A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the constitutional reform process in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 331, I call up the bill (H.R. 2475) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government,

the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2475, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This is a very good bill, a bill we can be very

proud of, and a bill that every Member of the House can and should support.

Before I talk about some of the details in the bill, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). We have worked hard on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to keep this committee focused on the job that needs to be done and to do so on a bipartisan basis, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with us in that process and being able to maintain that spirit as we bring this bill to the floor on a bipartisan basis. I also thank her staff and our staff for helping us through this process in bringing this bill here today.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago when he was chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss, now director of the Central Intelligence Agency, asked me to take a strategic look at the technical capabilities within the United States intelligence community. He wanted me to see how the technical intelligence collection systems all work together, evaluate their individual contributions to national security, and see if there were redundancies to understand the affordability of the many systems and, most importantly, understand the impacts on the rest of the intelligence community.

What Mr. Goss really asked us to do was to go back, and we have expanded that in the committee over the past 8 or 9 months, to take a look at the strategic framework that we face in the world today and how we should respond to the threats. So we spent a considerable amount of time looking at the threats that America faces: What is the threat environment that is out there today; what do we expect it to be in 3, 5 and 7 years, so we can shape the proper intelligence community to give our policymakers and our military the right information to make good decisions and keep our soldiers safe?

We have then taken that to take a look at the feedback we have gotten from the 9/11 Commission, the feedback we have gotten from the WMD Commission as to the particular strengths within the intelligence community and also some of the particular weaknesses.

So as we put this bill together, we really focused on making sure that we had a good balance between our human capabilities, the investment we were making in our human capabilities for the long term, and the investment we were making in our technical capabilities. This bill does that by investing more in our human capabilities.

On the technical capabilities, it takes a very, very hard look at the different programs that we have in place there. It makes sure that what we do is put in place programs that will complement each other, give us the information that we need, and hopefully put us on a framework and on a pathway to balancing human capabilities with our technical capabilities.

Also in that area, this bill moves forward and holds some of our contractors accountable for their performance. This is an area where tactically we may disagree on some of the points on how to make that happen, but we are very much in sync on a bipartisan basis that we need a strategic plan and we need to have our contractors perform. It will also lay the framework for a discussion we will have throughout this year about how to make sure that in a time where we have limited budgets and limited programs underway, that we maintain the industrial base here in the United States.

So there are a lot of things that we do in this bill to make sure that we have got the balance and are moving in the right direction on our technical capabilities.

Another key element of this bill is we have heard consistently from our field personnel and others within the intelligence community, especially those involved in the counterterrorism effort, that we cannot fund counterterrorism on an ad hoc basis. So what we did in this bill is we have authorized the majority of the dollars that we believe will be needed to build our intelligence capability and to fund the war on terrorism.

We think it is important to send to the intelligence community a clear signal of how much money they are going to have so they can do the appropriate planning and the ramping up of resources in the waging of this global war on terrorism.

As I said at the beginning of my statement, we have done this on a bipartisan basis. We have taken a strategic look at what the intelligence community, where it needs to be and where it needs to go. We are going to continue working in that effort. I think as Members see through the debate, we have made a lot of progress and there is more work to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight who has been working very effectively with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) to do the work that an oversight subcommittee is expected to do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), a new member of the committee, a very valuable member, and also a member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and our partner in making sure that we have a solid and strong intelligence community as well as the best fighting forces, the best military in the world.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, as we take a look at the technical programs and we take a look at the structure of the intelligence community, at the end of the day it is about the people in the intelligence community. As we have conducted our oversight responsibilities in developing this bill, we have had the opportunity to meet and work with many of the intelligence professionals throughout the community and around the world. I believe I can speak for the rest of my colleagues when I say that we hold in the highest regard the work accomplished by these dedicated U.S. intelligence community personnel.

At great sacrifice, often under extreme and intense conditions, and at great personal risk, the men and women of the intelligence community continue to perform their missions with great energy, professionalism, and devotion to the national security mission. I commend these patriots for their heroism, their integrity, and their perseverance. These honorable people form the first line of defense for our Nation. Our freedoms and the very security of our country rely on their successes. Those successes are things we cannot and do not often have the opportunity to talk about.

Unfortunately, and quite wrongly, it is the rare but overlooked publicized failures that they are credited with. I stand here today and say thank you to these tremendous people. They deserve our support, and that is what we are doing with this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to get to some of the specifics of the legislation. I want to make an observation about the overall position we have

taken. It is my belief, and we have seen it today, that we may be harshly criticized by some for being too bold or aggressive with some of our actions. Indeed, we have already been told that we were not incremental enough. I want to take head-on those who take such positions.

There is no question that what is being proposed today is bold and sweeping in some areas. Without getting into the classified specifics, based on our strategic review, we are cutting back dramatically in some cases, on some technical programs that have had poor performance or could be modified for better utility for the Nation's intelligence efforts.

We are terminating some programs that we do not believe fit in the overall architecture for the intelligence community. We have analyzed these programs extensively, asked the tough questions, and focused on the resulting intelligence output. To paraphrase from a Hollywood movie line, these programs have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.

We are then taking the resulting savings and applying that to historically underfunded areas in the human intelligence and human capital areas. Specifically, we are focusing needed emphasis on adding human intelligence specialists, improving the training of analysts, improving the training of case officers, and making more robust the infrastructure necessary to gain their expertise, and then better employ that expertise.

We have quite simply in the past paid too much lip service to those basic needs, while continuing to fund expensive technical programs that, although important, do not make up for the lack of analysts, lack of worldwide coverage, lack of training, and lack of basic infrastructure. In sum, we are doing the heavy lifting that should have been done long ago. We are acting boldly and positively on the task our former chairman gave us.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time either, so I believe I have the right to close. The gentlewoman will close on her side, and we will have no additional speakers. I will close on our side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today before closing general debate, I would like to briefly offer congratulations and recognition to Mr. Charles G. Allen, as many of us know him, Charlie, as he completes his tour of duty as the assistant director of the Central Intelligence Agency for collection.

He has served the intelligence community with great distinction, and I will later seek consent in the House to submit a more lengthy tribute into the Record.

But just briefly, he is a native of North Carolina. Mr. Allen has served the Central Intelligence Agency and the Nation with distinction since 1958, holding a variety of positions of increasing responsibility, both in analytical and managerial capacity. He served overseas in an intelligence liaison capacity from 1974 to 1977, and from 1977 to 1980 he held management positions of increasing responsibility and importance in the Directorate of Intelligence.

I think that all of the Members in the House, and all of the Members and the staff on the committee who have gotten to know Mr. Allen over the last number of years, number one, we are glad that he is still working on special assignment with Mr. Goss; but we really want to extend our congratulations to him for almost slightly over 45 years of service to this country within the intelligence community, a real national asset in the intelligence business.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a statement on Assistant Director Allen.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and recognition to Mr. Charles E. Allen as he completes his tour of duty as the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Collection. Since its creation by the Congress 7 years ago, he has served in this position with distinction.

Mr. Allen was appointed as the first Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Collection. As such, he was responsible for Intelligence Community collection management, and specifications for our next generation of collection systems. During these past 7 years he has come to personify the position, personalize the management of this nation's scarce intelligence collection assets, confound his early critics, and overall achieve positive results beyond even the expectations of his supporters, who are legion. His service has been a great asset, and Congress has regularly drawn upon his experience and judgment.

A native of North Carolina, Mr. Allen has served the Central Intelligence Agency and the Nation with distinction since 1958, holding a variety of positions of increasing responsibility both in analytic and managerial capacities. He served overseas in an intelligence liaison capacity from 1974 to 1977, and from 1977 to 1980 he held management positions of increasing responsibility and importance in the Directorate of Intelligence.

Mr. Allen served as program manager of a major classified project, from 1980 to 1982 in the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, and was subsequently detailed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he held a senior position in strategic mobilization planning.

In 1985 the Director of Central Intelligence requested Mr. Allen's return from the Secretary of Defense's office to serve as the National Intelligence Officer for Counterterrorism, and later as Chief of Intelligence in the CIA's newly established Counterterrorist Center. Many of Mr. Allen's successes have and shall continue to remain secret, but two that have become more publicly known illustrate his contributions; he played a key role in apprehending the hijackers who killed an American citizen on the cruise ship Achille Lauro, and he correctly brought to the DCI's attention certain matters which served to stimulate the Iran-Contra investigation.

Mr. Allen served as the National Intelligence Officer for Warning from 1988 to 1994 and chaired the Intelligence Community's Warning Committee. From these positions he issued timely warnings of events of momentous importance, confounding most intelligence officers who did not share his prescience.

Mr. Allen was awarded the National Intelligence Medal for Achievement in 1983 by DCI Casey and the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service in 1986 by President Reagan. In 1991, he was presented the CIA Commendation Medal for provision of warning intelligence in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

He and his wife, Kay, reside in Herndon, Virginia, where they raised four children.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Allen has already enjoyed a long and luminous career in intelligence, and as he steps down from his current position I hope all my colleagues will recognize the extraordinary contributions Mr. Charles E. Allen has made to our National Security as a lifelong professional intelligence officer. I hope my colleagues will honor him as a great American and pioneer in the management of intelligence collection inter alia.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our confidence in his continued ability and willingness to serve the Nation as she shall call upon him.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, in closing, again I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked to put together a very, very good bill, my colleagues on my side of the aisle.

We have put together, I think, a very, very strong bill. I think it deserves broad bipartisan support. It sets us in the right direction. As my colleague has indicated, there is more work to do. We do need to take a look at the technical programs. These are critical to the long- term success of our intelligence community, to make sure that public policymakers have the information that we need to make the right decisions.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Harman) support as we have gone through this process and recognizing that there are issues and concerns about the performance of some of these programs and so that we have the agreement on that.

Where we are disagreeing and having some discussions right now is what is the most effective way to respond to those problems and issues. We want accountability. We want performance. We want to spend the taxpayer dollars wisely. And I am sure that as we continue to go through this process, work with our colleagues on the other side of this building, and work with the administration, we will come to a conclusion, hopefully, that we can all agree to.

I applaud the committee and our work in taking some of these steps

that I think we all recognize needed to be taken and that we are committed to addressing those problems.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not object to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will not oppose this amendment. I believe the author will have a perfecting amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for that change.

I think the reason we are accepting the amendment is in the spirit that it was offered by my colleague from New York and, I believe, my colleague from Connecticut. We on the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and myself have laid down as one of the parameters and one of the things that we expect from the oversight subcommittee is to vigorously and aggressively track the implementation of the intelligence reform bill.

I agree in the time that the gentlewoman and I have been in Congress together until we pass Federal prison industries reform, this will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we will have worked on together.

There are some talking points on the technicality as to what ``fully operational'' means, and those types of things; and whether it is fully operational now and whether it could have been fully operational before June 17, because that is when the law came into effect, we fully understand and appreciate the concern that the gentlewoman has in bringing this amendment forward, that we on the committee and that Congress and the American people be fully informed as to the progress we are making in implementing the intelligence reform bill.

We are committed to doing that. We are committed to staying informed on

the committee, riding herd over the director of National Intelligence to make sure that this bill is implemented to the full intent of Congress when we passed it.

So it is in light of the spirit of that approach that we accept this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues for working through this amendment and making the necessary changes. As I indicated earlier, we are willing to accept this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, as I listened to those on the other side as to whether we have or have not done oversight. The author of the amendment says there has been no oversight. My ranking member applauds the work that the committee has done in its role of doing oversight on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a time of war that was not begun by the making of the United States. We are at war against an international terrorist movement that has engaged our country in a clash of values driven by those who fundamentally oppose American democracy and freedom.

The 9/11 Commission emphasized the importance of engaging the terrorists in the ``struggle of ideas,'' noting that many views in the Muslim world of the United States are ``at best uninformed about the United States and, at worst, informed by cartoonish stereotypes among intellectuals who caricature U.S. values and policies. Local newspapers and the few influential satellite broadcasters, like al Jazeera, often reinforce the jihadist theme that portrays the United States as anti- Muslim.''

Mr. Speaker, comments that significantly exaggerate and overstate the situation in Guantanamo Bay do nothing but reinforce the false perceptions of America that have encouraged our enemies.

There is aggressive oversight under way by the executive branch and by Congress into our detention procedures. It is only because of this aggressive oversight and the freedoms provided by American democracy that we are having this discussion in the first place. The system is working properly, and we should continue to let it work; and for those who do not know about the work that is going on, perhaps they could ask.

So when senior Members of Congress, including a member of the minority leadership in the Senate, exaggerate and distort these issues, including by comparing American soldiers to Nazis, those comments do nothing but reinforce the false prejudices abroad that have led us to war.

As an example, I note that the al Jazeera network gave prominent coverage to the remarks of a Member of the Senate comparing the actions of U.S. soldiers to Nazis, Soviet gulags, and a mad regime like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

A columnist in the Chicago Sun Times said of those remarks: ``He should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he's done.'' What did he do? ``In a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatsoever except to America's enemies.''

We are better than those who oppose us. Our oversight has exposed our weaknesses. Now is the time to move on.

To quote from President Roosevelt's ``Man in the Arena'' speech: ``It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.''

I want this Congress to be seen as a doer of deeds. If we fail, we fail while daringly great. To do anything less would be unworthy of the House of Representatives.

Self-loathing of America on the floor of this House accomplishes nothing but fueling the fires abroad that seek to destroy America's democracy and our way of life. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, over 2 months ago, devastating natural disasters occurred in our Gulf Coast States, things that were absolutely out of our control, Mother Nature. Since that time, I and many of my colleagues have tried our hardest to get health care relief to those who were impacted by the tragedy. I say that because I am so saddened, as we have strived so diligently to look at a commonsense way that we could bring health care needs, meeting the health care needs of the victims of that region with absolutely very little success.

In the week following the tragedy, I came to the floor and offered an amendment to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. I withdrew my amendment because so many people said: We need to do this. Let us work out a bipartisan effort. Let us work together to meet the needs that exist in this devastated region of the Nation. I withdrew my amendment after working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to come up with a bipartisan compromise, with the assurance that we would allow a bipartisan compromise to come forward and provide the kind of relief our good neighbors in the Gulf State region needed.

The compromise, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act, which was S. 1716, received overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But each time we came to the floor and tried to pass it, there was a handful of Members who objected. We have tried to bring it to a vote at least five times that I am aware of. We listened to the concerns of the Senators who objected. We have scaled back the legislation time and time again, first taking out one piece, then the other, trying to see, accordingly, what we could do to accommodate their concerns, without completely gutting the purpose of providing the kind of relief our fellow Americans need in the gulf region. That scaled-back version was one that Senator Baucus offered in the Senate Finance Committee markup last week, and it failed along party lines, with the understanding, many Members said, that there was a need to get something out of committee.

I know how important it is to keep the trains running, but how well do we understand here in this body the needs of our fellow Americans who have been devastated, whose families have been torn apart, whose homes have been demolished, their children's lives and schools destroyed, who have been displaced and put into strange places to go to school? We think about people who have lost their jobs, who have lost their memories in many instances, family albums, wedding albums, things that can devastate you, depress you, and put you in a frame of mind that says: I need someone to embrace me and make me feel like a part of the family again.

Here we are attempting a budget reconciliation. A lot of people across this country think: Oh, budget reconciliation, what is that, yet one more big, long term the Senate uses for something they try to accomplish.

You know what, Mr. President, working American families reconcile all the time, now probably more so than ever before. Their wages are stagnant. The price of gasoline is out of control. The price to heat their homes this winter, the price of health care in general is out of control. They look at all of the things they are surrounded by and what do they do? They reconcile their budgets. They reconcile their household budgets, and they sit down and say to themselves: What is essential to keep our family whole? What is it this family needs to be able to maintain itself as a family, to not become dysfunctional or separated or torn apart, to not be hungry or cold? What is it this family needs? How do we reconcile the fact that our wages have been stagnant, our costs are going out the roof?

What do they do? They sit down and look at the essentials that are necessary. They make a list of what their essentials are, and they address those essentials first. Then they move on to

the things that may not be as essential, things that they want to do, but they deal with the essentials of life first. They deal with food, shelter, health care needs, education for their children. These are the decisions working families all across this great Nation are dealing with.

Here we find ourselves in the Senate doing the very same thing for our American family. When I reconcile my budget at home, I try very hard to think of those individuals who my children and I pray for every night when we say our prayers and we say: God bless those people who are homeless, who are hungry, who have lost their homes, who have suffered from natural disasters. I think as we reconcile this budget here, we need to look at our American family and what it is we find essential, that we find as a priority.

I come to this floor to say my sisters and brothers in the gulf coast region are a priority in this American family. Their needs have to be met. We don't need to wait another 8 weeks or 4 months or another year before we make it a priority. We need to reconcile it in this budget in our minds and in our hearts right here today. And if people have a problem with it, then let them pick it apart. Let them come down here and say: We will cover pregnant women, but we are not going to cover the childless adults who have lost their homes and been displaced from their families. We are not going to provide for those individuals.

Let them come down and pick it apart and nickel-and-dime what it is we can do for our American family. Because I have to say, I think a huge part of this Nation's values is represented in the priorities we choose. The priorities we choose have an important impact on the choices we make. We are here to reconcile the choices to be made at this time in our Nation. We are consumed with enormous debt. We are consumed with obligations internationally, with troops whose lives are on the line today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have unbelievable choices.

But we can't forget about the other choices, the precious children we saw last night trick-or-treating. What is their future? Are they going to have the education they need to be competitive? Are they going to have an economy that is strong? Are they going to have a nation that is well-respected? The heart of it goes back to how we as Americans treat one another. Those are the values we have to begin to look at, particularly in a document such as this.

The underlying bill does contain some assistance for Katrina survivors. I thank the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Grassley, and my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi, who is on the committee. But the truth be told, it is not enough. The hospitals and providers of Louisiana have told us it is not enough. They have told us they can barely keep their hospital doors open past Thanksgiving. How in the world could we imagine that people are going to move back in to the communities of the gulf region to rebuild their homes, rebuild their businesses, bring their children back into school systems, if there is no medical care? I ask my colleagues, would you do that? Would you move your family back into communities where the hospitals are closing their doors? Would you ask your employees to come back to a business where no medical services could be provided? Is that how we treat our American family and the members of our American family?

It is beyond me why it is that we would nickel-and-dime our sisters and brothers in the gulf region. Chairman Grassley himself admitted in the committee that the limited relief in the underlying bill is only a downpayment. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to do more than just a downpayment for people whose lives have been destroyed, their families displaced, their homes obliterated, their jobs, Heaven knows what kind of jobs they might have to go back to.

We can provide real relief because we are Americans. We can do better than that by our American sisters and brothers. We are a family. As a family, we can do better than that. We can do better than a downpayment that might keep them open until Thanksgiving. I know we can do better than that. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I am sure the administration and my colleagues who oppose this amendment will say there is money out there for relief. And they are correct that there is money out there. But where is the relief? Congress has passed over $60 billion in FEMA funding, and where has it gone? Who knows? Through October 19, FEMA had placed only $18.2 billion into the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief fund, roughly one-quarter of the available funding, and had reported spending only around $4.1 billion. Nearly 2 months after the hurricane devastated the Gulf States, FEMA has provided only about $2.9 billion out of the $60 billion to individuals and families affected by such a monumental tragedy to a region in our Nation. That is one-tenth of the funding available that has gone to help hurricane survivors.

Even President Bush has realized that the money is not being used appropriately and has proposed reallocating $17 billion of it to do a variety of things, including reconstructing military bases, offering job training, building affordable housing, repairing the wetlands, among many other items. All of these things are great. But will families move back, will companies come back, will schoolchildren come back if there is no health care? Every day we drag our feet, it will cost us more, more to rebuild hospitals, more to bring providers into the region, more to make sure the health care infrastructure is there, whether it is medical schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulance service, all of the necessary needs that come through medical care.

What about health care for the thousands of Katrina survivors who aren't getting their basic health care needs met or for the hospitals and health care providers that came to their aid and States that have already been strapped and now have even more pressure on their budgets?

I do not understand why we continue again to nickel-and-dime these families who have been through so much. Can we not put ourselves in their shoes to understand the devastation they have experienced?

Maude Jordan is an example I used from an article out of the Economist. She is one of the Louisianans who isn't getting her basic health care. She survived on the top of her refrigerator for 3 days to avoid the flood. Then when she was finally taken to Baton Rouge, she made it to a relief center there and was told she didn't qualify for Medicaid because she is a childless adult, and the program doesn't cover childless adults.

All we are asking is to temporarily cover the Maude Jordans who have been devastated by this natural disaster--temporarily cover them. And if people on the other side think that is just too bold of an expansion of the program, then let's take it out. If they want to take it out, let's take it out. Let's not cover the Maude Jordans. I want to, and I think there are others who do, too. But if people think that is just too much sharing and they can't handle it, too much community, let's take it out. Let's just cover the normal people under Medicaid with 100 percent so that Louisiana, when they finally begin to get their feet on the ground, will not have to buckle from the burden of what we will lay upon them in covering their share of this devastation.

Katrina health care in this budget reconciliation bill will not help the Maude Jordans of the world or the thousands of survivors who simply don't have children. And maybe that is what people want to do. If it is, I hope they will come to the floor and make those recommendations.

But what about our health care providers. Last week, an Associated Press article illustrated the dire situation with Louisiana hospitals, saying that the entire hospital system is only a step away from financial disaster. One of those executives is the one I quoted earlier:

We're out of money, roughly after Thanksgiving.

What a great holiday gift we would provide the people of Louisiana who have lost their hospital system, do not have anywhere to take their children or elderly if they should choose to move back to their home and try to be there during the holiday season. There is no safety net in a hospital, no ability to be reassured that should they need it during the holidays it would be there.

Across the border, Mr. President, in my home State of Arkansas--I have been so proud of Arkansans. I believe

they have exhibited the values that we all believe are strong in America, the values of being a good neighbor. They answered the call. They answered the call to be a good neighbor and provided a tremendous amount of care without asking how or when or if they would be repaid.

My hometown, in one of the poorest counties in the country, that had to set up its own health foundation to keep the infrastructure of its health care in place and moving and operating and doors open, took out of that foundation to provide for the evacuees who were coming in, up the Mississippi River Delta and into our communities. And God bless them for doing it, for showing us that this spirit is still alive in this great country; that neighbors do mean something to neighbors and community is important. God bless them for doing it without being asked.

Yet what about us sitting here, not answering their call when they ask, does our American family have those same values? Are they going to come through for us when we have come through for our neighbors? Louisiana's Medicaid Program is considering making big cuts because they don't have the funding to keep it going. Those cuts could result in 100,000 people losing their prescription drug coverage. Over 100,000 low-income children and 2,500 pregnant women could be left without any Medicaid coverage. And Arkansas is operating under a waiver that the administration contends will make them whole. But even the administration admits that they need congressional action to get it done.

How many stories do we have to share, and how many lives have to be impacted before Congress will act? We have to do something now--today. I think it is so critically important as we see American families reconciling themselves in their family budgets, as we looked last night at the importance of community. I don't know about you all, but seeing precious children in our own neighborhood walking alongside my own, learning great things about being part of the community, how to say thank you, how to meet your neighbors, how to be part of a group in a community, it is time for us now to recognize the role we play in this great American community and this great American family and exhibit the values that are so important to Americans: that we would share with one another, that we would look after one another, that we would take care of our sisters and brothers in the Gulf State region.

Not just yet. Thank you.

The whole idea of community has been lost. Unfortunately, I think it is because there has been this attitude created, a sense or a feeling that makes Americans afraid to share. What does that mean? It just means we are all concerned about ``me.'' But what makes us strong as a country? It is the ``we.'' It is the ``we'' in Americans. It is when we work together, we not only do better, we do our best. And I think this amendment is a way that Americans can show their best. They can show how important it is to reach out and to take care of our neighbors and a big part of our American family.

My grandmother used to tell me when I would feel down and out: When you feel bad, and you feel like you could do better, she said, stop. She said: Think of somebody who needs something, and go do it for them.

Mr. President, I think America feels down right now. I think they wonder who we are and what we are all about. I think this is the time, as we reconcile whatever it is we are here to do, that we stop and think about who needs us right now and we go do something for them. I happen to think that my brothers and sisters in the gulf region need something. I think it will show all of us the biggest and the best America that we can possibly be.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I actually need to yield to my colleague here.

Will the chairman yield for a brief comment?

I thank the Senator.

That is fine.

Earlier, I complimented the chairman on the incredible devotion to this issue and hard work in trying to bring about a compromise, and I am grateful to him.

I would like to apologize to the Senator from New Hampshire who seemed upset that I hadn't put forth my amendment here in writing, but I have it here for him. I thank the chairman for all his hard work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment to offer the amendment about which I have just spoken.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I apologize. I guess we brought this amendment to the floor and to the committee so many times I just assumed my colleagues knew what it was. I apologize for any confusion in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that has been used in the debate on this amendment be charged against the amendment so that it does not get charged against any of my colleague's time.

Mr. President, I yield to my good friend and my colleague from the gulf region, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.

What is the time remaining on our side, please?

I yield time to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2475, the strongest intelligence authorization bill to emerge from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in recent memory. Without the funding authorized in this bill, the brave men and women of the intelligence community would not be able to do their jobs which are so vital to the defense of our country. I and many other members of the committee have visited these intelligence professionals in some of the most austere places of the world, and they deserve our gratitude and support.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and thank him and all of the members and staff of our hardworking committee for their bipartisanship and patriotism. As one of our members, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) often says, we put America first.

Our members have made a difference. In April 2004, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee introduced legislation that became the basis for the 9/11 Commission's Report and the intelligence reform legislation passed by Congress last fall. That reform dramatically reshaped our intelligence community, unifying 15 agencies under the leadership of a director of National Intelligence.

This year's intelligence authorization bill authorizes funds for that new office. The DNI must succeed in his job and he deserves our support. He is responsible for ensuring that intelligence is timely, accurate and actionable. To do this, he needs authority to build and execute budgets and move personnel. So I am pleased that we removed a provision in this bill that would have severely eroded the DNI's authority to move personnel around the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorists, intelligence is the tip of the spear. Some see this fight as a traditional war, requiring wartime emergency budgets and wartime authorities for the President. That may have been the right approach immediately after 9/11. We fought a war in Afghanistan and achieved an impressive victory.

But the terrorist threat has changed. Today we no longer face a centralized top-down terrorist organization operating out of one country. We face a network of loosely affiliated terrorist groups which operate as franchises around the world, and that is why I believe we are living in an era of terror.

This legislation does some good things to help us achieve victory in an era of terror.

First, it ends our reliance on emergency supplemental budgets for counterterrorism. The budget the President sent to Congress this year funded less than 40 percent of the intelligence community counterterrorism requirements, leaving the rest for emergency supplementals. This bill changes that on a bipartisan basis, and we fund 100 percent of CT requirements.

Second, this legislation incorporates a resolution introduced by all nine Democrats, urging the new DNI to establish a multi-tiered security clearance system to allow patriotic Americans with relatives in foreign countries to obtain security clearances and serve our Nation. It is high time we do this. This will help with field officers who can speak the languages and blend in with terrorist groups, penetrate proliferation networks, and recruit spies against the toughest targets.

Victory in an era of terror will not be achieved by military might alone, Mr. Speaker. Victory will require America to win the argument for the hearts and minds of the next generation in the Arab and Muslim world. I fear that we are presently losing that argument.

The ongoing revelations about abuses at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere undermine our ability to maintain the moral high ground and be seen as a beacon of democracy and human

rights. I am encouraged that our committee's new oversight subcommittee is investigating abuses that have occurred in our interrogation and detention programs within the intelligence community. This is a serious bipartisan investigation. But I also support a broader public bipartisan inquiry into detention policies across the government so that our efforts to fight the terrorists do not become a moral black eye for America that undermines our security.

One area where this legislation can be improved, Mr. Speaker, is in its approach to technical systems. The details of these systems are classified and cannot be discussed openly. But I am concerned that we have made sudden, drastic cuts to certain programs that may lead to a gap in our intelligence capabilities and erode the industrial base needed to develop critical capabilities in the future. I am pleased that the chairman is committed to addressing this problem with me as the bill moves to conference.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is strong legislation that puts us on the right track to achieve victory in an era of terror. There is more, much more, we must do and we will. The brave men and women of the intelligence community deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, a mouthful that we call HACI.

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the new news on our committee is that we have stood up an oversight subcommittee. Much discussion has been made about this already today.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is ranking member of the intelligence oversight subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, my home State of California produces many of the platforms and systems that give us the technical edge in intelligence, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my California friend, ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), ranking member on the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I served for 6 years on the Committee on Armed Services and came to admire greatly our next speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the last speaker that I applaud his comments about the need for this new legislation to succeed. It is critical, in my view, to move from a 1947 business model, which is the one we were operating under, to this one.

I also would point out to our colleagues, as the last speaker knows, that battlefield intelligence is not included in the DNI construct that we built.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a recent addition to our committee, who is a very active member of our new Subcommittee on Oversight.

Madam Speaker, I associate myself totally with the comments that our chairman just made.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), our rookie on our side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on the remarks the chairman just made.

Madam Speaker, it is not a zero-sum game, it is not a trade-off between what we call HUMINT, that is, human intelligence, which is primarily the use of spies to tell us the plans and intention of the bad guys, and technology. It is a positive-sum game, or we hope it is a positive-sum game, that balances correctly our investments in HUMINT and our investments in technology.

I said earlier that my home State of California makes many of the technical platforms that we use effectively to gather intelligence. I agree with our chairman that we should take a clear-eyed look at what works and what does not work and what capabilities we need to defeat present and future threats. But some of us, I would say a majority on the minority side, believe that the weighing, measuring, and finding wanting that has gone on in this bill needs further review, that the balance can be better struck.

I look forward to working with the chairman on a better balance as this bill comes to conference, keeping in mind that we want a positive- sum outcome.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a very serious Member of this body, not on our committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the last speaker for his generous words and ask how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, we at the moment have no other speakers on the floor. And I reserve the right to close for our side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, the last 4 years have witnessed two of the worst intelligence failures in our Nation's history. Congress passed intelligence reform and created the DNI position to give the brave women and men of the intelligence community the tools they need to collect and analyze accurate and timely intelligence.

We cannot have any more catastrophic failures where we fail to connect the dots or believe too fervently in the claims of bogus sources. This legislation, the authorization bill we are considering today, is the first funding bill under our new intelligence organization.

It is a strong bill that deserves our support. As we said earlier, for the first time we fully funded counterterrorism in the base budget so we can plan CT operations against our enemies. For the first time we have urged the DNI to create multitier security clearances so we can field a diverse group of intelligence officers who speak the languages and understand the cultures of our adversaries.

I am proud to say these were two ideas offered by the committee Democrats that gained bipartisan support in our committee. As I have said, there are ways this bill can be improved further. And I look forward to working on

this as we move to conference. But this is a bipartisan product that deserves bipartisan support.

And before I close, I do want to thank again the hard-working members on both sides of the committee who put so much effort into it day after day, and moreover the hard-working staff on a bipartisan basis.

And let me just identify those on the minority side who are sitting on the floor with me today: David Buckley, staff director; Chuck Gault, deputy staff director; Jeremy Bash, general counsel; Mike DeLaney; Larry Hanauer; John Keefe; Pam Moore; Wyndee Parker, special counsel; and Christine York. They make us look good, and I urge passage of this legislation before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Charlie Allen is as close as you can come to a legend in the intelligence community. Before the intelligence reform bill passed last year, he was one of the few senior intelligence officers who could get 15 disparate agencies to function as a community. He did that mainly through sheer force of personality.

Our Nation collects intelligence through a variety of means, from spies on the ground to satellites overhead, and everything in between. In his capacity as the assistant director for collection, Charlie got the collectors to understand that they were most effective when they worked together as a team against the hardest targets.

He got them to understand that integrated collection strategies yielded the best outcomes. Under Charlie's leadership, the collectors in the intelligence community have scored some truly impressive victories, and it is unfortunate that these cannot be recounted in public.

I will just tell you that Charlie's service to the Nation was made clear to me the day he told the committee that he had been with the CIA for nearly 50 years. That is an astounding record, and it is certainly appropriate as we close debate on what I think is one of the best authorization bills ever, that we recognize Charlie's service to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I want to commend her and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the enormous work they did outside the intelligence committee. As we were considering the intelligence reform legislation last year, the faces that I saw on a constant basis were theirs and the families. And I often have said that the families were the wind beneath our wings. I would add a couple of Members of Congress to that, too, and I thank them for all they did.

I am very pleased that the majority is accepting the amendment. It is a good idea for us to make absolutely clear that the NCTC, the National Counter Terrorism Center, is a vital piece of the reform we enacted last year and that it needs to be fully operational ASAP.

To explain further, one of the big mistakes we made leading up to 9/ 11 is everyone now knows our failure to connect the dots. Obviously, having a fusion center designed for this purpose is a very good way to make sure we do not fail to connect the dots the next time.

So it took, I would say, the introduction of this amendment to cause the President to nominate a very able fellow, Vice Admiral Redd, to be the director of the NCTC. He did that 2 days after this amendment was presented in the Committee on Rules. And perhaps now that we are accepting it as part of today's debate, the NCTC will become fully operational even before that prison reform bill is enacted.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this. I support the team that has brought this to us. And I would note to this body, that bill last year that we worked so hard on gets its real sea legs today as the House takes this necessary step in funding its critical parts and in making clear that we will not accept any efforts to roll back the jurisdiction of the DNI, who is going to be the commander of the tip of the spear in this era of terror.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and commend him for sponsoring this notion of an independent commission to look at detainee abuses.

Mr. Speaker, though I am a strong supporter of this legislation, I think it would be even better if it included language to establish this commission, and so I support the motion to recommit the bill for the purpose of adding the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment.

Military historians often talk about the ``fog of war.'' I believe our intelligence professionals operate in a fog of law, a confusing patchwork of treaties, laws, memos and policies.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that it is Congress' responsibility to establish rules concerning captures on land and water. I hope that we will seize this responsibility.

But as Congress studies the policy options going forward, it is vital that we have the facts. Only a bipartisan, independent commission can get to the bottom of what happened among administration policymakers within the military chain of command and out in the field.

The steady stream of revelations about Guantanamo and other facilities around the world erode our moral credibility, just as we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim world.

It is vital to our national security, Mr. Speaker, that we fix this problem so that our detention and interrogation policies get us actionable intelligence without creating a whole new generation of terrorist recruits. Pretending that there is no problem is not a strategy for success.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our committee, on a bipartisan basis, is looking into these issues through our Subcommittee on Oversight. I commend our progress; but in addition, I think the public will have more confidence in what we are doing if we also have an outside, independent commission.

In that spirit, I support the Waxman motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 331 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 331 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2475, authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.

I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as read.

It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) or her designee which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and all points of order against the amendment are waived.

The rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his hard-working ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their excellent work on this legislation. More than any other committee in the Congress, we rely on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do work that we have confidence in and that is accurate and honest. The committee is the eyes and ears of this Congress in the intelligence community. We depend on them to be aware of what the rest of the world and our own community is up to. We put our faith in them to practice oversight and to produce a legislative product that addresses the needs of our intelligence community, and therefore our Nation.

The committee does an outstanding job of working on a bipartisan basis to provide for our men and women who are fighting the war on terror on a variety of fronts.

I want to take a moment to salute those men and women who are working around the globe in a variety of capacities doing so much in a quiet, discreet way for our security and liberty. Linguists, analysts, case officers, mathematicians, and engineers, some of the brightest minds that our Nation produces, work in the intelligence community taking, in many cases, an option that is not as generous as the private sector may be if they were to put that intellect and those talents and skills into some other capacity in the private sector.

But they do it as a labor of love, as a part of public service identical to that which calls men and women into uniform in the armed services and which calls men and women into our firefighter and police and other first responding capacities. No differently than those uniformed members, the men and women in our intelligence community throughout the world are performing a huge public service for which we can never show enough gratitude and appreciation.

The Intelligence Committee has reported out a bill that continues the House's commitment to the global war on terrorism and to ensuring that intelligence resources are directed in a balanced way toward threats to our national security. This legislation authorizes more than last year's appropriated amount and more than the President's request to continue to fight the war on terror.

The bill does an effective job of balancing our intelligence resources and strengthening human intelligence gathering by increasing the number of case officers and training and support infrastructure. A long-term counterterrorism program is established to reduce the dependence on supplemental appropriations. Additionally, it authorizes the full amount of funds expected for heightened operations for counterterrorism operations and the war in Iraq.

H.R. 2475 enhances the analytic workforce by providing additional linguists and analysts as well as improved training and tools. Furthermore, the bill continues to invest in technical programs, funding systems end to end, investing in R&D and increased use of signature intelligence, and reflects the results of a comprehensive survey to review and rationalize technical collection programs.

For the first time, the Intelligence Authorization Act funds the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence and allows for increased positions. The National Counterterrorism Center is enhanced through improved information sharing activities and collaboration provisions. The bill improves physical and technical infrastructure of intelligence agencies with new facilities.

This authorization bill is a perfect example of how Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. Again, I thank Chairman Hoekstra, Ranking Member Harman, and the members of the committee for their admirable work. I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as it relates to these issues. It reflects a legitimate disagreement over the direction that this investigation should take, whether it should be based in the legislative branch or based in the executive branch or some combination, which has been the history.

In fact, here in our own Congress, the Senate has had eight hearings on detainee abuse, and three on Abu Ghraib specifically. General Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs; the Chief of Staff of the Army; the Secretary of Defense; and the Acting Secretary of the Army have all conducted independent reviews. There are 12 other Department of Defense reviews that have occurred, and the House Committee on Armed Services in this body has held three hearings and numerous briefings.

The legislative branch has been diligent in their oversight responsibility. And I appreciate that there are differences on this, but I particularly appreciate the way that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have handled this. Unlike in the Senate where the detainee abuse was equated with the regime of Pol Pot and Hitler and Stalin, there is a measured approach to disagreement in this Chamber, and I think that that is the responsible approach, unlike the direction that the Senate has gone. To equate Guantanamo Bay with regimes that murdered millions of people is absurd, and it is dangerous, and it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in this body pointed out, detainees in Guantanamo are provided their own prayer rugs. If that were done in the public school system, it would be against the law. They are called to prayer five times a day. If that were done on the average high school intercom system, it would be a violation of the law. They are fed three nutritious meals per day at an average of $12 per detainee per day. If we multiplied what we spend on the school lunch program times three meals, they would be receiving less than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.

And because of the ongoing judicial review that our government is engaged in with those detainees, at the end of that process, 234 detainees so far have been released from Guantanamo. And to show their great gratitude, at least a dozen of them have been identified as returning to the fight against American servicemen and -women.

I think that it is important that we keep those facts in mind, as well, as we move through this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unquestionably, Congress's responsibility to properly oversee the activities of the entire Federal Government is preeminent, and that is why I am proud that, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), they have had hearings. In the Senate they have had hearings. And today, as we speak, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also has an oversight subcommittee devoted to investigating all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps we should remind the gentleman of some of the 545 people who are being detained in Guantanamo; 545, by the way, is fewer people than are in my county's jail on a Saturday night.

But of those 545 people who killed innocent women and children, they included a detainee named Katani who was stopped before he could board one of the planes used to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or taking care of Osama bin Laden's body guards, other members of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks and members of the Taliban. These are not your average, run-of-the-mill pick-pockets and thieves. They are hardened terrorists who have pledged everything to destroy American service men and women, to come into our homeland and wreak havoc and cause mayhem and cause death and destruction within these borders of the United States of America. They are being monitored. They are under ongoing judicial review. The eyes of the world, as this debate has evidenced, are on Guantanamo.

These are individuals who represent the very worst in our global society who would do anything to bring us harm. Yet we seem to lose all of that perspective in this very dramatic, theatrical debate that began in the Senate when there was an equation of Guantanamo with the regimes of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot which resulted in the torture and mutilation and death of millions of human beings. And for this similar equation to be made on the House floor that we, in our activities in Guantanamo, are even remotely close to those regimes is out of bounds.

There have been numerous Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse, numerous House Committee on Armed Services hearings on detainee abuse, Senate committee hearings on detainee abuse, and ongoing Intelligence subcommittee reviews of what is going on there.

It is important that we step back and understand that this is an intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women the tools they need to fight people around the world that we would not invite over for dinner; people who would do everything in their power to bring down our society, our form of government, our cloak of safety. Let us keep those things in mind when we go forward with this debate about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps the gentleman, out of his concern for torture, would read into the Record the similar treatments, the abuse, the torture, the behavior shown Jessica Lynch. Perhaps the gentleman would also read into the Record the actions of the gentlemen who boarded American airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Perhaps, out of his sense of concern about torture, he would enter into the Record transcripts and videos of the beheadings that have been taking place in Iraq. Perhaps the gentleman, out of his sense of concern about torture, would cover those bad apples, those bad actors, and the actions that are being taken against them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the seeker of that truth, the chairman of the oversight subcommittee tasked with looking into alleged abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.)

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right when she says we are better than them. She is absolutely right when she says we are not equal to them. I hope she shares that thought with the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a vibrant, robust debate and a good solid beginning of the undeniable debate that will follow on the underlying bill.

In case you missed it from the debate over the rule, there is a lot more to this rule than just Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is an important rule that allows us to consider the intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women around the world the tools and skill and support they need to win the war against terrorism on our behalf, important new assets in terms of technical capabilities, and a tremendous investment in the most important piece that we have in intelligence, which is those hardworking men and women who were called to public service.

This is a fair rule. It allows for a great deal more consideration of these issues that we have already begun to discuss in terms of detainees and the role of American intelligence in our society and the tools that they need around the world. I encourage everyone to support it and to support the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 331--Rule for H.R. 2475 Intelligence

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

``In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the

following:

``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution

if offered by Representative Waxman of California or a

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

not be subject to amendment, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4)

Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Waxman referred to

in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment to H.R. 2475, As Reported Offered by Mr. Waxman of California

At the end, add the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, just a couple of days ago, my son Leif called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be our 16th grandchild.

Mr. President, I have been in public service a long time. Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year, gas prices have been over $3 in the State of Nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in Nevada.

The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the Federal Government is under indictment. We have deficits so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration these last 5 years.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world, but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my family, my grandchildren?

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, also on the President's staff, a senior adviser to the President.

Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135

years. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. A decision made to place U.S. soldiers, our military, into harm's way, I believe, is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress and in the President. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about: how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

These are not just words from Harry Reid. COL Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff--Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State--this man was Chief of Staff for 4 years. Here is what he said about the war in Iraq.

In President Bush's first term some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about postwar Iraq, were made by a secretive, little known cabal, made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions.

That is what I am here to talk about today. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this administration.

Unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.

During the time we had a Democratic President--8 years--and when the Democrats were in charge of the committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gambit of what went on in that administration. Today, there is not an oversight hearing held on anything.

Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who had gotten in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated, and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. The administration's statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capability and ties with al-Qaida represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State in her other capacities, about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said:

Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs.

Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that if left unchecked Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. Obviously, we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false--the situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links to al-Qaida. The Vice President told the American people:

We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear

weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with

various terrorist groups including the al-Qaida organization.

These assertions have been totally discredited--not a little bit, totally discredited. But again the administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the Government's top experts did not agree with these claims. Again, Wilkerson is a person in point.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Nothing.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No.

Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No.

Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities was not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. We see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this administration. Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.

There is also another disturbing pattern; namely, about how this administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this administration's activity sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended, he was fired, relieved of duty, when he suggested it would take 200,000 troops. Well, it has taken a lot more than that.

When the OMB Director Larry Lindsey suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, he was dumped, fired.

When the U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the conclusion about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the administration simply pulled out its inspectors.

When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei raised questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post.

When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA spy. These people now have 24-hour protection, fearing for their own safety.

Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements--and I have only mentioned a few--what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

Everyone may think the troops in Iraq are 100-percent Republican. I have met a friend, a marine. He was over there when the elections were held 10 months ago. He said where he was, he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle. Wherever he was on duty, all over this area, he said he could not find anyone who was happy with the way the elections turned out. The Republicans will do anything they can to keep the truth from people such as my marine friend. I would give you his name except he is stationed right here in the Marine Corps.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000--2,025 now--Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this ongoing 3-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

We have had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Ely, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonopah. Every time one of these deaths occurs, it is a dagger in the heart of that community.

This behavior is unacceptable. I am a patient man, Mr. President. I am a legislator, and I know things don't happen

overnight. I am a patient man. But the call from my son has put this in perspective. I am worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering, I repeat, as it is solemn. The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice.

For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about this administration's Iraq policy, and we received a four-sentence answer in response:

Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your

concerns with Iraq. I shared your letter with the appropriate

administration officials--

Remember, we wrote it to the President--

and agencies responsible for formulating policy

recommendations in this area. Please be assured your letter

is receiving close and careful attention. Thank you for your

comments. Candy Wolff.

That is a letter that duly elected Senators of the United States Senate wrote to the President of the United States, and we get a letter from Candy Wolff saying: Thanks, we're working on it.

America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching, comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: How did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.

Who did the Bush administration listen to and who did they ignore?

How did the senior administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?

What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.

How did the administration coordinate its effort to attack individuals who dared challenge the administration's assertions? We know what happened to them. I listed a few.

Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents which will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing except to assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican Senators going back to the first Iraq war.

We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security.

If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this administration.

Key facts about the Intelligence Committee's phase II, June 4, 2003: Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flawed intelligence on Iraq WMD phase I.

February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to phase II investigation looking at five areas, including whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence.

July 9, 2004, committee publishes phase I report on the intelligence agencies' mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that phase II is as yet unbegun. Republican Chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on ``Meet the Press,'' Republican Chairman Roberts says:

Even as I'm speaking, our staff is working on phase II and

will get it done.

Fall of 2004, House Intelligence Committee, after no follow- through on the Iraq WMD investigation, the House announced on May 2003 no final report.

Republican Committee Chairman Porter Goss is selected as CIA Director. Regarding the question of the Valerie Plame leak, Goss previously said: ``Show me a blue dress and some DNA and I will give you an investigation.''

November 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, the President's hand-picked WMD Intelligence Committee says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong, but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further. Replow?

April 10, 2005, on ``Meet the Press,'' Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done.

September 2005, committee Democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase

No objection.

Mr. President, our representatives will be Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein.