Though prehistoric remains from the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Ages have been unearthed in the Manzanares Valley, prior to Madrid's sudden elevation to capital city in 1561 its history was rather undistinguished. Over a period of many centuries crucial in Spanish history, Madrid's significance was negligible. The Romans built their most advanced outpost on the Iberian peninsula, but left nothing of consequence in Madrid. Armies of North African nomads, intent on disseminating Islam, invaded the peninsula in a.d. Within 10 years, they had overrun most of Spain. If Madrid played any role in these pivotal events, no record of it remains. The first solid references to this obscure settlement on the Castilian plateau, guarded by the looming Guadarrama mountain range, appear in the 9th century. The Arabic name for "place of many springs," variously recorded as Magerit, Mayrit or Magrit, eventually evolved into Madrid. The hamlet entered historical chronicles for its military significance; it was located near the main line of resistance to the Christian reconquest. Over centuries of struggle, the defending Moorish army built a full-scale fort, or Alcazar, on the heights of Madrid commanding the Manzanares valley. After several unsuccessful skirmishes, the Christian forces of Alfonso VI captured Madrid in 1083. The Alcazar became a fort of the crown of Castile. During a counter-offensive in 1109, the town was overrun by the Moors, but the Christianized fortress held. The Moors were expelled from the town, but they remained in control of southern Spain for almost four centuries. Meanwhile, Madrid enjoyed brief prominence in 1308 when king Ferdinand IV and his Cortes, an early version of parliament, held a formal meeting in the fledgling town. From then on, the kings of Spain began to visit Madrid, where the air was invigorating and the hunting excellent. Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic monarchs that united all the provinces of Spain, first visited Madrid in 1477.

Question: "Who overtook the Romans?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Armies of African Nomads"

Response: yes

Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security.

Question: "What are two alternatives that Congress have considered?"

Response: "Streamlining the work into subcommittees or increasing taxes"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

The inhabited history of the Las Vegas Valley stretches to 23,000 b.c. , when much of the area was covered by a prehistoric lake. During this period, the indigenous people lived in caves, hunting the mammals that gathered at the shoreline. The landscape of the valley changed dramatically over the next 200 centuries. The glaciers feeding the lake melted away and the lake evaporated. Fossils tell an obscure story of man's slow and sporadic development. Around 3000 b.c. , native Archaic Indians began to develop a lasting hunting and gathering culture. By this time, the valley was in much the same geographic state as it exists in today, with one exceptionthe presence of artesian springs that bubbled to the surface in several areas. These springs fed a network of streams draining through the Las Vegas Wash to the Colorado River. The areas surrounding the springs were desert oases: sprawling collections of grasses, trees, and wildlife. Many springs lay in areas that would eventually become the center of the modern Las Vegas metropolis. For about 4000 years, the Archaics thrived in a culture that included many signs of early civilization. Signs of even more advancement appeared halfway through the first millennium a.d. , when the Anasazi Indians inhabited the valley. Far more progressive than the Archaics, the Anasazi utilized such formal agricultural techniques as irrigation to assist their harvest. This permitted the Anasazi to achieve a benchmark of advanced societythe ability to live in permanent shelters year-round without need to follow wildlife. Mysteriously, the Anasazi vanished from the valley around a.d.

Question: "When did the native Archaic Indians develop a hunting and gathering culture?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Around 3000 b.c"

Response:
yes