Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hoekstra for all of his work in this area. Mr. Chairman, there is no perfect bill that comes across this floor. And particularly in the area of intelligence, there is no perfect amount of information that tells us everything that we want to know. But rather than use this bill to send a message to the White House, I think that the committee generally has come together to try to fashion a bill that makes our country safer. It is not perfect, it does not do everything that I would like it to do, but the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle take their job very seriously, and realize how much is at stake, and have generally avoided the kinds of partisan rhetoric that we sometimes see. The chairman and ranking member have assigned the oversight subcommittee with strategic oversight. That means we are not to follow the headlines of the day, but the distinguished gentlemen from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and I have worked very well together, I think, to try to find those strategic issues, focusing on them. That really make a difference in the long run. As the chairman mentioned, one of our areas of focus is to make sure that this new DNI office gets started on the right foot; is not just another bureaucracy, but truly brings the intelligence community together so there is not the duplication, not the stovepipes, not the gaps that we have seen in the past. And it is important for folks to know that we did not just pass a bill, the intelligence reform bill, and walk away from it. We are engaged day after day in trying to work with the administration and with the agencies to make sure that it is a success. This bill includes a requirement for a strategic planning process that is a part of that effort to make it a success. In addition to that, the oversight subcommittee has focused on reducing unnecessary paperwork burdens, reports and studies that often require many manhours, many dollars to prepare, but then come to nothing, where no one up here reads them. Rather, we are trying to focus on information exchanges that matter, and particularly in the area of metrics, so that, for example, when we talk about Iran, we can quantify the quality differences, the quantity differences that come from sustained efforts in human and technical intelligence. I think this bill does help make the country safer, and I suggest that Members support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I support his amendment and share his concern about the destructive consequences of unauthorized disclosures or leaks. This was one of the strategic oversight areas which the chairman and ranking member assigned to the Oversight Subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress. We have held several hearings, including an open hearing, to discuss this problem. One of the results is that we have found that there are a limited number of tools that the agencies have to deal with those inside the agencies who choose to violate the law and disclose classified materials. One of the things that is in this bill is to request information from the Director of National Intelligence on other tools, administrative or contractual avenues perhaps, with which we can help encourage people to follow their oath and to obey the law. I think what is in the bill, as well as what is in the gentleman from Arizona's amendment, work very well together to convey the seriousness with which we take this problem. I applaud the gentleman's amendment and support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding his time and his handling of this rule. Actually, there were a number of statements made by my colleague from Massachusetts with which I fully agree. As a matter of fact, one of the challenges, I think, of bringing this bill to the floor is that we are all, in an age of terrorism, attempting to find the right place where we are effective against the terrorists who are trying to kill as many of us as possible, but also not lose sight of our Constitution and our freedoms and the fundamental nature of this society. One of the key elements in trying to get that right is a whole area of government activity which we cannot talk about, and which the Intelligence Committee is charged with overseeing and helping shape. And so every year, our challenge is to bring a bill that oversees and helps shape those activities to this floor in a very public forum. A number of the issues that we talk about have been reported extensively in various newspaper articles. And we know that some of it is right and some of it is wrong, and yet you can't come here and correct the factual misstatements and the improper impressions which people have. I think it is important to affirm two things. Number one is that there is much in this bill which is largely agreed upon. Now, the nature of coming to the floor with this kind of bill is that we are going to spend most of our time talking about differences, or at least making up differences to talk about, when they didn't exist maybe a week or two ago. But the central direction, and most of the provisions of this bill, for the people who have taken the time to go read it, are largely agreed upon by both sides of the aisle. The second thing that I think it is important to emphasize is that the members of the Intelligence Committee take their responsibilities very seriously. If you have any doubt about that, just listen again to the comments, for example, of the gentlewoman from New Mexico who was, one, standing up to insist upon a much greater role by this Congress in oversight of the terrorist surveillance program. That oversight is under way. As she said, it is very important for us to understand the details and the procedures and the process and the specifics of this program before we come to the floor and decide about how various laws ought to be changed in different ways. But that is just one example. There are many, many issues before the Intelligence Committee on which we attempt to exercise our oversight in a very serious and responsible way. We may not agree on all the details or where things ought to go, but this committee is not a rubber stamp for any administration, or any President, and at the same time we take very seriously the recommendations which were in the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction that our oversight needs to be strategic; not just following the headlines of the day hither and yon as reporters may write stories, but to follow strategic oversight in a way that makes this country safer. That is always going to be our goal. Of course, any rule which brings an intelligence authorization bill to the floor has got to be somewhat restrictive, because there is so much that we simply cannot talk about on the floor without damaging the country's security. I think this is a good rule. It frames debate on key issues. I think it should be supported as well as the bill.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Johnnie Vogt on the occasion of her 85th birthday. Johnnie Vogt was born Johnnie Campbell on April 21, 1921 in White Deer, Texas. She lived there until 1931 when her family moved to Canyon so that she along with her brothers and sisters could eventually go to college. Mrs. Vogt attended school at West Texas State Teachers College, now known as West Texas A&M University. Upon graduation, she moved to El Paso, Texas where she taught school before enlisting in the Army in 1943. Mrs. Vogt served in the Army from 1943 to 1945, receiving her basic training in Georgia. She was also stationed in Iowa and Illinois. While in Illinois, she was one of a group of eight trained to become physical therapy aides for the Army. She served in that capacity until her discharge from the Army. In 1946, Mrs. Vogt moved to Denver, Colorado and taught a basic course in finance at Lowry Air Force Base. When those courses were no longer being offered, she moved to San Bernardino, California in 1947 and taught school. Mrs. Vogt subsequently returned to Texas and settled in Amarillo where she ran a nursery from her home. Her love of children, coupled with her teaching experience, led to the directorship of the nursery and nursery school at Northwest Texas Hospital. Upon completion in 1956 of courses in special education, Mrs. Vogt brought her new specialty to the Amarillo Public School System. She then moved to Dalhart, Texas for a brief period of time where she taught English at the junior high school. In 1960, Mrs. Vogt returned to Amarillo, resuming her Special Ed teaching, first at Bowie Junior High School until 1970, then at Caprock High School until retiring in 1981. Her commitment to children and dedication as an educator were evident by the extent to which she worked with students and the community, teaching life skills, preparation for entering the workforce, and building relationships within the community to ensure job placement upon graduation. Mrs. Vogt has been active in her church, First Christian Church of Amarillo, teaching Sunday school to both adult singles and couples for over 20 years. She also sings with the Seniors Happy Timers and has been part of the bell choir. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vogt is blessed with a wonderful, loving family. Mrs. Vogt's husband, Leo, and her daughters, Trudi, Patti, Sandy, and Linda and their families are justifiably proud of her. Her daughter Trudi is one of the outstanding public servants who serve the House and the Nation in the Office of the Clerk. And I suspect she learned the importance of service from her mother. Whether it be in the military, in teaching, in her church and community service, or in looking after her family, Mrs. Vogt has served others. It is in stories like hers that America's greatness and goodness can be seen. I join her family in wishing her a very happy 85th birthday.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Childress Regional Medical Center, in Childress, Texas, on being named one of the top 100 hospitals in the nation by a healthcare information and analysis company. The ability to provide quality heath care in rural regions of our Nation continues to face numerous challenges. Today, citizens who live in rural areas often travel hours to receive medical care, and facilities often experience difficulties in attracting and keeping health care providers. For over 25 years Childress Regional Medical Center has served as a leading example of a full service rural health care facility. Its mission is to provide personalized, efficient, high quality healthcare services for all patients and their families and to serve as a center where physicians and qualified healthcare providers can practice under high technical standards in a productive, professional environment. Graded on clinical excellence, responsiveness to the community, operating efficiency and financial heath, Childress Regional Medical Center proves quality healthcare can be provided close to home for many in North Texas. I am glad that the work and dedication by the staff of Childress Regional Medical Center has been recognized, and I hope their example will continue to help bring quality medical care to rural communities like Childress.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlemen working on this. If I can emphasize one thing, it is hard for the pictures to convey the magnitude of this disaster. When you have more than 3.5 million acres that are devastated, 12,000 head of cattle, it is a disaster of enormous proportions, and I appreciate very much the willingness of the distinguished chairman and other Members to work to help mitigate the effects of this disaster when it is completed.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, all of us have images embedded in our mind about the devastation coming from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. We are finding out even today that hurricanes are not the only way that Mother Nature can cause destruction. In my district, wildfires are raging. It is estimated that, since Sunday, approximately 850,000 acres have been consumed by wildfires. It is estimated by the governor's office that, in the last 3 months or so, approximately 3.7 million acres in Texas have been burned by wildfires. For my colleagues' benefit, that is bigger than the size of Connecticut. Approximately 2 percent of the land mass in Texas has been burned in these fires just in the last 3 months. In the fires that are going on now, it is estimated that 10,000 to 12,000 head of cattle have been destroyed because of these fires. Obviously, this devastation is continuing. It is not possible in this bill to take action to have some sort of disaster relief, but I know all of my colleagues are concerned about disasters, whatever the cause may be. I am particularly grateful to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for his concern and consideration in looking at ways, as this bill moves forward, when perhaps we can look at ways to assist those who are devastated by what may well be the fires of the century.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this bill, but I do not support all of the provisions in it. I am especially concerned about the McCain language related to treatment of detainees in the War on Terrorism and about the consequences of that language on our ability to prevent attacks against Americans. A recent editorial in the December 14, 2005 issue of USA Today expresses my views very well, and I include it at this point in the Record: [From USA Today, Dec. 15, 2005] Misguided Morality (By Andrew C. McCarthy and Clifford D. May) No one favors torture. Torture is already illegal under both U.S. and international law. Nonetheless, the United States is fighting a war against ruthless enemies who obey no rules. We cannot afford to treat all of them with kid gloves all the time. On the battlefield, we can--and do--kill our enemies. Those we don't kill but only capture should be treated humanely, despite the fact that they do not return the favor when they seize Americans. But those who have information that could save lives must be interrogated effectively. That does not imply torture. It does imply measures that the McCain amendment would ban. Contrary to what you might have heard, ``ticking time- bomb'' scenarios are not uncommon. Consider the situation faced by Army Lt. Col. Allen West: Fighting near Tikrit, he captured a suspect who refused to divulge information about a planned ambush. West fired his revolver to frighten the suspect. The trick worked. The terrorist talked. American lives were saved. And West was accused of torture, charged with assault and drummed out of the military. Next time, will an officer in the same situation decide to let Americans be killed--believing that's what Americans back home demand? Even more common than the ticking time bomb is the scenario in which a ``high-value'' suspect is captured, for example a senior al-Qaeda commander who might not know about an imminent attack but who does have information on terrorist recruiting, training and communications. In this circumstance, torture is not only unneeded but also unhelpful. But the use of ``stress and duress'' techniques, including rewards for cooperation and punishments for defiance, can, over time, induce a subject to reveal what he knows. Good policy requires clarity and accountability. Though torture is to be avoided, vague terms such as ``cruel'' and ``degrading'' inevitably would be stretched to coddle terrorists unduly. Congress should instead set clear standards, consulting intelligence experts and medical professionals to flesh out which techniques should always be prohibited (for example, those likely to cause death or permanent disability), and which are permissible--and most likely to yield reliable lifesaving information. Accountability means not leaving serious judgments to junior personnel. Harsh interrogation methods, such as covert operations under current federal law, should require approval by a highranking administration official. Obviously, distinctions must be made between terrorist leaders and low-level operatives. Even so, those arguing that it is better to sacrifice the lives of U.S. troops--or even an American city--rather than cause a terrorist temporary discomfort are making a terrible mistake. They urge a self- destructive policy and a misguided morality.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a visionary leader, a dedicated naval officer, and a true gentleman. Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski passed away on November 12, 2005 after a lengthy illness and a lifetime of service to this Nation. Most recently, Vice Admiral Cebrowski served as the Director of the Office of Force Transformation in the U.S. Department of Defense. He was charged with helping transform the Nation's military capabilities from the post-Cold War Industrial Age to a more agile Information Age military force. But his legacy is much greater than just the leader of an office within the Pentagon. Admiral Cebrowski was, for many years, a driving force for change--an intellectual whose ideas mattered and found their way into the battlespace, the hands of the troops, and the nooks and crannies of the Pentagon. It was Vice Admiral Cebrowski who first introduced the idea of Network Centric Warfare, now a critical term of art in military strategy. It was Vice Admiral Cebrowski whose ideas on defense procurement are changing the types and quantities of ships the Navy buys and how the Department of Defense will buy satellites and services in the future. It was Vice Admiral Cebrowski who identified the need to move technology more quickly into the hands of the war fighter. He was able to push innovative equipment and tools to the troops for operational experimentation during the War on Terrorism. While intellectual honesty and vision were his trademark, he was also able to express those ideas in simple and understandable terms to others. As the Director of Force Transformation and as President of the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, he was able to share his vision to educate and shape a new generation of leaders. It was a vision based on combat experience in Vietnam and Desert Storm and as a commanding officer of fighter squadrons and ships. It is not often that a nation is blessed with a great military leader whose powerful ideas make lasting and important contributions to the future. Sometimes it is only through the passage of time and history that their greatness is recognized fully. After some decades, Rear Admiral William A. Moffett eventually became known as the father of naval aviation. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was recognized as the father of the nuclear Navy. I believe that Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski will become known as the father of a network centric military, and students of warfare and peacemaking will study his ideas and marvel at his contributions for decades to come.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we can meet some of the concerns expressed so far without adopting this amendment. Let us just back up for just a second. There is a lot of individual information somewhere in the country in little pieces. The challenge we have in the war on terrorism is looking around for those pieces that matter and trying to fit them together. That is really what data mining is. It is looking at various databases and coming up with the relevant pieces of information and helping us to form a picture about what really happens. There has been some misunderstanding and I think some undue controversy about that for we will never get all those pieces of information together without these tools that help us do so. To the extent this amendment adds additional reporting requirements and sends a message that we want to discourage them in various agencies from using those tools, I think, does a disservice. Maybe there are some protections that we can come up with that help address the concerns of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, but I think to simply add more reporting requirements and have these people filling out more paperwork when they really ought to be figuring out who the terrorists are and what they are up to is a misuse of their time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill. I also rise in appreciation for the work that the chairman and the ranking member have done in this bill and in fulfilling Congress' role vis-a-vis the intelligence agencies in general. Further, I appreciate my partner on the oversight subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and all that he means to this joint effort. Mr. Speaker, the members of this committee are serious, hardworking, knowledgeable, committed members. So much of what we do on the Intelligence Committee is done behind closed doors. That can be an advantage and a disadvantage. It is an advantage, in a sense, not to do work in front of the television cameras and without press releases and without all the partisanship that sometimes attends some of what we do in Congress. It can be a disadvantage because we cannot talk with our constituents or even many of our colleagues about what we do. The only reason to be on this committee is to contribute to the national security of the country, and I believe that all members on both sides of the aisle in fact do that. At the beginning of this Congress, the chairman and the ranking member decided to create an oversight subcommittee. It became clear from the report of the 9/11 Commission, from the Rob Silverman Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, in fact, a host of other studies and reports, some even before the attacks of September 11, 2001, that Congress has to do its job. It is not enough just to say that the executive branch needs to change the way it does its work in the post-Cold War world. We have to do our job as well, and we should expect more of ourselves. One of the things we have done differently is to create this oversight subcommittee to, as I mentioned a few moments ago, have greater depth but also greater persistence in our oversight of key intelligence issues. The rules of the full Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence give us our mandate this year, which include oversight of the intelligence reform bill that Congress passed last fall. It gives specific emphasis on items for oversight that include community- wide information-sharing, leaks of classified information, analysis and information-assuring technologies, as well as audits and investigation and tracking congressionally directed actions. That is our mandate and it is a full plate, but members on both sides of the aisle are going about that agenda working in not just a bipartisan but really nonpartisan way. And, in addition, I think Members on both sides agree with the Robb- Silberman panel when they suggest that we should have these oversight subcommittees, but we should not just hop around following newspaper articles and doing our efforts, that we ought to have strategic oversight. In fact, they say on page 338 of their commission report: ``We suggest that . . . the oversight committees limit their activities to 'strategic oversight,' meaning they would set an agenda at the start of the year or session of Congress, based on top priorities, such as information sharing, and stick to that agenda.'' That is exactly what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and I are attempting to do: to be tough but fair, to not be apologists for the administration but not to be bashers of the administration, to try to pursue the national security interests of the country as it relates to intelligence oversight. That is the way serious oversight is done, and I look forward to continuing to work from that perspective.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and commend him on the handling of this rule, but also in helping us put this whole issue into greater context. Because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to remind ourselves that this bill contains a number of things which try to help defend the country, try to help keep us all safer, try to prevent gross inhumane acts of slaughter by the terrorists, which we know they are intent upon committing. And so I think it is important as we focus down on some of these specific issues, and we should talk about them, to keep the larger context in mind. The gentleman from Florida has helped to do that. In a little bit, I want to talk in greater length about the oversight subcommittee, because I think it is important to say that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, at the beginning of this Congress, decided to create a special oversight subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee. And our charge is to focus at greater depth and with greater persistency on some of the key intelligence issues which we face. And we take that job very seriously. And I think we can do the job very seriously, in part because we usually do not do our job in front of the cameras. We do not do our job for partisanship. We do not come out on the floor, in press conferences or in other places, and try to bash the administration or to protect the administration. We try to be tough, but fair. And that is the way that real oversight, particularly in the area of national security, ought to be done, rather than posturing and other things that we have seen from time to time. The problem is the work you do in the Intelligence Committee cannot be talked about openly. And so there is very little one can say about the specifics. But just because we cannot come and detail all of our activities and some of what we found and what more we have to do, one should never take that to mean that there is not serious oversight and investigation ongoing, because there is. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that worldwide terrorism presents a number of challenges to us. It is absolutely true, as many of the speakers have said, that we must maintain our American values, and at the same time try to prevent acts of terrorism. Our problem is, when we just focus on one part of that equation, when we forget that the purpose here is to prevent acts of terrorism, then I think we become unbalanced, our rhetoric becomes more sensational, and unfortunately I think the American people do not benefit from such talk. I can only say that with my partner, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and other members of the subcommittee, with our bipartisan staff, we take our job very seriously. And we will pursue that investigation very seriously. And we will try to make sure that American values are maintained, and at the same time our troops, our homeland security folks, our policemen and others, have the information they need to keep us safe. We will keep both goals in mind.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, our nation includes many traditions and cultures which have influenced our history and our national character. In my area, none is stronger than ranching. Cowboy Roundup, USA, is an organization dedicated to preserving the Ranching Heritage of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle. It works to educate the public, ``in the spirit of our ranching ancestry and the lifestyle of the great American Cowboy.'' Each year at the Ranch Rodeo in Amarillo, Texas, which this organization sponsors, an individual is named as ``Rancher of the Year,'' to recognize a lifetime of accomplishment. This year's recipient is W.C. ``Jiggs'' Mann, from my home county, Donley County, Texas. In thinking about ranchers, the stereotype characters from movies, books, songs, and stories will come to mind for many people. But I think that they would be more impressed to meet the real thing. Jiggs Mann is the real thing. Jiggs began working on the JA ranch as a schoolboy during the summers of World War II. He rode with the chuck wagon all summer as it moved from pasture to pasture on Texas' second largest ranch, sleeping on the ground and eating by campfire. After returning from serving his country in Korea in 1953, Jiggs went to work at the JA again and served as foreman of the ranch from 1959 until 1969. He leased part of the ranch, running his own cattle, and now runs cattle on his own property in Donley County. More than his decades of experience with land and cattle, Jiggs Mann was honored because of his character and integrity and because he is a shining example of what a rancher is and should be. A rancher, like others who make their living off of the land, is a risk taker. His whole year's work can be wiped out by weather, disease, or a tumble in the market. A rancher is independent and does not look for--or feel entitled to-- a hand-out from government or anyone else, but he will drop whatever he is doing, even at considerable sacrifice, to help out a neighbor. He is honest and straight talking; he has no need to beat-around-the- bush. Mother Nature and the demands of making a living off the land do not allow it for one thing, but more importantly, he comes from a background where a man's word is still his honor. He tells it as he sees it. The strength of what he says is found not so much in the words used but in his integrity. He works hard--incredibly hard--from sun up until sun down and understands the value of a job well done, whether measured by the depth of his corner post or the number of hay bales stacked in the field. While some of the tools he uses have changed over the years, like steel post drivers or pick-ups with round bale haulers mounted on the back, others have not changed at all, like a good horse. He realizes that some things, however simple they may seem on the surface, will forever stand the test of time, and it is in those things that he puts his faith. A rancher has to respect nature and all of God's creation or he will not last long. From taking care of the land, which may have been in the family for generations, to helping a cow give birth, or nursing a new calf with a bottle, he understands the give and take that this life demands and the sacrifices necessary to maintain those things we cherish most, our families and our heritage. These are some of the qualities which this award recognizes. Jiggs Mann is not the only person I know with these qualities, but he is the ``best of the breed.'' It is appropriate to honor him, and through him, this important part of our national character.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who say that the Global War on Terrorism is actually a Global War of Ideas and that terrorism is one of the tactics used in that War. Military power, alone, will not win this War nor can it ensure our safety against those willing to destroy themselves as they murder as many Americans as possible. The Global War of Ideas must be waged on many fronts--military, diplomatic, economic. It must include intelligence activities abroad and homeland security efforts here at home. It must involve our allies and friends around the world. One critical aspect of this War involves what I believe can best be labeled as ``Strategic Communication.'' Strategic Communication is not marketing; it is not simplistic slogans; it is not simply looking for better ways to tell the world how good we are. Strategic Communication is deeper and more sophisticated than that. It is how we communicate with--and thus relate to--the rest of the world. It includes public diplomacy (how we communicate with people outside of the United States), public affairs (how we communicate with Americans and the media), international broadcasting, and various governmental information operations programs. It must, of course, utilize and take into account ever-evolving technologies. Any communication begins with listening and understanding, which is certainly where Strategic Communication must begin. We cannot conduct a poll or two and assume we know what the people think. We have to understand history, culture, traditions, values, and anxieties. Without that understanding, any attempt at communicating, much less influencing, will be futile. Our understanding must extend to networks of influence within societies and to the factors which influence human behavior. In addition to understanding attitudes and cultures, Strategic Communication involves engaging in a dialogue of ideas, advising policy makers of the implications of various decision choices, and developing and implementing communication strategies that can help shape attitudes and behaviors. It involves the work not only of the Department of State, but also the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and others. Needless to say, Strategic Communication is a massive job that directly affects the national security of the United States for generations to come. A number of studies since the 9/11 attacks--and some even prior--have emphasized the importance of Strategic Communications and have also found that the United States efforts have been quite deficient. One recent report, which I found particularly helpful, was issued by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, chaired by Mr. Vincent Vitto. The Defense Science Board report provides a context for the importance of Strategic Communications, and it offers a number of recommendations. Many of those recommendations require action by the Executive Branch, but some require Congressional action as well. The report's bottom line is that the U.S. needs a ``dramatically more disciplined, methodical, and strategic approach to global communications.'' In considering the many aspects of Strategic Communications, there are some things only government can do. But, government does not have all of the answers or all of the expertise needed to successfully wage this War. Those outside government have much to contribute. To be truly successful, there must be a cooperative partnership between government and the private sector. The bill I am introducing today, H.R. 1869, the ``Strategic Communication Act of 2005,'' will help provide a framework for that partnership. Implementing one of the recommendations of the Defense Science Board study, the bill creates a nonpartisan, non-profit Center for Strategic Communication to be at the intersection of government and private sector efforts in Strategic Communication. As a nongovernmental entity, the Center can take advantage of the experience and expertise of those outside of government who may be unwilling or unable to work within government but would like the opportunity to contribute. It would also allow greater flexibility than government regulations sometimes permit. While no one wants to duplicate essential governmental functions, the Defense Science Board's report suggests that a non-profit Center would have three primary purposes: 1. To provide information and analysis to civilian and military decision-makers; 2. to develop plans and programs to create and implement U.S. communication strategies; and 3. to support government strategic communications. Among the areas in which the Center can contribute are: polling and analysis, cultural influence analysis, media influences analysis, fostering cross cultural exchanges, sub-contracting to the commercial and academic sectors for a range of products and programs, mobilizing non-government initiatives, such as temporary communication teams, and continually monitoring and evaluating effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear that I understand, as did the Defense Science Board, that the War of Ideas is about much more than communications strategies. It is also about policies and actions, some of which are not popular in various regions of the world. The Defense Science Board report noted that policies and strategic communications cannot be separated. But effective communication is also an essential part of any effort to make the world a safer place. As the Defense Science Board noted, ``Strategic Communication is a vital component of U.S. national security. It is in crisis and must be transformed with a strength of purpose that matches our commitment to diplomacy, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.'' I believe that this proposal and the entire list of recommendations by the Defense Science Board can make a major contribution to this effort.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, many families have had to make incredibly difficult decisions regarding medical support for their loved ones. As technology continues to advance, there will be even more heart-wrenching decisions ahead, and any of us could be involved in one. The proper role of the federal government in such decisions is not self-evident to me. Certainly, we should not have Congress debate, case-by-case, what action is or is not appropriate for a particular patient. Government at some level may have a role to ensure that the patient is not the victim of a spouse or family members who find the patient's medical disability inconvenient. My view is that when in doubt, society should err on the side of life. I am concerned that in this case most Members of Congress have not had the opportunity for careful study and consideration of the issues raised. It has come before us late, when time is short and the consequences of various steps are unclear. Here, I will vote for the bill before us. My understanding is that the measure is narrowly drawn and will set no precedent. It essentially provides for another look at the unusual facts of this case without dictating a result. It is very distressing that anyone would look at these matters from a political viewpoint. Core beliefs about when life begins and ends are far too important for any such calculations. In fact, I hope each citizen will spend time thinking about how our country can best deal with such cases and praying that we get it right.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to submit for the Record a statement by the Churchill Centre commemorating the 40th anniversary of the death of Sir Winston Churchill. The Churchill Centre has members around the globe and a mission to ``foster leadership, statesmanship, vision and courage among democratic and freedom-loving peoples worldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.'' One of its recent activities, for example, was to help sponsor the widely acclaimed ``Churchill and the Great Republic'' exhibit that began at the Library of Congress last year and is now moving around the country. I have been a member of the Churchill Centre and its predecessors for nearly 20 years. I believe that each of us today, as well as the generations to come, can learn from and be inspired by the life of Sir Winston Churchill. I commend the statement and the work of this organization to all my colleagues. Remembering a Great Man 40 Years On January 24 marked the 40th anniversary of the passing of the great British statesman and war leader, and honorary U.S. citizen, Sir Winston S. Churchill. Believed by many to be the greatest individual of the past Century, and widely recognized as the single greatest obstacle to Nazi tyranny, Sir Winston died on this date in 1965 at the age of 90. In a career that spanned from the Victorian age to the Space age, Winston Spencer Churchill held almost every major government position in the British government; served in Parliament under every monarch from Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II; won the Nobel Prize for literature in recognition of a body of work that encompassed forty books and innumerable articles and speeches; and, was an accomplished artist, producing over 500 paintings in his lifetime. His official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, when asked to produce a one sentence description of Churchill, wrote: ``He was a great humanitarian who was himself distressed that the accidents of history gave him his greatest power at a time when everything had to be focused on defending the country from destruction, rather than achieving his goals of a fairer society.'' As the 20th Century drew to a close, The Churchill Centre, Washington, D.C., a broadly-based international organization of over 3,500 members that exists to foster leadership and boldness through the words, works, and deeds of Sir Winston Churchill, published in its journal, Finest Hour, statements issued by world leaders and the media supporting the designation of Winston Churchill as the ``Person of the Century''. Here are two of those statements: ``Churchill was the century's best example of how individuals can shape history rather than being shaped by it. The force of his will and his words gave courage to his country and saved the West. Yet it was also Churchill who, after World War II, discerned the dangers to come from communist tyranny. Just as he defined the moral issues of the 1930s and 1940s, he defined the great moral challenge up to our own time. Totalitarianism was the greatest evil of the 20th century, and Churchill its most able adversary.''-- Governor George W. Bush in Time, 22 November 1999. ``We can make sense of the future if we understand the lessons of the past. Winston Churchill, my first prime minister, said that `the further backward you look, the further forward you can see.' And it was this importance of history which was much in my mind when I opened the new Scottish Parliament in July this year.''--Her Majesty the Queen, Christmas Message, 25 December 1999. Why should the world remember a man who lived so long ago at a time seemingly so remote from the present? Quite simply, because the words, the deeds, and the works of Winston Churchill take on an aura of immortality that transcend years and generations and can provide guidance to the world today and into the future. Churchill was a defender of the family as it is traditionally understood. He believed that government should foster independence of spirit. He believed this requires that people own property, with little hindrance and light taxation, and remain responsible for their own well-being. Churchill believed Western Civilization is a force for good. He believed that the traditions of the English-Speaking Peoples, rightly understood, reflected truths of unchanging vitality and application to all persons and all times. He thought socialism and bureaucracy incompatible with human liberty and even with the survival of nations. He believed that certain codes of morality find sanction in a permanent law, not made by mankind. A violation of this law is, he believed, always wrong. Virtue, not creativity, was his touchstone. These principles will continue to require champions in this century. Churchill's motto, expressed as the ``moral'' of his acclaimed six-volume history of The Second World War, clearly expresses these ideals. In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will. Now, forty years after his passing, Winston Churchill is still quoted, read, revered, and referred to as much, if not more, than when he was alive. Let us, therefore, take a moment to reflect on a man who gave so much to the world during his lifetime, and who will be remembered and honored as long as a free world continues to exist and continues to honor its heroes.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 10.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 10, the Clerk be authorized to make technical changes and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier in the debate, I think understandably the debate here on the floor emphasizes differences we have with the underlying bill; but when you look at it, there is a lot of agreement in the general thrust of this bill and in the specific provisions. One of those specific provisions is one that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I have worked on to elevate the position of the Director of the National Cyber Division to an Assistant Secretary position in the Department of Homeland Security. The reason we think that is a good idea is so that cybersecurity as an issue does not get lost in the bureaucracy; secondly, so that you can attract the kind of person one needs to attract that has the trust of industry and academia to do the kind of work that needs to be done in that position. But also, thirdly, so you can be at a level to deal with other elements of the government at an appropriate level and have other folks and other Departments treat you and treat the issues you bring before them appropriately. Now, that is one provision. It has widespread support among the industry groups. We have worked with the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on Science, the Committee on the Judiciary to formulate this provision; and it has, as far as I know, complete support on both sides of the aisle. There is a lot in this bill that helps make America safer, and I believe it deserves the support of all Members.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, understandably in this debate, we tend to emphasize our differences, but I think it is important to step back a little bit and remember that the basic premise upon which the 9/11 Commission report is based and upon which this legislation is based is that the arrangement of the intelligence organizations we had for the Cold War is not necessarily the best arrangement for today or for tomorrow. That should not be surprising. It has been true of the military, and we are making changes in the organization of the military. It has been true of our homeland security organizations, and we have made changes there; and it is also true of our intelligence organizations, and this bill begins to make those changes as well. The issues related to whether we need an overall director of national intelligence have been around since the second Hoover Commission of 1955. CRS has documented about a dozen or more studies that have made this point over the years since then. This bill does it. There has been unanimous agreement since September 11 that we need to have better fusion of intelligence from all sources, and this bill formalizes that with the National Counterterrorism Center. There is concern about providing intelligence for the warfighters, and this bill tries to strike the balance to make sure that the warfighters on the ground get the information they need but, at the same time, it recognizes that if we are going to be successful in preventing terrorism, not just managing terrorism, but preventing terrorism, we have to do a better job of bringing that intelligence together and getting it to the policymakers. This is an important step, but it is only a step, because as the 9/11 Commission recognized, moving boxes on an organizational chart is important, but there are other things that need to be done with the border, with economic development assistance, with public diplomacy, and a variety of other issues that they brought out, and this Congress and the government need to follow that up as well.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest challenges for this Congress over the past 2 years has been to fulfill our responsibilities on homeland security. At the beginning of this Congress, the Speaker decided to create a Select Committee on Homeland Security to help get the new Department of Homeland Security off to a good start and to focus congressional efforts on the many issues related to helping to protect our citizens against terrorism. Beginning a new committee on such a complex topic would never be easy. Doing so within a very limited time was even more difficult. We had to have help, and to the good fortune of the House and of the country, we got help from some exceptional people. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of two of them whose tour of duty on Capitol Hill is ending and to thank them for all they have done for me, as a subcommittee chairman on the Select Committee, and for the entire Committee. Working with my Legislative Director, Kim Kotlar, these two individuals have made enormous contributions to the development of the new Department of Homeland Security and its vital mission. Our subcommittee has had responsibility for cybersecurity and for science and technology. To advise us on cybersecurity, we have had the assistance of Margie Gilbert. Margie was previously assigned to the White House as a director in the Office of Cyberspace Security, supporting both the National Security Council and the Office of Homeland Security. She dealt with intelligence and domestic protection, particularly national-level incident handling and counterterrorism. Throughout her DOD career, she has worked as an intelligence liaison officer, foreign relations officer, collection systems project leader, contracts and budget manager, and supervisor of a microelectronics research organization. She completed international business studies at University of Copenhagen, has a bachelors degree in computer science from the University of Tennessee, and a masters degree in technical management from Johns Hopkins University. I soon discovered that, in addition to her warm and engaging personality, Margie has earned enormous respect from those most involved in and most knowledgeable about cybersecurity issues. Success in cybersecurity requires a unique partnership of government and industry, and Margie has done a great deal to promote that relationship so necessary for success. She has guided the subcommittee to the issues that matter most. Her deep understanding of the issues and of the limitations of some proposed solutions, as well as her personal touch, have benefited all who have worked with her, inside and outside of government. Dr. Julie Canepa has advised the committee on technology issues. Julie is a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. She has a BS in chemistry from Saint Mary's College in Indiana and her Ph.D. in chemistry is from Arizona State University. Among the many jobs she has had at Los Alamos are Program Manager for Environmental Restoration Project and Program Manager for the Los Alamos work with the Yucca Mountain Project. She has published a number of articles. Protecting the American homeland requires the research, development, and utilization of technologies. This part of the Department of Homeland Security is totally new, and Julie has helped get it off on the right foot. The range of technologies and issues associated with them is enormous. From communications interoperability to radiological detection to vaccines and antidotes, Julie has had to understand not only the technology, but also the government and industry processes which could bring those technologies into use. In addition to her enormous gifts of intellect, she also has a special talent for helping others, who may not have her breath and depth of understanding and knowledge, feel comfortable with very complex subject matter. I recognize that Federal agencies have a difficult time allowing significant numbers of employees work in other agencies or in other branches of government. However, I believe more strongly than ever that our country is well served when those who have a particular expertise and perspective are allowed to share that with the legislative branch. In the situation of this subcommittee with so much to learn about very technical subjects, I simply do not know what the committee or I would have done without the benefit of these two exceptional public servants. The last 2 years have seen much progress and some frustrations in homeland security. We clearly have much left to do. But with the continued work of dedicated, talented professionals like Margie Gilbert and Julie Canepa, we will be successful. And I have no doubt that these two outstanding individuals will continue to contribute to the security of the country in many ways and for many years to come.