Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, can the gentleman clarify that the budget resolution will accommodate at least $300 million of the $4.3 billion for improvements to the buildings and facilities at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, an amount that was authorized in the bioterrorism bill passed by the House and the Senate last year?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his clarification of this matter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a short colloquy with the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. It is my desire to clarify where the increase in the money authorized for health-related spending will go. I would like to stress the importance of providing funding for the Center for Disease Control buildings and facilities in respect to winning the war on terrorism.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. One of today's most serious potential threats to our national security is bioterrorism. The CDC is a major and integral part of the homeland defense because of its ability to identify, classify, and recommend courses of action in dealing with biological and chemical threats. In addition to working in asbestos-laden facilities, many highly trained scientists perform their research in facilities that lack safety features, such as sprinkler systems and adequate electrical and air flow systems, and, as a result, limits the agency's ability to recruit and retain the world-class scientists. The multiyear master plan, put together by the CDC for adding to and replacing infrastructure at its Atlanta location, has received wide bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. Addressing the deficiencies will greatly benefit all Americans. It will enhance CDC's ability to respond to emergencies as well as provide the desperately needed facilities required for day-to-day public health and research activities. Last year, we provided $250 million for upgrading out-of-date equipment and restore dilapidated facilities at CDC. The CDC needs an additional $300 million to provide the 4th year of construction funding for a new infectious disease laboratory, which will include greatly needed bio-safety level-four hot labs, construction of a new environmental toxicology lab, and greatly needed security updates. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2003 calls for $223.5 billion in health-related spending, which is a $22.8 billion increase from the $200.7 billion in fiscal year 2002. It is my understanding that fiscal year 2003 total spending for HHS's bioterrorism efforts would rise to $4.3 billion, an increase of $1.3 billion above the 2002 level. These funding levels will support critical homeland security initiatives. This includes funding for improvement to buildings and facilities at CDC. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman clarify that the increase in health funding would include improvements and modernization of facilities at CDC?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today is National Peanut Butter Day--a time to celebrate one of America's favorite foods. National Peanut Butter Day is part of the month long celebration of National Peanut Month. It offers a time to recognize the nutritional and economic values of peanuts. The state of Georgia ranks number one in the nation in peanut production growing peanuts in 79 countries and 45 percent of all peanuts grown in the United States. The industry has been a mainstay in south Georgia's economy for over 60 years and continues to benefit our local economy. The eighth congressional district of Georgia is second largest producer of peanuts in the nation. Not only are peanuts an important part of our economy, but they offer nutritional benefits by providing essential vitamins and minerals. They are an excellent source of the B vitamin folic acid, which can prevent birth defects and lower the risk of heart disease. One serving of peanuts provides protein, vitamin E, niacin, folate, phosphorus, and magnesium, which can help lower blood pressure and decrease the risk of diabetes in women. National Peanut Month and Peanut Butter Day provides us the opportunity to recognize the benefits of peanuts as well as the hard work of all the people in the peanut industry. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will join me today in recognizing National Peanut Butter Day and National Peanut Month.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, people across America, across Georgia are losing their jobs in very alarming numbers. This is a very critical time for our economy; it is very fragile. It is time this Congress act to help the people of this country. The terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people would like nothing better than also to destroy the American economy. Small businesses and individuals in Georgia, as well as the rest of the country are facing difficult financial situations. The actual loss of jobs or the threat of a loss of jobs is hitting all of us: our families, our neighbors, and our friends. It is time for Congress to respond. We need an economic stimulus package that is going to lower the tax burden that is impeding our economic growth and create the incentives to bring people back to work. The people who are losing their jobs in Georgia do not want partisan bickering from their representatives up here in Washington--they want results back home. We need to put people back to work and get our economy back on its feet. Families are hurting, unemployment is rising, and people need help. The American people deserve action on an economic stimulus package now. It is time to put partisanship aside and work together to turn our economy around. It has been almost two months since my colleagues and I passed the Economic Security and Recovery Act. The House of Representatives worked as quickly as possible to provide our constituents with the complete, comprehensive, and broad-based economic assistance. Since then, the bill has languished; even though stimulating the economy remains one of the highest priorities for Americans, second only to our Nation's fight against terrorism. This economic package is a major step to regaining a healthy Georgia economy. Each of the components will help stimulate different areas of the economy and promote economic growth and jobs. Our economy has weathered turbulence in the past during times of war and peace times, but a sound, reasoned economic growth package, such as the one we debate today, will significantly help to put America on the right track back to prosperity.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me the time, and I particularly thank him for his strong leadership, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for bringing this bill to the floor in such great fashion and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of my committee, for all who have worked in a very bipartisan way to ensure that we are improving our intelligence community. And to the staff, they have been under such great pressure. The staff on both sides of the aisle have worked close together to ensure that we are going to win this battle against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 2883. Yesterday, America paused to remember the terrorist acts that shook our Nation and the many acts of heroism and courage that followed. In the intervening 3 months, America has been fighting back and we are winning. As the President has said on numerous occasions, this is a war that will extend far beyond the conventional battlefield in Afghanistan; and it is a war that will take years, not days, weeks or months. It is a war that will be fought on American soil and on the soil of our friends and enemies alike. It will be fought in the electronic air waves and the bazaars of the Mideast and north Africa, on the streets of London, Paris, Rome and Bangkok, right across the globe. Conventional weapons will not be enough to safeguard our public from the long-term threat from terrorism. Smart bombs and Special Forces can only be used against targets that have first been identified as posing a threat. Intelligence is the weapon most capable of identifying terrorists, their plans and intentions, operating methods, whereabouts and targets of terrorist attack. When 9-11 happened, the world changed but the threat from the terrorists stayed the same. What changed most of all was the recognition that intelligence is critical to our Nation's defense against terror. In fact, a whole new constituency for intelligence has arisen from the ashes of 9-11, and this constituency was far too long in coming. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I am here to tell the American people that the Intelligence Authorization Act lays the groundwork for fixing many of the problems that have plagued our intelligence professionals. We have sought to address systemic problems within the intelligence community and to begin to correct some of the funding deficiencies of years past that have crippled our ability to achieve true global coverage in intelligence collection and analysis. This conference report provides the resources and direction necessary to overhaul the intelligence community language training programs and to begin to build a workforce that can operate effectively in the languages and environments used by terrorists. In addition, the report addresses in a more decisive fashion than ever before the chronic shortfall in language exploitation capabilities across the community. The 9-11 attacks also highlighted shortcomings in the way in which information is shared and analyzed. This conference report provides significant new funding to establish additional joint terrorism task forces across the country, and it enables accelerated construction of analytic capability in the law enforcement, military and intelligence spheres that will aid in untangling the complex of webs of terrorist financing, support, movement, training, and operations, both through enhanced resources and cooperation. This analytic capability, as a result of the report under consideration, will be applied more rigorously and in a more focused manner to raw threat reporting on terrorism matters. Such analysis, coupled with direction that the intelligence community establish a reasonable threshold for disseminating raw threat reporting, should vastly improve our ability to make sense of the many scraps of intelligence, real and fabricated, that are collected on a daily basis on terrorist threat activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report and ask that it proceed.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in support of the underlying bill, but I do so only after a couple of concerns that I have had with respect to our trade policy in this country have been addressed. Those two concerns are trade issues dealing with agriculture and trade issues dealing with the textile industry. American agriculture and the American textile industry have been the whipping boys of previous trade agreements. We have been in difficult times in agriculture all across this country, but I am very satisfied with the language that has been put into this bill with respect to American agriculture and how our farmers are going to be treated. That language says that the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture are going to be direct participants in the discussions about issues relating to agriculture with respect to future trade agreements under this Trade Promotion Authority. That is the first step in the right direction that we have seen for American agriculture when it comes to trade in decades. With respect to the textile industry, again, we have seen jobs moved to the south, jobs that cannot be replaced in the American workplace. We have never had the issue of textiles addressed in our trade agreements in a positive manner, but yesterday at a meeting at the White House, the President made a personal commitment that he is going to be sure that the textile industry does get fair treatment in any negotiated agreements from a trade perspective under this authority that he is asking for. That is all we can ask. If we do not have that, if we do not have that, where is the American textile industry going today? It is going to continue to go south, and we do not need that to happen. We have had thousands of jobs in my great State lost, particularly in my district, that have been lost over the last 7 to 10 years in the textile industry. We cannot afford any more of that. The way we ensure that does not continue to happen is that we have positive trade agreements and provisions in those trade agreements that are positive with respect to textiles and agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule and I urge support of the underlying bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. We worked hard to make sure that the taxpayers' money is protected and that we have taken care of the victims of terrorism. The Terrorism Risk Protection Act is essential to America's economic security. Right now, we have a problem: small insurers can be overwhelmed by the cost of a terrorist attack; a major of insurance contracts will expire at the end of the year, destabilizing our economy if nothing is done; and currently, insurers have no incentive to ``write in'' terrorism coverage in their policies. As Members of both parties have repeatedly pointed out, this bill protects every sector of the economy--every noninsurance worker and employer--by providing a temporary legislative backstop that will make it possible for American companies to gain the insurance they need to continue operating in the post-September 11 environment where threats of terrorism still exist. The Terrorism Risk Protection Act is a very pro-taxpayer, pro- consumer proposal, which provides significant benefits to both commercial industry and policyholders, while requiring relatively little regulation. By passing the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, today we greatly increase the capacity of insurers to offer terrorism coverage; we protect small and large policyholders insurers, while retaining incentives for risk management and efficient claims processing. However, I do have reservations on expanding the scope of the punitive damages ban beyond simply the use of government funds by attaching tort reform language to this legislation. Instead of limiting punitive damages we should ensure that the wrongdoer bear the financial burden, not an insurance company or the taxpayer. I am concerned that the inclusion of punitive damage language would limit victims' rights by protecting companies that fail to implement appropriate safety measures or do not act responsibly in the face of credible threats. My preference would have been to pass a bill without attaching the tort reform measure. We have worked hard over the past few days and weeks to avoid the possibility of any economic disruption that could result from a lack of available, affordable terrorism insurance. Today, I am proud to say that we have worked to help provide commercial insurance for terrorism and strengthen our economy by passing the Terrorism Risk Protection Act.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and my classmate the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for organizing this special order tonight and for getting us together to have an opportunity to talk about some real heroes in American history, some heroes that are the most recent heroes of American history. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have had the opportunity to take my subcommittee to New York City to visit Ground Zero. We were there about 2 weeks after September 11. Not only were we there to recognize and somewhat memorialize the individuals who lost their lives on September 11, but we were also there to recognize another set of heroes, those heroes who had been working for 2 weeks at that time and who have been working since that time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to dig into the rubble of the World Trade Center and the rubble of the other buildings around the World Trade Center to restore New York City once again to its prominence. It was a very emotional experience for me, because as a former firefighter with the city of Thomasville, Georgia, I have had some experience in fire fighting but nothing in any wise to compare with the experience that the brave and courageous firefighters of the New York City Fire Department faced on September 11. But as I was there a couple of weeks after September 11, I had the occasion to visit with a number of firefighters, not just from New York City but volunteers who came from other parts of New York and other parts of the Northeast to assist those brave firefighters in New York City in going through that rubble. It was a very touching and very heartwarming experience to visit with those individual men and women about their experiences concerning their rescue efforts and the ongoing investigation as well as the removing of the rubble from the World Trade Center. In addition to that, I am very pleased tonight to not only recognize those brave individuals who lost their lives and have been involved in that rescue and recovery effort but also particularly to rise tonight and to honor an individual from my district, Army Major Wallace Cole Hogan, Jr. who died on September 11, 2001, at the Pentagon here in Washington, D.C., after the plane struck the Pentagon. Major Hogan grew up in Macon, Georgia, and graduated from Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Georgia. Shortly after graduation, he joined the Army National Guard as a rifle and mortar platoon leader. Major Hogan was truly born to serve. His time with the National Guard included service with the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne; commander of the Colorado Army National Guard, 20th Special Forces Group Airborne; and Alabama Army National Guard as a detachment commander. On April 4, 1993, Major Hogan accepted an Army active duty appointment with the grade of captain. He fought in the Persian Gulf War with the 1st Special Forces Group Airborne, Fort Lewis, Washington, as a battalion operations officer and detachment commander. He also served as the commander, Special Forces Instructor Detachment, U.S. Army Jungle Operations Training Battalion, Fort Sherman, Panama, and was a member of the Green Berets. Major Hogan arrived at the Pentagon and joined the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans in June of 1999. His work at the Pentagon included special operations staff officer in the Directorate of Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization and executive officer for the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. A committed serviceman, Major Hogan dedicated his entire professional life to the United States Army. Major Hogan was married to Air Force Major Pat Hogan who still resides in Alexandria, Virginia. His parents are dear friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Wallace C. Hogan, Sr. of Macon, Georgia. In a lifetime of service that spanned half the globe, Major Hogan served from Hawaii to Panama before coming to work at the Pentagon. His outstanding accomplishments have not gone unnoticed as evidenced by the numerous decorations and awards earned during his period of service. These recognitions include: The Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters; Army Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster; Army Achievement Medal with five oak leaf clusters; Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters; Armed Forces Reserve Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Special Forces Tab; Ranger Tab; Scuba Diver Badge; Senior Parachutist Badge; and Pathfinder Badge. Major Hogan and all other individuals who were at the Pentagon that day are real heroes. They are heroes not just because they were there serving their country but they were there doing their duty. They were there making sure that those of us who survived them continue to live under that great flag of freedom and democracy that all of us have been privileged to live under. It is my privilege and my pleasure to rise tonight to salute, to commemorate and to memorialize Wallace Cole Hogan, Jr. who served his country well.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Major Wallace Cole Hogan, Jr. for serving our country in the United States Army. Major Hogan was truly born to serve. Major Hogan grew up in Macon, Georgia, and attended Valdosta State University. After graduation, he joined the Georgia Army National Guard as a Rifle and Mortar Platoon Leader. His time with the National Guard included the Commander of the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne, Colorado Army National Guard, Detachment Commander of the 20th Special Forces Group Airborne, Alabama Army National Guard. On April 4, 1993, Major Hogan accepted an Army active duty appointment as a Captain. He was a member of the Green Berets and fought in the Persian Gulf War with the 1st Special Forces Group Airborne as a Battalion Operations officer and Detachment Commander. He also served as the Commander, Special Forces Instructor Detachment, U.S. Army Jungle Operations Training Battalion, Fort Sherman, Panama. Major Hogan joined the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans in June 1999. His work at the Pentagon included Special Operations Staff Officer in the Directorate of Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization and Executive Officer for the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. A committed serviceman, Major Hogan dedicated his entire professional life to the United States Army and serving his country. On September 11, terrorists claimed the lives of our friends, family and loved ones from all over this nation and the world. Major Cole Hogan was one of these loved ones. His parents are from Macon and happen to be personal friends of mine. My wife and I have two children and I can't imagine any greater pain than that which floods one's heart upon the death of a child. My prayers are with the Hogans during their most difficult time of grief. In our mourning, we can't help but question how such a heinous act could come to fruition on American soil. But in a time where questions are many and words are few, I want to offer my most sincere condolences to the family of Major Hogan; his wife, Air Force Major Pat Hogan of Alexandria, VA and his parents, Jane and Wallace Hogan of Macon, Georgia. In a lifetime of service that spanned half the globe, Major Hogan served from Hawaii to Panama before coming to work at the Pentagon. His outstanding accomplishments have not gone unnoticed as evident by the numerous decorations and awards earned during his service. These recognitions include: the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Army Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, Army Achievement Medal with five oak leaf clusters, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Special Forces Tab, Ranger Tab, Scuba Diver Badge, Senior Parachutist Badge, and Pathfinder Badge. I think we have a lot to learn from Americans like Cole Hogan. His dedication and patriotism are unwavering and a standard we all should strive to emulate. Cole Hogan will be missed, as will so many others. These lives will not be forgotten. We must honor them by living on as they lived. The lives stolen by terrorists so easily could've been our own. We owe it to the fallen to press on and take hold of all that our forefathers fought for and dreamed we would live to enjoy. As a nation, Americans have always shown strength through adversity. I commend Major Hogan for his service and I thank his family for raising a man whose heart was to give his all for his country. His presence will be missed and his legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Major Wallace Cole Hogan, Jr. for serving our country in the United States Army. Major Hogan grew up in Macon, Georgia, and attended Valdosta State University. After graduation, he joined the Georgia Army National Guard as a Rifle and Mortar Platoon Leader. Major Hogan was truly born to serve. His time with the National Guard included the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne, Commander of the Colorado Army National Guard, 20th Special Forces Group Airborne, and Alabama Army National Guard as a Detachment Commander. On April 4, 1993 Major Hogan accepted in Army active duty appointment in the grade of Captain. He was a member of the Green Berets and fought in the Persian Gulf War with the 1st Special Forces Group Airborne as a Battalion Operations officer and Detachment Commander. He also served as the Commander, Special Forces Instructor Detachment, U.S. Army Jungle Operations Training Battalion, Fort Sherman, Panama. Ultimately, Major Hogan arrived at the Pentagon and joined the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans in June 1999. His work at the Pentagon included Special Operations Staff Officer in the Directorate of Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization and Executive Officer for the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. A committed serviceman, Major Hogan dedicated his entire professional life to the United States Army. On September 11, terrorists claimed the lives of our friends, family and loved ones from all over this nation and the world. Major Cole Hogan was one of these loved ones. His parents are from Macon and happen to be personal friends of mine. My wife and I have two children and I can't imagine any greater pain than that which floods ones heart upon the death of a child. My prayers are with the Hogans during their most difficult time of grief. In our mourning, we can't help but question how such a heinous act could come to fruition on American soil. But in a time where questions are many and words are few, I want to offer my most sincere condolences to the family of Major Hogan; his wife, Air Force Major Pat Hogan of Alexandria, VA and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Wallace C. Hogan, Sr. of Macon, GA. In a lifetime of service that spanned half the globe, Major Hogan served from Hawaii to Panama before coming to work at the Pentagon. His outstanding accomplishments have not gone unnoticed as evident by the numerous decorations and awards earned during his service. These recognitions include: The Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Army Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, Army Achievement Medal with five oak leaf clusters, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Special Forces Tab, Ranger Tab, Scuba Diver Badge, Senior Parachutist Badge, and Pathfinder Badge. I think we have a lot to learn from Americans like Major Cole Hogan. His dedication and patriotism are unwavering and a standard we all should strive to emulate. Major Hogan will be missed, as will so many others. These lives will not be forgotten. We must honor them by living on as they lived. The lives stolen by terrorists so easily could've been our own. We owe it to the fallen to press on and take hold of all that our forefathers fought for and dreamed we would live to enjoy. As a nation, Americans have always shown strength through adversity. I commend Major Hogan for his service and I thank his family for raising up a man whose heart was to give his all for his country. His presence will be misdeed and his legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment and somewhat reluctantly in support of the chairman's amendment. I was one of those folk within the committee and markup who voted against this provision. I did so for a couple of reasons. We get elected to Congress not just to make the easy decisions. The easy decisions anybody can make. We are elected to Congress to make the very toughest decisions that are put forth to any Americans, and this situation that we are dealing with now, the instance of September 11, is going to involve some very tough decisions being made by Members of Congress. We do not need to shirk that responsibility. By creating a commission, I think we are shirking that responsibility and putting it on somebody else. I think that is wrong. We have had a number of commissions who have done great work on the issue of terrorism over the last 6 or 8 years. All of those commissions have made a number of recommendations to Congress. Frankly, Congress has looked at them with a very jaundiced eye until September 11. We can create another commission if we want to. I suspect they will come forward with some recommendations, and once again, we will do what we think is right, irrespective of what that commission concludes. Secondly and probably most importantly, the incident on September 11 was a very tragic and terrible incident, one of the worst, obviously, that we have ever seen domestically in this country. But as I read the paper this morning, and those who work within the intelligence community know, the likelihood of another attack is very great. In fact, the words this morning of somebody in a leadership position said it is probably a 100 percent possibility it will occur. So if we are going to create a commission to study the incidents of September 11, how many more commissions are we going to create down the road to investigate subsequent incidents? I think it is wrong. I think we as Members of Congress, and particularly within the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, have the duty to be objective in our oversight responsibility, we have the duty to look at the deficiencies that took place in this situation that may or may not have allowed the September 11 incidents to occur, and we need to come forward and make the right, responsible decisions and not give that duty to somebody outside of this body. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment, even though I have great respect for the gentlewoman, and reluctantly I support the chairman who is the man, in this case. I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. I ask that his amendment be supported.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his work that he has done on this bill, and to our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). It has been a great bipartisan effort. I rise in support of H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. As chairman of the committee's new Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security, and as a former firefighter, I have had a particular interest in ensuring the swift passage of this critically important bill before us today. There is much in this bill that enhances our Nation's counterterrorism capabilities, and I will address some of these provisions in just a moment. In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the President came here and told us that America is at war. He mentioned the new battlefield we have now to navigate as a Nation. It is a battlefield that is not clearly defined and that will often be devoid of clear targets. It is a battlefield that stretches across the globe and involves a complex support network, false documents, illicit financial transactions, and fanatical individuals who are willing to commit suicide to further their twisted causes, whatever they may be. On this new battlefield, conventional weapons and conventional thinking will not be sufficient, nor will a fortress mentality ensure adequate protection for our citizens both here and abroad. We can better secure our embassies and our military bases, and we have been and should continue to do this. But as we saw on September 11, the terrorists will always search for and find that weak spot, that chink in our armor that makes us vulnerable; and in a free society, there will necessarily be weak spots. Therefore, we need to recognize what the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has recognized for some time, and that is that intelligence rules this battlefield like never before. Intelligence is the only way in which we will get at this problem. It is the only way in which we can discover the plans and intentions of the enemy, thwart his efforts to attack us, and locate him so that we can punish him swiftly and decisively when he manages to get through our defenses. H.R. 2883 addresses a number of key shortfalls in the capability of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to combat terrorism. The bill substantially increases investments for FBI counterterrorism capabilities. It increases funding for language training across the intelligence community. A lack of linguists with fluency in languages spoken by most terrorists has plagued the intelligence and law enforcement communities and must be addressed more decisively than ever before. H.R. 2883 also promotes a more focused analytical effort against the terrorist target. More and better threat analysis needs to be applied to all forms of threat reporting to give us the maximum chance for piecing together the puzzle that might help us to avert attacks such as occurred on September 11. This bill makes analysis a top priority. The capabilities of CIA's counterterrorism center, our first line of defense overseas, also have been significantly augmented by provisions contained in this bill. Our subcommittee, headed by myself and my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), has been working very hard, very diligently, not only on the September 11 incident but on other issues involving international terrorism and homeland security, and this bill gives us more flexibility. I urge support for 2883.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is a fair request and we are absolutely willing to work with the gentleman on doing that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think the requests are fair and I look forward to working with my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would just like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan. This particular amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan deals with a provision that I asked to be inserted in the bill and was inserted during the course of the markup in the Committee on Agriculture, and it did pass and is in the mark. The particular provision deals with direct operating loans made by the Farm Service Agency to farmers versus guaranteed operating loans that are made by the Farm Service Agency that are guaranteed by banks. The problem that I seek to address with this particular provision is that the default rate on loans, direct loans made by the Federal Government, is somewhere historically in the 10 to 12 to 14 percent range, whereas the default rate on guaranteed loans has historically been more in the range of 1 to 2 to 3 percent. Now, that is a lot of money that the Federal Government is losing because of the direct operating loans made by the bank. What we simply sought to do was to basically get the government out of the farm lending business and let the financial institutions make those loans. The gentleman, I understand, has agreed to modify his amendment, which I am willing to accept, because what we asked for in addition to the sunset was a study to be done by GAO on the guaranteed as well as the non-guaranteed loans. I am perfectly willing to do that, and we agreed to modify the sunset provision. But I wanted to explain exactly why we did ask for this provision. It is not directed to any particular group of farmers around the country or types of farmers around the country, but if we are losing money on these loans and the banks are not, we need to know what we are doing wrong. With that, I will refer back to the gentleman, on his amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) earlier to strike that sunset provision. We will proceed ahead with the studies that we had in there as another part of it. We will have hearings on it after the studies are done and we will see what is the best route to take.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I want to talk about two different aspects of this bill. First of all, times are tough out in agriculture country right now. I do not care what farmers are growing, what part of the country they are in. We are seeing tough times from the standpoint of the hazards that farmers have to deal with, whether it is weather, whether it is hurricanes or some combination of both; but the biggest problem that farmers have out there today is that we are seeing the lowest commodity prices we have seen across the spectrum in 30 years. It does not make any difference whether it is corn in the Midwest or peanuts or cotton in my part of the world, farming is a tough, tough business today. What the chairman and the ranking member did with this base farm bill is to come up with a proposal that actually provides a safety net for our farmers. The trigger is that if prices are high our farmers are not going to get government help; but if prices are low, they are going to get extended a helping hand from the Federal Government to help them out. And that is the way it ought to be. This bill takes about $2 billion a year out of the commodity side of this farm bill and puts it into conservation. Do we need to concentrate on conservation? Sure we do. But what does this base bill do? This base bill takes an additional $37 billion over the next 10 years and puts it into conservation programs. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the subcommittee, did an excellent job of putting more money into conservation; but the one thing that we never need to forget in this town is that the biggest environmentalists and the biggest conservationists in the world are our farmers. We do not make a living off the land. The farmer makes a living off the land, and they want to do everything they can to conserve and preserve their land. Now, I am a sportsman. I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), cochaired the Sportsmens' Caucus the last 2 years. I love to hunt and fish as much as anybody in the world. We are conservationists as hunters and fishermen, and we appreciate the outdoors. But what we need is more farmers producing more grains to feed the wildlife that we love to hunt, and we need more farmers protecting the fields and streams that we love to fish in. How do we do that? Do we do that by providing farm programs that pay people not to grow products, or do we do that by paying farmers who are having a tough time with commodity prices being what they are and encourage them to do a better job of being more efficient and growing more and better quality products so that we can enjoy the outdoors? Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is pretty simple. I encourage a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I understand that the chairman is willing to accept this amendment, and that being the case, obviously I go along with my chairman. But as the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over biotechnology, I really want to say to the gentleman that we have a program that has been in place since 1990. The program is working very, very well. I do not see any objections particularly to whether it is 1 percent or whether it is anything more or less than that. The problem I have with this amendment is that all of these grants are very competitive. Our research stations, our research universities need absolutely all the money that they can get to be able to do the research on biotechnology. If we do not do the research on it, the risk assessment is meaningless. We need the money allocated to research. The risk assessment is a much broader issue. It involves social issues as well as particular research issues. I really have a problem with taking money away from research itself and trying to allocate it to something else that involves a political and a social issue. While we are willing to look at this issue in conference and I understand the gentleman's concern about this, because I have a concern too. I do not think there is any question but that biotechnology is the future of agriculture. Our folks who are using GMO products today are producing better yields and higher quality products than we have ever seen in the history of agriculture. We need for folks around the world to accept those products, and we are going to continue to work to make sure that happens. But the way we do that I think is putting more money into research and not so much money into the political aspect of it. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, I have held a number of hearings on the safety of agricultural biotechnology to both human health and the environment. What I heard from the scientific community was that the risks of biotech plants are no different than the risks of similar plants developed using traditional methods, such as cross-breeding. This has been the conclusion of many reports on agricultural biotechnology by prestigious national and international scientific bodies. Moreover, Federal regulations require biotech companies bringing new plants to market to perform rigorous field testing to ensure that their products do not harm the environment. It should also be noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture gets barely enough research proposals to spend the money already available to the risk assessment program under current law. By increasing mandated funding to 10 percent, this amendment would cut into funding needed for research into new biotech plants that have tremendous potential benefits. Mandated funding at three percent might be accommodated. This Agricultural bill includes funding for research I promoted to sequence the genomes of plant pathogens, research that could lead to better, more environmentally-friendly ways to attack crop pests that cost farmers and taxpayers hundreds of million of dollars each year. Other research will produce plants that can grow in salty soil, clean up hazardous wastes, produce renewable fuels, and provide enhanced nutrition.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. They are now. That is my point.