If my colleague will continue to yield, just briefly, what my colleague has stated--and I strongly agree with--is that she is trying to assure that the resources are there for the future. I am not going to drag my colleague into the earlier discussion, but what I am concerned about, and have been, is that the Senator from Arizona is relitigating the past. In effect, when the Bush administration took away the power because it was too intrusive, he wanted to go back to it. But apropos of my colleague, isn't that the heart of her case--that she is looking to the future--FBI resources, resources to deal with hate crimes, resources to deal with prevention? It seems to me she is trying to lay out a plan for the future.
Share & report
More from Ron Wyden
Your agency is in charge of 193 million acres of public lands. Apparently the President thinks if you treat two percent of that acreage annually, communities will be okay.
The bill is a dramatic retreat for congressional oversight, at precisely the moment when scrutiny of Intelligence Community activities is needed most.
Without stronger oversight and real accountability, these contractors are just going to get a jumbo windfall for creating systems that actually harm Americans trying to get health care.
Furthermore, I am concerned that recent decisions by HHS to dismantle SAMHSA and consolidate it within a larger agency, therefore weakening its existing powers, are inconsistent with the Department’s stated commitment to enhanced…





