Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I agree with the chairman, there are many good things in this bill. This motion to instruct raises two issues. One is that human intelligence is very important, and the motion to instruct would insist on the provisions authorizing the maximum level of funding permissible for human intelligence collection activities.

Madam Speaker, gathering intelligence through human collection is in many ways classic intelligence work, but it is more important than ever in an age of terrorism where a very small number of individuals can get together and can do great damage.

So to find out about such a group, much less to find out what their intentions and capabilities may be, we require human intelligence. Technical collection is very, very important, and we have lots of debates on this floor about one particular aspect of that. But the rest of the story is war threats are moving underground and in places where technical collection is difficult. And so human intelligence which doesn't just spring overnight, which takes months, if not years, to develop, is absolutely crucial today in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and tomorrow against all sorts of threats.

This motion to instruct says we have to insist on the maximum funding level today so the country will be better prepared tomorrow.

But the second thing that this motion to instruct does is it tries to strengthen, I would say, the integrity and the credibility of what this committee and this Congress do.

Intelligence is really the only part of government that operates outside of the scrutiny and oversight from the press and other people and institutions outside of the government. So that puts more responsibility on our shoulders, on this institution, on the Committee on Intelligence, and on the products we produce.

So if a bill that this committee or this Congress produces has specific earmarks for specific projects in specific Members' districts, when you don't have that outside scrutiny, I think it calls our credibility into question.

And it clearly does so because we have had a history, unfortunately, in this institution of a problem in that area.

So this year, the motion to instruct conferees says the better course is to remove all of those earmarks, to have a bill clean of earmarks. We have funding for individual programs and individual initiatives, most of which cannot be discussed on this floor. But the better course is to fund those things, many of the good things the chairman talked about, but take away the earmarks, the specific funding for specific programs in specific Members' districts that call our credibility into question. That is why I think this motion to instruct emphasizes the important good things in this bill, but it makes it stronger by increasing its integrity and credibility, and I hope Members will support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that here we are again debating a FISA bill that is more about politics than it is about the country. This bill is a cobbled-together mess designed to keep most of the Democratic Caucus together rather than a bill designed to meet the national security needs of the country. It is full of contradictory, unworkable provisions.

Most of this body and most of the American people agree that our intelligence professionals, civilian and military, should be able to gather foreign intelligence on terrorists and others without having a pack of lawyers trail along behind you. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they will need if this bill were to ever become law.

It is also sad that those who have volunteered to help defend us against terrorists are being punished. We debate Good Samaritan laws from time to time. The country needs Good Samaritans, as well, to help prevent terrorist attacks.

What the country needs, Mr. Speaker, is an updated law that intelligence professionals can really use, that really works in the field, not some cobbled-together mess designed to achieve a political purpose just before a recess. We can do better. I continue to hope that someday this House actually will.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly to the gentleman from Virginia's point, the very next section on that page says this does not include electronic surveillance.

The operative part of this bill is a short paragraph which essentially brings up the checks and balances that were originally in the 1978 FISA and brings it up to 2007 technology. That is what's going on here.

Now, there are some people who do not agree with the checks and balances that were in the 1978 FISA. Some people think it went too far one way, some people think it went too far another way.

This bill does not touch that. What it does is it just brings up those same checks and balances with the way we communicate today, and the way that technology has changed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to emphasize what's going on here. Information is the critical element, which allows us to defend the country, which allows troops to operate in the field, which allows Homeland Security folks of all sorts to defend us against terrorism.

We are not collecting, today, the information we were able to collect a short while ago. Most of us would agree, not all of us, but most of us would agree it's information we should be collecting from foreign targets in foreign countries. The heart of the problem is a law that has not kept up with technology.

Now, there have been efforts for many months in this Chamber to try to update that law. Last September, the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) had a bill which passed this House, which was a comprehensive bill, more than 40 pages, that tried to fix this law.

Unfortunately, that did not get signed into law and the chairman of Intelligence Committee says that we are going to get back to that more comprehensive view. But while we are waiting for that, the danger persists, and the danger grows.

Now we have a very small bill, just a few pages, that tries to close the gap between the intelligence we need to keep us safe and the intelligence we are getting. It doesn't do everything, it doesn't do nearly as much as I would like to do, but it does close the gap at a critical time.

It's important, even with that limited bill, it's important to get the details right. That's why, for all of the talk we have heard about what the Director of National Intelligence has or has not said, the only thing we have in writing is the bill we considered last night did not enable him to do his job, but he says this bill will.

Mr. Speaker, I wish passing this bill would guarantee we will not suffer another terrorist attack. It won't, but it will provide a significant step towards getting the information we need and the information that the troops in the field need. It's worth passing tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as I read this resolution, I can't help but think ``there they go again.''

With approval ratings of Congress near record lows, the majority leadership searches the polls for any issue they can use to political advantage. Unfortunately, their attempt to improve their standing comes at the expense of troops on the ground and our country's security.

Of course the American people are concerned about the course of events in Iraq. Of course they mourn each loss. Of course they want our troops to come home as soon as possible. Of course they do, because we all do.

But responsible leadership does not permit pandering to polls and understandable emotions without facing up to the real consequences of the vote. And by the way, putting the word ``responsible'' in the title of a bill does not make it so. It is an understandable, though I believe misguided, position to require an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq. This resolution, though, is an attempt to play politics with the issue and avoid responsibility for the consequences that come from its aftermath.

Requiring withdrawal on a congressionally mandated timetable abandons those who have worked with us, invites chaos and more death in Iraq and increases the risk to our security here at home. No one should be able to stick his or her head in the sand and ignore those consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that what goes on in this Chamber with resolutions like this is encouraging to our adversaries and makes the job of our troops on the ground even harder than it needs to be. How can it possibly be responsible to declare failure when all of our troops have only been in Iraq for just about exactly 1 month today. This struggle and the broader war against radical Islamist terrorists will require the best of us, and that requires doing our constitutional duty. This resolution is far from the best we can do.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I want to express my strong support for that section of the bill which was produced by the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I especially appreciate the efforts and cooperative spirit of the chairman, Adam Smith, and the work of the subcommittee members and the staff.

As he mentioned a few moments ago, that section of the bill supports the 5-year growth plan for the Special Operations Forces, which was recommended by the 2005 QDR. It also improves the Department's ability to harness technological innovation and funds the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, as well as other basic research in the Department.

Madam Chair, as we discuss the various sections of this very large bill, I also think it is important that we step back and remember the broader context in which we operate. One is that we face a ruthless, determined, adaptable adversary who at this moment is concentrating their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but poses a threat to us and our allies all over the world. We live in a world where technology that can destroy massive numbers of human lives is spreading around the world, and some of the places where that technology exists are not as politically stable as we would like.

We face threats to our country using some of the very technology we rely upon, whether it's satellites or whether it's the Internet; and in the face of all that, we have national security structures that were developed during the Cold War. And as with all large organizations, the Department of Defense and other government agencies have a difficult time adapting.

It may be that the most important part of this bill is the funding of a study to recommend changes in the National Security Act of 1947, which will help us be better organized and better adaptable for the security challenges in the future.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make one other point that concerns me about the broader national security context in which we operate. There is much that is in this bill that is very good. We will debate some important amendments and a lot of amendments that are not that deal with smaller issues, and then I expect that this bill will pass by a very large vote.

And then next week or the week thereafter, we are going to have another vote that will undercut much of the good that is in this bill by giving hope to our enemies and discouragement to our friends. This Congress will pat itself on the back for passing a pay raise for the troops, but then it will tie the hands of the commanders who are sent to implement the Nation's strategy.

This Congress will make the job of the military in fighting terrorists in key places harder by the political debate and by the actions we take; and so I would encourage Members to read and study ``Unconventional Warfare,'' and I think they will find, as one writer put it, that it uses all available networks, political, economic, social and military, to convince the enemy's political decision-makers that their goals are unachievable or too costly.

And so, Madam Chair, it would seem to me to be a sad day if this Congress takes action that undoes the good that our military does every day on the ground, the achievements that they win in the field; and yet I fear, by some of the votes that we've taken, that may be dangerously the direction we may be headed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Interrogations by military personnel are conducted under the Army Field Manual, which complies with the Detainee Treatment Act passed by this Congress. And, in essence, this amendment says, we don't trust our military to follow the law; as a matter of fact, we have to videotape them because, as a matter of law, we don't ever trust that they will comply with the law as set forth in the Army Field Manual.

And I would remind my colleagues that the military has chosen for its own reasons to use closed-circuit monitoring of interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, in part for the safety of the interrogators, but under this amendment that is not enough. Whether a military unit at Guantanamo or elsewhere chooses to use videotaping or closed-circuit monitoring is not enough under this amendment because we don't trust the military anywhere to conduct interrogations under the law pursuant to this amendment.

I would say, secondly, the military has told us that this amendment would materially interfere with DOD operations, and I heard clearly what the distinguished chairman of the committee and the gentleman from New Jersey said; they said, this is good police work. But I would remind them that our military are not policemen and that our military, in operations all over the world, facing very dangerous terrorists in all sorts of conditions, should have to comply with all of the same standards that a policeman in Missouri or New Jersey or elsewhere ought to have to comply with. This amendment forces upon them a legalistic, bureaucratic regulation on the very people we are counting on most to keep us safe from the most dangerous terrorists.

Mr. Chairman, I would also say that this amendment specifically says that the videotapes have to be given to the prosecution and defense in any civilian or military proceedings. Now, we have

already had trouble in this country in having sensitive information from interrogations that has been presented to the parties leak out and get back to people we don't want it to get to. But I would suggest that this amendment runs an unreasonable risk of having sensitive national security information get back to the very terrorist networks that we are fighting, and the military are going to be faced with a choice of either allowing that to happen or not conducting the interrogations at all, which means we don't get the information.

Everyone from George Tenet to the current leadership of our national security organizations say the most valuable information we have gotten since 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks has come from detainee interrogations. This amendment makes it harder, if not impossible, to get that information. This amendment says we don't trust the troops to follow the law and it will interfere with military operations. I would suggest that it would be a mistake and increase the dangers to this country and should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Madam Chairman, there are many good provisions of this bill, and I appreciate the hard work of the staff and the sincerity of the Members in attempting to tackle complex, vital issues before this committee. And yet I also have concerns with this bill.

Last July the Oversight Subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee issued a unanimous report about the progress of implementing the Intelligence Reform Act so far. And what we found was that there was some good, there were some disappointments, but yet there was overall a lack of a sense of appropriate urgency in doing the things that needed to be done to reform intelligence and to make this country safer.

And that is kind of the sense I get from this bill. There is a lot of good in it. There are some significant disappointments. But I worry about a lack of urgency in a sense because as 9/11 drifts further in the past, we have to face up to these very serious threats that are before us. And yet in this bill certain efforts and resources are diverted from higher priorities to lower priorities.

And I might point out in the case of one particular lower priority that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) mentioned, there has never been a hearing or, as I understand it, even a question at a hearing about intelligence implications of global climate change. And yet it is so important, it is a mandatory item in this bill for the intelligence community.

This bill takes significant efforts that the intelligence community is making and cuts back or places restriction on them, and yet it delays making reforms in essential areas as Mrs. Wilson was talking about. So I worry that we are on a path where we will return to mistakes of the past and do so at a time when we face a ruthless, determined, adaptable adversary.

I would like to make one other point. In many respects, I think it is a test for Congress as an institution whether we can pass an intelligence authorization bill.

The Intelligence Committees of both Houses were set up in the 1970s as the oversight entities for the broad Intelligence Community. The fact is, if we don't do it in these two committees in the House and the Senate, it will not get done. No one else has insight into the programs. No other committees have the time and resources and expertise to delve down into the many, many activities that the Intelligence Community performs that are essential to our country's security.

And yet, if we use these intelligence authorization bills to promote a political agenda, I think it makes the effectiveness of that oversight less so, and particularly if it results in their failure to be a bill. I think we can do better, and I hope we do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and especially in support of the commitment and dedication that lies behind it, both the troops that make up the Special Operations Command and the Members here in the House who support them.

The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) conceived of this resolution as a way of recognizing the unique contribution that these forces make to our national security, and she has been a leader in advocating on their behalf. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) has been one of the strongest advocates for Special Operations Command, not only their value to the country but also what they need to carry out their job, and he, along with Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina, are co-chairs of the Special Operations Forces Caucus here in the House. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has also been a leading advocate for special operations forces, as has been, of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who have unique military backgrounds to contribute. And I have got to say that the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Smith, as well as the previous chairman, Mr. Saxton, work not only for recognition but also to see that these forces have the resources, the support, the organization they need to carry out their job. This is not just a one-time recognition. This is something that a number of dedicated Members work on throughout the year to provide the backup support that these folks need.

Mr. Speaker, warfare is always changing. The kinds of skills and missions that our special operations forces bring are absolutely critical to today's fight but even more critical to the national security challenges ahead, both the direct action and the indirect action. Bringing precise targeted effects without a large number of troops, without a big logistical tail, that is very important. It is also very important to help train other militaries so that they can work with us and we are not dependent upon our troops to do all the things that need to be done.

So this is an important resolution, but the commitment and dedication of the gentlewoman from Virginia and my chairman from Washington are the crucial elements that help these folks do their job day in and day out. It deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to much of the debate yesterday and today, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Michigan to remind and educate us all about what is at stake for our security and how Iraq fits into the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists. That is serious work.

Unfortunately, this resolution is not serious work. I believe we have to start by asking a basic essential question: Why are we doing this? What is the purpose of this resolution? What good will come from passing it? I cannot find an acceptable answer.

The struggle in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists is, in my view, the preeminent national security issue facing our country. It is important for Congress to devote serious, meaningful attention to it. But whatever we do should have a purpose, a purpose that makes the United States stronger, a purpose that will help us be successful, a purpose we can explain and be proud of in years to come.

Here we have a nonbinding resolution, which means it does not have the force of law. It conveys an opinion. Now, we do that from time to time. We congratulate a sports team, we express concern about curing a disease, we pat somebody on the back. We do express opinions.

What is the opinion in this resolution? It is that we support the troops, but we do not support their mission. We support the troops, but we do not support their new commander, who is this Nation's preeminent strategist and expert on counterinsurgency, who just wrote the manual for counterinsurgency, who was just approved by the Senate unanimously. We support the troops, but we don't support him or her or what he is trying to do. Now, what is the purpose of expressing that kind of self- contradictory opinion?

And I continue to be troubled when I think, when in the history of the United States has Congress passed a resolution expressing an opinion on a battlefield strategy for an ongoing operation that Congress has approved? It is like June 13, 1944, D-Day plus seven: Congress passes a resolution that says, ``We support the troops, but Eisenhower should never have landed in Normandy. And, besides, he doesn't have the right number of people to hit those beaches anyway.''

Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that this resolution is more about political posturing than it is about anything else, and I think every American ought to be saddened and disappointed by it. We have a spectacle going on in this country where a group of people running for President try to outdo one another to see who can be the most against our involvement in Iraq. Now we come to add to that spectacle with a nonbinding contrary resolution.

Just put yourself in the shoes of those men and women going into battle in Baghdad. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those people who do not want stability in Iraq, our adversaries. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those families like Ms. Granger, just visited, or the Britt family in Wheeler, Texas, or the Das family in Amarillo, Texas who have lost their sons in this effort. Does this resolution encourage you, or does it discourage you? Who is helped by this resolution?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be misunderstood; mistakes have clearly been made with regard to our involvement in Iraq, and Members should be part of a serious study to learn from them. There are a good many questions that need to be asked, and there is very good reason for skepticism that this new strategy is really going to work. We should ask those questions. We should hold Iraqis accountable for doing what they say they are going to do. I know there are some people who say we don't need to ask any more questions, they have already made up their mind; they are ready to vote to leave today. Fine, let's vote on that. It is a serious vote, with consequences, and people that vote that way ought to be ready to shoulder the responsibility for the consequences that come from that sort of vote.

But this resolution is not serious, it is just political posturing, pure and simple.

Mr. Speaker, this struggle is going to require the best of us for years and possibly decades to come. It will require that we put aside the political temptations to get a momentary partisan advantage. It requires that we do our constitutional duty not to be a rubber stamp to any administration, but to be an independent branch of government committed to serious, thoughtful work.

To prevail over these radical Islamic terrorists and protect our people, we are going to have to bring the full array of national assets. Yes, our military, but also our diplomats and our

foreign assistants and our ideas and our ideals. All of that is going to have to be at our best. But it is going to require the best of us, too, and we are not giving our best with this resolution. Hopefully, we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Intelligence Committee and a veteran and retired officer herself.

(Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commend an innovative partnership between the Mineral Wells, Texas Independent School District and several veterans' organizations in that community. For each of the past 24 years, citizens of Mineral Wells have come together on Veterans Day to honor those who have served our Nation in the military with a special ``Day of Remembrance'' program.

Every year, the program draws over 3,700 youth, community leaders, and area residents to pay tribute to those who embody the American spirit. Working together as a community has helped promote pride and patriotism among students while honoring veterans. Members of the American Legion Post 75, the Sons of the Legion Squadron 75, and Farris Anderson Unit 75 of American Legion Auxiliary, Mineral Wells, along with school leaders and students help plan and participate in an event that features a parade, music, displays of military power, and much camaraderie among generations.

Throughout our history, men and women have answered the call of a Nation in need, and on Veterans Day, we are especially mindful of their service, sacrifice, and that of their

families. I appreciate what the city of Mineral Wells does to honor those most responsible for our freedom, and I am hopeful they will continue to serve as an example for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to start with some important truths to remind ourselves of: one, we are in a struggle against a vicious, determined enemy who is determined to kill as many of us in as spectacular and as brutal a fashion as possible. Secondly, this struggle stretches all around the world and will go on for a long time. And, third, the enemy lives in the shadows and does

not reveal when or where or how they are going to strike. Information is the key weapon we have to prevent them from killing us and to prevent them from attacking others in the future.

This debate, as you have heard, has been mostly about what rights those few who we are able to capture, what rights, legal rights, they have under our system. But I think it is important to also remind ourselves about the critical nature of information and in stopping future attacks. In the Cold War we worried about missiles and tanks, and we could use satellites to count on. Here we are worried about three guys in a cave or half a dozen in a compound or four in a flat in London. If we don't have credible, specific information to stop those individuals and what they plan, then we will not be able to do so.

I think this is a good bill, but I also believe that it is right up to the edge of tying our own hands or, to change my metaphor, of putting blinders on ourselves, to make it very, very difficult to stop future attacks. I think it is important to do this bill now so that there is the certainty that our folks in the field, in uniform and out of uniform, desperately need to have. But we need to be careful that those of us in this Congress do not take the extra step to make their job impossible and then point the fingers at them in the future.

I think Members should support this bill, and I also believe Members should be careful in the future.

Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all my life. I think I have as much appreciation and admiration for these creatures as anyone in this body; but I am very much opposed to this bill, first, because, contrary to, I am sure, the intentions of this authors, this bill will result in more abuse, more neglect and more inhumane treatment of horses.

I would just say that those who are so certain that horses are better off to die peacefully out in the field have never come across an old horse out in a field or a pasture who cannot get up and stand on its legs and continues to beat its head against the ground in an effort to get leverage to stand back up. Such people have never come across an older horse down in the pasture or field and begins to be eaten by predators and can do nothing about it because he can't get back on his feet.

The idea that it is more humane to let all horses die peacefully in a field, rather than dealt with in a regulated, inspected manner, is just wrong. So the bottom line is, this bill results in more neglect and more abuse, more mistreatment of horses, as owners cannot afford to take care of them, or they are left to, quote, die peacefully in a field.

Secondly, it is a tremendous blow to private property rights. If anyone thinks there is any reason for the Congress to stop with a regulation of how we govern horses and not go right ahead and say what owners ought to do to their pigs and their cattle or their dogs and their cats or their fish in the aquarium, then you haven't realized the consequences of this bill. It is a bad idea. It should be rejected.

Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all of my life, and I think that I have as much appreciation and respect for these magnificent creations of God as anyone in this body. And I am strongly opposed to this bill.

The motives behind this proposal are, I am sure, honorable. But the consequences of it in the real world will be so detrimental to what the authors say they hope to achieve, that I wonder if some are intentionally turning a blind eye to them.

If old horses cannot be dealt with humanely, many of them will be left to suffer. Those who are so certain that all horses are better off being allowed to die of old age have never seen a horse that has been unable to get up and continues to beat its head against the ground for leverage to try to stand. How is that better for the animal?

If older horses cannot be sold here, they will be sold in Mexico, without our standards and inspections. How is that better for the animal?

The bottom line is that more horses will starve, more horses will be abused or neglected, more horses will suffer unnecessarily if this bill were to become law.

In addition, the precedent this bill would set would be deeply disturbing to the basic American principle of private property rights. If the Federal Government can dictate what individuals may and may not do with personal property--to whom it may or may not be sold--the fundamental right to own property will suffer a terrible blow.

Of course, there is no reason for the Federal legislation to stop with horses. Federal law could regulate treatment of cattle and pigs, dogs and cats, or fish in the aquarium.

Criminal abuse of animals is a crime prosecuted by State and local authorities. A Federal law restricting the ability to sell private property based on some people's misguided idea of how that property should be treated is a dangerous thing, and this bill should be rejected.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal.''

``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.''

Mr. Chairman, those two sentences sum up my concerns with this bill. The first comes from the Declaration of Independence; the second from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Perry, a case about this very Act.

We should be moving closer to that American ideal of God-given equality before the law, rather than ``divvying us up by race'' for another 25 years, as this bill would do.

To have different levels of scrutiny apply to various states, based on judgments made 40 years ago that are no longer accurate or justified, is wrong. There is simply no reason to believe that Texas requires more Federal supervision of voting than does Ohio or Florida or any other State. The same standard should apply equally to each person across the country, regardless of where he or she lives.

I am anxious for the day when race and skin color is as irrelevant to voting as is hair color. Unfortunately, this bill pushes that day 25 years further away.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, part of the job of intelligence is to understand our enemy, and what we should clearly understand about our enemy in the war on terrorism is that they are very sophisticated. They are sophisticated users of technology using, as Chairman Hoekstra just mentioned, the Internet in order to recruit, in order to train its people, in order to intimidate populations to go along.

They use Internet video games in order to help train and indoctrinate people in the Arab world to their way of thinking. They use the Internet for communication. They use videotapes and DVDs to get their message out. They have very adept users of technology.

But they are also adept at using media. As a matter of fact, Prime Minister Blair said recently that they play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. They know, for example, that one horrific act of cruelty shown on video will get far more attention than a thousand acts of kindness or patience from our soldiers.

They are agile and clever in using cruelty through the media in order to achieve their ends; and, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the most important point we can make on their sophistication is that they know they cannot beat us militarily, and that is not their object. They are sophisticated enough to know that the way they can beat us is to influence our political decisions, to impact our political will.

There has been a very, what has now really become a classic study of this sort of warfare, often called 4th-generation warfare, a book called ``The Sling and The Stone,'' which traces this sort of attack from Mao's Tse-tung all the way through al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. One of the key points that the author makes, unlike previous generations of war, it does not try to win by defeating military's forces. Instead, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision-makers to destroy the enemy's political will.

That is what is going on. Their use of technology, their use of cruelty, their use of the media has a target which is us because, as another author has written, it only takes a few hundred people in Washington, DC, to decide that this war is lost. So they are focusing their attention not on our strength, but on our weakness, which is potentially our political will.

That is why this resolution is important. It is why in order to meet a sophisticated threat, a political threat, which al Qaeda and its affiliated groups try to pose to us, we have to resist that sort of manipulation. Part of that resistance occurs on the floor of the House.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be able to control the remainder of the Intelligence Committee's time on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Maryland, I yield myself 30 seconds to read a quote we mentioned earlier in this debate from Osama bin Laden. He said, ``This Third World war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. It will end in victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' That is not this side of the aisle. That is Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, a leader on national defense affairs, Mr. Wicker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the remainder of the time allocated to the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the first 5 hours of this debate, trying to listen carefully to each speaker. And it seems to me that some people try, as best they can, to isolate Iraq from the rest of the war on terror.

Now, that may be politically convenient for them to do, but it is not what the real world is like. As a matter of fact, it was not long ago that we found a letter from Zawahari, Osama's number two, to Zarqawi in Iraq talking about tactics.

Just as the Cold War had several battles across the globe, the war on terrorism has several battlefields across the globe. And I believe that it is clear from their own words, the terrorists see Iraq as the central front in our war against them now and into the future.

Secondly, we seem to have a lot of armchair strategists who want to redeploy this way or redeploy that way, because they say nothing is going right. I would recommend they read the document found this morning, or released this morning, that was found in Zarqawi's house.

It says that things are going pretty well for us, and not so well for them. I think it is a little early to give up.

Thirdly, there are a lot of people who want to debate the procedures or debate Congress's job or debate past decisions. And it is true, history will have to pass judgment on decisions that the military commanders and the President and the Congress have made in the past. They will do so when the air of partisanship has faded.

But the truth is, however you feel about where we are, we are where we are. And the question is, do we leave a job half done? Do we leave early, and leave those Iraqis who are willing to put their lives on the line by being part of the government or part of the police force or part of the military, do we abandon them when they are trying to build a country? I think that would be a mistake.

In fact, I think to retreat at this point, whether you call it a strategic retreat, a strategic redeployment, or whatever word you want to use to back up now, will only embolden the terrorists. We have seen time after time, when they sense political vacillation, they strike. They struck in Istanbul in 2003, in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005.

Where they sense weakness, it is like an animal. Where they sense fear, they attack. We have got to do better and make sure we win this war.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding his time and his handling of this rule.

Actually, there were a number of statements made by my colleague from Massachusetts with which I fully agree. As a matter of fact, one of the challenges, I think, of bringing this bill to the floor is that we are all, in an age of terrorism, attempting to find the right place where we are effective against the terrorists who are trying to kill as many of us as possible, but also not lose sight of our Constitution and our freedoms and the fundamental nature of this society.

One of the key elements in trying to get that right is a whole area of government activity which we cannot talk about, and which the Intelligence Committee is charged with overseeing and helping shape. And so every year, our challenge is to bring a bill that oversees and helps shape those activities to this floor in a very public forum.

A number of the issues that we talk about have been reported extensively in various newspaper articles. And we know that some of it is right and some of it is wrong, and yet you can't come here and correct the factual misstatements and the improper impressions which people have.

I think it is important to affirm two things. Number one is that there is much in this bill which is largely agreed upon. Now, the nature of coming to the floor with this kind of bill is that we are going to spend most of our time talking about differences, or at least making up differences to talk about, when they didn't exist maybe a week or two ago. But the central direction, and most of the provisions of this bill, for the people who have taken the time to go read it, are largely agreed upon by both sides of the aisle.

The second thing that I think it is important to emphasize is that the members of the Intelligence Committee take their responsibilities very seriously. If you have any doubt about that, just listen again to the comments, for example, of the gentlewoman from New Mexico who was, one, standing up to insist upon a much greater role by this Congress in oversight of the terrorist surveillance program.

That oversight is under way. As she said, it is very important for us to understand the details and the procedures and the process and the specifics of this program before we come to the floor and decide about how various laws ought to be changed in different ways. But that is just one example.

There are many, many issues before the Intelligence Committee on which we attempt to exercise our oversight in a very serious and responsible way. We may not agree on all the details or where things ought to go, but this committee is not a rubber stamp for any administration, or any President, and at the same time we take very seriously the recommendations which were in the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction that our oversight needs to be strategic; not just following the headlines of the day hither and yon as reporters may write stories, but to follow strategic oversight in a way that makes this country safer. That is always going to be our goal.

Of course, any rule which brings an intelligence authorization bill to the floor has got to be somewhat restrictive, because there is so much that we simply cannot talk about on the floor without damaging the country's security.

I think this is a good rule. It frames debate on key issues. I think it should be supported as well as the bill.