Leonard Boswell

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Cramer in introducing H.R. 4855, a bill to create an Independent National Security Classification Board. As a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been privy to many of our nation's most precious secrets. Much of the information and reports provided to the Committee has been properly classified by the Executive Branch. I and many of my Intelligence Committee colleagues, however, have been concerned that some decisions to keep certain information classified are not based on the need to protect national security. Instead, they may have been motivated by a desire to shield officials from accountability and otherwise keep information away from those who have a right to know-- concerned citizens. Such action serves only to stifle public debate and undermine the integrity of the system. It is unacceptable. The proper test is one that balances national security requirements with the public's interest in receiving information. Unfortunately, this has not been done in the recent past. While serving on the House and Senate Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, I witnessed first-hand the struggle related to declassification of information of great import to the families who lost their loved ones on 9-11 and the general public. The 9-11 Commission, which will release its report later this week, faced similar struggles. The time has come to establish an independent panel of experts to review classification policies and decisions and requests for declassification of information. Such a panel is needed in order to restore integrity and accountability to the classification and declassification process. H.R. 4855 would establish an Independent National Security Classification Board. The Board would be comprised of three national security classification experts, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Independent Board would be charged with reviewing and making recommendations to reform standards and procedures related to the classification of national security information. The Board would submit proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and the Executive Branch for comment and revision, and then implement the new standards and process once they have had the opportunity to comment. The Board would then begin to implement the new system, reviewing and making recommendations on current and new national security classifications, subject to Executive Branch veto that must be accompanied by a public, written explanation. The balance in this proposal would help ensure that the public and Congress have access to an Independent Board for national security classification matters while leaving undisturbed the constitutional prerogative of the President, our Commander-in-Chief, to appoint the Board and to veto the Board's classification decisions. This same measure was introduced by a bi-partisan group of Senators. I hope H.R. 4855 will attract similar bi-partisan support in the House. Because of the critical need to address the issues associated with the classification of national security information, Mr. Cramer and I, both Members of the Intelligence Committee, believed it imperative not to delay introduction of this bill. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process. I look over there at people I have a lot of confidence in, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and many others, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). There are things that we have said that we really have wanted to do over this process was to plus up the money for counterterrorism, simple as that. I say to the chairman, I really thought that would go. I realize he did not have a lot of warning, but I did not think it took a lot to do. When we went to the Committee on Rules yesterday, and we made our presentation there, I said clearly, and the ranking member agreed, I did not care who got the name on this thing. It did not make any difference. If the chairman of the Committee on Rules wanted it, we did not care. But we thought for the good of the country we needed to plus- up the counterterrorism. Because the threat is out there. We are told about it all the time. We think about three major events that are coming up. And I even shared a little bit with one of my grandchildren what I would do if they wanted to go to one of those. Now, the country is in peril. We got a lot going for us, I do not need to start that argument, but all we wanted to do was to plus-up counterterrorism and make it more viable and make it happen for the safety of this country.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her hard work. Mr. Speaker, I did take some notice of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I appreciated his remarks about the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). I agree. I think he has done an excellent job. But none of us are perfect. I think there was an exception here. I actually thought that he would plus-up this counterterrorism budget. But here we are, and I rise to oppose the rule on the Intelligence Authorization Act. In particular, I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), mine and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), which would fully fund the counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies. I wish the Republicans had been willing to debate this issue head on, rather than hide behind a procedure. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the current bill authorizes less than one-third of the funds the intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. The intelligence agencies will have a tough time accomplishing their mission if they do not receive full funding for the counterterrorism operations. At CIA, these funds do not go to the paper clips and photocopiers. They go towards mounting counterterrorism operations on every continent. They go towards collecting information on preventing terrorist attacks. They go towards funding operations in Afghanistan, to prevent resurgence of the terrorist sanctuaries in the remote mountains. They go towards working with partner governments on counterterrorism. They go towards capturing key al Qaeda leaders. When there is uncertainty about funding, according to the agencies' testimony, it causes the agencies to hold off on operations, potentially putting lives in danger and ruining intelligence collection operations. The administration officials have admitted they are not fully funding counterterrorism in this bill, but will send a request for the rest of the funds after the election, while at the same time urgently warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, what should the American people expect us to do? Is it acceptable to wait until after the election, when we already know what we need to do? No, it is not acceptable. The American people expects us to debate these issues fully and openly and not hide behind procedures. If, as the administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. this summer, my colleagues in the majority will wish they had debated and settled the Peterson amendment, rather than squashing the debate. We will all wish that we had acted and fully funded counterterrorism. Mr. Speaker, I fully urge the rejection of this rule, so that the important issues like the shortfall for counterterrorism in this bill can be properly debated.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his hard work. I agree with some things that have been said about the gentleman's good work. I actually thought, and I do not say this in anything but a gentleman's way, I thought he would accept our idea to fully fund counterterrorism. He surprised me, but I still do not take away from his good work, and I want him to understand that. But the debate over the Intelligence authorization bill this year has been a hard fight. There are some serious disagreements about what the best bill to protect the American people ought to look like. I believe this bill has not gone far enough to strengthen intelligence and strengthen oversight. We, in this House and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, have not shied away from standing strong and debating these issues head-on. I believe what the American people deserve is our best effort to support what we believe is right. A lot of good work has gone into the bill. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, I am glad to see funding and support for analysis. As we have reviewed the intelligence on Iraq's WMD, it has become clear to us that analysis did not have the ability to examine the reliability of sources. It now appears, for example, that all four sources that Secretary Powell relied upon to describe Iraq's mobile bioweapons facilities were not solid. I hope that this bill's support will improve the quality of analysis so that a future Secretary of State has better intelligence at his or her disposal. I am also pleased to see investment in long-term HUMINT needs, the hiring and training of new case officers. The demands of the counterterrorism campaign have been great and the intelligence agencies have worked hard to meet those demands, but the war in Iraq has stretched our resources. According to The Washington Post, one of the largest intelligence efforts since the Vietnam War is under way there. I am concerned that the demands Iraq has placed on our intelligence resources have left large parts of the world alarmingly undercovered. While this bill makes long-term investments, the bill falls short on addressing some of the most urgent needs. This bill only provides one- third of the additional funds the intelligence agencies say that they need to fight terrorism. The President will not send the rest of the funding request to Congress until after the election, at the same time that he is urgently warning of a possible terrorist attack before the election. To me, this state of affairs is unacceptable. I say to my good friends and colleagues here today, What should the American people expect us to do? They expect us to do what is right to provide them safety through funding counterterrorism. I hope the President will send this supplemental funding request to Congress before then so we can get on with the business of protecting the American people. I had hoped that this bill would have been stronger, stronger in its support to the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve it as we go through the conference.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of business this week, we will journey back home to our districts. There, we will meet with our constituents and hear their concerns so that we may better serve them. We will also celebrate Memorial Day with them. Memorial Day is a very special day for me and my family, as I am sure it is for millions of other families across our great nation. Prior to my years in public office, I proudly served my country in the United States Army. During my twenty years as a soldier, I served a number of overseas tours, including two tours in Vietnam. The years I spent wearing the uniform of my country will always be special to me, and the brave Americans I knew as a result of my service will always have a special place in my heart. I would like to take this opportunity today to reflect upon the sacrifices our brave servicemen and women have made in the past and are making today as they honorably serve overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what it is like to serve in a hostile environment far away from the comforts of home, separated from your loved ones. I also know the joy they will feel when they return home to their families. However, war does not promise that everyone who serves will return home. War does not promise that families will see their brave soldiers again. This Memorial Day, Iowans will join together with the rest of the nation as we honor those soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States, uphold our Constitution, and advance the cause of freedom around the world. We will honor GySgt. Jeffrey Bohr, Lance Cpl. Ben Carman, Pvt. Michael Deutsch, PO Trace Dossett, Sgt. Paul Fisher, Pvt. Kurt Frosheiser, Pfc. David Kirchhoff, Spc. Joshua Knowles, Sgt. Bradley Korthaus, Pvt. Kenneth Nalley, Spc. Aaron Sissel, CW4 Bruce Smith, Cpl. Michael R. Speer, and Pfc. Brandon Sturdy, brave Iowans who lost their lives serving in Iraq. I thank them for their sacrifice, and I, along with the rest of our nation, offer my deepest condolences to their families. God bless our brave and honorable servicemen and women and their families. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I appreciate it. And I want to say at the outset I rise to support the resolution. When I look over there, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and a whole bunch of others, they are my heroes. But we have some on this side of the aisle too. I think of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), I think of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a lot of us as well as a lot of my colleagues. This is not a partisan thing. We support the troops. No question about it. I was a little appalled this morning as I heard my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and his comments. But I still support the troops. Our troops in Iraq are to be commended for their courage and their valor. I do say the same about the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community. I visited with them in Iraq. It is truly inspiring to see what they have accomplished. And the Iraqi people are to be commended for their courage in the face of Saddam's cruelty. But I agree with the remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the proposed resolution ought to do more. It is time the President set about fixing the problems in intelligence that are already known to exist. This will do much more to secure the peace in Iraq than just commending the troops and the Iraqi people which, of course, is very important. For example, the DCI has acknowledged that we did not have enough human intelligence. In addition, the sources we did have too often gave us bad information. There are also some indications that we may have dismissed potential sources of information because they were not telling us or we did not believe or did not want to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Closed societies of Iraq are among the most difficult of intelligence targets. No question about it. Terrorist groups are equally difficult to penetrate. However, there are steps we can take to improve our ability to recruit sources of information on these hard targets. The intelligence community is developing new ways of deploying human intelligence collectors. In urging the President to take steps now to fix intelligence, we can encourage these efforts which will yield benefits in Iraq today. The proposed resolution ought to do this. Why not? We can. We should. I do support the resolution.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, for their leadership and untiring efforts to work together and produce this very meaningful bill. Plus I have never seen better and more dedicated staff than I have seen on this committee, and I appreciate them very much. It is basic: we have to have the best possible intelligence to enable our troops and protect our Nation again a basic must-do. So I rise in support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004. What is the bottom line of this bill? The bottom line is that it funds important new intelligence capabilities while demanding accountability and improvement in certain areas. Here are three examples: first, the conference report requires the intelligence community to conduct a review of lessons learned for military operations in Iraq. Based on the committee's reviews so far of prewar intelligence on Iraq, there were some serious deficiencies in collection and analysis that needed to be fixed, must be fixed. The lessons learned provision is essential and will identify new tools and techniques needed. Second, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I want to strengthen HUMINT collection efforts around the world. In our efforts and briefings and in our committee members' oversight trips to Baghdad and other places, members have talked to dozens of intelligence officers who are fighting the war on terrorism and fighting to win the peace in Iraq. I admire their bravery, their patriotism, and their selfless dedication to duty. This conference report provides them with tools they need to accomplish their mission. It expands language and cultural expertise in the intelligence agencies. It asks the administration to set up a process for reviewing the laws and guidelines associated with data mining. And it supports new tools for sharing information through the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and with local officials to the Department of Homeland Security and local FBI joint task force on terrorism. Finally, the conference report includes measures that will strengthen the capabilities of defense human intelligence. Through further transformation and reform, defense HUMINT will become more flexible, agile, readily responsive to the Department of Defense intelligence requirements. This is a good bill that will protect Americans. I am pleased to support it.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member for her hard work and for her leadership on our committee and our chairman in their working together. I appreciate those remarks, and we might call it the interim report, but it will be continuing. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees to insist upon section 344 of the House-passed bill requesting an intelligence ``lessons learned'' report on Iraq and strongly support asking for this report to be submitted to Congress as soon as possible. Congress does its best work when it asks tough questions. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has asked a lot of tough questions over the past 7 months about our intelligence on Iraq. In our hearings and our briefings, committee members' oversight trips to Baghdad, a lot of talk with dozens of the intelligence officers who fought the war and continue to fight has taken place. I admire their bravery, their patriotism, and their selfless dedication to duty as they prepared this country for what was to take place. Even as I applaud their efforts, I feel it is my own duty to ask them tough questions, questions like, ``What did you do well?'' Questions like, ``What did you get wrong? What can be done better in the future?'' It is important to ask these questions because the answers are important. The answers are important because we thought we would be tripping over chemical and biological weapons all over Iraq, and so far we have not found any stockpiles of weapons. We need to know why. These answers are also important for the future credibility of the U.S. foreign policy on Iran, North Korea, and other challenges around the world. And the answers are important for improving intelligence now, today, in Iraq, where our fine men and women face a dangerous insurgency. For these reasons I believe time is of the essence. The time to ask and to answer these tough questions must begin now. I believe that instructing the conferees to insist on a timely ``lessons learned'' study is the right step forward to answering those tough questions and to making our country and our troops more secure and to be prepared and willing to do better as we go forward from this time on.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriations bill. This motion is urging support for Senator Harkin's provision, which blocks the administration's effort to gut overtime pay as we know it should be adopted. These proposed changes will imperil an estimated 8 million workers and make them ineligible for overtime pay. Most Americans have grown accustomed to working a little extra to make a little extra in their paychecks. This helps employers and employees. These workers do not consider overtime pay as frivolous or spare change. It is not a luxury in today's shaky economy. Many workers who earn overtime receive 25 percent of their annual income from the extra hours on the job. We should not take away a very important component to our workers. This is unfair. It is unwise. We should not penalize workers who are playing by the rules and need overtime pay. The other body successfully adopted an amendment to prevent the administration from implementing this harmful regulation, and I remain hopeful, I remain hopeful this House will see the merits of overtime pay and agree with the need to block the regulation. I urge my colleagues to join me, to join us in support of this motion to instruct and keep fairness for all American workers.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here. This is a very dear thing to people in my State. The gentleman made a reference to Iowa. I think if you get into the print though, you will find out that we give the 5- whatever percent, but then we take a piece of it back in the market basket thing. So what happens here? When we are in the last position, it is a bad place to be. It is my understanding that no matter where you live, you pay the same as we go into this. We pay the same, but we do not get the same benefit. This is doing us a lot of harm. We understand the impact this has on the older folks. Everybody thinks that just applies to them, but it applies to the whole community. When you cannot recruit doctors, you cannot retain doctors; you cannot recruit nurses, you cannot retain nurses; you cannot get technicians, you cannot retain them. You just go right on down to the mess halls, as we used to say in the Army and the Air Force. It affects the whole community, from the oldest to the youngest. You cannot buy equipment. It does not cost any less in Iowa and the rural areas than somewhere else. It is a very serious matter, and it needs attention. So I hope that this will be accepted, that we will instruct to go and make sure that reimbursement rate is taken care of, and some equity, fairness, will take place. It is unfair discrimination, pure and simple, against States like mine, which rank last in the Nation in reimbursement, and many other areas throughout the Nation. I find out down in Texas, there are areas out there that are as bad as we are. Yet overall, as we put all the numbers together, we go to the bottom, a rate that is less than half what the top rate is in the Nation. Something is awry. Something is wrong. We pay the same, but we cannot have the same. Wait a minute, this is the United States of America. If we all pay the same, why do we not have the same treatment? That is not going on, and here is a chance to make that right. So I am very hopeful, I am very hopeful, that we will not pass up this opportunity. We get to the underlying bill, the prescription drug side, that is another argument, and it affects everybody across the country. It does not affect just those of us getting a very bad shake on the reimbursement rate for Medicare. It affects everybody. I think we will keep that out in front of us for some time. I do not think that is going to go away. But this might be the chance, this might be the chance for some parity, some equity, an opportunity to have some fairness when it comes to Medicare reimbursement. I hope that those that have the last say on this when it comes back to us to either vote it up or vote it down will take this very, very seriously and try to treat all Americans alike. We need fairness. We pay the same, we ought to have the same result. It is a national program; it is not just for individual areas. It is kind of interesting, I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), talking to you and realizing out in some of the rural areas in Texas, and I am sure it is the same in parts of your district as well, that, no, it is not so. But, anyway, it certainly is in some of the rural areas, and Texas is Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is time for fairness. We are all Americans. We are 50 States, and we are not getting treated the same. Iowa would like to be treated as everybody else. We do not want anything extra. Just treat us the same. We stand up and pay the same; we ought to be treated the same.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues probably know, many of them, I am president of the prayer breakfast in the House of Representatives, meeting every Thursday morning at 8 o'clock when we are here. With the announcement of tomorrow, the question has come up from several about tomorrow and the fact that it is Remembrance Day, a very important day. We will, repeat, we will continue with the regularly scheduled breakfast, as a number of Members are going to be here. It will be the regular time, 8 o'clock, in the Members' dining room here in the Capitol building. Tomorrow at 8 o'clock, the prayer breakfast will proceed.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his hard work. He is truly a leader, and he treats us with fairness, and he has the best interests of our Nation in his heart, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I appreciate that very much. I would associate myself with some of the remarks that the previous speaker just made concerning having some faith. We are two-thirds of the way there, and I think we have reason to believe we will get there. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2417. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, working with the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who I appreciate very much his hard work and efforts, we have observed firsthand the dedication and the professionalism of the men and women on the frontline collecting intelligence around the globe. Through their sacrifices and their heroic efforts, they have helped make our Nation more secure and have contributed greatly to our military success in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am pleased that this bill provides the tools essential to intelligence collectors to meet operational goals; in particular, those related to military operations, combating terrorism, and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. My colleagues will also appreciate that in H.R. 2417, it also requires the Director of Central Intelligence to report back to the committee on lessons learned from the war in Iraq. Careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our technical systems and processes will allow both the executive branch and Congress to make better resource allocation decisions in the future. H.R. 2417 also stresses the need for improved strategic and all- source intelligence analysis, both key to U.S. policymaker understanding of the capabilities and the intentions of rogue nations and individuals posing threats to U.S. interests. The bill further authorizes additional billets for analysts, as we all know we have to have people to do jobs, and additional funds for information technology upgrades to help analysts more efficiently do their job. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I trust my colleagues will support it.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for putting this before us. I think its time is overdue, and I think it is reasonable that he would have a pilot project. I just have to think back on my own life experience, and I will not tell you about that today, in starting in a country home, way out in the country. But I go to schools a lot, and I particularly want to talk to the young folk in regard to their futures and education and what it means to them. And I often tell them my story and, again, I will not tell you tonight, but what it can do for equal opportunity. It is the road to success. So I think that it would be very good if I can go to my African American schools, which I will, to my Hispanic community, to my Asian- Americans and all the others and say to them, this opportunity is happening and you too can be an effective person if you will get your education and come forth, and we will have a pilot project to show that; but you can come forth, and you can be in the high-level place to make sure our country is secure as the others have done before you. So I encourage you to do this, and I am really glad that you have done this. It is a reasonable request that is needed. It ought to be done, and I am glad to hear the responses that we are hearing here tonight. I congratulate the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, I with many others in our Congress have served halfway around the world in a place called Southeast Asia. Sometimes we wondered how long it would take to get the equipment to us. It would take up to a month, but it always arrived. It always got there. Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us in this Chamber would agree that we must ensure the government operates efficiently and in a timely manner. However, a situation has come to my attention that I find very troubling. Three months ago, the FCC adopted its Triennial Review order. I believe the economic implications of this action will be of great benefit throughout our Nation. However, the FCC has had 3 months to issue rules on this action and has done nothing. Meanwhile the companies are held hostage because, quite frankly, their hands are tied. Mr. Speaker, how is it possible the United States can ship a large piece of military equipment halfway around the world in a shorter period of time than it takes the FCC to send its rules up a flight of stairs? I am here today urging the FCC to complete its work and bring some certainty to the telecommunications industry so that our Nation can move forward and our economy can once again begin to grow.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to come and stand before my colleagues this evening, and regardless of how we got here, I think the time has come that we ought to stand together for the troops, and so I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this to the floor. I have to reflect on some things, as many of us have done, veterans here, as many of us are, and the lack of support for the two times I went to Vietnam. I was reflecting on that this last Monday when I went to three different communities to activate troops, went off from Fort Riley and will go to the Middle East. I looked at the faces of the men and women and the uniform, and I realized how much I appreciated when that gymnasium in these three different towns, three different locations, that was packed to the walls, the support of the families and the community was so meaningful and so special and so appreciated. So I support the resolution, and I encourage Members to support it, to support our men and women in uniform. God bless America.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, an educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from Central Academy from Des Moines will represent the State of Iowa in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for the students to become active, responsible citizens. The class from Central Academy is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend, feel better. I have tremendous respect for him, and he knows that and I think he does for me. But as I reflect on the time it takes for the efforts gone forth, and I want to commend, as the rest of my colleagues have, our chairman and ranking member for their efforts and the efforts of the staff, but as I have observed the time necessary to go into this kind of depth, I think the blue ribbon commission is very necessary to get the answers that we ought to be able to get. So we reflect on the joint committee and the ability of Members, all the other things that demand our time and so on. I think it becomes pretty clear that we need this extra assistance to give the country and to give those families the information that they need, and they will not be satisfied with anything less. So I tonight rise in appreciation to support this conference report because its time has come, and the people in this country ought to know that this committee under this leadership, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), have done everything that they can possibly do to protect our country to be sure that one of their principles of safety, principles of war and principles of safety, is to have good reliable intelligence and to be timely and to be accurate. So I am very happy to support this conference report. I think it supports the global efforts to counterterrorism and other threats to international security, and the conference report, like the House bill passed in July, reflects a commitment of this committee to invest in the people of the intelligence community and intelligence disciplines across the board, especially human intelligence. The conference reports includes the provisions on language training and proficiency maintenance found in the House bill. The conference report unfortunately delays the effective date of the provisions found in the House bill, setting forth a new authorization for the innovative language training program known as the National Flagship Initiative under the National Security Education Program, NSEP. Although disappointing, it should be noted that both the House and Senate have endorsed the National Flagship Initiative and the conference report includes a provision to ensure that the delay does not affect the ongoing NSEP pilot to fund programs to develop competency at the superior level in languages critical to national security. Over the last few months, the House and Senate intelligence committees have made significant progress in the joint investigation they have been conducting into the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11. The inquiry, however, has focused on U.S. intelligence agencies and must soon conclude its work. So I support the establishment of the independent commission. I have been disappointed in how long it has taken for the agreement to be reached on whether a commission would be established and how it would be structured, but we are there. While the final language on the commission may not be satisfactory to everyone, I believe it is important that a commission with a broad mandate and independent authorities be established by statute. I will follow with great interest its work, especially with respect to its investigation beyond the topics addressed by the joint inquiry. I urge the support of this report.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for yielding me this time, and the chairman of our committee. We have had an interesting several months together and not all fun; but it is a very, very serious thing. I would like to start off my comments by saying that this Member, although I am a veteran, as many are here, I am not a hawk, I am not a dove. I am a concerned American who wants our country and our people to be safe. I have had some of those sleepless nights. I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I think of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the price he paid. I think of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and many others who have served and know something as well as I what it is like to face war. It is not a good thing. I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have tried to prepare myself with knowledge and information, and some things I am convinced of and I would share with you today. I am convinced that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. I am convinced that he has the chemical and biological and he wants very badly to have the nuclear; and given a chance, he will have them. I am convinced that he would use them. He is a despot. No question about it in my mind. But he would not only use them, I think he would make them available to others if they came to buy or he would even give them to them. So I am very concerned about this, and I have had my sleepless nights. It almost reminds me of some of the times going into a major operation when I was in Vietnam. It was pretty hard to sleep when we knew that lives would be lost that next day and we might have to write the letters to the next of kin, the moms, the dads and the husbands, the spouses about how their son paid the supreme sacrifice that day. I served 20 years, served a couple of tours over in NATO. I know something about the international relationship that needs to be there as we go into this world that we live in today. It is a very, very serious matter, and I have no quarrel with those that have spoken just as the last speaker. I respect that. But I am concerned about the tomorrow for my children and my grandchildren. I know that when I went to Vietnam, I settled my family there in a little farm there in southern Iowa the night before I was to leave. My little daughter, who now has a teen-age child, came out to the yard where my wife and I were sitting and having kind of a quiet moment as the sun was going on. She said, Daddy don't go. So I said, Sweetheart, I'm a soldier. I have to go. She said, Please don't go. I am afraid. Think about this, your own child: I am afraid you may not come back. So I tried to give her assurance as I had the first time I had gone that I would come back. Lucky for me, I did; but everybody did not come back. So I understand that this is one of the most serious things we deal with. I had the occasion to get invited over to the White House 2 weeks ago tomorrow with several of my colleagues. Some of my colleagues might be listening. And I was one of the four or five that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a few were there and others to have dialogue with the President. And I said to the President I think that he is right, that the U.N. ought to lead on this. That is their charter and their responsibility. But they might not. If he really believes hard facts that Saddam has had his finger on the trigger or he may have, we have to deal with this, but let us have the American people behind this. I will give a contrast. When we sent our troops off to Desert Storm, the communities were behind the troops when they left, when they were there, and they brought them back. By contrast I said, Mr. President, I went to Vietnam twice. The American people were not behind us. It was pretty tough to go and give everything we had to fulfill the commitment that we were given, the mission to give all we had and not have the American people behind us. And they were not. And I said, Mr. President, remember how we left Vietnam? We were thrown out. I remember the scene, people falling off the helicopters trying to get out of the embassy. But what did we bring back? We brought back 56,000 body bags, and some of us have put people in those body bags and carried them back to the collection point. But the American people were not with us. So if he commits our troops, have good cause, have his facts straight and tell the American people. He has been doing that. I think there has been a constant stream, Mr. Speaker, going over to the White House to talk about this; and I think that his speech and the other things he has done, his trip to the United Nations, he is making the efforts to do what is right, and I hope he is being straightforward and honest about it. I accept his statement that he said to us, to me, ``The last thing I want to do is to send our troops into harm's way.'' I am accepting that and I am also saying to the President that it is up to him in his position as leader, President, Commander in Chief, that he keep the American people informed that they understand and that they know that this country is doing this because we want to preserve it safely for our future, for our children, my grandchildren, my teen- age grandchild. Cindy who was so worried about her dad going, of course, is concerned about her son and others across this country. If he is the person we think he is, then we have to be ready to tell him do not do it or the consequences will be severe, and that is what has brought me from this point today from undecided and walking the floor to say that I will support this resolution. It is a hard decision, but it is one we have to make. And I am proud to have served with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), as I see him on the floor now, and the others I have mentioned. But our country is a precious thing, and we have to save it for the future; and this is our moment to deal with this now.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his hard work. Today I can support this bill with enthusiasm. I was very sorry the last time we discussed it I could not, and I want to thank the conference committee for their hard work. It kind of signals a win to me for a concern that I have had for my State of Iowa in the area of Medicare reimbursements rates. In May the Committee on Rules made an exception and put into this supplemental bill what I thought was an unfair fix for rates for a selected few and leave out many. I appreciate this. It has actually drawn attention to this ploy and helped to shed additional light on the discriminatory formulas and the adverse consequences for seniors, hospitals and health care professionals across Iowa and other similarly situated areas. Although our health care professionals are doing a great job with less, the fact remains, as we see here, and I will show you a chart one more time in a moment, that there are places in the country where Medicare patients are getting eyeglasses and they are getting prescriptions. In fact, it is a double of what we were getting in Iowa, the amount. It is a whole lot more than what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was getting as well. They are below the average as well, and I know the gentleman knows that. This is something we have been working on. Let us do something about this. I think that perhaps we are making some progress, and I hope so. On the Medicare reimbursement relief of last month, a few days ago there was attention given and an additional $120 million for Iowa over 3 years, and that is a big help, but we have a ways to go. So I want you to again look at this chart, and it will show you very clearly that there is a great disparity across this country, and the citizens pay the same taxes for the same service. They pay the same. Look here. There are some States, mine, but others are receiving less than half of what the top is. Is that fair for Americans? I do not think so. I do not think there is one of you here that would feel this way. So I do support this bill today and I appreciate it for the whole country. I hope that our seniors are considered of equal importance, and I think they are. I thank the gentleman again for this time, and I do support the bill, and I support the fact that we have been talking about there now. Let us talk about it some more.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise very enthusiastically supportive of what is going on here today. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), of the full committee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for moving the ball forward today. I think our country will be safer. I would just like to kind of make a general statement. I will try to be short. I appreciate what is going on here today. I, like many others in this body, am a current commercial pilot, and I suppose that by being so I am a little more critical at times of those that man the cockpits of the airplane and just kind of look them over without even thinking about it too much. I submit that the people that fly our airliners, and I want to emphasize the airliners, that carry many, many what people in the business call SOBs, we call them ``souls on board,'' we are concerned about their safety. That has been in the vernacular for a long time, ``souls on board.'' How many souls are on board? You know, there may be 100, there may be 200, there may be 300, and it is an important thing, their safety. The pilots come on in a briefing and they will tell you their main purpose is a safe arrival at the destination. So they are high-quality people, very high-quality people we can have a lot of confidence in. So I think this is appropriate, to do what we are doing. If it were left up to me, I would have probably gone to a little higher percentage and so on. I think we are moving forward, and I think the public will be safer as we arm the pilots. Last Monday, flying out here, how many times I have reflected on it, as I sat there in the airliner and looked at that door, and I know it can be reinforced and will be in due time, but it is still not going to be attached to a piece of reinforced steel. It will be attached to a bulkhead of aluminum, and I suppose some enterprising terrorist can figure out how to get through that, even though it is reinforced. If for some reason a terrorist did manage to get into the cockpit and we had not armed him, I think we would feel a lot of remorse if an F-16 pulled alongside and we had not done everything we could have in the last-resort possibility. That last-resort possibility is to arm the pilots. There are two of them on board. Each of them, either one, can land that airplane safely, if required to do so. So I think we are doing the right thing. It is unfortunate that we live in a time after September 11 that we even have to consider this, but we live in that time. Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment and I support the underlying bill. I just hope we can move it forward today. Those listening, wherever you might be here on Capitol Hill, support this bill. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have followed this debate closely today and last night, and the preparations leading into it. I have noted the reference to years past. Those years past, I was not here. Since when did 2 wrongs ever make a right? So there are some things we acknowledge, but let us move on. I have some things I want to share. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) prompted me to think about a couple of things. First, I want to tell the Members that I am a veteran, as many of the Members are; not all of them. But I am a veteran. I have had the opportunity to face the enemy, as some of the other Members have. I am nobody special. I know that. But do not tell me or us that have served that we do not support the war on terrorism because of this bill. Give us a clean vote on that war on terrorism and we will vote for it in a heartbeat. Let us get real. Let me tell the Members one of the things that was brought to my attention when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) ran out of time. On this subject, some of my colleagues from my State certainly share my concern, and across the country. In this bill there is a provision, I am told, regarding Medicare payments to certain hospitals. What on earth does that have to do with the war on terrorism? As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was pointing out, there are several items in there. That one really caught my attention because in this country we have a situation of great disparity in Medicare payments to our citizens. We all get charged the same, we get taxed the same, but we do not get paid the same. That is really ironic. It is going on. I have carried this question to the previous administration. I carried a copy of this chart and the bill that I am sponsoring, and others are involved in, to try to get some fairness. I have handed it to this President in his office, but nothing happens. Then we come along and see that certain areas are getting a little extra favor in this bill called war on terrorism. I do not understand how this can possibly be. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if that is the right thing to do, we might open this up and I could suggest some other places across the country, some of my hospitals and doctors and caregivers, that would like to have a little fairness in the Medicare reimbursement rates. It runs all the way from $3,000 per capita in my State, up to the State at the top it is over $7,000; and the median for our country is almost $500. But we all pay the same. We all pay the same. Now, why are not we addressing this? Thirty-five States are below the line of the average; 15 are above. I congratulate those that are above, but what about our folks in the other States? And if you do not know where your State falls, you might want to come and see me and take a look and I will show you the chart. It is for real. What does that have to do in all seriousness with a vote in the war on terrorism? So I am going to ask all of you to do not use that remark. It is very offensive to those of us would have served, that this is a vote on the war on terrorism. If you again want to limit this vote to that subject, count on me. I will be the first one to drop my card in. But there have been a number of things added to it that have nothing to do with that. It is not right. It is not fair, and it is not the way I have been told historically this House should operate. And I certainly do not want to defend what has happened in the past. Today is today. We are responsible. We are responsible for what is happening today. Let us do it right. We have the opportunity to do it. Now, Memorial Day weekend is coming up. In my family it is a pretty special thing. People travel a long ways to consider those who have gone before us. It is very special. But I have sent word to my family that I likely will not be there because we are going to be doing this. And it is unfair and it is important, and I may have to stay and stay and stay. I am prepared to do that. This week's action behind closed doors by the House Leadership and Rules Committee is the most cynical of political dealings. Many of us have been working diligently to bring Medicare Equity to our seniors and allow our health care professionals to provide quality care. Our constituents pay the same Medicare taxes as any other citizens. Yet, we are penalized with unfair Medicare reimbursement rates. Our dedicated doctors, nurses and hospitals continually struggle to provide the quality care they always have. Each day the inequity is not corrected, this task becomes more difficult. Now, we see the House Leadership and the Rules Committee, apparently well aware of this discrimination, but unwilling to address it, have found a way to collect a few extra votes by fixing the problem for a few selected areas. If it is important enough to fix for a few, isn't it important enough to fix it for all our seniors. In a context outside of this chamber, these cynical tactics might just be considered a bribe. I am hopeful this is more than just a cynical political ploy and is just the first signal from the leadership that treating all seniors, all doctors, all nurses equally will be a priority from now on. Our seniors deserve fairness, not fixes for a chosen few.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, as for the comments made about not knowing what is in the bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) came to me about 4 weeks ago. The Senate passed it 3 weeks ago. We know what is in the bill. Let us not say that. My two Senators voted for it. Come to think of it, so did every one of yours here. They voted for it. 100 percent. Let us pass this bill, let us get something to the President and let us get on about the business of providing security. I do not care if you go to Omaha, if you go to Kansas City, if you go to Des Moines, you go to Chicago, places I have been, the American people want security and they are saying do it, do it now, let us not delay any longer. Federalize it. Let us have confidence. Let us get the job done. Let us have standardization and do the job right. Support the Oberstar-Ganske amendment, please.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to whoever is listening that it is my observation in my few months on this committee that we have outstanding leadership with our chairman and ranking member, and I really appreciate it, and I hope all America does. In my former life as a teacher at the command general staff college at the Department of Tactics, I want to assure you that I am aware and I want you to be aware that intelligence is something you have to have. You have to have reliable information before you act. And I want to tell you this, that I have made also the observation that we have dedicated and professional men and women who work in this community. Nevertheless, the horrendous attacks acts of September 11 require us to think hard about how U.S. intelligence is gathered, analyzed and disseminated so that we are sure intelligence is providing the very best first line of defense for our country. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I believe we need better global coverage, allowing us to collect more human intelligence in more places worldwide. As we all are now too well aware, we face terrorist networks with global reach. We are forced into a serious situation regarding our security. We must ourselves place overt and covert collectors in every corner of the world to fight back and utilize well the assistance of our international allies. In addition, for our HUMINT collectors to be effective, their language skills and foreign area expertise overall must be improved and maintained. Career paths for specialists must be fostered. This bill provides the resources and encourages the efforts in the intelligence community to increase the number of front-line field officers and improve their skills. Furthermore, we have to get smarter at using effectively, across the agencies of the Federal Government, all available information that bears on terrorism. Different agencies of the government have different roles to play, and no one agency can do the job alone. Currently, our capacity to collect information outstrips our ability to exploit what we have. Furthermore, we have not always given proper weight to the most predictive sources of information. The analytic effort in the fight against terrorism must be an all-inclusive effort, with sufficient numbers of analysts deployed where they are needed to make a difference. The Congress may soon vote to authorize new methods and procedures for sharing information. This is all well and good, but the agencies now expected to share information must have state-of-the-art information technology tools and the personnel they need to process, analyze and disseminate critical intelligence to make new authorizations effective. I urge your support of this bill.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I will be very brief. As I said earlier, I am a newcomer to the committee, but the chairman is doing a great job, and he has good help from our ranking member, and all of us. We had this discussion not too long ago, and I understood that the chairman was supportive of this at that moment, and I think that he is. There is some difference here. I remember one of our Members, and I do not think he would mind, I certainly respect him as a close personal friend and ally, a colleague from the chairman's side of the aisle, that said we do not need this, we can do it. And he was right. We could do it. We could, with extra pieces there. Between the chairman and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) there, I have no doubt we could do it. But that is not the question. Something terrible has happened in our country. This is America, and the people of the country want to know. So I do not feel threatened that we would do this. I do not have a problem with doing it the chairman's way. I think that would be fine. And then as I listen to the discussion and debate in committee and in here today, to do the amendment of our ranking member, I am not troubled with that. I have the confidence in our country and our people, in this institution, that we can do that. America wants answers and we can do this. This opens up an independent review appointed by the President and the leaders of these two Houses. It is not a threat. We can do it. This is the United States of America, a democracy, the leading democracy in our history. Let us do it. Let us just get it done. I support the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).