Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today on World Tuberculosis Day in support of local community efforts to raise awareness of tuberculosis, TB. World TB Day commemorates the date in 1882 when Dr. Robert Koch announced his discovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacteria that causes TB.

On World TB Day, I encourage citizens to take the opportunity to learn about this disease, which infects one third of the world's population and causes almost two billion deaths worldwide. TB bacteria, which is spread through the air, usually attack the lungs, but can also attack the kidney, spine and brain. If not properly treated, the disease can be fatal.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 12,904 reported cases of TB in the United States in 2008. Although both the number of TB cases reported and the case rate decreased in the United States in 2008, we still must work toward the elimination of TB.

Although my district in El Paso has a TB rate that is lower than the average border rate,

people in border communities like mine are particularly susceptible to this disease. Community organizations in my district such as the Alliance of Border Collaboratives, the TB Program at the Mexican Consulate in El Paso, the Pan American Health Organization, the University of Texas at El Paso TB Photovoice Project and a number of cross-border partners, work hard every day to eliminate TB.

I encourage all Americans to participate in community events that raise awareness of this issue. As awareness of this disease increases, together we can work toward the elimination of the disease.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1096, which designates March, 2010, as the Census Awareness Month. I want to thank subcommittee Chair Clay and Ranking Member McHenry for their leadership in getting this through committee. I also thank the 59 bipartisan Members who co-sponsored this very important resolution.

I introduced this bill to urge communities across the country to raise awareness about the upcoming Census and to encourage individuals to fill out their Census form to ensure an accurate and complete count beginning April 1.

Passage of this resolution will help raise awareness of the Census and its significance to communities all across the United States. Although the Census only happens every 10 years, it is extremely important that we get an accurate count because the data derived from the Census affects political representation and directs the allocation of billions of dollars in government funding.

Every year, more than $400 billion in Federal funds is awarded to States and communities based on Census data. That is more than $4 trillion over a 10-year period. An accurate Census count is vital to U.S. communities because it helps us to plan for new hospitals, new schools, and new community projects. It is also used to determine which places receive additional social services, including development block grants.

Throughout the years, the goal of the census has remained unchanged-- to count every person accurately and to collect information that will help us to better serve the needs of our people. The 2000 census counted more than 281 million people.

The census only takes 10 minutes to fill out, and it is strictly confidential. Unfortunately, despite these facts, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, and rural Americans are among those groups most likely to be undercounted and to be, thereby, underrepresented.

I call on our communities--from churches, schools, nonprofits, big and small businesses, to local, State and tribal governments--to please help us to promote the 2010 Census and to urge everyone to fill out their census forms. Together, we can ensure a complete and accurate count.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H. Res. 1096.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this rule. It provides us with the opportunity to advance the Intelligence Authorization Act to conference and then to the President.

This bill provides essential funding to the intelligence community, improves and updates critical legal authorities, and enhances important oversight authorities that will empower the congressional intelligence committees to carry out their constitutional responsibility to monitor the work of the intelligence agencies.

As everybody knows, I take this obligation very seriously. The work of the intelligence community is of critical importance, but by its nature must be done largely behind closed doors. As a result, the intelligence committees exist to ensure that the work of the intelligence agencies is being done in a manner that is effective, that is legal, and that is without waste. H.R. 2701 provides the funding authorities and the guidance necessary to that function.

First and foremost, this bill will dramatically improve the process for congressional notification of covert actions. Over the past several years, Democrats and Republicans have both had complaints about the notification process. Provisions in the manager's amendment will require notifications in writing, insist that the President certify the need to restrict briefings to the Gang of Eight, and compel the executive branch to provide the legal authority under which covert action is being conducted.

As I have said before, this bill was truly a team effort. We received input and drafting assistance from a variety of Members. The manager's amendment also includes contributions from many of my colleagues.

Representative Giffords from Arizona crafted a provision that would require the DNI to report on intelligence cooperation between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement.

Representative Boccieri asked for a report on the dissemination of counterterrorism information from the intelligence community to local law enforcement.

Representative Bishop introduced language to require the DNI to submit to Congress a report describing the strategy of the United States in balancing intelligence collection needs with the prosecution of terrorist suspects.

Representative Harman, the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, submitted an amendment that will require the Inspector General of the intelligence community to report to Congress on the problem of overclassification of intelligence and ways to address that issue and those problems.

The manager's amendment also contains language from Representative Hinchey requiring a report on previous intelligence community activities in Argentina, an issue that has long been a concern of Representative Hinchey.

Representative Langevin, a leader on the issue of cybersecurity, drafted a provision that requires the President to submit a plan to Congress to secure the networks of the Federal Government.

Finally, Representative Markey of Colorado drafted language that will require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the congressional Intelligence Committees assessing the threat posed to allies and interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf by Iran's missile arsenal.

Beyond the manager's amendment, the base text of the bill makes several important improvements in oversight of intelligence activities. First, it establishes an Inspector General for the entire intelligence community. This provision will help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, and it will also keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of Americans.

The bill will also require the DNI to establish a plan to increase diversity within the intelligence community. As is very clear, this is a measure that is important to all our Members, to me personally, and to the committee's vice chairman, Mr. Hastings. For the intelligence agencies, diversity is not just about virtue and equality, though both are important ideals; it is about making sure that we have a clear and complete understanding of the different languages and cultures around the world. In the world of intelligence, diversity translates directly into improved operational capability.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, it has been a privilege to work with both sides of the aisle to craft this bill. It is important to keep in mind that all of these issues are vital and important components of making sure we do our work.

With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and enact these critical provisions into law.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

You know, facts are pesky things, and sometimes we have to keep reminding those on the other side of the aisle that they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When the ranking member made reference to the Speaker and her comment about being misled by the CIA, it is important to keep in perspective that we are talking about the last administration, where the policymakers repeatedly misled the Congress. He himself complained bitterly many, many times about those kinds of issues. In fact, one of the amendments, the amendment on the issue of Peru, is a direct result of complaints voiced by the ranking member and others on the committee.

He asked a rhetorical question: What will we say to the men and women of the intelligence community? My message has always been consistent: We appreciate their work, we honor their professionalism, we depend on them, and the safety of our country relies on them doing the job that they need to do.

It's interesting for me to note that, over the course of the last few months, because of an issue that the minority has with Miranda warnings, they have been repeatedly questioning the proficiency of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have 26\1/2\ years of experience in Federal law enforcement. I've had an opportunity to work with the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I know they are the best we have.

Do you know why I say that?

Because they didn't need to resort to waterboarding. They didn't need to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques. All they did was conduct interrogations professionally and bring all the tools to bear that they have traditionally relied on, and they got information from the individual who tried to take down the airliner on Christmas Day.

I know it's a tough contrast, because some would like to take shortcuts. Some would like to subscribe to the last administration's policy of ``anything goes.'' Well, facts and rules are pesky things. I know the Constitution, which they like to quote, is pesky because it provides protection to anyone here in the United States, whether you are here legally, illegally, whether you are in a car, on a plane or in another type of conveyance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation understands that, and that's why, once they determined that there was a violation, they gave the Miranda warnings.

The other side would like to mischaracterize that and say, ``We're in favor of the FBI's going around the world, giving the Miranda warnings to those who would seek to harm our country.'' Well, the difference between us and the rest of the world should be that we are a Nation of laws, that we don't seek to take shortcuts, that we don't think it's a good idea to waterboard and to torture and do those kinds of things. That's a basic and fundamental difference in political philosophy, I think, here today.

Do you know what? As I go around the world and talk to members of the intelligence community in the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the FBI, and others, that's what they want to do. They want to be given the tools to carry out their jobs and to do their jobs within the framework that we are so proud of as Americans. That's what we should be doing. That's, more than anything, what this debate is about.

Are we going to honor the traditions that our country stands for--the reasons that we are held up as a model around the world--or are we going to subscribe to the policies of the previous administration which say, because people are intent on attacking us, that anything goes, that we throw the rule book out the window, that we throw the Constitution out the door and let people do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want? That is not who we are. That is not what we should be about. Believe me, the men and women who are charged with keeping us safe want those issues to be clear-cut and understood.

I will close by saying it is very telling that, when the last administration made a decision under enhanced interrogation, to waterboard, two things happened. First of all, the CIA did not have that expertise in-house. They had to go to the DOD to get it. Secondly, when the FBI realized that that was part of the interrogation process, they said, you know, that's not what we're about. We can get the job done the right way without resorting to those kinds of techniques, and they returned back to headquarters.

So, with that, I hope that we can have a substantive debate on issues

that are important to our country, on issues that are relevant and, most importantly, on issues that provide the men and women, the professionals in whatever agency you're talking about, the tools and the direction that we are a Nation of laws. We have to respect our Constitution.

If the gentleman would yield, last night, we offered a unanimous consent to withdraw it.

The issue, after reflecting on it, was, at least as I understood from the comments that were being made by your side, there were some misimpressions of what, actually, the amendment was intending on doing, so I offered to withdraw that under unanimous consent, and your side decided not to.

Well, we can only do so much to make sure that your side understands that the concerns that you were raising were not, in fact, what was meant by the amendment. That's the long and short of it.

First of all, in response to my friend from California's comment, I will just give you one example.

The issue of waterboarding has been characterized as the equivalent of a training exercise, that the SERE training does it to train our pilots. Don't you think there is a big difference between categorizing it in that way and waterboarding an individual 183 times?

Answer the question: Do you think there is a difference between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding?

Please.

Reclaiming my time, that doesn't deserve a response.

What I will say is that the FBI and our interrogators, the professionals that they are, have proven that you can get better information by following the traditional interrogation procedures. You don't have to resort to ``enhanced interrogation techniques.''

I object.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, to me, it seems that the minority would have us fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our back. This motion to recommit would require that before a Miranda warning can be issued, an investigator or a beat cop would have to get permission from a gaggle of Cabinet-level officials in Washington. This is simply absurd.

The minority would put FBI agents who arrest potential terrorists in a bitter catch-22. The courts require that Miranda warnings be given in certain circumstances. The minority would have an FBI agent ignore those rules and shut down the possibility of ever building a criminal case, or the agent can stop an interrogation while someone tries to get signatures from half of Washington.

The provision doesn't even include authority for these officials to delegate the required certification. This means that if one official happens to be traveling, it's just going to take that much longer for that beat cop or that FBI agent to start gathering evidence.

Let's get the facts straight about Miranda. Federal agents are not required to Mirandize terrorism suspects when there is an imminent risk to public safety. They are free to interrogate suspects on concerns about any immediate or ongoing threat to our country. Federal agents questioned the Christmas Day bomber without the Miranda warnings under this very public safety exemption. Federal agents also don't need to give Miranda warnings when an interview is voluntary. The FBI routinely secures intelligence from suspected terrorists without Miranda in this manner.

But even when Miranda warnings are given, the record is crystal clear; suspected terrorists do not stop talking. Just this week, in the case of Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty to charges of attempting to kill innocent civilians on the New York subway, was apprehended by law enforcement, given Miranda warnings, and interrogated thoroughly. In that questioning, Zazi provided valuable information about the plot and now he will be convicted without any fanfare. That is just one example among many. The Christmas Day bomber, the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and scores of other suspected terrorists provided valuable intelligence after receiving Miranda warnings.

But this really, today, isn't about Miranda at all. What the minority really wants to take away is our ability to use the criminal justice system to go after suspected terrorists. I urge my colleagues not to make such an irresponsible and reckless decision. Don't support this motion to recommit.

The Federal criminal justice system has proven to be the most reliable and effective means we have for putting terrorists behind bars. Federal prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judges know better than anybody else how to interrogate, how to try, how to convict, and how to hold terrorists.

In the 10 years since 9/11, the Justice Department has successfully convicted more than 300 terrorists in Federal criminal courts. These include hardened members of al Qaeda such as the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui.

One case in particular on this point, Richard Reid was arrested for attempting to ignite a bomb in his shoe while on a flight to Miami in December of 2001. Reid was advised of his Miranda rights within 5 minutes of being removed from the aircraft and was reminded of these rights four times within 48 hours and now is serving a life sentence in Federal prison. To my knowledge, my Republican friends did not criticize the Bush administration for its handling of that case or any of the other cases that we have on file.

This motion to recommit applies to the high-value detainees, so that in the

toughest cases, they want us to play by a completely unreasonable set of rules that will slow us down and make us weaker. That is why the Department of Defense opposes this, the Director of National Intelligence opposes this, the Department of Justice opposes this.

I think this morning, it's time to say enough with the games. It's time for us to stop playing politics with our national security. It's time for us to create a system that makes those responsible for our safety not play it with one hand tied behind their back.

Let's let our law enforcement professionals do their jobs. Above all, let's stop attacking the FBI agents that know what they are doing, know how to do it, and let's vote down this motion to recommit. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2701, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 2701.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am proud to rise today in support of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This is an unusual time of the year for us to be considering this legislation. However, it is and remains a very important bill which addresses critical national security issues, and one that we ultimately need to see enacted.

As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, my most important job is to guide the committee in providing appropriate tools, resources, and authorities to aid the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community in keeping our Nation safe. I believe that H.R. 2701 does just that.

First and foremost, this bill authorizes the activities and the funds for the 16 agencies of the intelligence community. It is difficult to talk about their roles and their missions in the open, but in some ways it is probably one of the most important things that we do on the Intelligence Committee. In addition to providing authorization for intelligence activities, this bill takes the initial important steps to improve congressional oversight of that intelligence community.

I want to highlight two legislative provisions from this year's bill that I believe will significantly improve oversight.

When this bill was marked up in committee, we made significant changes to the so-called ``Gang of Eight'' procedures. As Members know, the President has had the statutory authority to limit briefings to the Gang of Eight when they involve sensitive covert actions. It was the sense of the committee that the Gang of Eight statutory authority had been overused, and that, on matters of critical importance, the committee as a whole should have been informed. For that reason, that earlier version of the bill removed the statutory authority for limiting briefings to the Gang of Eight.

Last July, the administration issued a statement of policy on H.R. 2701 that included a veto threat with respect to the provisions that would modify the Gang of Eight notification procedures. I believe that some level of concern at that point was justified, and I have been working with the administration over the past several months to resolve those differences. Since July, there have already been noticeable improvements in the way the administration and the intelligence community are communicating and briefing Congress.

Accordingly, the manager's amendment I will offer includes a revised provision on Gang of Eight reform. I know that many Members have strong feelings about this issue on both sides of the aisle. The provision that is in the manager's amendment is intended to be a strong and significant step towards better oversight which still respects the constitutional authorities of the President. It recognizes that both elected branches have a role in national security.

I fully expect that once we pass this bill we will then revisit this issue during conference between the House and the Senate. And I am happy to work with Members to seek improvements at that time. Through this process, we will be able to find a workable solution to a problem that has persisted over the past several years, if not longer.

Another provision that I think is absolutely critical establishes a statutory Inspector General for the intelligence community. This provision will eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, and it will also help keep a close eye on the protection of the rights of Americans.

This year's bill is truly a product of many hands. The Inspector General provision, which I just spoke about, in large part is due to the efforts of Ms. Eshoo, the chair of the Intelligence Community Management Subcommittee. The vice chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hastings, has offered an amendment to include critical provisions on our shared interest in promoting diversity as a mission imperative. He has been working at this long and hard for many, many years. Our newest majority member, Mr. Boren, has worked hard to develop a pilot program to improve language capability in African languages.

The chairman of the Technical and Tactical Subcommittee, Mr. Ruppersberger, has worked hard on the classified annex to make sure our approach to acquisitions and our most technical programs make good sense. He has been a pivotal part to the committee's oversight process in these very important areas.

The bill includes several provisions offered by Ms. Schakowsky, the chairwoman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which relate to

her longstanding interest in appropriately monitoring and managing contractors in the intelligence community.

Mr. Holt, the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, advocated for a provision addressing the videotaping of interrogations and another on intelligence information on the health risks faced by Desert Storm veterans.

Mr. Thompson of California, another subcommittee chairman, has worked hard on this bill as well. He pushed successfully for the inclusion of a provision to study the benefits paid to the families of the men and women of the intelligence community who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I am proud to support that as well.

We also received important input from the committee's minority members. Mr. Kline of Minnesota offered an excellent amendment, which we were pleased to accept, that requires the National Reconnaissance Organization to rewrite its charter to meet its current missions. Mr. Conaway's personal interest in auditable financial statements led to a provision in the bill that requires the intelligence community to focus on its internal financial management and to provide a system that achieves auditability.

Madam Chair, I believe that this bill will provide the resources and the tools that the intelligence community needs to do its important work in keeping our Nation safe. That includes collection and analysis of human intelligence, signals intelligence, and geospatial intelligence.

It includes funds to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to provide for intelligence support to the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also improves the recruitment and training of a diverse and capable workforce.

During my time on this committee, I've had the good fortune to be able to travel and to meet the brave men and women of the intelligence community, both uniformed and civilian, and I am continually impressed and in awe of the great work that they do and the great morale that they have. They are dedicated, professional and highly skilled patriots, and I'm proud to offer a bill that supports them and all that they do for our great Nation.

This past December, we lost seven of those brave men and women in the attack in Khost, Afghanistan. It is for them, and for those who carry on their mission, that I proudly submit this bill today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, now it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who actually has jurisdiction over some of the issues that the ranking member mentioned just a couple of minutes ago.

It's now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and former member of the House Intelligence Committee who still is a valued resource for us, Mr. Boswell from Iowa.

Madam Chair, I am happy to oblige my good friend, Mr. Boswell.

You are correct, Mr. Boswell.

Having had the opportunity to visit Drake University with you, you are correct.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I don't quibble with the opinions that my friends on the other side of the aisle have. It's just facts that don't support those opinions that I quibble with. They're not entitled to their own facts.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), a valued member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, just so we are clear, it doesn't appear that some members of the other aisle realize how important the rules are. The rules of the House apply to everyone on a bipartisan basis. The information he sought was denied from our committee because it didn't fit the criteria and the rules of the House.

With that, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and a new member of our House Intelligence Committee this year, Mr. Smith of Washington.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Terrorism-HUMINT, Analysis and Counterintelligence Subcommittee, my good friend from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, and our former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman of California.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, a valued member of my committee, Ms. Eshoo from California.

I yield the gentlelady 15 additional seconds.

Madam Chair, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Madam Chair, it is probably a good point that the ranking member makes that there should be a debate on Guantanamo; unfortunately, this is not the right bill to have that debate on.

I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a valued member, Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to a valued member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chair, I understand the frustration on the minority side. As an Army veteran, as a veteran of Federal law enforcement for 26\1/2\ years, I understand and value the United States Constitution. I understand and value that we have to live by the rules. I understand and value the fact that we are a global leader that is much respected.

The gentleman talks about one amendment, and that amendment simply says, Follow the rules. Follow the law. Follow the principles that have made this country great. I understand that.

Apparently, the minority does not understand that, and I feel for them because, in the final analysis, I have been with members of the intelligence community in faraway places around the world. I have been with them and their families at Bethesda when they were recuperating from the attack in Khost. I have been to the ceremony at the CIA. I understand what they go through. This is a good bill. It deserves everybody's support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the manager's amendment includes a number of revisions to H.R. 2701 along with a number of technical changes. I would like to highlight several of these key provisions.

The manager's amendment makes significant changes to the underlying bill's reforms to the process for notifying Congress on sensitive covert actions.

As my colleagues know, the National Security Act requires that the President inform Congress through the intelligence committees about all significant intelligence activities including covert actions.

In very limited circumstances, it allows the President to limit briefings on certain highly sensitive covert actions to the Gang of Eight--the leadership of the Intelligence Committees and the leadership of both Houses.

Over the past several months, we have carefully considered the administration's objections to the reforms that the committee included in the underlying bill. The manager's amendment is a product of that work.

The bill, as amended, would require the President to maintain a record of all Gang of Eight briefings. It also requires that the full committee be notified every time that a Gang of Eight briefing is conducted and be provided with general information regarding that briefing.

In the event the President decides that a briefing must be limited to the Gang of Eight, the manager's amendment also requires that he submit a certification stating that extraordinary circumstances require the briefing to be limited.

In the case of a limited briefing, the DNI will have to reissue that certification every 180 days or open the briefing to all members of the committee.

This reform is a substantial improvement over the language we included in previous authorization bills and which some of my colleagues still support. This earlier language would have actually expanded the President's authority to conduct restricted briefings, going so far as to include all intelligence activities, not just covert actions. It would also result in more restricted briefings and not fewer.

I am interested in passing laws that reform the notification process, not, as some would say, in sending political messages.

The manager's amendment also includes a number of provisions proposed by my colleagues. These include an amendment by Mr. Bishop, which would require the DNI and the Attorney General to provide Congress with a strategy on balancing intelligence collection needs with the interests of the United States in prosecuting terrorist suspects.

The questioning and prosecution of terrorist suspects has been the subject of some controversy in recent weeks, and I believe that Congress could benefit from understanding how the administration plans to handle such cases in the future.

A second provision included in the manager's amendment was proposed by Mr. Marshall of Georgia. It requires the DNI to study the best practices of other foreign governments to combat violent domestic extremism.

A number of our allies, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have established programs to stop individuals from turning to terrorism. This is a growing problem here in the United States, and we could benefit from learning how our friends and allies have dealt with this problem.

Madam Chair, I urge the passage of the manager's amendment.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and a valued member of our committee, Mr. Langevin.

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

Madam Chair, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson), who is a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats.

I am happy to oblige.

I believe that the Homeland Security Committees have an important role to play in congressional oversight of national security matters and that the committee should be briefed on national security matters that fall within its jurisdiction.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The manager's amendment includes language originally proposed by Mr. McDermott that reiterates existing law on torture and provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Torture is a reprehensible and counterproductive practice. The U.S., as we all know, has no business engaging in that. The language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts existing law.

Executive Order 13491 prohibits interrogators from engaging in any of the activities highlighted in the manager's amendment language. This Executive Order limits interrogations to the interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual. It also spells out the terms of Common Article 3 and relevant provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as the minimum standard for the United States to follow.

The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law. It provides a specific criminal penalty for those who knowingly cause the death of a detainee. It is already a crime for an interrogator to knowingly murder a detainee. This provision merely adds a concrete statutory penalty to that conduct.

This language does not, does not, give terrorists greater rights than ordinary criminals.

We cannot afford another Abu Ghraib, and the language in the manager's amendment simply reasserts these important provisions already codified in law, plain and simple.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to inform my colleagues on the other side that the men and women protecting this country are clear about their duties. They are focused on keeping us safe. They are not concerned about the political spin here. They are not concerned about the rhetoric that they hear. But they do appreciate actions more than rhetoric.

I know because I have been around the world visiting them. I have been to talk to various groups in the intelligence community. They know that we appreciate the work that they do each and every day to keep us safe. And they are not going to be fooled, like the American people are not going to be fooled, by the rhetoric that comes up, the spin that they try to put on the manager's amendment, and in particular the reiteration of something that is fundamentally American, and that is we have a Constitution. We have rules that we all have to live by. We understand the law. And we have to have respect for that law. It does not undermine any of that.

It is a good manager's amendment. I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment.

I would like to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to it.

I yield such time as she may consume to my friend from California (Ms. Harman).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and want the record to reflect that Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois is very much in agreement with Mr. Hoekstra.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank the vice chair of our Intelligence Committee for his hard work. I know he's worked ever since he's been on the committee on this very important issue that keeps, I think, the face of the intelligence community reflecting the face of this Nation.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Burton amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate him wanting to honor the personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I have said many times on the floor, I have had the privilege of visiting with members of the CIA and members of their families, members of the CIA throughout the world under probably the most difficult of circumstances. I understand the hardships that they face.

Most recently, I was with family members and survivors of the Khost bombing, which illustrates the danger they put themselves in willingly to protect our country. I would also remind the gentleman that we should not mix and compare apples to oranges. There is a big difference between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding and waterboarding an individual for 183 times. That's a huge difference.

The other thing I would point out is that when the last administration decided to take us down that road, that enhanced interrogation techniques would be authorized and approved. There has been a great amount of disagreement in terms of the legal authorization of these techniques, considered torture by most anybody's standards. I would also remind us that the CIA did not have any expertise in waterboarding. They had to actually go out and contract DOD personnel to be able to acquire that technique. It puts them in a tough situation.

I will tell you what I hear from the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency. They understand the difference between politics and bad policy. They understand the difference between doing the kinds of things that they are expected to do to keep our country safe and responding to the kind of political spin that, unfortunately, we hear about their work.

But, the one thing that comes across when I hear from them is they appreciate the support that they receive from the Congress. They appreciate the fact that regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, we respect the work that they do.

We, despite all of the arguments that are proffered here in this great Chamber, in the final analysis they know that they have a job to do. They know that they have a duty to perform. They know that they are committed professionals and that they expect and deserve the support of every member of this Chamber. That's why I appreciate the gentleman's sponsoring this amendment.

That's why I think we ought to accept it. I accept it. I think we ought to leave it at that and leave the politics and leave the rhetoric and remind ourselves that the message we need to send them is that we support their work. The message we should send them is that we honor them for their service to this great country.

The message that we deliver to the families of those victims of the Khost bombing is that we will support them. We will have our differences politically, we will articulate those differences, but we will never stop supporting the great work that the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency do for all of us.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to say I appreciate the amendment and the gentleman's interest.

This amendment would require the director of the DNI to submit to the Intelligence Committees a report on the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight No. 253.

This report would provide an assessment on any failures to share information within or between elements of the Federal Government and the measures that the intelligence community has taken or will take to prevent such failures in the future.

This report also covers issues such as analytic tradecraft, watch listing procedures, technical deficiencies, training database management. Many of the elements of this report mirror portions of the review of the DNI, which they are currently doing.

Requiring the DNI to provide this report will allow the Intelligence Committees to conduct rigorous oversight on this important national security concern.

Additionally, this amendment requires the DNI to submit responses to any findings or recommendations made by the Intelligence Committees.

With that, Madam Chair, I fully support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the chairman for his work on this very important and vital issue and also for the opportunity to speak on an issue that is of such great importance to our country and to our country's national security.

It is important that we reauthorize the expiring PATRIOT Act and the provisions that the brave men and women of the intelligence community continue to utilize and to have these tools that they need to keep us all safe.

This 1-year extension will provide Congress the opportunity to examine important aspects of the PATRIOT Act and to make substantive changes that strike the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting our national security.

Recently, I introduced H.R. 3969, the Counterterrorism Authorities Improvements Act of 2009. This bill makes improvements to the PATRIOT Act which will strengthen the tools used to combat terrorism and to enhance at the same time the privacy and the rights of Americans.

Additionally, both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees have passed PATRIOT Act reauthorization bills that would make important improvements in the law that will increase oversight while at the same time preserving critical intelligence authorities.

Some of the more important changes proposed by the House and the Senate include: one, modifying the FISA standard for obtaining business records to ensure that the government is required to show a connection to terrorism; two, requiring a higher standard to obtain library or bookseller records; three, increasing public reporting on the use of national security letters and FISA, including their impact on the privacy of Americans, a right that we all cherish; and, finally, number four, requiring the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to conduct regular audits of the use of these authorities. I am confident that a 1-year extension will provide Congress with sufficient time to make these important changes.

As always, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, especially in the coming year as we look at ways to make sure that we draw that balance between giving the men and women that keep us safe the ability to utilize essential and vital tools and also at the same time ensuring that the rights and the privacy of all Americans are protected.

With that, I thank you for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this week I was honored to participate in a very special ceremony that became a part of the proud history of the United States Border Patrol. I had the privilege of joining Dr. John ``Danny'' Olivas, one of NASA's great astronauts, in my congressional district to unveil a special U.S. Border Patrol flag that traveled with the crew of STS-128 to the International Space Station in August of last year.

Before his mission to the International Space Station, Dr. Olivas approached me and generously offered to fly an item with him and his fellow crewmates into space. We felt that flying the banner of the Border Patrol would be a wonderful symbol to represent our nation's appreciation for the agency's outstanding professionals of the past, present, and future.

The flag was flown 85 years after the U.S. Border Patrol was founded in 1924. As a fledgling agency, the Border Patrol had only a handful of agents who patrolled America's vast borders on horseback. Today, the agency boasts approximately 20,000 men and women who work to keep our nation secure at 20 sectors throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Dr. Danny Olivas and the crew of STS-128 traveled a total of 5.7 million miles during their mission, at speeds as high of 17,000 mph. Aboard this special journey was the banner of the United States Border Patrol.

On January 26, I joined Dr. Olivas and Acting U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher at the National Border Patrol Museum in El Paso, Texas, where the flag will be on permanent display. Dozens of agents, students, and community members were present to view the newest and most traveled exhibit in the museum's collection.

At the event, Dr. Olivas told students that there are many ways to serve our great country, being a Border Patrol agent, a soldier, or an astronaut are but a few examples. He said, ``It takes everybody taking their own passions and putting through efforts to make our country what it is.'' I couldn't agree more.

He encouraged students to follow their dreams and told them that he is living proof that everyone can achieve their dreams if they have the desire to do so. Danny claims that as a student, he wasn't the smartest, the most athletic, or the most talented; he was just your average kid. With the love and support from his parents and a strong interest in machines and outer space, Danny worked hard to fulfill his dream of one day becoming an astronaut.

As a 26\1/2\ year veteran of the United States Border Patrol and former Sector Chief, I truly appreciate Dr. Olivas' efforts to recognize the men and women of the Border Patrol who work hard to protect our nation and to honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

I. appreciation for his support of the Border Patrol, Dr. Olivas was designated as an honorary agent by Acting Deputy Customs and Border Protection Commissioner David Aguilar and was presented with a Border Patrol flag that was flown at all Border Patrol Sectors in the United States and signed by each of the Sector Chiefs. This honorary distinction has been awarded to only a handful of individuals in Border Patrol history, and I congratulate Dr. Olivas on this honor.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize and thank the El Paso Diabetes Association, its Executive Director, Mr. Henry Brutus, and his team for their continued leadership and dedication to educating our community about living with and preventing diabetes.

The statistics regarding diabetes are staggering. Diabetes is an epidemic affecting nearly 24 million Americans and another 57 million with pre-diabetes. Every 24 hours, 4,100 people in the United States are diagnosed with diabetes. If current trends continue, one in three children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes at some point in their lifetime. For minority populations, this number is nearly one in two. In El Paso, as many as one in six people are currently living with diabetes, and many more are unaware that their lifestyle choices are putting them at risk or have already made them pre-diabetic.

Diabetes is a leading cause of heart disease, stroke, amputation, blindness, and kidney disease. In 2007, diabetes cost the United States $174 billion in direct and indirect costs. Locally that same year, El Paso hospitals incurred more than $75 million in emergency costs related to complications with diabetes. However, these complications and costs are for the most part preventable through education.

It is important that we all understand how diabetes affects us, our families, and our community. Since 1968, the El Paso Diabetes Association has been an invaluable asset to my community by providing personalized services for those interested in learning about diabetes management and prevention. The organization's mission to promote education and early detection, empower people to take control of their health, and increase access to resources that make these goals possible are all exemplified by the work done by this year's Person of Vision.

Dr. Robert Christenson has been involved, with the El Paso Diabetes Association for 15 years and started the ``In Control Teen Camp'' to teach young El Pasoans how to prevent the onset of diabetes by staying fit and eating healthy. His service to the organization and our community is making a positive impact on the lives of our youth and is stemming this growing epidemic. Dr. Christenson is most deserving of this honor, and I applaud his work and dedication to make El Paso a better and healthier place.

Today, I am proud to recognize Dr. Christenson and everyone at the El Paso Diabetes Association, and I greatly appreciate all of their hard work for the betterment of our community.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1009) honoring the seven Americans killed in Khost, Afghanistan, on December 30, 2009, for their service to the United States, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, on December 30, while many of us were watching football, traveling back from holiday visits with our families, or preparing to usher in the new year with loved ones, seven members of the Central Intelligence Agency family had their lives cut short in an attack on Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan. This was the deadliest day for the CIA since the bombing of the Beirut Embassy in 1983.

The news of this tragic loss was of particular personal sadness and difficulty for me. I had the privilege to meet the Khost team when I last visited Afghanistan on a committee oversight trip. I can attest that these men and women were among the finest America has to offer. They did not shy from the dangers they knew existed, and they believed in the mission they were asked to perform. They worked tirelessly in an environment that is always dangerous. I am proud of the work that they did and the work that their colleagues continue to do today to keep our country safe.

The officers who died in Khost were true professionals. They were savvy officers who relied on years of experience to make judgments and to calculate risk. These men and women were deployed to an area of great danger and hardship, and they did so knowing that the worst could happen. But, they did it anyway, because we as a Nation are relying on them and colleagues like them to make the United States safe from the threat of terrorism.

I realize that many people have a distorted vision of what it means to be part of the CIA family. Movies and books have made the life of a CIA officer seem exciting. It wasn't until I

joined the Intelligence Committee that I fully understood the unique sacrifices that the men and women of the CIA and their families are willing to make in service to our Nation. In addition to the inherent dangers of the job, there are long separations from family and loved ones, often without explanation and on very short notice. Birthdays and holidays are spent in foreign corners of the world.

To those who were wounded in the attack, let me just add my personal thanks for your service and wish you a full and speedy recovery.

To the families of those who lost their lives on December 30, you have our deepest appreciation and gratitude. In this time of grief, please know that you are in our prayers and that this tragic loss will never be forgotten. It is my hope that you can find solace in the selfless, quiet devotion that these brave men and women gave for the safety and protection of our great Nation. They made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of all of us. And all Americans owe them, and you, a great debt for their commitment and dedication to a job that very rarely receives any kind of public recognition.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Chair of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel and a member of our Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to recognize for 1 minute a former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, and certainly someone that knows and understands the sacrifices that our men and women in the CIA make every day. We are fortunate to have her as the Speaker of the House.

It is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff from California.

I now yield 3 minutes to the former ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and the current Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, a lady that I have had the privilege of traveling with around the world to visit our men and women in the intelligence community, Ms. Harman from California.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a valiant member of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their great words and condolences and sympathy in honor of those who were killed in Khost.

Again, personally, I extend my condolences to the families and friends

who are forever impacted by this tragic loss. And to those who are recovering today from injuries they received in this attack, I wish you a full and fast recovery.

We, as Members of Congress, recognize that we have a tremendous responsibility to provide our men and women in the intelligence community all the tools that they need to carry out their mission. We are forever grateful. We are blessed to have these men and women serving, protecting our great Nation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Aliviane, Inc., as they celebrate their 40th anniversary. Based in my congressional district of El Paso, Texas, Aliviane is the largest and oldest drug abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment provider in the West Texas region.

Established in 1969, Aliviane provides a critical service to our community. Over the past 40 years, the organization has grown and now operates several licensed facilities that assist clients and their families with intensive residential treatment and supportive outpatient services. Aliviane's use of cutting-edge services and techniques has allowed the organization to meet the unique needs of its clients. Today, in large part because of Aliviane's pioneering efforts and commitment, behavioral health has become an essential part of primary health care in our country.

Aliviane has developed programs that have become national and international models and

have been used to further advance the behavioral health field. In the 1980s, Aliviane created the first nationally recognized program designed to keep a mother and her child together during treatment. This program has been recognized as a national model by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, Aliviane has developed the only behavioral health trauma unit in West Texas.

I commend Aliviane for their continued leadership in the behavioral health field and their dedication to further improving the national and international standards for behavioral health care. The hard working employees of Aliviane provide invaluable services within our community and it is with deep gratitude that I applaud their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009. Over this past summer, physicians in my district consistently stressed the need to reform our flawed Medicare reimbursement formula to ensure continued access to care for our Medicare beneficiaries. I could not agree more. For the last several years, Congress has had to act to reverse reimbursement reductions that would have prompted many doctors to close their doors or refuse to see more Medicare beneficiaries. If we do not act today, physicians serving Medicare patients will see a 21 percent reduction in their reimbursements next year. A cut of this magnitude will reduce access to physicians for Medicare beneficiaries throughout the country. Today, we in the House of Representatives are demonstrating our commitment to permanently fixing this problem.

I am pleased that H.R. 3961 will eliminate this steep payment cut scheduled for 2010 and protect access to care for seniors and people with disabilities into the future. It will also help protect access for our men and women in uniform and their families, since physician payment rates in TRICARE are tied to those used by Medicare. By providing a boost to primary care providers through increased payments for evaluation and management services, such as routine office visits, we help our physicians and patients focus on preventive measures and general wellness. Above all, this important legislation will ensure fair and adequate payment for physicians who participate in Medicare.

The American Medical Association, AARP, the Military Officers Association of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Medicare Rights Center, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare support this legislation. Like them and many of my colleagues, I too support comprehensive reforms to Medicare physician payments that enhance efficient and high-quality care for beneficiaries that protect their choice of physicians. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3961.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor our El Paso area veterans. Our nation joins together annually on November 11 to honor our men and women who have served in uniform for their service and for their sacrifices. From speeches to ceremonies, the voices of Americans join in tribute to all veterans, from the patriots who fought for our freedom in the Revolutionary War to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who are serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

It is critical that our support for veterans goes beyond words; we must honor those who have served with our actions. As a Vietnam veteran, I came to office knowing that one of my highest duties would be to improve the lives of all of our veterans, particularly those whom I have the privilege to represent here in Congress.

El Paso is a community which embraces our nation's military forces and the families who support them. El Pasoans have demonstrated our support for veterans and the soldiers who live and work on Fort Bliss in many ways, from a new USO center and another in the works, to an annual Freedom Fiesta. Perhaps the most important development for El Paso veterans is the establishment of a new joint Army and Veterans Administration, VA, medical center complex. To meet the needs of the historic expansion of Fort Bliss and the growing number of veterans, these new facilities will bring care to all generations, helping ensure that all veterans get the care that they need and deserve.

Congress has greatly expanded veterans benefits in the last three years, passing historic increases in VA spending. Congress also enacted a new GI Bill to provide a full four-year college education to every military member who served on active duty since September 11, 2001. And Congress added funds to improve the VA's claims processing and decrease wait times for all veterans.

Our veterans swore an oath to serve and defend our nation. They backed this oath with their actions, and in some cases their lives. Our country owes these brave men and women, not just our pledge to honor that service, but tangible benefits which reflect their sacrifices to ensure we remain strong, secure and free.

Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous occasion for the American people, particularly for the hundreds of thousands of El Pasoans who have unjustly struggled without health insurance in the world's wealthiest nation. The Affordable Health Care for America Act, as passed by the House, will dramatically improve the quality of life for so many families in our community, who will finally have access to quality affordable health coverage.

I am particularly pleased this legislation incorporates a provision that I, along with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and others worked to include that will support the development of our medical school. The measure will allocate $100 million each year through fiscal year 2015 to the Department of Health and Human Services to help develop medical schools in federally-designated health professional shortage areas for construction, equipment, curriculum and faculty development. This is an exciting opportunity for our community.

The House passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act is one of the most significant legislative victories for the people of El Paso. Our community has one of the highest concentrations of America's uninsured population, with over 230,000 residents without health coverage, one in three people. Texas has the highest rate of children and adults without health insurance in the entire nation. The status quo is unacceptable, and we can no longer afford to pass this growing problem to future generations.

While our community is spending a greater share of property taxes to pay for individuals without health coverage, insurance companies have continued to engage in practices that protect their bottom lines. For too long, insurers have been the gatekeepers to our health care system, with the power to dictate who receives health coverage and who does not. Americans with pre-existing conditions and serious illnesses are too often denied coverage or are dropped from their existing insurance plans for developing a serious illness or reaching their cap on coverage, and are denied access to the medical care they need.

When people lack access to quality affordable preventative care, they end up in our

emergency rooms for ailments that could have been treated by a family doctor or seek treatment for conditions that should have been diagnosed earlier. When these patients fail to pay their medical bills from publically-financed hospitals such as University Medical Center, local property taxes are used to cover these expenses. Since 1998, El Paso property tax payers have spent over $400 million to pay for treatment and services for those patients who could not afford to pay their medical bills.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will dramatically reduce the number of people without insurance in El Paso. First, it prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage due to ``pre-existing conditions.'' It requires that every American obtain health coverage, and provides ``affordability credits'' to individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $43,430 for individuals and $88,200 for a family of four).

The legislation also requires that most employers provide coverage. It includes exemptions for small businesses with payrolls of less than $500,000 and offers generous tax credits for those small businesses that elect to provide coverage for their employees. The bill creates an ``insurance exchange,'' that will offer affordable health insurance plans for individuals without employer-provided or government-provided insurance (such as Medicaid and Medicare). This exchange will include a public option to encourage competition with private insurers to keep prices low for consumers.

This bill also brings much needed relief and peace of mind for those who do have insurance coverage, as all Americans will no longer have to worry about the possibility of financial ruin due to a serious illness. It caps annual out-of-pocket expenses at $10,000 for families and $5,000 for individuals, and prohibits insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on an individual's coverage.

Our local community leaders have expressed their support for health insurance reform, and both the city and the county have passed unanimous resolutions in support of reform. The Affordable Health Care for America Act is endorsed by over 300 national organizations and associations, including the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and many other medical professional organizations.

The passage of this landmark legislation by the House of Representatives is an historic achievement and reflects the commitment and determined leadership of President Obama and the Democratic Congress to follow through on a key promise to help middle class families, who have endured years of rising medical costs. I commend my colleagues for their determination to pass this truly historic legislation that will lower health care costs for all Americans, and strengthen our country's financial future.