Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on May 24, at 1:30 to 2:30 p.m., at West End Memorial School in Woodbury, NJ, Col. Larry Engel, vice-president of the Battleship NJ Foundation, will present a print of the Battleship to the Woodbury School District, certificates to the three elementary schools and decals to the 178 fifth grade students who raised $1,000 toward the Battleship's Museum. They stitched over 1,400 needlepoint bookmarks and sold them for $.50 each, several Easter baskets which sold for $5 each and issued $1 stock certificates to local businesses and civic organizations toward their Battleship NJ Peace Project. The students will present an assembly to the 4th and 5th grade students dedicated to those who have served our nation. Col. Engel will address the group about the NJ and Memorial Day. The students will present a check to Col. Engel for the Museum.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, Who: 200 4th and 5th grade students from Woodbury Public Schools. What: Will host Vice-president Lawrence Engel of the Battleship New Jersey Foundation. When: May 24, 2000 at 1:30 PM. Where: West End Memorial School, Woodbury, NJ. Why: The fifth grade students from the three elementary schools engaged in a two month project of designing, making, and selling needlepoint bookmarks and stock certificates which resulted in raising $1000.00 for the Battleship New Jersey Museum which is to be located in Camden, NJ. An assembly featuring Liberty, Uncle Sam, The Minuteman, Betsy Ross, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt will engage the students in the singing of patriotic songs, the presentation of the check to Col. Engel, and refreshments to celebrate their success. Col. Engel will present the district with a print of the Battleship and certificates of participation to each of the three elementary schools. He will address the classes about the ship and its contributions to democracy, present a slide show, and bring a six-foot model of the ship with him. He will also comment on the significance of Memorial Day. May 24 has been designated Red, White, and Blue Day at West End School in celebration of Memorial Day and the student's success.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for the excellent piece of legislation they have produced, which I am happy to support. Let me also acknowledge that the chairman of the committee is acceding to the wishes of the administration in the present funding level. Therefore, our quarrel is not with him, it is with the administration that supported the funding level. I appreciate his fairness on this issue over the years. This issue is about micromanagement and second-guessing. I believe that the management of Amtrak has made excellent and positive strides in improving the fiscal health and performance of the rail line. I believe that they will continue to be moving in that direction. I also believe that they should move in that direction and that we as a Congress should evaluate from time to time their progress and the best next step. I do not believe that we need another body standing in between the will of this body and the management and directors of Amtrak. I think that the Amtrak Review Council is frankly an unnecessary appendage and I believe that more money simply invites more mischief. This House last year overwhelmingly sent a message that funding should be limited to the level of $450,000. That is what this amendment does this time.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment and in strong support of his proposal. This country made a promise to its veterans of lifetime quality health care. I know both of the contestants in this debate are honorable people that want to meet that objective. I believe that the gentleman from Mississippi's approach is absolutely the right way to do it. That promise did not say that you get lifetime quality health care on conditions. There are veterans in this country that are about to turn 65 who want to continue their care at a veterans health facility and have Medicare pay for it. That is the way they have chosen to have that promise honored. But the promise did not say that it will be honored if you are lucky enough to live near one of those 14 places. The promise did not say that the promise would be honored if one of those 14 places has a major medical center. The promise did not say you would have to wait for over 2 years if you live in one of the new places, and it did not say that the promise expires in 2003. It says it for keeps and forever. At a time when the country is bringing in about $1.05 in revenue for every $1 we spend, I believe the money is here. I think this is a question of will, not fiscal ability. I believe that there is both Republicans and Democrats that will be supportive of the gentleman from Mississippi's approach. I think the right way to do that is to reject the amendment before us and strongly support the gentleman from Mississippi's approach which I do.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. I am very pleased and honored to rise in support of the aptly named Floyd D. Spence defense authorization bill. I congratulate our chairman on his service to our country. I thank my friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership. I also extend, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Weldon) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). Throughout our history, when things seemed to be most safe for our country, we seemed to get into the most trouble. When we seem to be at the apex of our power, we seem to be most subject to risk. I believe that this bill, which is worthy of support, moves us in a direction of avoiding that mistake this time. The world is not placid and we are not secure if we ignore the need to provide for the common defense. This bill does that in three very important ways. First, it does provide for nearly $40 billion in research and development funds that will assure us that the best technology deployed in the most intelligent way will be at our disposal for years to come. Second, it recognizes that the most important aspect of our armed forces and defense structure is the people who work in those forces. Keeping those people is a function of what we pay them and how we retain them. The increase in pay, the steps forward in benefits for retirees, are important, positive steps in that direction. I salute the committee for that. I would urge the committee to later accommodate the Medicare subvention proposal of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) in the second rule. Finally, I am pleased that this legislation includes legislation that I, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Weldon), introduced that will provide us protection against cyberterrorist attacks in our most vulnerable places, the air traffic control system, the banking system, the 911 system. For the first time, this bill contains language that provides for a modest loan guarantee program that will help the private sector provide protection against those risks. I support the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the people that assisted Pennsauken Township in their goal of reducing substandard housing in the Township. I would like to recognize Matt Franklin, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Nancy Kay, First Preston Contract Manager; Richard Watts, First Preston Assistant Contract Manager; Nancy McConnell, First Preston Direct Sales Administrator; and Pete Spina, First Preston Governmental Technical Reporter for all of their hard work and dedication. Their combined effort has enabled Pennsauken Township to purchase and rehabilitate homes that were abandoned and/or boarded up.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, ``A teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops.''--Henry Adams. Henry Adams may have been talking about a teacher like Phyllis Fulginiti. Phyllis Fulginiti has spent her life as a teacher, touching and molding students for nearly 40 years. She began as a high school graduate, when she began as a teacher in Catholic Schools as part of a special program designed to encourage young people to consider teaching as a career. Well, in at least this one instance, the program worked. After teaching in the Catholic schools for five years, Phyllis joined the Marlton School District and taught at Marlton Middle School for 33 years. She taught history, government and social studies to thousands of students between the second and the eighth grade. Along the way, she put her theories into practice by earning both a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master of Arts degree at St. Joseph University. She did all of this while raising a daughter, Susan, and maintaining a 27 year marriage to her husband, Richard Fulginiti. Although she is about to commence a new phase of her life as a retired teacher, I would like to commend her for the work that she has done as a teacher. As I am certain that many of her students would agree, she has touched eternity, and our community, our state, and our nation, are better off because of her contribution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the memory of fallen officer Corporal Steven Levy, 35, of the Washington Township Police Department, State of New Jersey, for his invaluable service to law enforcement and to the citizens of our nation. Officer Levy was killed in the line of duty that fatal day on October 21, 1999. This tragic incident which took Corporal Levy's life, resulted in leaving behind his loving wife, Mrs. Janeen Levy and his two small children, Kevin and Jessica. Corporal Levy's tireless efforts to make a positive difference throughout our community is evident throughout his entire law enforcement career and life. The First Congressional District of New Jersey, the Law Enforcement Community and the citizens of our nation pay tribute to Corporal Steven Levy for his ultimate sacrifice in safeguarding others from harm and death. On October 21, 1999, Corporal Levy was fatally wounded during a domestic standoff in Woodbury, NJ, while he served as a Washington Township Police Officer dedicated to the official duties instilled upon him by his responsibilities as a prestigious member on the Gloucester County Critical Incident Team. During his distinguished law enforcement career, Corporal Levy was awarded numerous awards which recognized him for his standard of excellence and extraordinary accomplishments. Over the years, he was awarded six official accommodations and 16 official letters of recognition. In 1995, Corporal Levy helped rescue two young girls who fell through thin ice on a lake, and a man who fell in the water trying to retrieve the girls. To recognize Corporal Levy for his achievements and constant efforts to help others in need, the Gloucester County Police Awards Committee presented Corporal Levy with Lifesaving Awards in 1995 and 1996 and the Distinguished Service Award in 1996 and 1998. Corporal Steven Levy's determination and courage serves as an inspiration to law enforcement officers and to the citizens of the United States of America. Corporal Levy shall be recognized by the First Congressional District of New Jersey and by the 106th Congress, as we forever remember his ultimate sacrifice--the sacrifice of his life to safeguard the lives of others. I stand along with my fellow citizens as a grateful nation to honor and recognize the life of Corporal Steven Levy.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the students that participated in the 2000 Haddon Heights Spring Festival Colorguard Event. As a result of their hard work and dedication, the members of the indoor Percussion Ensemble, and the ``High Voltage'', ``Synergy,'' and ``Cadet'' indoor Color Guards, all located in Haddon Heights, have obtained outstanding rankings in various competitions. I wish the best of luck and continued success to the Percussion Ensemble members: Joel Forman, Tim Berg, Mike Grasso, Jessica Wright, Nicole Molinari, Karen Stone, Jennie Walko, Danny Pawling, Amir Montgomery, Staci Malloy, Kate Mcclennan, Christy Khun, Matt Mazaika, Nate Robertson, John ``Waldo'' Spolitback, Pat Deegan, Justin Ballard, Matt Kuhlen, Jason O'Shea, Devon Carr, Brian Aldeghi, Darryl Hunt, Thersa Murphy, Joe Haughty, Josh LaPergola, and Adam Fox; the ``High Voltage'' members: Tiffany Bruey, Amy Dyer, Jessica Facchine, Sara Lamonte, Jenny Mastantuono, Peggy Slamp, Vikki Deegan, Danielle Facchine, Megan Gallardo, Heather Marks, and Cindy O'Shea; the ``Synergy'' members: Carrie Banks, Nicole Harshaw, Alyssa Poulton, Megan Slemmer, Jamie Slotterback, Julia Foster, Lauryn Heller, Melissa Tulini, Bridget Sharer, and Megan Zebley; the ``Cadet'' members: Amber Bushby, Kim Hill, Stephanie Luciotti, Erin Murray, Melissa Pfab, Meghan Green, Ashley Kendra, Rachel Mazaika, Melissa Peck, and Natalia Rosa.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146, I was unable to vote because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 147, I was unable to vote because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 148, I was unable to vote because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts has very clearly stated everyone's intentions here, which I appreciate. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my enthusiastic support for the work that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) have done, and thank them for bringing to the floor a bill that will no doubt make more Americans homeowners in high-quality homes. I congratulate them. In 1973, the phrase ``oil embargo'' became known to the vocabulary of most Americans for the first time. It was widely acknowledged that we needed to do something to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy. Here we are, 27 years later, and one of the major issues confronting the country is our dependence upon foreign oil. One of the long-term strategies to reduce that dependence is to become more energy-efficient in every aspect of American life. It is to the credit of the authors of this bill and their predecessors that we are moving in that direction in the field of housing. Through various tools available to the Federal government, we are creating a situation in which more energy-efficient homes are being financed and purchased by more people. The purpose of my amendment is to be sure that when we say that something is energy-efficient, that it really is; that the certification of what is energy-efficient is a certification that meets a high standard, as is presently the law, and that that standard is carefully reviewed by a well-trained, well-prepared, and duly- accredited appraisal agency. I appreciate the work that both the majority and minority staffs have done on this measure, and I appreciate the fact that there are some very valid concerns about the scope of the issue that I have raised. In particular, we are certainly of the intention that no duly accredited organization be excluded from the provisions of this amendment. I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) want to be sure that the scope of the amendment is broadened to include every such qualified organization. Secondly, I know there have been concerns raised about the availability of such inspections in all areas of the country. It is certainly not our intention, as sponsors of the amendment, to make it more difficult for any American to own or finance or refinance a home. With that in mind, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), to discuss this matter. It is, frankly, my intention, based upon representations that we could work on this problem together in conference, to withdraw this amendment, but I wanted to speak to him about that.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the chairman has accurately stated my intentions, and I appreciate his intentions. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention that we have no additional energy certification requirement than is presently in the law, that we simply address the way one is certified as meeting that requirement in a way that does not add significant cost to the consumer, and in a way that does not limit the choices that a consumer would have in choosing a qualified certifier. That certainly accurately states my intentions.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for championing it. And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that was corrected. I do believe that communities should be able to use Community Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong branch of government. The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a region of the world. I think the administration should have come to us before they made this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country got involved. But they did not. I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young Americans who are in Kosovo today. Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that authority. For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because I believe there are two important points of view that can be reconciled here. I think there is broad support for $100 million of support for America's first line of defenders in the fire service. I believe it is the intent of those of us who drafted this amendment that it can be expressed in conference. The point of view of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) can be accommodated in the following way: to the extent that community development block grant funds are used for fire protection, they must be focused on communities which would otherwise qualify under CDBG rules. I think that that correction and clarification would solve the problem. I would recommend in conference it be done that way.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, my friends who offer this budget have done a great public service, because I think they have shed some light upon the underlying dilution of the majority's Republican resolution that is the base bill. The base bill says that we are going to bring in $171 billion more over the next 5 years than we take in. Then it proceeds to spend $268 billion more than we take in, a $97 billion gap. What they say to the American public is we can reduce your taxes by $200 billion and provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and we can increase defense spending and increase some other spending, all to the tune of $268 billion. So, see, your surplus is $171 billion, but your additional giveaways are $268 billion. To the credit of the alternative of the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), you do not do that. The Sununu alternative tells the truth. It says in order to do those things, to have the prescription drug benefit and pay down the debt and cut taxes, one has to make very significant cuts in the budget. That is an honest proposition with which I disagree. The proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the proposition of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) are honest. They say that to pay down the debt you basically have to leave taxes alone and leave spending alone and that will work. The underlying bill is a repetition of the dilution of 1981. It says you can have your cake and eat it too; you can have your cake and bake it too; you can have your cake and give it away too, that you can increase Medicare, increase defense, cut taxes, and spend more money than you bring in. I think the priorities of this resolution are wrong in the CATs budget, but they are internally consistent. The truth is the way to pay down the debt is to essentially leave spending alone, the way the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) does, to leave taxes alone, the way the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) does, not rely upon rosy scenarios, and pay down the national debt. I oppose this, but support the alternative of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair at this very late hour and to the members of the staff who are so diligently working here with us and for us at this very late hour as well. We are gathered tonight at a time of unprecedented peace and power for our country. Because of the enormous dedication and sacrifice of Americans who have served in our armed forces throughout history, around the world in the past and at present, our country is stronger and more secure than it has ever been, and that is a blessing for which we are truly thankful. Certainly that thanks is directed at those who wear the uniform of our country tonight around the world and those who have so nobly worn it in the past. It is truly a gift and a legacy that we enjoy tonight. Our relative strength in the world does not mean that we live in a purely safe world, a world without risk. We must endeavor not to repeat the mistakes of history, where very often at times when we felt most safe we were most vulnerable. There are clearly three areas of major threats to our country's security as we gather tonight. The first is the threat of an emerging competing global superpower in the People's Republic of China. The second is the continued virulent presence of regional negative hostile dictatorial forces such as Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf, President Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia. Those two threats, the threat of China and the threat of those regional dictators, are very severe threats indeed. I trust that in the coming weeks and months we will consider as a Congress, along with the executive branch and the military, ways to confront those threats. This evening I want to spend, Mr. Speaker, some time talking about a threat that is not so easily detected, is not so obvious, but a threat that I believe is truly lethal and deadly, a threat that is unlike any threat that we have faced in the history of our republic, and that is the silent but deadly threat of cyber terrorism, the quiet but lethal assault on our country's systems and people, which I believe will be one of the major issues in the new century, the new millennium, in the defense of our country. Unlike the growth of a large superpower army, unlike the proliferation of arms from a hostile nation state, we cannot readily or easily see the development of the cyber threat. I pray that we may never feel it and tonight I would like to talk about how we can prepare for it. I would like to begin by talking about what has already happened to make it clear that our subject tonight is not an imaginary one. It is all too real. Listen to George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, speaking a few months ago. He said, and I am quoting, ``An adversary capable of implanting the right virus or accessing the right terminal can cause massive damage to the United States of America,'' the right virus or the right terminal. In 1998, two youngsters in California, directed by a hacker in the Middle East who was later described as the Analyzer, launched attacks which disrupted our troop movements in the Persian Gulf. These two young hackers, based in California and directed by the Analyzer in the Middle East, disrupted troop deployments to the Persian Gulf in February of 1998 from California, launched attacks against the Pentagon systems, the National Security Agency and a nuclear weapons research lab. The deployment disruptions, that is, the disruptions in the deployment of our troops around the world and the Persian Gulf, from a computer terminal in California, were described by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, a real leader in this field, as ``the most organized and systematic attack'' on U.S. defense systems ever detected. In fact, they were so expertly conducted that President Clinton was warned in the early phases that Iraq was most probably the electronic attacker. Two teenagers steered and directed by a master hacker halfway around the world, launching what our number one defender has called the most organized and systematic attack on sophisticated defense computer systems, so sophisticated that in the early hours of the attack the President of the United States was told by his most wise and knowledgeable advisers that Iraq was the electronic attacker. It was not Iraq, it was two U.S. citizens directed by a hacker in the Middle East. On March 10, 1997, another teenager, this one based in Massachusetts, invaded a computer system run by the Bell Atlantic company in Massachusetts, knocked out telephone communications, among them telecommunications, telephone service, for the Worcester, Massachusetts air traffic control system at that airport in western Massachusetts. The tower was knocked out for 6 hours. Let me read from a report from the Boston Globe of March 19, 1998. ``The computer breach knocked out phone and radio transmission to the control tower at the Worcester airport for 6 hours, forcing controllers to rely on one cellular phone and battery powered radios to direct planes.'' One teenager hacking into a computer system of a major regional telephone company, knocking out for 6 hours the telecommunications capacity of an entire area, and including an airport. And as people flew through the skies above Worcester, Massachusetts, the air traffic controllers relied on one cell phone and battery powered radios to direct the planes. Joseph Hogan, who manages the control tower at Worcester and 26 other airports for the Federal Aviation Administration, said this: ``We relied on our back-up systems, and, thank goodness, they worked. Had we been busier, the potential for a serious incident with dire consequences was there.'' Six hours. In 1997, our intelligence community conducted what was called Operation Eligible Receiver, a war game played in cyberspace, an intelligent and far-reaching attempt by the U.S. military and intelligence community to game out what would happen if a hostile foreign power tried to attack our systems around the country. A so-called red team put together by the intelligence community pretended to be North Korea. Thirty-five men and women specialists, 35 people using hacking tools freely available on 1,900 web sites, Mr. Speaker, any of our listeners tonight could access on their home computer right now. These 35 men and women accessing those 1,900 web sites in the public domain managed to shut down large segments of America's power grid and silence the command and control system of the Pacific Command in Honolulu. The Defense Information Systems Agency, DISA, launched some 38,000 attacks against its own systems to test their vulnerabilities. Only 4 percent of the people in charge of those targeted systems realized they were under attack, and, of those, only 1 in 150 reported the intrusion to the superior authority. We had a war game, and the good guys lost. The smartest and most capable people that we have were rather easily outwitted by this war game. A Pentagon report goes on to say that probing attacks against the Pentagon, there are tens of thousands of them a year, are routed and looped through half a dozen other countries to camouflage where the attack originated. Information warfare specialists at the Pentagon estimate that a properly prepared and well-coordinated attack by fewer than 30, 30 computer virtuosos, strategically located around the world, with a budget of less than $10 million, could bring the United States to its knees. Such a strategic attack mounted by a cyber-terrorist group, either sub-state or non-state actors, that is to say either terrorist groups that are not part of any state or terrorist groups that are sponsored by a rogue state, would shut down everything from electric power grids to air traffic control centers. A combination of cyber-weapons, poison gas and even nuclear devices could produce a global Waterloo for the United States. In 1999, the Pentagon tracked 22,144 intrusions on its own sensitive computer systems. 22,144 times in the last calendar year people figured out how to hack their way in to our most vulnerable systems. That is according to Major General John H. Campbell of the United States Air Force. Deputy Secretary Hamre reports that his sources show that there are at least 20 countries who presently have information warfare strategies and operations active against the United States. This is an overwhelming and compelling body of evidence that says that this is not a question of whether we will be prepared for something that will happen to us in the future; this is a question of how well we are prepared for something that is happening to us right now, tonight, around the world. Now, there is good news to report. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I have had the opportunity to meet and listen to and be briefed by some incredibly committed and talented men and women, both in the civilian service of this country and the Department of Defense and in the uniform of this country in the branches of our armed Services, and also serving in the various intelligence agencies of this government. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed tonight with a robust, dynamic and bright corps of young men and women who are committed to defending their country. With the tools that we have given them, they are doing a magnificent job. Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre is the leader of this effort and deserves special praise. His Assistant Secretary, Art Money, deserves special praise, and so do many others who work at their direction who have foreseen this problem, have been so diligent in pursuing it, and are truly inspiring in their level of preparation. I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that if we do our job, Mr. Speaker, and give these civilians and uniformed personnel and intelligence personnel the tools to do their job, they will excel in doing their job and protect our country. This issue is not new to this floor. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my friend and colleague from nearby Pennsylvania, has been working on this issue years before it found its way into the headlines. He is serving as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development of our Committee on Armed Services and has been a long time advocate of this cause. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, a Republican, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the Democratic ranking member of the committee, have very wisely appointed a special task force of our committee to focus on cyber-terrorism in this year's defense budget. That special committee is ably chaired by my neighbor and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The members of the committee are truly dedicated to this purpose, and I believe that the efforts of Chairman Spence and Mr. Skelton and Chairman Weldon and Chairman Saxton and those of us working with them on this effort are going to elevate this issue in this Congress, in this defense budget and defense bill, and take some important steps that really need to be taken. Now, these steps would follow on the heels of the President's directive number 63 which was issued on May 22, 1998. That directive, which is well under way, is a good first step toward addressing the very real problems that I talked about tonight. But I think we have to build on those steps and understand the very unique nature of the problem before us. Our country is organized, and well organized, for the world of physical space. Our military strategy has always been about protecting and defending key points of territory, the seas, land, so we could protect the sovereignty and rights of our people. We have always recognized a distinction in our civil law between civilian and military, between police action and law enforcement on the one hand and military action on the other. These are time-honored and wise distinctions that we should never forfeit, but they are distinctions based on the physical world. And when we deal with the world of cyber-terrorism, we need to rethink them. By no means should we abandon cherished principles that recognize that civilian authority rules our country and the military serves civilian authority. By no means should we abandon the principle that recognizes the rights of Americans to enjoy privacy in their homes, the reasonable expectation of privacy in their affairs. By no means should we forfeit those principles, but by no means should we permit those who would do us harm and terror to hide behind those principles to abuse the purposes of those principles and subject the country to horrible acts of destruction. This month I will be introducing legislation that creates a strategy to address what I believe are the three great questions posed for our country by the here and instant onslaught of cyber-terrorism. The first question is how can we make sure that our military is fully prepared? The President has given us great guidance in this in his budget proposals for the new fiscal year. He has set aside $91 million, not for software or fancy computers or bricks and mortar, but he set aside $91 million so we can be sure that the smartest and most motivated Americans serve their country in this field. Scholarships for bright young students, continuing education for those who already serve, institutes and centers and programs for people to come together from the worlds of business and academia and government and the military and think about ways that we can address and solve these problems. I believe, based upon the classified briefings I have been privileged to receive and the record in the public domain, that the U.S. military, the U.S. intelligence community and the civilian employees of the Department of Defense are ahead of the curve in this area. We are by no means invulnerable in our defense infrastructure, but this is a problem that has been thoroughly analyzed, and I believe we are well on the way to thoroughly protecting the key defense infrastructure of our country in military bases around our country and around the world. But that leads us to the second question, which I am not so confident has been resolved, and that is what can we do to protect ourselves against the place at which we are most vulnerable, and that is in the civilian infrastructure and civilian systems of our country? When the California hackers hacked into the Pentagon computers and disrupted our troop deployments in the Persian Gulf, it was shocking. But the Defense Department has acted swiftly and, I believe, powerfully, to prevent future repeats of this problem, future manifestations of this problem. The same really cannot be said of our civilian sector, of the air traffic control system, of water and power utilities, of our banking and financial system, of our transportation and law enforcement systems. Not because these people are not doing their jobs; they are doing a very good job, Mr. Speaker. But I think the same level of confidence cannot be stated about civilian institutions because they are civilian institutions. Thank God for the fact that the United States of America is not organized as a military society. In our country, the military does not run the airports, the military does not run our court system or our 911 system or our water and sewer and power systems; and may they never, because we are not that kind of society and the military is not designed for that purpose in America. These systems are run by some combination of public and private institutions that do a wonderful job of fueling and supporting the strongest economy in the world, but they are not organized for the purpose of preventing cyber-terrorism. The phone companies are organized for the purpose of making our calls go through and our data. The water and sewer and power utilities are organized for the purpose of making the lights go on when we turn the switch and the water go on when we turn the faucet and the heat go on when we turn the thermostat up. The air traffic control system is designed to get us safely from one point to another. The 911 system is designed to dispatch the brave and courageous men and women who ride in our police cars and who drive our ambulances and serve on our fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Those systems work. Late in 1999, we saw as a country that we had a major and comprehensive effort to make sure that accidental breakdowns in that system would not paralyze and cripple our country. The phrase ``Y2K'' became forever embedded in our national lexicon, and it was an American success story. At my house, we filled our bathtub up with water on New Year's Eve and made sure we had all the flashlights ready and made sure we had some means of communicating with our loved ones, because we were not sure, were not exactly sure that the water would work or the lights would stay on and the phones would work the next day, or at 12:01. To the everlasting credit of America's institutions, in most cases, in most ways, everything worked, because we were prepared. But the Y2K story was really just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker, because the real question is what if somebody intended to do us harm. What if it was not an accident that the computer systems turned over from 99 to 00, but what if someone who could not defeat us by dropping bombs on our power plants or could not defeat us by having an army invade our shores decided to defeat us and create chaos in America by hacking into our systems on purpose and create that kind of havoc? Are we prepared? I think the answer is not nearly well enough, as the incident in Massachusetts in 1997 shows. So what do we do about it? Well, there are three approaches we could take and two of them are absolutely wrong. One approach would be to say that let us militarize everything, let us be sure we can defend our airports and our power plants and our phone systems and our 911 system; let us put the military in charge of it. There is no one, I trust, in this House and no one, I am certain, in America's military establishment who would want that result, nor would I. The second approach would be to say, let us just see what happens. Let us let the normal market forces which work so well in organizing our economy handle this problem. I know of very few captains of industry who would be so naive as to agree with that statement. Our phone companies, our power companies, our transportation companies are not organized to defend against terrorists, nor should they be. They are organized to deliver goods and services at a profit or in the proper way to the public. So there needs to be a third approach that is a partnership between and among the military community, the intelligence community, the private sector, the academic sector, and law enforcement. I think that American ingenuity in the utility companies and the telecommunications companies, in law enforcement could absolutely do this job and make us thoroughly well prepared for the cyber-attacks which are happening to us as we speak, but they need help. My legislation will propose that very high standards be set, the same way they were for Y2K. They will propose an active, cooperative system between and among our military and our law enforcement and our civilian entities, and it will propose reasonable and well-targeted financial assistance for those aspects of industry and the private and civilian sector that reach the goal most expeditiously and most efficiently. There are precedents for this, Mr. Speaker. Our MIRAD program, our shipbuilding program is a good precedent and it works this way, and my legislation will reflect this principle. We say to certain shipbuilders that if you are building a cargo ship, the Government of the United States will subsidize in part the construction of that ship through loan guarantees and direct contributions. We will help you build your ship. What you need to do for us in exchange is to make that ship available at a time of national emergency, to carry military cargo so we can deploy our troops around the world if and when necessary. It is burden-sharing between the vibrant commercial sector and the military and law enforcement carrying out its mission to defend and protect the country. That is the approach that I think we should take in our bill, is to share the burden with the dynamic private sector, but encourage and indeed require that sector to bring its level of protection up so that when someone wants to hack into an air traffic control system, when someone wants to mask the computers at the water utility so that when the person reading the water utility computer screen thinks there is no arsenic in the water because that is what the printout says, but there is arsenic in the water because someone has bugged the computer, there is a backup system. Or when someone, and this has happened, hacks into the telephone system and reroutes 911 calls to a pornographic call-in line, as has happened, or a pizza delivery service, as has happened, chaos will not occur; but there will be a backup system in place. The third thing that my legislation will do is to answer the question of prevention, and prevention is what we most want. We want our military to be able to protect us so that we can prevent cyber-attacks. We want our civilian sector to ramp up its efforts so that we can be protected from cyber-attacks. However, sometimes they are still going to happen, as they did in 1998 when the California hackers, aided by the Middle East hacker, disrupted our troop deployment; as it did in 1997 when the airport air traffic control system in Massachusetts shut down for 6 hours. It is still going to happen. How do we very quickly find the perpetrators and understand whether this is a law enforcement problem that requires prosecution in our criminal law enforcement system or whether it is an international terror problem that requires a military or diplomatic response. There are two changes that I believe are foremost of importance that will be in the legislation that I propose. The first change is a change that says to the Department of Defense, we are going to take the handcuffs off of your hands and when a Defense Department information system or computer is attacked, we are going to let you find out who did it. I think most Americans would be amazed, Mr. Speaker, to find out that we have a law that works this way: if tonight a hacker hacked into an important Defense Department software system or computer that affected the launch codes for our nuclear weapons, or that affected our defenses against poison or nerve gas, we have a law that says, until the law enforcement people conclude and prove that the hackers are foreign agents, the Department of Defense cannot do anything about it. They have to wait until the law enforcement people conclude that it is not a domestic threat, it is foreign. In other words, we treat these hackers the same way we would someone who is running an illegal NCAA basketball betting pool on-line. Now, I do not for one minute disregard or impugn the abilities of our law enforcement people. They do a great job. But their job is to deal with organized crime or with those who would do harm within America. It is certainly not to deal with the Libyan special services forces or with people in North Korea who would do us harm. We need a law which says, when the Department of Defense's computer systems are under attack, they do not have to wait to find out who did it, that they can immediately and expeditiously figure it out and take whatever steps are necessary, consistent with our Constitution and consistent with our law to do something about that. The second change that I think is imperative is that we change the law so that our government can find out more easily about criminal records of people in very sensitive jobs that affect government infrastructure. Believe it or not, right now, if the following occurred, the Department of Defense and others would have a hard time getting information. Let me sketch this scenario. If what happened in Massachusetts in 1997 had happened because a vendor who was working for the phone company as a troubleshooter deliberately sabotaged the air traffic control system, and that vendor had someone working there who was a spy for the vendor; and that spy, in fact, had some kind of criminal record at the State or local level that would attach that spy's conduct or relationships with foreign agents, and we had in our CIA database evidence that if we knew that this spy, if we knew about his record that we could figure out who was hooked in internationally, our military people cannot get access to the State and local criminal records of that spy. It is illegal. It is unbelievable. The fourth amendment does not give someone who wants to do harm to the people of this country license to do so with impunity. There is no Member of this body who is more committed to the principles of the fourth amendment than me. I think it needs to be respected and revered in every way. But this is not a fourth amendment issue; this is a national security issue. We need to change the law in such a way that our military protectors and defenders, if they have intelligence that says that someone is trying to hack into the air traffic control system because they are working for the Libyan government or the North Korean government or the Iraqi government, and there is evidence in State and local criminal records that would help them find that person and stop them, we need to empower them to do that. The legislation that I will be proposing will do just that. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, and I have both served in local government; and we understand that one of the things that happens in local government is that for a long time people will say, there really needs to be a traffic light at such-and-such an intersection; it is really dangerous. And they come out to meetings and they tell their mayor and they tell their council and they talk for years about the need for a traffic light. Then, in places where government is not very responsive, which is not true in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and it is not true in my area either, in places where government is not responsive, they do not put up the traffic light. They wait until there is a fatality, a fatal accident at that intersection, and then they rush and put the traffic light up. I never want to come to this floor and have 435 Members clamoring to pass legislation that would unlock the potential of our military people, consistent with our Constitution; I never want to have them coming to this floor clamoring to do that because the morning news is full of reports of planes crashing over the sky over a major airport, or thousands of people being poisoned because their drinking water was poisoned and the computer systems that would have told the utility that were hacked into. I never want to have a national uproar because all the 911 calls for a major city went to a pizzeria or an airline reservation counter instead of to the police and the fire department. I never want to have a situation where there is financial chaos and there is a run on our banks because the checking account records or credit card records of millions of Americans are deliberately sabotauged. Mr. Speaker, this is not the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel. It is the stuff that Members of this House are hearing about, both in classified and unclassified briefings. We have been warned, and to the Paul Reveres of this effort, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who have paid attention to this, Secretary Hamre, people that work with him, we need to give them the tools that they need to continue to do this job. I notice that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is here. I am happy to yield to him, and commend him on his leadership on this for many years.