. That is no small proposition these days. We have all read on the front page of the New York Times, the very New York Times the gentleman is referring to, that city we are all concerned about, the concerns about domestic attack, about right-now worries that there are things that should give us concern about our safety from terrorists, that their attention may very well be focused there. That has been reported on the front page of the New York Times.

The PATRIOT Act makes the task of dealing with these people and these threats a lot easier, and I continue to support the PATRIOT Act, and those who are working behind the scenes with our national security organizations do too.

We all know that no piece of legislation this body or any body produces is going to be perfect. We all know about unintended consequences. And so Congress has done something else. We have provided for oversight capability in case we got something wrong, and we have the capacity to investigate and correct any instances of misuse of the PATRIOT Act, just as we would in other cases where wrongdoing is alleged.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 1-877-858-9040. We will be happy to receive comments and exercise our congressional right to oversight as appropriate.

If there are problems with the PATRIOT Act, fine. Let us fix them in the kind of way that the chairman has properly suggested. I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has

exactly described the right process that we should have questioning all the time whether we are getting it right, particularly in areas of our own rights; and I think debate is well warranted.

But this amendment and the half-truths which have been perpetuated against the PATRIOT Act are not the answer.

In closing, Members might be interested to know that we have not had any specific abuse complaints brought to our attention. Let me say that again: we have not had any specific abuse complaints brought to our attention. And on the contrary, we have had significant testimony that has shown utility of the PATRIOT Act. It is not unfair to say that the PATRIOT Act has been and is a vital weapon in the war on terrorism. I would say, in my judgment, that lives have been saved, terrorists have been disrupted, and our country is safer. I fully endorse the idea of oversight by Congress, I fully endorse a reporting system for any abuses, and I am happy to report I know of none, and I think I am in a position to report fairly on that. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for his generosity and his leadership this evening. It is nice to be among colleagues talking about such pleasant things. Obviously we are all honored to rise to honor our friend Doug Bereuter and say good-bye. I hope it is not good-bye. I think in his new role we will be able to see more of him in a different capacity, but it is clear that I think the House feels we are losing a really nice guy and terrific resource. He has served us well.

I have actually had the pleasure, as most of us have tonight who have been talking, of working with Doug in a number of capacities. How many times have we all flown back and forth across the Atlantic with Doug? How many different airports have we stopped at on that airplane that sits out there that we sort of groan when we see, thinking how often we are going to have to stop for gas to get where we are going?

For all those years on the Parliamentary Assembly that he has worked and taken over the leadership, he has been working hard for the United States of America's position of a changing world, a changing times, and it has not been easy as we all know.

He has served as the chief congressional spokesman on NATO issues during the most difficult debates we had, I think, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia, and he did it with eloquence and with clarity and a great amount of patience. Maybe patience should be underscored when we are talking about the NATO parliamentarians.

Doug certainly diffused a number of disputes that have come up, and I think from everything from things as easy as the European Security Defense Initiative, which was relatively calm, to things like handling Mr. Zhirinovsky, a presidential candidate for Russia who continuously provokes our delegation with obnoxious effrontery on every occasion, Doug did an absolutely tireless, fabulous and successful job on behalf of the United States and this institution, and I think everybody needs to know that and applaud it.

Doug was rewarded for his efforts by being elected President of NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I am not sure that is a reward, but he took the job on and was celebrated for doing it so well, and it is an honor to have that position. It is also a lot of hard work, and he held that position at a very hard time, when NATO was admitting more members. Enlargement was not a subject that came across without controversy, and I think that now even controversies we hardly even dare breach out-of- area operations for NATO or things that are actually happening given what is going on in Afghanistan.

Doug has been there during these critical times, providing leadership for the delegation, and it is very true to say he has helped direct NATO's support on the global war on terrorism, something of great interest to us all.

I am particularly appreciative, of course, in my position, for his service as the vice-chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and particularly the chairman of that subcommittee that tries to link up policy with our national security capabilities. That is not an easy job. It is unique. It is the only place I know where that happens, where that work is done, and I single out two issues in particular where Doug has made a positive impact in the community.

First, he led the community's push to eliminate what we call the Deutsch Guidelines, the risk avoidance question, the hindrance to the agent requirement that crippled our ability to recruit productive assets, and Doug was a tiger on that. When things were passed into law under his leadership and were not properly effected and executed, he went back and made it happen, and I take my hat off to him for his persistence and his vision on that.

Secondly, he has recently been responsible for crafting a comprehensive legislative package addressing the linguistic needs of the intelligence community. He and many others on both sides of the aisle have contributed, but he led the charge and he did it efficiently and he did it in a short period of time. We just passed an authorization bill that now provides for language capabilities that are critical to this country we did not have before.

I am very well aware that language capability is not a front page story for the New York Times, but it is essential for our collection of information that our Nation needs to pursue its foreign policy objectives. Doug took on the task. His recommendations on language received enthusiastic bipartisan support, and now it is a major component of a passed authorization bill in the House, and I believe the Senate will see it the same way.

I guess I would sum up and say, as he ends his tenure on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I will say without equivocation that Doug Bereuter has left the intelligence community better than he found it through his extensive, conscientious, creative initiatives, and those are words I would not say casually because those are things that matter a great deal to me. He has left a positive mark and left a great improvement for us.

He has also been a great friend and colleague, as everybody is here to say. I first met Doug and talked about town planning. We had that in common together. He exposed me to the Niobrara River debate which was a very vigorous debate, important in his district, and he carried the day against big odds on that, and he did it with grace and helped out a lot of us who did not know much about that river to know a lot more quickly.

It is not a permanent good-bye. We wish Doug and Louise the best, of course, and I think it is sort of strange. The ultimate irony is that the man we are celebrating so much tonight for all of his leadership on the transatlantic and the across Atlantic area interests is also a man who has huge experience on the Pacific side. So, Doug, as you and Louise go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we all wish you well and Godspeed. We now have another reason to visit San Francisco, which is a good thing. I would say that you are truly a global man for the global century ahead. God bless you and good luck.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4548, the bill about to be considered.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4548, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of this great House to support this bill. Casting their vote is a vote of confidence, respect, and deep admiration for the honorable and heroic patriots who toil quietly, and usually without notice, throughout the intelligence community in order to keep

us safe, prosperous, and free in this wonderful country. It is imperative that these men and women understand in these troubled times that this House holds them in the highest regard and appreciates that the work accomplished by them is critical to the defense of our liberty and security. Amid great sacrifice and often intense conditions, the men and women of the intelligence community continue to perform their missions with great energy and admirable devotion to duty. We commend these officers. The security of our Americans at home and abroad truly relies on their success.

Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues like the Defense appropriation bill that passed yesterday on a vote of 403 to 17, then this bill should equally please my colleagues today. Yesterday's Defense appropriation bill was coordinated closely with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and our funding levels are very, very close. The Intelligence bill currently before the House, however, authorizes funding slightly above the level the appropriators set for intelligence funding. In fact, this Intelligence bill funds the intelligence community at its highest levels in history. It exceeds the total fiscal year 2004 appropriated level for the intelligence community, including all supplementals, approximately by hundreds of millions. As my colleagues know, we cannot be totally precise on the numbers we speak. For all intelligence programs in this bill, the committee authorizes a total of approximately 16 percent over the President's February request.

This bill increases investment in human intelligence and the capabilities that they represent for us, the core mission of our intelligence community. It improves intelligence analysis, coverage in depth, so that we have more focused, sharper information for our decisionmakers. It strengthens intelligence community language capabilities across the board, through both improved legislative authorities and initial investment, so we have the people who know the languages we need to know to do our job.

It improves the structure and management of the disparate elements of the intelligence community's information technology systems by creating an intelligence community Chief Information Officer, hopefully to get better coordination so that we can overcome some of the problems we learned as we reviewed the events of 9/11. It bolsters U.S. counterintelligence resource capabilities; and, specifically, it adds 22 percent above the President's request for human intelligence and human-related programs. That is the core business of intelligence. Substantial increases in funding for improved analytical capabilities, as I have said, are included.

Significant additional amounts for information technology infrastructure, what we call enterprise architecture, is included, and information-sharing capabilities, which are critical. Tens of millions are included for improved foreign language capabilities.

This money has been carefully applied; it is carefully managed. This bill is very close to the bill passed unanimously out of our sister committee in the other body, with one major exception, of course, that they did not have the benefit of the contingent emergency relief fund during their consideration.

So, it is fair to say that our bill is more generous to the global war on terror than the other body's version, and that bill enjoys bipartisan support, unanimous bipartisan support I am informed.

Some in the minority have suggested that voting down this bill somehow better supports our intelligence community and makes our country safer. In my view, that is a convolution to the point of absurdity. They say if an attack happens before the election, it will somehow be our fault for not funding the global war on terror.

I would point out that the 2004 fiscal year goes on until October, and any shortage of resources would be of interest to those who did not support the $87 billion supplemental bill for fiscal year 2004.

All I would say is that the majority in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to support the men and women of the intelligence community in this bill today. We did not vote against the community and we did not shortchange the community in the global war on terrorism.

Now, there is an irony here. For years, I have been trying to get more support for intelligence. Usually the record will show that usually the cutting amendments have come from certain Members of the minority, as is their right. Now, it seems my sin is to bring forth a bill that spends not enough on intelligence rather than too much. Frankly, I think I should declare victory and say thank you all for listening.

But I will be disappointed, on a serious note, if at the end of this day, Members on all sides cannot agree that this bill authorizes proper sums carefully managed and properly coordinated with the appropriators and the other affected committees.

This is a very good bill with many important aspects that I have outlined. Indeed, it is with some hope I note the classified version of the minority views in their very first paragraph admit as much. Members who took the time to come up to the committee spaces to review the classified annex, which is available to all Members as usual, have seen the important work this committee has done.

Our work is not done in the public with klieg lights all the time. But it is a little misleading to suggest, as some have, that the committee product is less worthy because we do take seriously the responsibility, our commitment it is, to safeguard properly classified material by using closed sessions. That, incidentally, has been the practice for all the recent Congresses that I have been on the committee.

We must also be mindful that our enemies watch and hear what we say. Our audience is the American people primarily. Those are the people to whom we are accountable and responsible and proud of the work we do, and are pleased to share it with them. But, unfortunately, our enemies are listening too, and we are a Nation at war. Sometimes the enemy is able to gauge their conduct on how this body acts. They are able to use psychological warfare to drive wedges. They also could gain an enormous advantage if we do not take the appropriate opportunities to keep from public discourse our committee discussion on the sensitive intelligence matters that we are charged with overseeing. And when we have that debate in committee, I like the committee to have the full range of conversation, so we start out with the idea in closed session and then we winnow out what we can talk about in public, which is why we are here today talking about what we can talk about in public.

For the past 7-plus years, I have been working to refit the intelligence community for its future, with the members of the committee, for whom I am extremely grateful, to posture it for the days ahead. We have always worked hard on the committee to create a constituency for intelligence inside and outside of this institution. We have insisted that the committee be both supportive advocates and constructive overseers. None of like gotcha politics when it comes to national security.

I have tried to engage the past two administrations on the needs to retool the Intelligence Community for smarter, better days ahead, and I have had the full support of the committee in our efforts so far. This bill continues that effort. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 4548--Intelligence

Authorization Act for FY 2005

The Administration supports House passage of HR 4548, which

authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for the

conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related

activities of the United States Government. The committee-

reported bill authorizes funding that strengthens core

intelligence capabilities and supports intelligence

activities that would sustain the Global War on Terror.

Now more than ever before, our Nation's security relies on

accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence--and the

challenges facing the intelligence community are difficult

and complex. This makes it vitally important for the

administration and Congress to work together to provide the

intelligence community with the tools and resources it needs

to enhance our national security posture, win the Global War

on Terror, and reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction.

We are making advances in our ability to collect, process,

and analyze intelligence information. Although not part of

this bill, crucial innovations such as the PATRIOT Act and

the Terrorist Threat Integration Center are helping us to

protect our homeland by sharing information better than ever

before. The President has also expressed his interest in

working with Congress, when the time is right, to examine

structural reforms that may be needed to improve our

intelligence capability in the future. The upcoming reports

of the Senate intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission,

along with the work of the Commission on Intelligence

Capabilities Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, will

provide important information that will help Congress and the

Administration in this effort.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress

to support the vital work of the intelligence community,

especially its counterterrorism activities, to assure

continued strong, flexible intelligence capabilities, and to

refine certain provisions in this bill, including relating to

procurement, to ensure that these provisions maintain the

flexibility the President needs to most effectively manage

the ongoing war against terrorists of global reach.

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

Mr. Chairman, officially yes, because we do have the statement of support from the administration on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a chairman of a subcommittee of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a valued member of the committee and distinguished Member.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman in the well who just finished that I would have been pleased to have the opportunity to try and work out his amendment if we had seen it ahead of time before committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire the status of the time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence but was also on probably the most recent delegation back from Iraq, and I appreciate the extra effort that he and his colleagues made.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of our committee who is probably better known as a world-class pilot.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is actually known as the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and otherwise known as our colleague and friend.

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

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

First of all, I want to assure the gentlewoman that I associate myself with stronger intelligence. Her poster, I think, is excellent, and I am delighted that we all agree on that.

Second of all, I want to tell the gentlewoman that I totally agree that the form is not pretty. I do not like supplementals either. We work with what we have to work with. But the substance, I think, came out as well as it could. And I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for reaching out to help us with the bridge.

In a more direct answer to the gentlewoman's question a while ago about what requests were, and I am going to be very candid, these were the requests we were working with. And they are not for the whole year, but they are the requests to deal with the war on terror. And we actually come up with 32 percent more than what the CIA requested, 100 percent of what DIA requested, 39 percent more than what NSA requested, 88 percent more than NRO, and 19 percent more than NGA.

So we are way ahead in bridging. But obviously, her point is we have not gone for a whole year, and we all understand that. The question is will there be a short-change? And my answer is no. And the problem I have with her solution that she had proposed, somewhat belatedly, if I may say that, and I will come to that point if I have time, is that authorized money without appropriated money behind it is monopoly money, as we all know, and that was part of the problem.

Now let me go to the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) point, which I think was a very poignant point and I have huge regard for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as we all do: What happened this year? And the answer is that normally we do work out all of our differences before we bring our bill out. We get them done in committee. This year we are on a schedule. I thought we had all our differences worked out. I honestly did not know we were going to have some of these amendments that she came up with until a couple of hours before the meeting. I asked that they try to be worked out. Apparently they were.

Normally we need more than 2 or 3 hours to work out something as important as a budget. So I do not think there is any bad intention. What I think is that there is more work to be done, and there will be an opportunity between now and the conference.

I urge support for this bill because I think it is a great place to go forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It restores the funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center to the levels contained in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request. In fact, a number of actions were taken in committee regarding NDIC this year in response to an ongoing investigation into activities there. This amendment does nothing to affect these investigations that are ongoing in any way. It does not change in any reporting requirements nor does it lift any fences that were put in place. But what it does do is it restores the authorization level to include $8 million that had been cut from the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request.

I am doing this to address the concern that the cut might significantly impact the important mission of the National Drug Intelligence Center, and the reason I have brought the amendment forward is because I wanted to have the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who I felt has actually been the person who is most instrumental in this particular program, have as much time as he wanted to address this issue. I wanted to make sure he had the opportunity.

In any event, I am assuming he would support the amendment. In the absence of knowing nothing beyond that, I am going to suggest that this amendment be adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, pending the arrival of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), if he is able to be here, I would be very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the man with whom our committee works very closely. He is the appropriator for our business, and we are indeed indebted and grateful for the kind attention and the generosity that he bestows on the intelligence community.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the amendment. Not knowing that there would be a contrary wish from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), whose guidance I would follow very closely on this, I am going to make that assumption. I hope that is a correct assumption and has the support of the other side, as we have heard expressed.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) for bringing this amendment forward and for yielding me the time.

As my ranking member has said, the use of interrogation is absolutely critical. It is a very important tool in the war on terrorism. Getting information timely, not only saves lives for our forces, but in the type of unconventional war we are fighting today, it is critical to know where the next bad surprise is going to come from, because these folks do not fight fair, as you say.

Equally, in order to protect the tool that we have, the proper use of interrogation, we need to prevent the abuse of interrogation. We all understand that, and unfortunately, I think that those of us who understand it and have looked into it are a little puzzled by the fixation that the liberal media has assigned to some of this, what I would call, aberration problem that took place at Abu Ghraib, which was admittedly terrible, but I believe it is an aberration.

I would like to point out to the American people that our committee does have oversight over interrogation, and we have looked into what has happened in the intelligence aspects, the interrogation aspects. We have had numerous briefings, and we had a rather full-scale day of hearings settled for, I guess it was last Friday. Unfortunately, that was preempted by the sad events with President Reagan's, the national day of mourning for State ceremony for former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. So the government was closed, and obviously we have had to postpone.

But we are on top of the hearings in keeping up with this, and we have reams of material and reports, and we are obviously going to have more, because more reports are taking place.

I think the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is very, very important. We must not lose sight that interrogation is a critical tool, and despite the hype and the sensationalism that the liberal media is fixing on, and it is a shame they do not talk more about the cruelty and the barbarity, as the gentleman has alluded to, of the enemy than they do of some people who got out of control on our team.

I would also like to say that for the record, it is my understanding, and we do not know all of the facts yet, that perhaps the reason that the gentlewoman did not get an intelligence briefing in February while she was in Iraq is because the prisoners that were involved, we are finding out, were prisoners of crimes, of murder and rape and so forth, and not necessarily subjects of intelligence interest.

Now, that needs to be pursued further, but you can understand that if they are just criminals, that there would not be a huge reason to go out and get the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence involved, its abuse of prisoner handling, if that is the issue.

So we have got an area of jurisdiction there where we will sort out. I do think that it is extremely important that we support this amendment. And I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward. I think it is a huge improvement to our bill, and I will be very happy to accept it from our perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I actually urge support of this. When something bad is going to happen, we want to make sure that it is the bad guys that get us and not the good guys. And we are concerned that we have not, in our own country, focused enough on that subject.

I think this amendment helps the good guys and hurts the bad guys, so I urge its support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have huge heartburn over this at all, but I am a little concerned on a couple of points.

The first is that Pakistan is one of our strongest allies in a very delicate part of the world with this global war of terrorism. I think it is important to remember that Pakistan's stability and continued cooperation in the war on terror is of paramount importance to the United States' national interest at this time, and we all know it. Without Pakistan's help, the war on terror would be much more difficult to fight and to win.

Anyone who doubts Pakistan's commitment need only see last week's report that Pakistani forces killed one of the country's best known, most wanted pro al-Qaeda militants, that would be Nek Mohammed, in a missile strike. Pakistani security forces have killed or captured dozens of al-Qaeda operatives since 9-11 and have sustained significant casualties in so doing, and considered high-level casualties there, too, I am sorry to say.

President Musharraf, moreover, is walking a political tightrope in helping us, as all of us who have been in that country know, yet he believes that the war on terror must be won, and is willing to take significant political, and I would say personal risk on his part to do it.

The stories about A.Q. Khan's proliferation exploits were not a surprise to the intelligence community. This was an example of very good work, and it is work that is continuing.

The intelligence community and State Department are working diligently, constructively, carefully and quietly on the sensitive matters referred to in this amendment. The committees of jurisdiction are being kept well informed about the status of things.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, I know the motivation is good, but nevertheless this requires the Director of Central Intelligence to report to eight congressional committees on Pakistan's efforts to curb WMD proliferation, fight terrorism, safeguard nuclear weapons, strengthen Pakistan's democratic institutions, and disclose the size of Pakistan's fissile material stockpile. Actually that is happening. I think that is all going on. I do not have any problem reiterating it, but I am a little concerned the amendment might be misconstrued by some, given the sensitive state of affairs in the region; and frankly I do not think it is helpful to U.S. interests.

As I say, I think much of the oversight noted in what he is trying to accomplish is already being done by the committees of jurisdiction. As I say, I do not have huge heartburn over this, but I am worried that it could upset a delicate balance.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to control the time. I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I do have some remarks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, and associate myself with a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows his stuff.

All-source intelligence sometimes gets confused with open-source intelligence. I think it is important to know that a huge percentage of all-source intelligence is open-source intelligence and is very valuable in the filters and the proper analysis. So I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to give notice that I am going to put at the proper time a statement of the Speaker of the House in the Record in support of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

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

This particular amendment was given very careful consideration in the committee, and it was voted down. We will have some reasons, and I am going to yield in a few minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), not yet, to explain some of them, as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence.

But I think its it is important to note that our committee has really led, I think, very responsibly in the area of oversight. We have had, I believe it is five hearings now; we have something like close to 7,000 pages in seven or eight different categories. We are getting full cooperation. I do not understand exactly why it is there is a feeling that we need to go forward and shut down the money to the people who are carrying the war on terrorism because we feel they we are not getting enough cooperation. If we got much more cooperation, I would not have any staff available to prepare this bill, we have so many documents to work with. So there is no question that the oversight is being done.

I think to say this was a petty gesture posing as a grand gesture or whatever the language was is not off-base. It is unnecessary. I think we hashed this out in our committee, and I am sorry it has come back again. We are doing our job.

Now, before I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I do need to point out that, indeed, I just received the mail, my mail apparently does not come in quite as rapidly, but I too got the letter from Director Tenet; and it appears that Director Tenet is also having a problem with his mail, because he is referring here to language in a draft that is no longer relevant in making a complaint about language that does not exist.

It is true that in our report, and I will be happy to read on page 23 the offending language. The offending language is this: ``The CIA must collect against all types of targets needed to gain the insights and the plans and intentions of our adversaries, be they terrorists, political, economic, military in nature. Countering the threat from terrorism is, of course, and should be at the top of the CIA's list of collection priorities, but the Central Intelligence Agency must continue to be much more than just a ``central counterterrorism agency'' if America is to be truly secure, prosperous, and free.

I do not think anybody disagrees with that. We have weapons of proliferation, we have counternarcotics efforts, we have racketeering, things going on. What we are saying here is what every member of the committee knows, that we have insufficiency of capability in the intelligence community to do all the tasks we need to protect America from all of the threats that are out there. And I quite agree that that is a matter that we have all expressed concern on, and that is what we have done.

I think for the Director to come back and suggest that there is an unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism is a stretch; and I think he has had bad staff work, and I hope he takes care of it.

The second thing I would point out in the same letter is something that we have reported on today, and I am quoting: ``The damage done by inattention to the clandestine service during the first half of the 1990s cannot be repaired in the blink of an eye.''

We all know that. We all know we have an insufficiency problem, and we all understand that we have a threat that is serious and that we are trying to deal with it, and this bill builds back capability to deal with it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, what is the list the gentleman is referring to? The letter that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I have written we have had response to, and we are getting more response. What list is the gentleman referring to, may I ask?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is this a list that the committee has taken action on that has not been responded to?

May I ask who compiled the list? Who signed this request?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding. I guarantee, if the gentleman came up and took a look at the record of what we are doing, have done and are continuing to do, you would be proud that the committee is doing oversight properly.

Now, I would also like, if the gentleman will allow me, to quote from the Director of Central Intelligence a letter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond just to my good friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) by giving you a statement that we just received from the Director of Central Intelligence. I just saw it. I read it a minute ago. ``The damage done by inattention to the clandestine service during the first half of the 1990s cannot be repaired in the blink of an eye. It was severe.''

Now, the problem is you want it both ways. You said it was protected. Actually, the administration did a pretty good job of trying to protect the administration. It was the democratically controlled Congress that cut the budget as we have pointed out earlier in this debate.

I will not defend or get involved in the Rogers amendment right now because we are talking about another amendment. But I will hold this up because this is why the problem exists. The promise was broken.

I quote, ``Now that that struggle, the Cold War, is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' Now, that kind of statement just before no votes on supporting the intelligence community happens to have been made by such distinguished Members of the Congress as Senator John Kerry. That was in May of 1997 from the Record. I got books full of that stuff. There is no doubt where the Record is. The Democratic party did not support the intelligence community.

If I said anything incorrect, I would be very happy to allow my colleague the opportunity on some other time to correct it, because he did not allow me to correct that.

But I will say that I think that we have covered the point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has asked. Is the letter that he is referring to is the letter that was signed only by minority Members? Is that the letter my colleague is referring to?

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Dicks

Mr. Chairman, I did not make any comment or hold up this quote from the Congressional Record that indicates that Senator Kerry had doubts about intelligence to be combative or confrontational or to be insensitive or to in any way offend my colleagues on the other side.

Obviously, people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have done a fabulous job over the years on a bipartisan basis. When he was in the majority he did that, and I am certain to say that. My comment is that when there was opposition to intelligence and year after year efforts to cut the intelligence budget, they did come from the Democratic side through the period of the 1990s.

I have the material here. I do not want to bore my colleague with it or embarrass him with it, but vote after vote after vote. If he would like to see it, come on over. If he wants me to

read it into the Record, I will read it into the Record, however he likes.

The fact is that all the people who knew about intelligence worked together to make it work. And we succeeded. And that was a good thing. We did not succeed well enough.

Now, we can argue all day long and say because it was the Democratic leadership in the House or the Republican leadership in the House or so forth or because it was President Clinton did not care or did care, however you are going to characterize it, we could debate that all day long.

The facts are that the cutting amendments to intelligence came from the Democratic side of the aisle and were supported over the decade of the 1990s by large numbers of Democrats. That is all I am trying to convey.

I thank God for the Democrats who saw the light and supported the Intelligence Community, as I do now, and I see no reason why we cannot continue. I was trying to refer, perhaps in a hurried way, to the Congressional Record. As I say, I am happy to share it. I have no bones to pick, and I am not trying to create any kind of a firestorm or throw red meat out to the gentleman from Washington. I do not think this serves any further purpose. I hope he accepts my explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope not to use all my time. It is late. We have had a long day. We have a heavy legislative day tomorrow. I simply want to give Members my side of this, the committee's side of this.

We have debated extensively. I guess I will start from the point that we have complaints from the other side of the aisle that we are not spending enough money in intelligence for the war on terrorism is a declaration of success that we have succeeded in getting the message across that we have a war on terrorism that we need it to fund and intelligence is important.

Because last year we lost a lot of Democrats on the authorization bill. And this year I hope we do not lose any. Because I can tell my colleagues about this bill. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit because the bill takes care of our needs. We do provide for the funding for the war on terrorism. It exceeds the President's February request by 16 percent. It exceeds by hundreds of millions, I cannot tell Members the exact number, but hundreds of millions. It is a lot of money.

The intelligence appropriation for 2004, 2004 does not end until October. Even when you include in the 2004 the supplemental, it is still more. This bill has been coordinated with the House Committee on Armed Services. We have had testimony to that effect today from the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman, the House Committee on Appropriations; we have had testimony today from the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and from the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the full committee. Their bills had bipartisan support. And, as we all know, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) passed yesterday with strong bipartisan support.

This bill authorizes more funds than the defense appropriations bill, which was voted on yesterday, but not many more. So there is not a bunch of hollow dollars in it. There are a few. But I will say that if you voted yesterday for the appropriation, there is no excuse not to vote for the authorization today.

Now, when I came out here today, I was a little concerned that my biggest problem was going to be selling to some of my colleagues that this is the largest intelligence authorization in history. It is the largest intelligence authorization in history. It is supported by the administration as the right bill, it is coordinated properly. We are prepared to do business with the Senate, which has passed their bill on a unanimous bipartisan vote. I think we have done our job well. And I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can see that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

I thank the Speaker.

I am sufficiently embarrassed to say I very much appreciate that and I am going to sit down. I hope that the applause on the other side of the aisle was for the right reason. And I thank my colleagues, and I urge support of the bill and oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4548, just passed, that the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Washington for allowing me this opportunity.

I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a brief rule, it is understandable, and it is a very fair rule because it does get us to debate, but I am very much in opposition to the underlying resolution. That is the nature of this House. Even though we are against something, we bring it forward for debate. I think that is very fair.

It is prudent to ensure that our legislative process continues to function when we are at war or after a catastrophe. That goes without saying. It is not only prudent. It is responsibility.

We are at war. It is a fact. A loosely organized global network of radical fanatics, who use terror as their weapon of choice, has declared war on us. The escalation of terrorist attacks against us, underscored by the terrible carnage on our innocent homeland on September 11, leaves no doubt that war has been declared on us, and we are at war.

So it is wise to visit the issue of continuity of Congress. However, few problems require a constitutional remedy, and I firmly believe this is not one of them.

The beauty of our government is the ability to evolve and adapt to changing times and needs without altering the foundation that supports and guides us. That is our Constitution.

Our country has withstood foreign wars, civil war, depression, even attacks on our own soil with only 27 changes to our Constitution over the years. As elected public officials, we must understand our responsibilities are not only to those we represent but also to the Constitution that holds our Nation together.

I remind my colleagues, the opening line of our oath of office reads, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' There is no Member of this body who has ever spoken from this floor who has not sworn that oath.

Not far from where we stand, an hour or so from this Chamber, lies Montpelier, the home of the father of the Constitution, James Madison. There, and in this body, his teachings live on and his wisdom resonates with the new generations.

Our Nation has a powerful history based on the principles of free government and the right of all people to elect their representatives. Congress has the privilege to serve those it represents, not to appoint that right to others.

When describing the special relationship between the House of Representatives and the American people, James Madison said, ``Duty, gratitude, interest, and ambition itself are the chords

by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.''

In order to preserve this bond, we should not tolerate exceptions and caveats to our election process but, rather, continue to encourage Americans to gather together and to vote, solidifying our conviction for and our responsibility to a free government that serves its people.

In the war on terror, we are confronting those who threaten our liberty simply because we have it and we enjoy it. Although the war made against us by terrorists is perilous and unpredictable, we have a duty to remain steadfast and strong, vigilant and upholding the ideals that have contributed to this great Nation, but not in overreacting. We must bring patient, I emphasize patient, devotion and overall intensity of purpose to prudent action without moving the foundation stone of our freedom, our Constitution.

I support the rule because it provides for a deliberative debate, which is what the opposition has asked, but I strongly oppose rushing to change our Constitution. Are the terrorists trying to make us do things to ourselves that the terrorists themselves could not directly force us to do? Let us not succumb to a hasty reaction. Let us celebrate our Constitution as it is and vote ``no'' on the resolution that would amend it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time.

I too wish to associate myself with the praise and gratitude for the man and his service to our institution. I would characterize Charlie as the true north on the compass of this institution and the man who had the good judgment to understand when magnetic declinations were in order. He has had seasoned patience with seasoned Members, and he has had extraordinary patience with new Members, to try to explain how things happen here. I think many of us feel that his personal judgment is as much a hallmark as the knowledge of the institution, which is matched by none.

The reason I asked for time to speak is that Charlie will always be in my memory on a fateful day in this country, September 11, 2001. The Speaker of the House desired that the House be opened for a prayer on that fateful day even as events were transpiring around us. It was not the right time, there was concern about precedent. Parliamentarians always worry about precedent.

Charlie found a way for us to get the House opened, the prayer said, and the House evacuated. And I have, to this day, that official Record hanging on my wall in my office and it will always be a memory of my life. Because I think it was very important that that day was recorded that way about this institution, and it would not have happened without him, of course.

Charlie is well regarded here and overseas, as we know. I have talked to parliamentarians, as I am sure others will testify, who come and wonder how this democracy works; how the people's House works. He has imparted that knowledge and wisdom and judgment around the globe, and I have heard it expressed many times from visitors who come here.

He has added value. He has brought credit to our institution. We are going to miss you a lot, Charlie, and I wanted to say thanks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4359, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her kindness in yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, this comes at a benchmark moment for the United States of America, if not the world, in terms of our history.

Our Nation and our allies are engaged in a global war against terrorism, we all know that, a war that began long before September 11, 2001, and is obviously going to continue well into the future. It is a war fanatics declared on America and its friends. It is a war that we cannot avoid. It is a war that must be fought, and it is a war that will be won.

President Bush understood early on that this sustained conflict would be difficult, and he told us so; and the truth of his words becomes more evident as time goes by, and it is our job to step up and provide for the challenge.

Our Nation's brave men and women in uniform and out face danger every day, not only in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan but actually around the whole world. We have sustained casualties. The inevitability of losses in dangerous work has not deterred us, nor has it diminished, of course, our heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifices made by some of the best our Nation has to offer, some from my home State, Florida, some from my district, as they fought in service of our country, for ideals that we all believe in, ideals that will endure, will prosper, and will better the lives of fellow human beings everywhere.

These people bring credit and honor to us all. They must be remembered and cherished, and I have no doubt they will; and this legislation goes in that direction.

The legislation we consider today provides the resources needed to continue the fight that we are in. H.R. 4200 allows America's military to function at a superior level. It includes programs that look forward, anticipating needs so that they can be met quickly and with precision when and wherever future threats arise.

In addition, the Defense Authorization Act maintains the oversight ability of the Congress. The limited, but nonetheless damaging, instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib will be dealt with transparently and fairly to show the world that free societies respect civilized standards and enforce them.

As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I appreciate that H.R. 4200 includes a strong intelligence component that ensures American war fighters on the ground or in whatever mode are provided with the best possible information; and I am most grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for understanding this and providing for it.

Timely, accurate information is a vital weapon in the war on terrorism, both for force protection, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) well knows, and for mission success. Yes, we can expect more violence in Iraq as the June 30 transfer of sovereignty approaches.

And, yes, unfortunately we can expect terrorists to target other events, including elections in free countries this year. But with the passage this year and maintaining levels of support for our military and intelligence capabilities, we can supply our soldiers and intelligence people with the resources and information they need to win.

This rule considered a lot of things. The committee got a good bill together, and I do not think there is any reason not to go forward with the debate. I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the bill, and I urge a vigorous debate on the information herein.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, Tanner amendment in nature of substitute, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, final passage of H.R. 4275, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have always known that the war on terrorism was going to be lengthy and difficult. President Bush told us that from the very beginning.

Americans everywhere have girded up for a sustained conflict across the globe, around the world. We have great and justifiable pride in our troops and all they have accomplished. We have accepted the necessary sacrifices in the war on terrorism with a heavy, but a resolute heart in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, it is impossible to accept the apparently isolated, but nonetheless totally deplorable instances of blatant prisoner mistreatment that have surfaced in the past week. These actions, particularly when contrasted with the courageous and honorable decisions made day in and day out by the vast majority of our American soldiers in difficult circumstances, must be strongly condemned.

The charges of abuse will be examined fully and immediate corrective measures taken to prevent against their reoccurrence. That is assured. No equivocation can be tolerated. Wrong is wrong. The international community will be watching America's actions closely, and now is the time to demonstrate anew that the American soldier respects the rules of engagement and always values justice and humane treatment of detainees and prisoners. We all abhor the slaughter and maiming and carnage of innocent victims, which, of course, is the terrorists' hallmark.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because our military has worked too hard and accomplished too much to be stained by the actions of a few. By acknowledging that this is a tremendously hurtful anomaly in an otherwise impressive effort, I hope that justice may be swiftly served and the trust in America restored.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence routinely and regularly oversees interrogation activity for intelligence purposes, and we are giving comprehensive attention, of course, to these newly- discovered abusive treatment cases. In fact, as we speak, our committee is receiving briefings upstairs and asking some very tough questions, and I will return to that meeting forthwith.

The conduct of appropriate and professional interrogation is extremely important to the successful prosecution of the war on terrorism and the protection of our troops and citizens at home and abroad.

Terrorism is a bad thing, and interrogation on a proper level of a terrorist is an important tool for us to preempt the mischief that they can cause us.

This rule brings forward a clear resolution that supports the views I espouse and that other Members have espoused articulately. I urge passage for this rule and for this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, on roll call Nos. 128, 129, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Baird