[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21142-21146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           UPDATE ON IRAQ WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan 
and Qatar with my administrative assistant Dan Scandling, and I wanted 
to give a report on what I saw and some recommendations for the Bush 
administration.
  This was my third time to Iraq, second time to Afghanistan. This time 
we went to Baghdad, Tikrit, and Kirkuk. I have now been to all parts of 
Iraq except to Kurdish areas in the north. On previous trips we have 
been to Baghdad, Nasaria, Alkoot twice, and Basra.
  I want to begin by praising the military, both active duty, Reserve 
and National Guard and note their very, very positive attitude and 
great, great morale. I also want to publicly acknowledge and thank them 
and praise their families in noting the sacrifices that they and their 
families are making. I also want to offer condolences to the families 
who have lost loved ones.
  Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a passage from 
an online journal being kept by a chaplain I met from Gloucester, 
Virginia during my recent trip. We were in the Kirkuk area and he sat 
across the table from me and he told me this story.
  We then got this from his Web page. It is incredibly moving and 
describes the quality of the men and women serving in uniform. It is 
the hero mission from a trip report excerpted with permission from Army 
chaplain J.D. Morris, ``Chronicles of Pastor J.D., January 27, 2005.''
  He begins by saying, ``I was abruptly caught off guard today by one 
of the administrative privates from flight operations. He told me that 
the flight operations battle captain was looking for me. When I arrived 
to see the battle captain, he told me that I was given a hero mission 
for a young soldier who had died in battle only hours before.
  ``I had about 20 minutes to ready myself and go back by Blackhawk 
with Specialist Tussant to recover the soldier's body from his unit and 
to escort the hero to another base where he would be sent home to his 
family. I found Specialist Tussant, gathered my gear, and made my way 
to the flight line to board the aircraft. When I arrived everyone was 
as sober as I.
  ``I prayed over the aircraft, received our mission briefing, and then 
we departed. Once arriving to the location of the unit, I found the 
fallen soldier's unit neatly and sharply in formation next to the 
landing zone. Their clothes were muddy, their faces were downcast, and 
immediately you could sense their pain.
  ``Tussant and I immediately departed the aircraft and hastily made 
our way to the chaplain of the unit who was standing with his soldiers 
like a good shepherd. In the chaplain's arm was a large red Bible 
embraced against his chest.
  ``The soldiers carefully opened the back of the vehicle and solemnly 
and with honor removed the fallen friend from the vehicle. The black 
body bag hung in the hands of his friends.
  ``Tussant and I stood next to the vehicle and rendered a slow salute. 
We slowly and reverently followed the soldiers and the fallen comrade 
to the aircraft. Once arriving to the helicopter with the blades still 
churning and whirling, we all carefully placed the hero in the 
aircraft.
  ``The crew chief in the aircraft gently situated the new crew member, 
our hero. We stopped and prayed. As I turned to my rear, I looked back 
to see the rest of America's sons. Their chaplain, Chaplain Fisher, 
came to me, embraced me tightly and with a shattered voice said, `Thank 
you for being here and escorting our friend part way home. Thank the 
unit for us for their help.'
  ``I could only return his embrace, pat his shoulder, and look into 
his face. I then boarded the aircraft. We began our assent. As the 
helicopter blades aggressively moved the air and we began to rise off 
the ground, I looked to my right out the window to see the unit being 
swayed by the turbulence but still saluting their fallen hero.
  ``As long as I could see the hero's unit standing at attention in the 
blowing turbulence, saluting their combat buddy, the soldiers remained 
standing steadfast, saluting and honoring our hero.
  ``I certainly will never forget this hero mission. I was very quiet 
back to Speicher, which was the base. I could only think of the pain a 
family back home was getting ready to experience. I prayed for the 
family.''
  Why did I go to Iraq for the third time and Afghanistan for the 
second time? I have been hearing a constant drumbeat of negative 
stories all summer, so I wanted to assess the situation again with my 
own eyes. Not believe the administration, nor believe the

[[Page 21143]]

media, but I wanted to see firsthand for myself.
  I saw a lot of positive things. Hospitals are being renovated. 
Schools are being built. Pipelines are being repaired. And the Iraqi 
Army is being trained.
  In the comparison of my first visit and my second visit and this 
visit 2 weeks ago, I could see the improvement that was being made. 
Security, however, is still the greatest challenge we face. Who did I 
meet with? I met with Lieutenant General Petraeus, Ambassador 
Khalilzad, members of Iraqi leadership including the President, Prime 
Minister, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, NBC officials, 
folks from the Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, 
Department of Energy, the USAID, and a lot of soldiers from privates to 
generals.
  What were my impressions? There is real progress being made, but 
there are still concerns. Security remains our greatest challenge. The 
country is far from being safe. Everywhere I went I was escorted by a 
full complement of heavily armed soldiers and security personnel; and 
even when riding in an armored vehicle we had to wear body armor and a 
helmet.
  Until we get security under control, our efforts to rebuild Iraq will 
continue to be a challenge. If embassy officials, USAID staff, NGOs, 
nongovernmental organizations, contractors and, yes, even the media 
cannot move around the country without the fear of being attacked, our 
efforts to bring peace to Iraq will be hampered.
  I was told that many contractors remain unwilling to bid on work 
because of the level of violence that still exists and those who take 
on projects spend enormous sums of money on private security.
  I was also told the World Bank, a critical element to rebuilding 
Iraq, had refused to send staff because of security concerns.
  But I saw improvement from when I was there the first time, an 
improvement from when I was there the second time. And this 
administration has failed to articulate the improvement that has been 
made in Iraq.
  To really understand what has happened in Iraq, you have to talk to 
the service men and women, God bless them, who are serving or who have 
served there. They are the fathers, the mothers, the sons, daughters 
who put their lives on the line in this war on terror. They are the 
neighbor down the street who has been called up for Reserve or Guard 
duty. They are the Federal employee who has volunteered for a temporary 
assignment.
  I was struck by the number of people saying the Iraq they see on TV 
every day is not the Iraq they know. In the mess halls, throughout the 
mess halls there are six to eight television sets that are on every day 
to CNN. One junior officer told me that he does not even watch the news 
anymore. Most soldiers said they were bewildered on what they were 
seeing on the news compared to what they know was taking place 
firsthand in Iraq.
  In speaking with our service personnel, I was troubled to learn our 
troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are well aware of the media 
coverage of anti-war protests in America. Especially the vigil of Cindy 
Sheehan. The televisions, as I said, in the mess hall and sleeping 
quarters are turned to CNN and MSNBC and Fox. I had several soldiers 
express wonderment on what is taking place back home.

                              {time}  1730

  At one point, an enlisted soldier pulled me aside and asked if he 
could talk to me in private. He said that he had been watching the news 
about the protests and wanted to know if the American people were still 
behind the soldiers. I reassured him they were, but he just looked at 
me and asked me again, almost as if he did not hear me, when he said he 
did not believe me. Then he said that when some of his fellow soldiers 
learned about the antiwar vigil, their morale was impacted.
  I raise this point because I believe that it is important for the 
antiwar protesters to know how their actions may potentially be 
perceived by our soldiers on the front lines who are doing their jobs. 
Protest and dissent is the beauty of democracy, and it is important in 
a democracy, and everyone has the right to protest and dissent, but I 
think it is important that the antiwar demonstrators need to understand 
that our soldiers know about their actions. They need to realize that 
those actions can have a negative impact on the soldiers' spirits.
  Personally, I believe that President Bush should have met with Cindy 
Sheehan. I still believe that President Bush should meet with Cindy 
Sheehan. I have read news accounts of some of the President's meetings 
with families of soldiers who have been killed in action. You cannot 
help but get emotional reading the reports.
  The President's a compassionate man. He shares in the grief of those 
families who have lost a loved one, and I know that the burden on him 
as Commander in Chief is tremendous. So, therefore, I believe that he 
should include Cindy Sheehan in his next meeting with families of 
fallen or wounded soldiers.
  Some of my thoughts on return. There are good people on both sides of 
the decision to send U.S. forces to Iraq. We are now there. We cannot 
abandon the mission to bring peace and stability to Iraq and its 
people. We need to recognize the rebuilding of Iraq needs to be based 
on a different timetable and not necessarily on our timetable or what 
we think is going to take place today.
  The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining what 
failure to succeed in Iraq means to the average person in the United 
States. Let me state that again. The Bush administration needs to do a 
better job of explaining what failure to succeed in Iraq means to the 
American people.
  I asked everyone I met with, at every meeting I went to, and when I 
would get up in the morning and go into the mess hall by myself at 5:30 
or 6 o'clock in the morning, I would sit down with the soldiers and ask 
them and ask everyone this question: What does failure mean if we fail 
in Iraq? The responses were chilling.
  Somalia, one person said. Have you seen the movie Black Hawk Down, he 
said. Another person said the former Yugoslavia, and I was in the 
former Yugoslavia during the fighting in Sarajevo and Vukovar, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Vukovar before the 
slaughter took place. All the people that we met with in Vukovar all 
were later slaughtered when the Serbs came in and slaughtered them in 
Vukovar.
  Civil war. More foreign fighters pouring in across the border, the 
destabilization of the entire region. They said maybe the Kurdish area 
might make it. They said in the south the Iranians will come across the 
border for the Shiite and the Sunni triangle. Civil war, militia 
against militia. Killing and death and destruction. Foreign fighters 
coming in from Syria, pouring in, with more killing taking place.
  Others said the destabilization of the gulf region. Some said perhaps 
the overthrow of the Jordanian Government. Others said perhaps the 
overthrow of the Saudi Government. Another said perhaps the overthrow 
of the Egyptian Government.
  Oil exports. One person said, if you think oil's expensive now, if 
this region explodes, the price of oil in the West will be 
astronomical. The impact on the economy of the West.
  Others said that Iraq will turn into a haven, a haven for terrorists, 
similar to what happened when the West left Afghanistan on its own, and 
then the Taliban was able to constitute itself. Osama bin Laden moved 
to Afghanistan and Kandahar and Jalalabad and Kabul. We saw the 
pictures of gunning down women in burqas, and we saw what took place, 
and there will be a haven for terrorists to operate.
  Loss of American credibility. Danger, danger. We put in our report: 
danger to the American people. More emphasis with regard to the 
Jihadists in the West thinking that they can bring terror again. Thirty 
people from my congressional district died in the attack on the 
Pentagon, and we all know what took place with regard to the World 
Trade Center because we just went

[[Page 21144]]

there and remembered on 9/11 what took place.
  The administration has failed to tell the American people the 
ramifications of failure in Iraq. If we were to pull out of Iraq and 
fail in Iraq, the ramifications on the war on terror are very, very bad 
for the average American.
  I want to take a few minutes to read what others are saying about the 
potential consequences of failure in Iraq.
  From Lawrence Kaplan, senior editor at New Republic, speaking at a 
recent conference by Notre Dame's Kroc Institute and Fordham 
University's Center on Religion and Culture, said the following: 
``Preventing Iraq from coming apart at the seams means preventing the 
country from becoming what Afghanistan was until recently, a vacuum 
filled by terrorist organizations, which is what one National 
Intelligence Council report suggested Iraq is now fast becoming.
  ``Hence, Americans must ask themselves exactly what they owe Iraq.
  ``If U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' and our policy must 
have a moral component, ``if U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' 
he said, which I believe it does, ``the answer must be something 
better, or, at the very least, not worse, than what went before.''
  From Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, a 
distinguished scholar in this region, in an op-ed that ran in the New 
York Times on July 1, said, ``No matter what one thinks of the 
invasion, it is clearly in our best interest, to say nothing of the 
Arab world's, that we succeed in Iraq.''
  From Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy 
at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in a New 
York Times op-ed piece on August 31, said the following: ``If the 
United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater 
chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will 
further damage American credibility around the world.''
  From Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute and author 
of, ``Making War on the Terror Masters,'' in a June 17 article in the 
Dallas Morning News said, ``A precipitous U.S. withdrawal would 
obviously encourage the terrorists and the countries that support them. 
It would probably encourage them to expand their activities because 
they, too, are fairly focused against us in Iraq right now. They'd 
probably be more inclined to attack us elsewhere.''
  Keep in mind the two attacks, the London subway bombings not too long 
ago, that al Qaeda has now taken credit for.
  In the same article, Tony Cordesman, who is a distinguished military 
analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, 
``A withdrawal that left an Iraqi Government unable to defend itself 
would shatter U.S. standing in the Middle East, making it harder for 
moderate Arabs to stand up to Islamic extremists who hope to overthrow 
their governments.
  ``Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and other U.S. allies would find it 
very, very hard to hold together and deal with this problem without 
distancing themselves from the United States.''
  Then he went on to say, ``And we need to remember that we are talking 
about a region in the gulf with about 40 percent of the world's proven 
oil resources.''
  That is unbelievable. Now, why has the administration not laid out 
carefully to the American people what the ramifications are to our 
country and our citizens of failure? Time is not on the side of the 
administration. There is a sense that public support is waning in both 
the United States and Great Britain. No one believes we will lose the 
war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is lost, it will not be lost in Iraq. 
It will be lost here at home. One general officer told me point blank: 
The center of gravity for our success in Iraq is the American public.
  The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of letting the 
American people know how they can participate in this effort. In World 
War II, my dad served in World War II. We had war bonds. We had victory 
gardens. We had scrap metal collections. The American public supports 
the troops and wants to do more. There ought to be more opportunities 
where the administration can let the American people know how they can 
participate to help the effort, to help the young men and women who are 
serving in the military and their families.
  For example, at a rest and relaxation facility in Qatar, there is a 
need for clothes for servicemen and -women after their activities, and 
they get 4 or 5 days off. They come to this center, and they have no 
shirts, and they have no shaving gear. There they have skirts and 
dresses and T-shirts and sweatshirts to wear. Well, the American 
people, if they knew it, would love to participate, would love to help. 
And the administration has to do a better job of telling the American 
people how they can participate and help, because there are many 
Americans wearing the uniform today and their families who are making a 
major sacrifice. Others would like to participate and be part of that.
  Some of the major recommendations: The Bush administration should 
select a group of capable and distinguished individuals, some with a 
military background and others with extensive foreign policy 
experience, to go to Iraq and other parts of the gulf region and 
Afghanistan to comprehensively review our efforts. All the individuals, 
and I can name who they would be but I think it would be inappropriate 
because they have to be picked by others, but all of the individuals 
selected would be known for their honesty, for their integrity, for 
their competence, for their patriotism. They would love their country 
more than they would love their political party.
  The group would essentially provide what I call fresh eyes on the 
target; the target, of course, being how we bring about success in Iraq 
and lead to whereby our young men and women can return home.
  Upon this group's return, they would report to the President and the 
Congress, but more importantly, they would report to the American 
people. The motive would not be to find fault. One can always go back 
and say there were mistakes. Quite frankly, I believe that we should 
have never disbanded the Iraqi Army. But it would be a forward-looking 
report, to see what we can do in the best interests of our servicemen 
and how we can bring about success.
  An independent, comprehensive review could help assure Americans, no 
matter what their position is on the war, that every effort is being 
made to protect our troops and realize their goal of a secure and 
peaceful Iraq, that it would look at what is going right and what is 
going wrong. I recognize that the Bush administration has sent other 
individuals to Iraq to assess the ongoing situation, but what I call 
``fresh eyes review'' would be different, in that rather than just 
reporting back to the President or the Secretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of State, this group would also report back to the Congress 
and to the American people.
  Frankly, I believe the administration has a moral obligation to the 
American people to do this and to provide this information. There are 
no downsides in such a review. In our daily lives, we regularly seek 
second opinions. As chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee 
with oversight of the State Department and the Justice Department, in 
addition to being the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, 
later known as the Bremer Commission, I am keenly aware of what is at 
stake if we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq.

                              {time}  1745

  In September of 1998, when I returned from having been in Algeria, 
where terrorism has killed over 100,000 people, the bombing of our 
embassy in Kenya and in Tanzania took place, and I introduced a bill to 
create the National Commission on Terror. When I introduced the bill on 
the floor of this House, I said that Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan 
from 1991 to 1996. There was very little interest by the Clinton 
administration for this. Very few agencies wanted to participate and 
cooperate, but, finally, they did.
  This is the report of the Bremer Commission. It says, ``Countering 
the

[[Page 21145]]

Changing Threat of International Terrorism,'' and it came out in the 
year 2000. And distinguished Members served on the commission, 
bipartisan members of the commission, Republican and Democratic members 
of the commission. In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman), who is the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence today was on the commission. The commission was made up 
of Paul Bremer; Maurice Sonnenberg; Richard Betts, Wayne Downing, who 
is a U.S. Army General, retired, with expertise; Jane Harman, a good 
Member of the House; Fred Ikle; Juliette Kayyem; John Lewis, Jr.; 
Gardner Peckham; and James Woolsey, who was the head of the CIA.
  On the cover of the commission report that they came out with is a 
picture of the World Trade Center on fire. Now, the World Trade Center 
bombing took place on September 11, 2001. This was the picture of the 
World Trade Center on fire from the attack that took place in 1993, and 
no one paid any attention to it. They neglected it.
  This group, this National Commission on Terror, could ensure that we 
are successful in this effort. They would travel to all parts of Iraq; 
the Shi'a south, the central Sunni Triangle, and the north, where the 
Kurds reside. They would have to go to the region for 7 to 10 days to 2 
weeks. They would meet with general officers, junior officers, NCOs, 
specialists and privates in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They would meet 
with embassy officials and other Federal Government employees working 
in Baghdad. They would meet with civilian contractors and NGOs, 
nongovernmental organizations operating in the country. They would meet 
with Iraqi leaders and also ordinary Iraqis in country towns and 
villages.
  And to better educate the American public about our ongoing efforts 
in Iraq and the gulf region, perhaps a select group of media should 
also accompany this group during its visit, not as a tool for U.S. 
propaganda but to ensure transparency. This would give the media the 
opportunity to travel to all parts of the country and report on both 
the good and the bad.
  Because as many of my colleagues know, it is very difficult for the 
media to move around Iraq. The media has lost roughly 60-some people. 
Media have died. It is very difficult to get from point A to point B, 
from Baghdad to Kirkuk, or Baghdad to Nasaria, or Baghdad to Tikrit. 
This would give the media the opportunity to travel to all parts and to 
report on both the good and the bad. And the pool would include both 
broadcast and print media.
  This fresh-eyes review would assess answers to such questions as the 
following:
  How accurate a picture do we have of the insurgency? What is the 
realistic strength of the insurgency? Is the insurgency growing or 
diminishing in capability? What can we do to get better tactical 
intelligence on the enemy? And what will it take to get actionable 
intelligence? How reliable and effective is the growing Iraqi security 
establishment? What is its ethnic makeup? What is the power and 
effectiveness of local militias in the country, and how much of a 
problem do they pose in the longer term for the Iraqi Government? What 
role is Iran playing in the evolving political and security situation 
in Iraq?
  We heard that the Iranians have poured across the border and are a 
destabilizing influence in what is taking place in Iraq. They would 
take a look at that.
  What role is Syria playing? We have been told that the Syrians are 
allowing foreign fighters to pour across their border. This group could 
look at that and see if that is the case and see if there are ways of 
securing the Syrian border.
  They would look at what will it take in terms of resources and 
organization and time to effectively control the Iraqi borders. Is 
there an anti-sabotage strategy to protect the energy infrastructure? 
If so, why is it not working? Are there alternatives?
  They would look at what is the status of the efforts to organize the 
Iraqi ministries and get them up and running. Is progress being made? 
If not, what more needs to be done? What criteria should guide the pace 
of withdrawal of American and Coalition Forces?
  We owe it to the thousands of men and women who are in harm's way to 
test the process and ask the questions. We owe it to the American 
people. I urge the administration, having been there three times in 
Iraq, two times by myself, without anybody telling me where I could go 
or where I could not go, and two times in Afghanistan, where I led the 
first congressional delegation to Afghanistan with the gentleman from 
Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and my best friend and former 
Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio. We owe it to the American public.
  So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to act quickly 
to put together this team to offer fresh eyes on the target. There is 
nothing to lose.
  And, lastly, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the men and women who are 
mentioned in this article that I opened up with in the excerpts by Army 
Chaplain J. D. Moore, ``Hero Mission.'' I am asking this administration 
to support this group.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the commission report I 
referred to earlier.

           [Report from the National Commission on Terrorism]

       Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism

                Appendix C: Commission Members and Staff


                             Commissioners

       L. Paul Bremer III, Chairman, is the Managing Director of 
     Kissinger Associates. During a 23-year career in the American 
     diplomatic service, Ambassador Bremer served in Asia, Africa, 
     Europe and Washington, D.C./ He was Ambassador to the 
     Netherlands from 1983 to 1986. From 1986-1989, he served as 
     Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism, where he was 
     responsible for developing and implementing America's global 
     policies to combat terrorism.
       Maurice Sonnenberg, Vice Chairman, is the senior 
     international advisor to the investment banking firm of Bear, 
     Stearns & Co. Inc. and the senior international advisor to 
     the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. He is a 
     member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
     Board. He recently served as a member of the U.S. Commission 
     on Reducing and Protecting Government Secrecy and as the 
     senior advisor to the U.S. Commission on the Roles and 
     Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
       Richard K. Betts is Leo A. Shifrin Professor of War and 
     Peace Studies in the political science department, Director 
     of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Director of 
     the International Security Policy program in the School of 
     International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He 
     is also Director of National Security Studies and Senior 
     Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of 
     ``Surprise Attack: Lesson for Defense Planning.''
       Wayne A. Downing, General, U.S. Army, retired in 1996 after 
     a 34-year career, where he served in a variety of command 
     assignments in infantry, armored, special operations and 
     joint units culminating in his appointment as the Commander-
     in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Since 
     retirement, he was appointed to assess the 1996 terrorist 
     attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, and 
     to make recommendations to protect people and facilities 
     world wide from terrorist attack. General Downing serves on 
     several boards and panels in both the private and government 
     sectors.
       Jane Harman just completed a year as Regents Professor at 
     U.C.L.A. where she taught at the Department of Political 
     Science and Center for International Relations. Harman 
     represented California's 36th Congressional District from 
     1992-1998 where she served on the National Security, Science 
     and Intelligence Committees. Prior government experience 
     includes Senate Counsel, White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary 
     and DoD Special Counsel. Harman is currently seeking election 
     to her former seat.
       Fred C. Ikle is a Distinguished Scholar, Center for 
     Strategic & International Studies. Dr. Ikle is Chairman of 
     the Board of Telos Corporation and a Director of the Zurich-
     American Insurance Companies and of CMC Energy Services. 
     Prior to joining the Center, Dr. Ikle served as 
     Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Director for the 
     U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
       Juliette N. Kayyem is an Associate of the Executive Session 
     on Domestic Preparedness, John F. Kennedy School of 
     Government, Harvard University. She writes and teaches 
     courses on counter-terrorism policy and the law. Ms. Kayyem 
     has most recently served as a legal advisor to the Attorney

[[Page 21146]]

     General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as Counsel to 
     the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
       John F. Lewis, Jr. is Director of Global Security for 
     Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York. Previously, he was Assistant 
     Director-in-Charge of the National Security Division of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Lewis managed the FBI's 
     national counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs. 
     Mr. Lewis has held a variety of positions, including an 
     appointment as Director of Intelligence and CI Programs, 
     National Security Staff and previous Chairman of the 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on 
     Terrorism.
       Gardner Peckham is Managing Director of the government 
     relations firm of Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey with a 
     practice focused on international trade, defense and foreign 
     policy issues. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Peckham served 
     as Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker of the United States 
     House of Representatives. He also held several other senior 
     positions in Congress and during the Bush Administration 
     served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 
     at the U.S. Department of State and Director for Legislative 
     Affairs at the National Security Council Staff.
       R. James Woolsey is a partner at the law firm of Shea & 
     Gardner with a practice in the fields of civil litigation, 
     alternative dispute resolution, and corporate transactions; 
     he also serves on several corporate boards. Previous to 
     returning to the firm, Mr. Woolsey served as Director of 
     Central Intelligence. His U.S. Government service includes 
     Ambassador to the Negotiations on CFE, Under Secretary of the 
     Navy, and General Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on 
     Armed Services. He has served on many Presidential and 
     Congressional delegations, boards, and commissions.

                          ____________________