Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the issue before us is one of the most difficult decisions I have faced during my time in Congress. The reason it is so difficult is the concern about what will happen to our economy if this bill is not passed. But the bottom line is that this bill is an unprecedented intrusion by government into the economy of the country and is contrary to the common sense principles in which I believe. I have carefully weighed the opinion of many different sources, including those who have spent their professional lives in the financial sector and the American taxpayers I am privileged to represent.

I am convinced that the United States faces a serious economic crisis, centered on Wall Street and high risk financial institutions but with shock waves that could extend throughout the country. I am further convinced that in this situation some sort of government action is needed and appropriate.

In fact, Congress is partly responsible for this situation. Over the years, some in Congress have pushed government agencies and lenders to provide more loans than many could repay. Too many people borrowed too much money. Yet, those laws and regulations which helped to create this problem are not corrected in this legislation.

Despite the fact that action is needed, I am not convinced that the bill before us is the type of government action that is appropriate or that it will be effective in solving our problems.

In order to support a measure of this size and scope, there should be some reasonable belief that it will work--that it will solve the underlying causes of the problem. Of course, there are no ``guarantees,'' as we keep hearing, but $700 billion of taxpayer money should not be used as a hopeful experiment.

Yet, many believe that this bill will not be effective in preventing an economic downturn, and, in fact, does nothing to address the underlying issues that created the problems we face. It does little to bring more private capital into the market. It has no systemic reform of the regulatory agencies that helped contribute to the problem. The Fair Accounting Rules, which are widely believed to have aggravated the situation, are only studied, not changed.

The bill is far better than it was as originally offered and now has more oversight and some checks and balances. But there is still enormous discretion with the Secretary of the Treasury, more power than seems wise to give to anyone. The core of the plan is to have the federal government buy assets which cannot be sold to anyone else. Those who have the most of these assets, often based on ``zero-down loans'' and ``no doc/low doc'' mortgage loans, will obviously benefit the most. Those who were more prudent in their lending will benefit less.

I understand that any measure will be somewhat unfair in that some of those who took the excessive risks and made unwise decisions will be protected from the full consequences of their decisions. Some degree of unfairness is inevitable.

But it is important to keep foremost in our minds that the foundation of the American economy is not Wall Street traders or multi-national banks. The foundation of our economy is American businesses and workers who pay their bills and taxes on time, who borrow responsibly and take reasonable risks, and create economic value, jobs, and a higher standard of living. If this measure damages them, it damages our present economy and our future. I am afraid that this bill does damage well-run companies and institutions, and it certainly damages the American taxpayer.

The only compelling argument I can find on behalf of this bill is that we will confront a credit crisis and severe recession if it does not pass. Obviously, I hope that will not happen. But failure of this specific proposal should not mean that we stop trying to find common sense answers to support our economy. Congress can return to work immediately, listening not just to the Secretary of the Treasury this time, but to commercial bankers and economists and taxpayers across the country. There are a number of good ideas which can be considered in a thorough but timely way. We should not rush into a flawed proposal that will have consequences that last for generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this defense authorization bill, appropriately named for our colleague from California, who has done so much to serve and to strengthen the United States during his time here and before.

Mr. Speaker, as we are here on the floor, the Armed Services Committee is receiving testimony from a distinguished retired general who is there to remind us that whatever strategy the United States has in the future, it must be to win the wars we are in, not just end them. That is certainly the philosophy that I think the terrorism portion of this bill brings to the table, that portion of the bill that reminds us that this country is still at war against a radical enemy who seeks to hurt as many of us as possible, that portion of the bill extends and expands some of the key authorities that enable us to work with other militaries, other security forces so that we can have that battle on their soil rather than having them here.

That portion of the bill also acknowledges that we are not just in a kinetic struggle, we're in an ideological struggle, and tries to take some steps forward to deal with issues such as strategic communications.

That portion of the bill also acknowledges that we have to bring the whole government to this fight. It can't be something that just the military alone does, but we need the full range of capabilities by the United States Government, and we've had a problem in doing that.

Overall, I think this bill helps make the country stronger and safer, and I believe that all Members should support it.

Mr. Speaker, the approval ratings for Congress are at record lows, and it is no wonder. The American people see that too often this Congress has played partisan games rather than confronting the issues head-on in a straightforward way. Today the games continue.

The Democrats' Energy Bill is a fig leaf designed to cover a political problem. It is not real. Rather than untie our hands so we can produce more energy of all kinds here at home, in many ways this bill makes it harder.

In several important areas of energy production, this bill does nothing.

This bill does nothing to develop more nuclear energy.

This bill does nothing to build more refineries.

This bill extends the wind tax credit by only 1 year, but does nothing to make it easier to plan and finance the large investments that are necessary to build wind farms.

Even on drilling off our coasts, this bill replaces a temporary ban that will expire 2 weeks from today and with a permanent ban on exploring and producing where most of the oil is. It prohibits all drilling within 50 miles of the coast line, where the Minerals Management Service says 88 percent of the oil is located.

From 50 to 100 miles, States can choose to drill, but get no royalty payments--none. So there is little incentive for them to allow drilling even for the 12 percent of the oil that may be there.

Drilling can occur more than 100 miles away--which is technologically impossible in some areas. But even where it is possible, this very same bill repeals the existing tax incentives which encourage deep water drilling.

Of course, should a new drilling opportunity slip through these new regulations and restrictions, lawsuits are ready and waiting to shut it down, and this bill does nothing to limit them.

There are many good, serious energy proposals that have been introduced in this Congress. Over a year ago, for example, I introduced the ``No More Excuses Energy Act,'' a bill that would encourage energy production of all kinds here at home. Unfortunately, the legislation that we are discussing today is just another excuse not to take real action to solve our energy shortfalls.

It hardly seems too much to ask to allow this House 2 or 3 days to go through the various ideas, allowing members to vote according to their districts and their consciences. Energy is that important, that central to our country's security and quality of life. Instead, this

charade will disappoint the American people yet again on the issue that most directly affects their family and well-being. We can and should do better.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the intelligence authorization bill that I would have written exactly, but I think it is important to start out by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for taking some risk to have a bipartisan bill that can have support from both sides of the aisle. That is unfortunately fairly rare in this Chamber to be able to work together on something that is important, especially in national security, and yet that has happened here.

Intelligence is very important for our country's security. In many ways it is the first line of defense. Certainly all our other national security efforts depend upon intelligence. And so working together in a bipartisan way, even being willing to take some risks to have a bill with bipartisan support, means we can't have everything we want, but we will work together in order to move this bill forward.

Secondly, I think it is important to acknowledge the enormous influence of three retiring Members, three Members retiring from Congress after this Congress: the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) whose personal military background, intelligence, and nature of her district has made her a leader on many issues, especially in the area of technical collection; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) with whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and we have worked on many issues, but no one is as knowledgeable and passionate about the issue of space and space policy as the gentleman from Alabama; and then the other gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), he and I were partners in the last Congress when for the first time this Congress stood up an oversight subcommittee just also as we were beginning to implement the Intelligence Reform Act. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) is one of those fairly rare Members who always asks what is in the best interest of the country first, and it will be a significant loss to this Congress and to the country upon his retirement.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of commonsense reforms in this bill that may not make headlines. One of the issues Mr. Cramer and I have worked on, for example, in the past is how can we measure improvement in intelligence, for example, in foreign language capability. There are some specific provisions in this bill which do help us have specific measurements so we can tell whether we are increasing our capability, not just as far as numbers of people but in their fluency in specific languages. That is absolutely critical for the purpose of intelligence. And yet even for something like that, it is hard for any of us to measure whether we are making the improvements that need to be made.

Making sure that any administration gives this committee the information we deserve to do our job is a challenge. This bill deserves support.

Madam Speaker, the compromise bill before us today is not the bill that I would have written. As a matter of fact, the compromise Senate bill we have been trying to get a vote on since February is not the bill I would have written either. But I do believe that the bill before us, imperfect as it is, does do what is needed to protect the country, and therefore I support it.

A number of people deserve credit, including Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Blunt and Mrs. Wilson on our side. But I also want to commend the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for the time and energy he put into this issue and for his perseverance in pushing it to a resolution. I know a number of Members on his side don't want to do anything. They prefer operating under an outdated law that makes it impossible to move with the speed and agility we need to have to protect the country in an age of terrorism. There may be some on this side who would prefer to have a political issue for the fall campaign.

But I believe that every day we grow more vulnerable, and that we must act now to give our national security professionals, including our troops in the field, the tools and the information they need to do their job.

Madam Speaker, the House has taken some significant steps this week toward ending the disturbing practice of playing politics with national security. When this House is allowed to vote, we can come together and accomplish things for the country. If we can just extend that now into energy and other issues and just allow a vote on the proposals that are before us, we can do good for the country in other areas as well.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, whatever the outcome of this debate on Amtrak today is, it is not going to affect my constituents very much. What does affect them every minute of every day is the price of energy. I would suggest that we should defeat the previous question on the rule so that the gentleman, Mr. Sessions, can offer an amendment to this bill that would bring to the floor a bill that has provisions that will do something about energy, that will do something on the issue that affects every American every moment of every day.

That amendment would bring to the floor H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act, and at the same time, a discharge petition today is being filed to require the House to vote on that bill.

The philosophy of that bill is that we need to produce more energy of all kinds here at home, and we have run out of time to make excuses on why we can't do that. And you have heard some of those excuses and some of the political blame game already today during the debate. Some people want to blame China and India for using too much oil. Some people want to blame big oil companies. Other people want to blame OPEC for not producing enough. Some people even want to blame suburban moms for using too much energy as they drive their kids to sporting events in their minivans.

They want to say they're using too much oil. But the point is, we've had enough of this blame game. The point is, it's time for this Congress to act and actually do something. And the way to act today is to vote down the previous question so today we can do something about the cost of energy throughout the country.

The No More Excuses Act takes the approach that we need to do more of everything. Yes, it allows drilling in Alaska and off our coasts, but it also encourages companies to take the CO2 that goes up the smokestacks and put it back in the ground to flush out all of the oil on existing wells so that we can get every drop we can out of the ground.

This bill encourages the building of more refineries. It encourages the building of nuclear power plants. It encourages more wind energy. There is a lot of wind energy activity in my district, but what I hear from all of those involved is, when Congress just extends the tax credit 1 or 2 years at a time, there is no way that we can make the financial decisions we need to make.

So this bill that ought to come to the floor today would extend it by 10 years so that we can have a major investment in wind, as well as all the other forms of energy that we can produce here at home, because every bit of energy we produce here at home is one less barrel of oil we have to buy from overseas. And that makes sense.

What we're trying to do is to force some action that will make things better, not worse. Unfortunately, what the public and what the markets hear from this Congress so far the last 18 months are ideas that make things worse. They want to put a windfall profits tax on ``Big Oil'' so that they are discouraged from producing more oil. They may not know by the way, Madam Speaker, that 90 percent of the wells drilled in the continental United States are drilled by independent companies, not Big Oil. But what people hear from this Congress is we want to take away the incentives that encourage us to drill the Deepwater in the gulf. So other countries are there drilling, but we want to tie our hands and not produce the energy we have; we'd rather buy the oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Nigeria. That makes no sense.

There is no one perfect answer, but Madam Speaker, my argument is that rather than pointing the fingers of blame, it's time for no more excuses. It's time for action today, and that action can come by voting down the previous question so that the rule can be amended and we can take action today that produces more energy of all kinds here at home. That will matter to my constituents, and that will matter to all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I want to commend Chairman Skelton and Chairman Berman and Chairwoman Lowey for working together. It is something that does not often happen in this body to have three different Chairs work together on a common purpose. In addition, Mrs. Davis from California and Mr. Davis from Kentucky have been pushing this very same issue.

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to be successful against the terrorists or any other number of challenges we face, we have to have all the instruments of national power and influence working together, not only coordinated, but integrated, so that it is a seamless unit.

I hope, as others have said, this is a first step. But it is clearly only one step towards greater reforms that need to take place to ensure that it is one integrated unit when this country seeks to accomplish things. I appreciate the spotlight being shown on the problem through this amendment. And I hope that we have this sort of cooperation going forward in the future as well.

Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits under all circumstances a contractor from interrogating a detainee.

Now, it is often the case that the most qualified and the most experienced person to conduct an interrogation is a contract employee. As the gentleman from North Carolina mentioned, there is an exception for interpreters. But an interrogator who also speaks the language and even the dialect can be a much more effective interrogator if he can combine those skills. Yet that capability cannot be combined under this amendment unless that person happens to work for the government.

There are situations where technical knowledge is essential to conduct an interrogation, and often that technical knowledge does not exist with government employees. So there is no choice under this amendment. That interrogation simply cannot be conducted in the most effective way.

Madam Chairman, there are folks who have conducted interrogations for years. They are experienced. They know what they are doing. But they have to retire from the military. That person can no longer be hired to do the job.

There are folks who don't want to be government employees all year- round, for whatever reason. They may want to just go work 3 or 6 months. But they know what they are doing. They may work for the FBI. They may work for the police department the rest of the time. That person cannot be an interrogator.

So the bottom line is this amendment ties our hands and prevents us from using the most effective, most qualified people to conduct interrogations. And when you do that, you are limiting the information that is necessary to keep this country safe.

The gentleman talks about, well, we all want high quality folks, well-trained and so forth. Absolutely. And if there are issues the gentleman wants to specifically talk about related to hiring or supervision or qualifications, we ought to talk about that. But this amendment doesn't do that. It is a blanket prohibition, and in my view it ties our hands from having the best people available to protect the country. And that is always a mistake. I think it should be rejected.

Madam Chairman, this idea has been proposed and rejected before, partly because it makes no sense to stop what is happening on the battlefield and go film. The author of this amendment says, no, it only applies to theater level detention facilities. The problem is that if somebody is really going to commit some sort of abuse, they will just conduct that abuse somewhere else. This amendment only applies in certain places.

The problem is that video recordings of interrogations creates a discoverable record, and disclosure of that record complicates the criminal prosecution. That is why a lot of jurisdictions in this country, Federal and State, do not require these sorts of recordings.

In addition, as the former chairman said, having interrogators on camera threatens them, because their face and their voice could well be made public and, therefore, the danger to their lives could increase.

Secondly, these things could be made public, and the techniques and tactics that are used and the procedures would also be made available to the enemy in the future.

The bottom line is that when you have got a camera there, these interrogations are most likely going to be less effective.

So here, again, we have an example of putting our military folks in the category as suspects, because we assume they are going to do some sort of abuse and so we have got to film them because we don't trust them and limit the effectiveness of what they do. We tie their hands and therefore make it more difficult for them to do their job. I think that is a mistake.

Mr. Chairman, first let me express my gratitude and my admiration for those senior members of the committee who are leaving Congress, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and the gentleman from California, our former Chair (Mr. Hunter), for whom this bill is appropriately named. It has certainly been an honor for me to work with and to learn from each of them over the years as they worked to protect the country's security.

Mr. Chairman, the portion of this bill produced by the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which has been very ably led by Chairman Smith, I think is worthy of all Members' support. It enables the Special Operations command forces to remain on the cutting edge of our fight against terrorists with the equipment and the resources and the authorities that they need. This portion of the bill supports the research activities at DARPA and at the individual services, which are the foundation of our future military and therefore the foundation of our future security. This portion of the bill makes decisions in a host of other areas from information technology to chem- bio defense and force protection, and I think it makes good decisions.

I want to say I also appreciate particularly the comments of Chairman Skelton regarding the importance of the inter-agency process and the efforts of him and Chairman Smith on strategic communications. Both of those things are absolutely essential for the fight against terrorists as well as for the country's broader security.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill, and as others have said, it deserves full support in this House. I don't think you can bring a bill to the floor, however, that looks after the country's national security and particularly a portion that talks about terrorists without acknowledging that this Congress is about to go on recess without doing two of the most important things that it could do in the fight against terrorists and to protect our country's security.

It seems this week we have had time to debate a bill to pay foreigners to take care of potentially rare dogs and cats. We have had time to debate and vote on a bill to commemorate Frank Sinatra. But we have not had time this week to debate and vote on a clean supplemental that can become law that will fund the troops who are actually on the front lines of this fight. We have not had time, we have not been able to vote, on the Senate FISA modernization bill, which is absolutely essential both for the troops and for protecting us here at home.

So this is a good bill. This committee has done good work. But I think it challenges all of us in this broader fight against terrorists to do all of our work and to do all that is our responsibility to defend the country, and I hope we do.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Conyers said a few moments ago the House will not be permitted to vote on the Senate bill because he has a better idea. Let me suggest three reasons why he does not have a better idea.

Number one, the bill before us sets up a new process to adjudicate immunity. Now, if a company voluntarily answered the request of their government, they did not do so to get a chance to have another legal process, to pay some more lawyers to file some more motions. That is not what they were doing. They were doing it to answer the call of their country, and I think most Americans believe that Good Samaritans should be thanked rather than punished with a new legal process.

But I would also suggest that this new legal process chills any hope of voluntary cooperation in the future, not just for intelligence but for quick response for law enforcement matters as well.

I don't see how any company can meet the obligations of the laws this Congress has passed to its shareholders and others and voluntarily submit themselves to another legal process to pay some more lawyers and file some more motions.

Secondly, this bill requires court approval of processes, of procedures before foreign surveillance of foreign targets can ever begin.

Now, under the Protect America Act, the FISA Court took months to approve the procedures. And so it's reasonable to assume it's going to take months to approve the procedures under this bill were it to become law. The problem is, you can't begin foreign surveillance of foreign targets under this law until those procedures are approved. And I am perplexed how Members on either side can feel comfortable having months more go by before we can have that intelligence information.

Thirdly, this bill sets up a new commission. And I understand it may be politically desirable to set up a new commission and have new investigations and have some more folks on a commission looking to make their mark. I understand politically why that would be attractive. But it seems to me that, one, there is no need to do that. What do we have the Intelligence Committee for, if it is not to investigate and understand, as has been done thoroughly in this case. So I must conclude that this new commission must be an attempt to deflect responsibility away from those in this Congress who had the responsibility to oversee these programs.

We have a better option. We should take it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the St. Francis Parish, in Amarillo, Texas, on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary.

The history of the St. Francis Parish can be traced to the early 1900's when Texas sold public lands to encourage development in the region. In 1907, the Reverend Francis J. O'Reilly decided to establish a ``Catholic colony'' in the Texas Panhandle. After an extensive search, a site was selected to serve a growing number of parishioners settling the area. By 1908, over 13,000 acres on the Potter-Carson County line were purchased to develop a town.

The community boomed with families who were attracted to West Texas to work the land as faithful farmers and ranchers, and the first Catholic church was built there in 1908. The parish continues to flourish with a current congregation of about 65 families.

Over the years, the community and parish experienced both the blessings and challenges of life in West Texas. Dealing with unpredictable weather, crops, and economic conditions served to help parishioners become even more steadfast in their faith. The strong agricultural community set deep roots in the area, and many descendents of those first families still call the Texas Panhandle and St. Francis home.

The St. Francis Parish continues to actively celebrate and embrace its history of faith and community. In 1983, they commemorated their 75th Anniversary, which included the placement of a historical marker and the publication of a hardbound history book entitled ``Harvest of Memories--The St. Francis Story.''

Faith, family, and fellowship make our communities strong and provide us with hope. As St. Francis Parish celebrates its past and looks ahead to the future, I join with the community to wish them a joyous 100th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and in opposition to overriding the President's veto. I think it's fine for us to stand up here on the floor and make all of the speeches we want about what the administration has or has not done that we like; there are some of those criticisms of the administration that I might well agree with about what they've done in the past. But I think it is a far different thing to stand up here and argue that we should put into law a measure that ties the hands of the professionals we expect to keep us safe.

This bill ties the hands of our national security professionals in a number of ways. One way is that it does not update the FISA law, which may well be the most important single thing the intelligence community does today that helps keep us safe. And, in fact, as the gentleman from Michigan noted, we are nearly 30 days beyond the expiration date of the Protect America Act; and every day that goes by makes us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

A bipartisan compromise in the other body garnered 68 votes, and yet we can't even have the leadership of this House bring it up for a vote to be considered so that each individual Member can exercise his judgment or his or her judgment or conscience in how they vote. If that measure had been rejected by the House, it would be one thing; but to never allow it to come up means that the leadership of this House insists on tying our hands, preventing our national security professionals from having the tools they need to do the job. I think that's inexcusable.

This measure before us also ties the hands of our national security professionals by limiting the interrogation techniques they can use, and even more than that, by broadcasting to the world the only interrogation techniques which can be used. It's like giving al Qaeda the training manual that they need to prepare their people for. And I know that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just spoke. I wonder if he would be in support of just sending our battle plans out to any potential adversary saying this is what we are planning on doing. You all go ahead and get ready for it. We will tell you in advance what our intentions are. That's essentially what this bill does.

And I note, Mr. Speaker, a writer, Stuart Taylor of National Journal, last December put the scenario pretty well. He says, Imagine we get Osama bin Laden or some high-level lieutenant with the intelligence reports that a massive new al Qaeda attack may be eminent. Here are the questions all Members ought to answer when considering how they're going to vote: Should it be illegal for CIA interrogators to try to scare the person into talking by yelling at them? Should it be illegal to threaten to slap them in some way? Should it be illegal to pretend to be an interrogator from a different country? Should it be illegal to turn up the air-conditioning so they are uncomfortably cold? Should it be illegal to deny them hot food while giving them all of the cold food that they want?

Because all of those things would be illegal under the provision that's in this bill. It is not about waterboarding. It is about having a guarantee of hot food, comfortable temperature, no sort of deception, having no one raise their voice against you. Those are the protections for the terrorists that are in this bill.

I think that's a mistake. I think it is a mistake to tell them what we are going to do, and I think it is a mistake to take options off the table like turning up the air-conditioning.

These provisions, not having the FISA modernization, limiting their interrogation methods, treat our American professionals as the problem, and that's the problem with this bill. It should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the comments from the last speaker are very enlightening on this debate because we have heard for month after month the same arguments made time and time again, and the bottom line is there are a number of Members who are not for these authorities that allow our national security professionals to listen to terrorist communications. And there are a number of people who would just as soon let the Protect America Act expire and let it go out of effect. As the gentleman who just spoke said, we don't need it to protect the country.

But there are others of us who believe that we do need such authorities to protect the country, and a very large number of Members of the other body have just voted on a proposal that would do that.

And so my position, Mr. Speaker, is give us a chance to vote on it. We hear

excuse after excuse. We need more documents, we need more information, we need more legal opinions, we need 14 days, we need 21 days. But we have been debating the same issues month after month. Nothing has changed. No more information, no document is going to change the basic position the country stands in today and, that is, a law expires on Friday, and if the people for whom we have given the responsibility to protect the country are to do their job, that law is going to have to be made permanent so they can count on it, not dribbling it out a few weeks at a time, not treating them the way we treat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by giving them funding just a few months at a time, but giving them the authority they need to do their job.

I suggest the best way to do that is to bring up the bill that has already passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and give us a chance to vote on it. There will be some Members who vote ``no.'' They think we don't need that authority. They think the Protect America Act is not needed. But I suggest a majority will vote ``yes'' and it will pass and the country will be safer.

Madam Speaker, I rise in disappointment, really, of this bill. There is no doubt that there are a number of good provisions in it, thanks to the work of the chairman, ranking member and others. But I believe that we could and we should have done better. And I'll say this, Madam Speaker, in the context of the intelligence issues of the moment.

As the chairman noted, there is a great deal of turmoil about the product of the intelligence community on specific issues today, and I would recommend that all our colleagues read two editorials in today's Washington Post, one by Dr. Henry Kissinger that talks about the politicization of intelligence and the other by Mr. Ignatius that talks about the congressional oversight of intelligence, which has broken. We need to do things to improve that oversight, to increase the credibility of the community and congressional responsibilities in overseeing the intelligence community, but, unfortunately, this bill does not do the things, many of the things that could help improve our credibility and improve the community. For example, just a few days ago, this body voted for a motion to instruct to remove all earmarks in this bill and to increase human intelligence collection.

Now, part of the reason I believe we should have done that is to increase the credibility of Congress in overseeing the intelligence community because there have been problems in this area. But, unfortunately, the conference report that comes back to us today did not follow the clear bipartisan vote of the House in removing earmarks and in maximizing human intelligence collection, which is very critical. And it is a missed opportunity to improve the community and to improve ourselves in our responsibilities. And I don't think we can emphasize enough the importance of human intelligence collection in the face of the threats we face today. Much of the intelligence that will keep Americans safe is not going to come from satellites or other sorts of technical collection. It's going to come from human beings who understand the capabilities and the intention of another small group of human beings hidden in a cave or in a compound somewhere. And that's where we have to put the emphasis. Unfortunately, this bill does not do as much as it should.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would say that I believe it's a mistake to telegraph to al Qaeda or other potential enemies exactly what we're going to do when we capture you. And I believe that that provision of this bill that basically gives your playbook to our enemies increases the danger to American lives. As the gentlelady from Illinois said, it does not eliminate our ability to protect this country, but it increases the danger; and for that reason, the bill should be rejected.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It is one of the few examples of bipartisan work that has been produced so far in this Congress, and I think it is worthy of every Member's support.

I want to specifically mention some of the provisions within the jurisdiction of the Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Subcommittee, which has been very ably led by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), following in the tradition of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). Both of them ask tough questions, but they always put the interests of the country first.

The cutting edge of our battle against terrorists are the folks of the Special Operations Command, and this bill fully authorizes the requested funding for those assigned to our toughest missions. The bill also improves SOCOM's acquisition and contracting authority.

SOCOM is a unique entity set up specifically by Congress with unique authorities, including the ability to buy its own equipment. Now, that is resented by some, and this provision in this bill is intended to make that explicitly clear. But I think all of us on the subcommittee agree that if it is not made clear by this provision, then we will come back and do more next year.

This bill continues the authority to fund projects in our work with others. It is an important part of this war against terrorists to work with and through other forces, other individuals, and the funding authority that allows that to happen is continued here.

I especially want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Smith, that this subcommittee has again continued in Mr. Saxton's work to develop a deep understanding of the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism and how best we can counter it. As much money, time, and effort has been put into that issue since 9/11/ 2001, I don't think we're to the bottom of it yet.

In addition, this portion of the bill provides more strategic direction and efficiency to our research and development efforts. For example, it adopts the Defense Science Board recommendation that requires Strategic Plan for Manufacturing Technology program to try to make sure that equipment goes from the laboratory to the field where the soldiers can use it in an efficient and effective way. And in IT, it makes acquisition more responsive to the pace of technological change. I believe we have a lot more work yet to go in that area, but we have also worked in that most unconventional of warfare areas, and that is through cyberwarfare where this country is being attacked every day by folks over the Internet. Our military and the rest of our government, I think, is just beginning to come to grips with the significance of that issue and how best to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but I think it is a good bill and it should be supported by all Members.