Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip and a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) a distinguished member of the committee and our ``top gun.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is a bill that reforms the intelligence community of the United States. To be sure, this bill has provisions to improve our Nation's ability to prevent and prosecute terrorism, to improve border security, and to improve international security cooperation and coordination. But it is the specific focus of the intelligence reform that I wish to address. This bill, very specifically and very wisely, implements the intelligence reform recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and the House/Senate Joint Inquiry Report. H.R. 10, for example, creates a National Intelligence Director who has dramatically improved authorities and capabilities to manage and coordinate the disparate efforts of the various intelligence components and elements of the United States Government. It makes the National Intelligence Director truly the leader of the entire community, and it makes this person responsible for the coordinated efforts of the entire community. Some will say that H.R. 10 does not follow all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In constructing this bill, we critically reviewed the ramifications of one of their recommendations, declassifying the budget. We believe that the unintended negative consequences of such a move outweighed any possible benefits. Why, at a time of war, share any information that our enemies might find useful? I want to be clear to the American people. Structural changes and enhanced authorities cannot and will not ensure perfect knowledge about our enemies' plans and intentions. It is important to say that those who would do America harm are clever. They are very secretive. The asymmetric threats that they can both imagine and effect require us to be many fold better at defense than they need to be in offense. That said, I firmly believe the improvements provided in this bill will make significant improvements in the outcomes of our intelligence analysis, collection, and dissemination. Mr. Chairman, I, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, want to ensure the strongest, most empowered intelligence director possible. It is with that specific intent that we met with negotiators from the other affected committees of the House and crafted what I consider to be a very strong bill. H.R. 10 addresses five major improvements for the intelligence community. First and foremost, the bill creates an empowered National Intelligence Director who is the head of the intelligence community and who is the principal adviser to the President on all intelligence matters. Second, it provides this new director with enhanced management authorities to coordinate and manage all aspects of intelligence operations. These new authorities are, I believe, unprecedented and strike a careful balance between the equities of the National Intelligence Director and the heads of the departments that contain the elements of the intelligence community. Third, the National Intelligence Director is vested with the responsibility and authority to dramatically improve information- sharing of intelligence across the government. Fourth, the National Intelligence Director is made responsible for strengthening intelligence analysis across the community. And, finally, this bill creates a National counterterrorism Center. This center will be responsible for analyzing and integrating all intelligence pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism. Finally, I want to mention that this legislation also addresses several provisions for dramatically improving intelligence community training and education, particularly in the areas of foreign language expertise and analyst proficiency. Mr. Chairman, I would also be remiss if I did not turn to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and thank her for the intelligence reform legislation that she offered earlier this year. I hold in very high regard the bipartisan manner in which the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and her staff have worked with us on the intelligence provisions of H.R. 10 and look forward to working with her staff as we continue moving through this process, move through the process of a conference committee and bring a bill to the desk of the President. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is real reform of the intelligence community. It is far better and more well thought out than any other legislation we will address today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 10. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Jo Ann Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is our most basic and fundamental social institution. It is so central to the well-being of our society that, until recently, it was difficult to imagine that marriage itself would need explicit constitutional protection. However, recent court rulings and the actions of some local officials have forced the debate upon us. In an ongoing effort to redefine marriage for all of American society, the judgment of the American people is in danger of being overruled by a handful of activist judges. The Marriage Protection Amendment will protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman and ensure that the democratic process is followed on questions relating to this fundamental social institution. Some will question the need for a constitutional amendment, but let's be realistic. The U.S. Constitution will be changed whether the Marriage Protection Amendment is approved or not. Either activist judges will impose a new definition of marriage on the entire country, or the American people, through their elected representatives, will have the opportunity to determine what marriage will be. There is a broad consensus among the American people that marriage is uniquely and essentially the union of one man and one woman. Congress needs to act today and give voice to the majority of Americans who want traditional marriage protected. The record is clear. Whenever the American people have had the opportunity to vote directly on the issue, they have overwhelmingly voted in favor of traditional marriage. The state of marriage and the American family is a matter of crucial importance, and I trust the judgment of the American people on this matter. The future of marriage should be decided by the American people, not by activist courts. Vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Act, protect traditional marriage and ensure that the American people will have a say in the future of marriage.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, has admitted to removing highly classified terrorism documents from a secure room during preparations for the September 11 Commission hearings. According to reports, Mr. Berger knowingly, and this is an arrogant, total disregard of the law, knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified documents by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also removed several classified documents. Some of these documents were discarded by Mr. Berger and are still missing. The missing documents are highly classified reports on the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebrations. They included critical assessments of the U.S. response to terrorist threats, as well as identification of vulnerabilities at U.S. airports and seaports. Removing highly classified anti-terrorism information from a secure area is extremely dangerous, and misplacing such information is absolutely inexcusable. Mr. Berger has attributed his actions to sloppiness. A person in Mr. Berger's position does know better than to do something so irresponsible, and he should be well aware of the serious consequences. The Justice Department is currently conducting a criminal investigation. We should render Mr. Berger the benefit of the doubt, but these admitted actions have the potential of undermining U.S. national security and damaging the integrity of the September 11 Commission.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I think this is another critical point. Again, the information that we have to date is that this was not a single occurrence, but this was a pattern on a series of visits that he on multiple occasions inadvertently took documents. Again, that is what some of the press reports are indicating, which makes it even more suspect that by accident you took documents on a number of occasions. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. He, like myself, has been to Iraq a number of different times. And as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I just want to congratulate the gentleman on the tremendous work that the gentleman and his committee have done to demonstrate to our armed services, our men and women in uniform, that we stand with them, that we are providing them with all of the resources necessary to conduct this war effectively, and that our presence in Iraq is a testament to the courage that we witness from them each and every day. I was over there on Father's Day, really, just to go over there and to say thank you. We have 130,000 men and women over there who are giving up their time with their families, who are over there on Father's Day, they are over there on Christmas, they are over there on Easter, all of the important holidays for our families. It was really meaningful to be there and to have lunch and dinner with some of our troops. As we talked with them, we found out the effectiveness of the Committee on Armed Services. We found out that this is a little different type of a war than what we expected, a little bit different than an occupation. The gentleman and his committee have done just a tremendous job in altering the procurement process and the types of things that we are buying to get them what they need in Iraq to be successful and to be safe. I know that they appreciate all of the work that the gentleman and his committee have done. I know there are lots of other things. The gentleman may want to respond to some of the things that the gentleman's committee has done in terms of getting armored Humvees and these types of things to our troops, to enable them to be successful to go after these insurgents.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to put some of that in context of what our men and women are doing in Iraq as to the shameful event that was outlined yesterday here in the United States, last night. This war on terrorism has evolved through the 1990s. It was not brand-new on September 11, 2001. It started when the World Trade Centers were bombed the first time in the early 1990s, when the Khobar Towers in Saudi were attacked, when our embassies in Africa were attacked, when the USS Cole was attacked. We know that during much of the 1990s, the Clinton administration did not appear to take this war on terror very seriously. Mr. Speaker, it was not identified. What we found out last night was we may never know the decision- making process that the Clinton administration went through as it developed its policies. Because after 9/11, we have had a joint inquiry between the House and the Senate as to what happened, what went wrong, and what went right; and there has been talk about the failure in decision-making, both in the executive branch and in Congress, and in other areas. And we now have a 9/11 Commission report coming out. What we found out last night, what America learned last night, is that John Kerry's foreign policy adviser, Sandy Berger, who was the National Security Adviser to President Clinton, removed highly classified documents from a secure area; and these documents, we are not quite sure what they are anymore, because they are gone. But we do know that he went into a secure area, and the gentleman and I have gone into these rooms ourselves. you go in with maybe a couple of pieces of paper, a pen, they bring in the documents, you have the opportunity to review the documents, to read them, to study them, to take notes on them, to organize your thoughts. But when you leave that room, you leave all of the paper and you leave all of your notes in the room. Nothing comes out with you, because these are secret documents. Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser, last night revealed, and he has been under investigation by the FBI I guess now for over a year, last night publicly admitted that he inadvertently took documents from the National Archives that outlined Clinton administration decision- making policies, practices, whatever, in relationship at least to the millennium threat; he removed those documents inadvertently. We do not know exactly how many. We do not know what was in them. But he inadvertently removed them; and then, some time later, when he was home or in his office, he inadvertently destroyed these documents. I think some of the news media said, Berger said he deeply regretted the sloppiness involved. Well, to American citizens, to the folks that are involved in the 9/11 Commission, and to our troops who are fighting in Iraq, and for the troops that may be fighting sometime in the future, I am sorry, America deserves better than that. Our troops deserve better than that, and taking highly classified, secret documents out of a secure room inadvertently and then destroying them inadvertently means that the 9/11 Commission, this Congress, and others will probably never really know what we knew in the 1990s, what we could and maybe should have acted on in the 1990s, and how we could have improved this process so that it would not happen again. Critical documents were taken out and they were destroyed, and we have a National Security Adviser who was involved in this for years. He knows, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I know the rules going into that room. How is it characterized? I think the sloppiness is characterized as somebody stuffing papers into their coat and into their pants. Excuse me. This is a National Security Adviser with top secret documents who takes them out of there, and the only question that one can really ask is, because I believe that he probably knew that somewhere along the line someone would discover that these documents were missing; why was he willing to risk taking these documents out of this security facility and taking them home and destroying them? What was in those documents that he probably did not want the American people to see? I yield back to the chairman, because it is an unbelievable assertion from Sandy Berger that he inadvertently took documents. I mean, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I go into these rooms, do we walk in with a binder of our own notes and our own documents and then put the classified stuff next to it and kind of put it through each other and then walk out with a binder and say, oh, man, I just happened to take a few extra documents? Is that the process that we go through? I yield back to the chairman.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a second, I think we need to put this in context to the American people. He removed those documents as he was preparing his testimony for the 9/11 commission. It just does not feel right. The context of going into a secure room, reviewing documents, knowing that these documents are going to be scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission, and as the chairman said, word for word for word, and then perhaps stuffing them into his coat, into his pants and perhaps even into his socks as he is preparing that testimony, and the disappointing thing is, now the American people will probably never know what was in those documents. Those were original documents. They were not copies of documents, at least the evidence that we have or the information we have today said that those were original documents, they were not copies. There are not multiple versions of this available. He had the originals. And the other thing we have to know about Sandy Berger, very different than the current President in the way that he operates, Sandy Berger was the gatekeeper to the President, meaning that George Tenet, John Deutsch and the CIA and other folks who wanted to get to the President and brief the President had to go through Sandy Berger, and Sandy Berger was the gatekeeper. It is not like this President, who gets briefed by a wide variety of people on a pretty regular basis. Sandy Berger was the gatekeeper. He had all of the information. These were documents that he prepared. Most likely, these are documents that are now missing. We will never know what is in them. As those of us here on Capitol Hill are involved in the process of trying to improve the Intelligence Community, improve the intelligence capability and the analysis, we will never have the benefit of reviewing how these documents influence decision-making, and that will impair our ability to come up with the right recommendations to try to make sure or to minimize the possibility that a 9/11 will ever happen again. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Science for yielding me time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work on this legislation in bringing it to the floor today. It is absolutely critical that we pass this legislation and to provide some assistance back to our manufacturing sector. The administration in its report ``Manufacturing in America, A Comprehensive Strategy To Address the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers,'' highlighted the need for investment and innovation through enhanced partnerships for the transfer of technology and support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, the MEP program. The U.S. has an excellent research foundation from which to develop manufacturing technology, but this process and the people that do technology transfer, they need help. Manufacturing in America faces stiff challenges. The challenges today come from the nature of the competition. It is now a global economy. Competitors across the world are responding quicker, faster and more effectively to the needs of their customers. We need to help provide our manufacturers with the tools to compete. One of those tools is technology and innovation. The MEP program is that type of a program. In west Michigan, this has been a very, very successful program. In Michigan, the MEP program has worked with over 587 small and medium- sized manufacturing firms throughout the State. In their 13-year history, they have worked with 25 percent of all small and medium sized manufacturers in Michigan. This assistance increased and retained sales in amounts over $70 million in just 2002. This assistance also aided in the creation or retention of over 800 jobs that would not have otherwise occurred. I know this bill does not solve all of the issues or do everything that this Congress would like to do, specifically an amendment that was proposed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) which would have fully funded the Jobs for the 21 Century Initiative, a program initiated by the President. I look forward to working with my colleague to pass that legislation and do it through the Committee on Labor which has jurisdiction over that legislation.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This amendment raises serious constitutional issues which we should not deal with on this appropriations bill. This amendment has no limitations as to applying only to U.S. citizens or only applying to the global war on terrorism. It applies to any situation where the U.S. may be in conflict, and it would apply to anyone, not only U.S. citizens. Under the proposed amendment, the President would not be able to detain anyone who is in this country on a mission for al Qaeda or any organization or country that had chosen to attack the United States. He would not be able to detain that person for more than 30 days as an enemy combatant. Instead, he would have to release the citizen or that person or prosecute him criminally. That change in the law would deprive the Commander in Chief of one of the traditional tools used in warfare and one that is particularly critical in the struggle with a secretive enemy like the current war on terrorism, like al Qaeda, because of the extent to which the United States must rely on intelligence sources to ferret out al Qaeda plots. The reason that the executive may need the ability to detain a citizen as an enemy combatant is that proving a criminal case in court will often require compromising critical intelligence sources. As the Deputy Attorney General recently explained in discussing the Jose Padilla case, the one and only case of an American citizen seized as an enemy combatant in the United States, ``Had we tried to make a case against Jose Padilla through our criminal justice system,'' it would have ``jeopardized intelligence sources.'' And to be very clear, in this war jeopardizing the intelligence sources means putting American lives at risk. It is to avoid that very real threat to continued success of the war effort that criminal prosecutions may not always be a practical possibility for dealing with enemy combatants. This amendment, although well intentioned, and though perhaps raising some issues that need to be discussed, they should be discussed going through the committee process and should not be hastily put onto an appropriations bill as an amendment without going through a full debate. I urge my colleagues to be opposed to this amendment because of the severe limitations it will place on the executive branch, it will place on our ability to conduct not only a global war on terrorism, but any enemy combatants in the future.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am disappointed by some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the other side of the aisle today. The last speaker on the other side of the aisle referenced the unwillingness of the committee to accept an amendment. The problem is, there are other committees in this House that have jurisdiction. I have similar bills in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence accepted a significant portion of what the gentleman from New Jersey presented. We accepted it. The Committee on Education and the Workforce passed on jurisdiction, meaning that even though we have responsibility to review it, we respect the leadership of the chairman of the committee, we respected the work of the members of this committee, and we respected and realized how important it was to get that done. So we passed on it and we said, let the intelligence bill carry this forward. But when it comes to the little amendment, there is no thank you, no thank you to the Committee on Education and the Workforce for passing the majority of what this individual wanted and letting it go without jurisdiction. What I have learned out of this process is that perhaps the next time the gentleman from New Jersey proposes an amendment, we maybe accept the amendment with a realization that says the committee of jurisdiction also ought to have the process and also ought to have the opportunity to review. This chairman has led the committee graciously and effectively for a long period of time. Members on the other side of the aisle are talking about funding. When they had the opportunity to fund the intelligence community earlier this year, the majority of the minority said, No, we are not going to give the intelligence community the money that they need. Thankfully, the will of the House went in the other direction. What has happened in this process is a breakdown in bipartisanship. It has characterized this committee for as long as it has been on the Hill. I hope that as we move forward, as we move through conference we can come back to a bipartisan approach that the men and women in the field look to each and every day. They want to know that the people here in Washington and the people around the country support the effort. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States and one of the greatest leaders and statesmen of the 20th Century. America has long known that President Reagan was ill, but his death came as a shock to a country that continued to feel his presence. He touched millions of lives during his tenure as governor of California and two terms in America's highest office. Although long anticipated, his passing marks with finality the end of the Reagan era. President Reagan's commitment to freedom altered the course of modern history. He brought the United States through the end of the Cold War with strength and resolve, and he led the U.S. economy to heights once unimaginable through his sound domestic policies. He possessed a vision for America that reflected its devotion to individual liberty, that every person is born with the intrinsic right to achieve their dreams through their own labors and determination. He will forever be remembered as a champion of promoting peace and prosperity throughout the world with a strong faith at the core of his principles and values. He was a great man elected to take charge of a great country at a time when strong leadership was sorely needed. President Reagan's infectious optimism inspired many Americans to become involved in the political process, and his influence and vision will continue to live throughout the ages. My prayers and those of my family are with the family and hundreds of millions of friends of President Reagan, knowing that the Lord has preserved a very special place for him in heaven.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4411, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act, legislation which creates an informed and educated citizenry through strong and vibrant graduate education programs. As we enter the 21st Century, the need for advanced education is becoming increasingly critical to successfully maintaining America's place in a technologically advanced economy. Now, more than ever, U.S. citizens are obtaining graduate degrees to gain additional knowledge and expertise in their fields of study. Nearly 2 million students currently attend one of more than 1,800 graduate school programs throughout the country. And, this number is increasing. According to the Council of Graduate Schools, total graduate enrollment in the United States rose by 3 percent between 2000 and 2001, and it is expected to steadily rise in coming years. Graduate programs, while important for their role in higher education, also play an essential yet often overlooked role in K-12 education. It is graduate programs that train individuals to become faculty at institutions of higher education. They will in turn train the elementary and secondary teachers of tomorrow. H.R. 4411 is closely aligned with H.R. 3076, the Graduate Studies in Higher Education Act, which I authored and the House passed last fall. I have worked closely with Representative Burns in crafting the legislation before the House of Representatives. Today's bill presents the House with an important opportunity to support graduate education while drawing attention to the need for highly qualified elementary and secondary teachers. The Priorities for Graduate Studies Act strengthens the Title VII graduate programs contained within the Higher Education Act. H.R. 4411 reauthorizes the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program, the Jacob K. Javits Fellowship program and the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity program. It also recognizes new areas of national need and increases flexibility for students in these graduate programs. By placing a ``priority'' within the graduate programs in the subject areas of math, science, special education and teaching English to speakers of other languages, this bill will strengthen the academic quality not only at the graduate level, but also within American elementary and secondary schools. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Representative Burns' legislation, as together we can help make our country's already successful graduate education programs even better.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I want to again talk a little bit about the war that we are in. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Steve Cambone, gave a speech back in January that I think kind of describes the challenges that we face as a Nation. And as we talk about the progress that we make in Iraq, as we talk about the progress that we make in Afghanistan, we cannot lose context of the total situation that we face as a Nation. And here is how the Under Secretary described it: ``We are a Nation at war. We do not know how long it will last, but it is unlikely to be short. We cannot know where or against whom all of its battles will be fought. There are multiple fronts in this war, and there is no single theatre of operations. We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that battles and campaigns will both be conventional and unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles and campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be fought in secret where our victories will be known to only a few.'' Going on in his speech he says: ``We are facing a turbulent and volatile world populated by a number of highly adaptive state and nonstate actors. Some of these are weighing whether, to what extent, or how they might oppose the interests of the United States and its friends. Others such as the terrorist organizations responsible for attacks on the United States, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kenya, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places have committed themselves to war.'' I think this gives us some idea as to the full context of the threat that we face and the number of different places that we face that threat. He also goes on to say: ``It is impossible to predict with confidence what nation or entity will pose a threat in 5, 10, or 20 years to the United States or to our friends and allies.'' His speech goes on: ``But not everything that unfolds in the coming years should be a surprise.'' Here is what we can expect: ``We can expect that an adversary will continuously search for effective means to attack our people, our economy, military and political power, and the people in power of our friends and allies. We can also expect that an adversary will have access to a range of modern technologies and will be prepared to use them to magnify the destructiveness of their attacks, using truck bombs and improvised explosives, cyberintrusions to attack the computer systems upon which we rely, radio transmitters to jam our space assets, small laboratories to develop new and biological or genetically altered agents, and chemical and nuclear technology materials delivered by missile, plane, boat, or backpack to poison our environment and destroy human lives.'' Here is what candidate Bush said in 1999, perhaps better understanding that threat than the administration at that point: ``Now our President reminded his audience of an earlier time when a free people confronted what he called `rapid change and momentous choices.' That time was the 1930s. Nazi Germany was rearming, and the British Government was reluctant to take forceful steps to stave off war. To give voice to his own concerns, candidate Bush quoted Winston Churchill, who repeatedly called upon his countrymen to respond to the gathering storm.'' Here is what candidate Bush said and quoted from Winston Churchill: `` `The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close,' Churchill said. `In its place we are entering a period of consequences.' That period of consequences arrived not only for the military but for those who practiced intelligence just 2 years after the President's Citadel speech on September 11, 2001. Like our colleagues in the military forces, we will be judged by our successors on our response to this period of consequences. We face few substantial impediments to transforming intelligence. We are led by individuals at the Department of Defense and agencies who embrace the need for and who likewise are committed to this effort. Congress has provided the resources.'' What we see is a true response. ``There is an urgency to transform intelligence, defining and achieving operational goals.'' But what we will not see and what we have not seen from this President, what we perhaps saw during the 1990s and what the folks in Great Britain saw in the 1930s, what they saw and what we perhaps saw, the British Government, the U.S. Government in the 1990s was reluctant to take forceful steps to stave off war. Again: ``The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.'' That was the end of the quote from Winston Churchill. It was the end of an era where we had delays and baffling expediency. What this President has provided us is an era of leadership, strategically. There can be differences on the tactics. We have done things wrong. Mistakes have been made. It is always great in hindsight to identify a mistake, 20/20 vision, saying we should have done that 2 years ago or we should have done that 3 months ago, and we are second guessing our military commanders in the field, but what we do have is we have a clear sense of vision and commitment to move forward and to get this done. That is what this President has provided. Strategically we are headed in the right direction. Tactically we have got some work to do. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, we talk about are we better off. Think about it. It is 1995-1996. We have been attacked a few different times in a few different places around the globe. We know that the organization that is attacking us is a terrorist organization. It is not a nation state, so it does not have a defined boundary. It does not have buildings that you could go and occupy or you could declare war on. So, what is the response that we have in the intelligence community in 1995-1996? We may have talked about this the last time we had an opportunity to do a special order. It is the called the Deutch Doctrine. Deutch was the head of the CIA during that time. Are we better off? Well, the response to terrorist organizations, to the uncertainty in Iraq, Saddam was in there. A few years later he kicked out the UN inspectors and continued to flaunt the different resolutions that came out of the UN. What was the response in the intelligence community to what was a growing and emerging threat? It was the Deutch Doctrine, which says, well, if you are in the field in the CIA and you are thinking about recruiting spies, if they have any human rights violations or they have a criminal record, they really need to go through a special screening process. And, by the way, we do not really want to do business with those kinds of folks. So if you want a career-ending move, send us a bunch of folks that have questionable backgrounds and tell us you would like to recruit them to be spies. In effect, we closed down our human intelligence. We took a look at what was going on in Iraq prior to the war and what was going on there the last few years. We have excellent imagery from space. We can see buildings and we can see trucks and people moving around, but we do not know what is actually in the building. We can guess. We do not know exactly what is on the minds of the people. Are they stockpiling and producing weapons of mass destruction, or have they decided that they will put the facilities in place that once the UN is out? Do they think, we can produce the stuff in massive quantities in a very short period of time, a just-in-time inventory? We could not understand their strategy, because we went blind on the human intelligence side. We went worse than that. We went through a process in the CIA that scrubbed the folks that were working for the CIA. What does that mean? Not only were we not going to recruit any more of these folks, but we also said, let us go through and see if we have any kind of these people working for us, and, if we do have these people working for us, it is time to cut them off. My colleague and I, we know enough about al Qaeda, we know about the other kinds of terrorist organizations, we know enough about Saddam Hussein. The question is, what do you think the profile is? How many of the Eagle Scouts that we said we would only recruit to work for the CIA were in the tent with bin Laden or in one of the palaces with Saddam?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, one of the things we wanted to do tonight, we wanted to talk a little bit about the young men and women who are serving in Iraq. We have a list of many who have received the Distinguished Service Cross or the Bronze Star and those types of things. Maybe we will read some of those citations. But today in USA Today there was a story entitled ``A Marine sees what defeatists do not.'' This is a young man who is now serving his third deployment with the 1st Marine Division in the Middle East, Ben Connable. Here is one of the things he talked about when he first went in 1991. ``Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's ``flame trenches'' and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75 percent casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities. ``The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home. ``Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate. ``In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analysis of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we could not fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties. ``Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forwards. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory. ``But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.'' Then he talks about on March 30 he was reading a U.S. newspaper that was in one of the packages that he had received. The stories in the paper: ``Horror in Nassariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw. ``The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw,'' not taking a look at the total picture. He now says, ``As I write this, the supply lines are open, there is plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by America's willpower and military professionalism. ``War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I do not blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny. ``As a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it is tarred with.'' Think about it. This is what one of our soldiers said there. And I have heard this story over and over and over, if you talk to our troops when they are coming back, whether you are in your district or they are in the airport, and you go up to them and say, Thank you. Here is why they are, I think, overwhelmingly positive because this is what they see their mission as, and they know that when they are doing this mission, they are also doing a mission which protects you and I and our constituents. Here is how he described it: ``Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission no matter what brush it is tarred with. Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take counsel with their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries. Neither do we take heed.'' His closing two sentences are absolutely awesome. This is one of our young men who is over there with the Iraq people each and every day. He is not talking about in Iraq where the people, as we sometimes perceive in the media, where all the Iraqis and all the people of Islam, hate Americans. Here is what he says, and think about this; this is a soldier who is representing the troops that are putting their lives on the line each and every day. ``All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.'' And then I guess as any Marine would say, Here is how he closes. ``We will take care of the rest.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague. We have a long list of folks who have served heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my own district I have had two young men who were killed in Iraq, Steve Hewlett and Todd Robbins. Again, I want the folks in the district and in the country to recognize that, as was described in USA Today, the work that Steve and Todd were engaged in was protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships, a good mission no matter what brush it is tarred with and no matter how other people try to paint that picture. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, just as they are protecting people from terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places. As we eliminate terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, we also have to remember that the larger goal and objective of these terrorist organizations is not to terrorize the people of Iraq, not to terrorize the people of Afghanistan. They were already doing that. Their larger goal was to build a network to terrorize the rest of the world. We felt on September 11 that the terrorists that were based in Afghanistan attacked the United States. The people in Israel and other parts of the Middle East have felt it for years, as Saddam Hussein exported terrorism and paid bounties and cash bonuses to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. There is no doubt that these nations and the leadership in these countries were actively engaged in a global war on terrorism. For them, it was only a matter of time before they would have taken those resources and expanded that to continue to attack U.S. interests in the Middle East, in Europe and other parts of the world, but also to take that battle to the United States. When we talk about some of the other things that have happened in Iraq, Jim Hoffman, an individual from my district, served 8 or 9 months in Iraq, served as the Minister of Health; on April 1 the Ministry of Health was turned over to the Iraqis. Today, health care is not being provided by the coalition. Health care is now being provided by Iraqis. There is a Ministry of Education, teachers' salaries $120 a month; entry level salaries have gone from $5 a month to $66 a month. The Minister of Public Works and Municipalities established programs to rehabilitate 14 water treatment plants. The Ministry of Science and Technology has taken the lead in establishing the foundation for E-government in Iraq. The Ministry of Culture has revitalized the national symphony orchestra, begun clearing Iraq's library collection. The Ministry of Agriculture is rehabilitating Iraq's agriculture colleges to carry forward Iraq's long agricultural history of displacement and migration. The Ministry of Water Resources cleared over 17,000 kilometers of irrigation canals. So there is a tremendous amount of work, and as I talk to our troops that come back, one of the things that frustrates them is that the bad news is what is focused on here. Many of the troops that I talk to say they do not even watch the news anymore when they come home. They do not watch it when they are in Iraq because what they see on the news they say is not reflective of what they see while they are on the ground in Iraq. These are the kinds of things that are not talked about. I think my colleague and I, we are not denying that the bad things, they are happening, but again I think as Ben Conable pointed out in his article in USA Today, and this is a person that is there in his third tour, he says, the media is looking at Iraq through a straw, not giving the total picture.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there was an editorial today by William Safire in the New York Times, and it is kind of an interesting thing because what he talks about today, ``In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the `Four Noes' that have become the defeatists' platform.'' ``The first `no' is no stockpiles of WMD, used to justify the war, were found.'' He goes on to say what we may find is ``the successful concealment of WMD, as well as pre-war shipments thereof to Syria,'' I think what most likely happened is that Saddam moved away from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to putting in place plans ``for production and missile delivery,'' but that is my own conjecture, ``by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and Fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war.'' This is what Safire goes on to say. ``The present story line of `Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals' would then be replaced by `Saddam was shrewder than we thought.' '' ``Defeatism's second `no' is no connection was made between Saddam and al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor.'' Now we see, going on in the article that he wrote today, ``most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush 6 months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheading of a captive American. ``The third `no' is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves.'' He goes on to say, ``Iraqis know the difference. ``The fourth `no' is no Arab nature is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism. ``In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist supporters as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium. ``Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong?'' Safire goes on to say, he answers that question with, ``That's a fifth `no.' '' Once a defeatist always a defeatist. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be joined by my colleague from Georgia this evening. What we would like to do is to talk a little bit about the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan. We want to start off by providing an answer to some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who have been asking the question, In 2004, are we better off than we were 4 years ago? In many ways as we have talked about this issue, we need to recognize and put it in the context of September 11, 2001. For the first time, America has a real and serious response to the war on terrorism. During the 1990s, were we better off in the 1990s as we were attacked in the World Trade Centers in the early 1990s? As our embassies were attacked in Africa? As our barracks were attacked in Saudi Arabia? And as the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, but America did not respond? Was that a good position for us to be in? We found out the cost of neglecting the threat, the emerging threat of global terrorism on September 11. We found out what it would cost us not to have responded during the 1990s. As this threat emerged, an administration, perhaps even we in Congress, said, this is not a threat that needs a serious focus. We now have an administration, a President, and a Congress that were united in our response to September 11. We said we do face a real threat. We face a global war on terrorism. We face a global war on terrorism that had been emerging throughout the 1990s, but had never been responded to. Now is the time to respond because it is a real threat and it is a threat that we need to take seriously and it is a threat that we need to respond to by taking the war to the terrorists. The question may not be, Is America better off? We know that America is probably safer than what we were on September 11 or on September 12, 2001. We know that America is much safer than what we were before September 11. We also recognize that we may be safer, but we are still not safe. But there are other questions that can be asked: Are the Afghan people better off today than they were 4 years ago? Are the people of Iraq better off than they were 4 years ago? Are the people in Libya facing a brighter future because of the decisions that have been made over the last few months than they were 4 years ago? Tonight I do not claim that we have solved all of these problems or all of these issues. I think that we recognize that there is still a tremendous amount of work to do in each of these areas. But Afghanistan does have a new government. Afghanistan does have a new constitution. The Taliban is gone from power. They still exist in various forms of resistance. Al Qaeda no longer has a safe haven in Afghanistan to plan additional attacks against the United States and the rest of the free world. They are still planning those attacks, but the first thing that they have to plan each and every day is how they are going to get through that day. They no longer have the luxury of believing, and during the 1990s knowing, that America would not strike them, even though we knew where they were and we maybe had some idea of their overall intentions and that they had declared war on the United States that we would leave them alone. So Afghanistan is freer and better off than they were. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. As ugly as the abuses have been in the prisons by American troops, by a limited number of American troops, we cannot lose the perspective that probably over 300,000 Iraqis were driven to their graves through the brutality of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Libya is now in the process of disarming. A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. We tried to understand exactly why Qaddafi had made this switch in strategy, why from being on a list of terrorist states he had evolved to a position where now he was disclaiming any terrorist intent, working with the United States and working with the European Union to disarm, but not only to disarm from weapons of mass destruction but to disclose to the United States and others the capabilities that he had in his nuclear weapons program, which is a step forward, to also not only describe what his program was and to give us many of the materials but also to give us an understanding as to how he had acquired those materials and what was the network of suppliers that facilitated the development of his nuclear weapons program. As we better understand that network, we also get a clearer picture of what maybe exists today in Iran, what may exist in North Korea as they were on the market shopping for nuclear weapons programs. So are these three countries and the people in these countries better off? The 50 million people alone in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been liberated from terrorist regimes, are they better off than what they were 4 years ago? Are the people of Libya better off in the new course that their leader has embarked on? I think the answer is very, very clear. The answer is absolutely yes. Is America safer because of a change in regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq? I think the answer is clear. It is an absolute yes. Again I am not saying that the work is done. As we see in the media, as we get in our briefings each and every day, there is still a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. But we cannot forget the unity that this Nation had after September 11, a unity that said we need to stare terrorism in its face and we need to stare it down and we need to take the battle to the terrorists. That was the message that came from the White House. But that was also the message that was embraced by this Congress and supported by this Congress. What we need to recognize is that going to war and rebuilding or building representative government or new governments in each of these countries is not an easy process. We maybe had a quick major conflict, a McDonald's war, but when we get done with it, we recognize that building a new Iraq and a new Afghanistan is going to take a tremendous amount of time. And that is the process that we are embarking on today. But take a look at what has happened. It is progress. Afghanistan is free. Libya has disarmed. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Iraq is becoming a free country, making the heart of the Middle East more stable and, therefore, making America more secure. We are more secure because we now have a Department of Homeland Security. Is all the work in the Department of Homeland Security complete? Absolutely not. We do not create that type of an agency and give them that type of a mission and believe in 12 to 18 months that all of that work is going to be completed. But we now have a Department of Homeland Security that is focused on making sure that our airports are more secure, making sure that our ports are more secure, making sure that our local communities are more secure, because we are developing an infrastructure, a database that allows information-sharing across all levels of government so that we will be more prepared to identify the threats that we face and hopefully to respond to those threats in such a way that a threat never becomes a successful attack on America. All of our border activities have been consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security, a single agency, doing away with a multitude of different organizations that allowed in some cases the opportunities for some of the 9/11 hijackers to slip through our borders, to rent apartments, to find employment and to train in flight schools, only to have their visas approved by INS after they carried out the attacks on the Twin Towers. So we are facing the issues that have been identified and moving forward, moving forward in a very difficult process because America is still a free country. And that is exactly what we want to maintain. We want to maintain a free society, but we want to maintain a society that is free and safe. Those are the two paths that we are continuing to try to balance. I do not know if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has any comments. There are lots of things we want to talk about, but I think this is kind of set in context to answer that first question: Are we better off? Absolutely. We recognize the threat that this Nation faces. We are addressing that threat, and we are working and focusing on that real threat each and every day. We do not claim absolute security and safety, but we do now recognize the threat and continue to work to try to make sure that we will not have another terrorist attack in the United States. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to just close again by going back to the article that was written by Ben Connable from Ramadi, Iraq. Remember, this is his third deployment, and when we talk about the voices of defeatism, as Safire talks about it in the New York Times today, these guys hear that message. He says doubt had begun to creep back into the public debate. He sees and hears that now. He saw it when they were talking what about was going on in the Sunni triangle and what really is going on. He knows and admits that war is inherently ugly and dramatic, but here is again what he said. ``But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with. ``Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq,'' and I would say they are there because they know that by caring for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, they know that they are caring for the people of the United States, ``or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed.'' A simple request from Major Ben Connable is this. ``All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission. We'll take care of the rest.''