Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I remember a friend who passed away last week, former El Paso County Commissioner Rogelio Sanchez.

More than a friend, Rogelio was a public servant and part of the political lineage that enabled me to serve my city and my country in Congress. Born in Mexico, a valedictorian at Fort Hancock High School, a graduate of Sul Ross State University, a World War II veteran, and a teacher for many years in El Paso, Rogelio served the lower valley of El Paso, Texas, on the El Paso County Commissioner's Court for 36 years. At a time when minorities were not adequately represented in government, his leadership on Commissioner's Court and his persistent advocacy of diversity and opportunity opened the door for many Latinos to enter politics and public service.

He neutralized prejudice with his humor and easy-going manner and overcame discrimination with a record of accomplishment that includes roles in the construction of the Sun Bowl, Trans Mountain Road, Thomason Hospital, the new country courthouse, the new county jail, and many senior citizen nutrition centers. His fingerprints on El Paso are some of our proudest structures.

In addition, his work holds a special place in my heart because he was responsible for initiating Head Start in El Paso, a Federal program the success and expansion of which ranks high among my legislative priorities.

Politics and public service in El Paso looked a lot different when Rogelio left Commissioner's Court in 1997 than when he first won election to office in 1960. The path he helped blaze ultimately led me to Congress. He was a giant for his people. He was an inspiration for me.

Nothing says more about a man, however, than his family. Rogelio was one of 10 children born to Rogelio and Petra Sanchez and the first among them to attend college. He is survived by his wife of 56 years, Mary, and their three children, Michael, Albert and Maricela. In addition to knowing Rogelio as a public servant, I knew him as a family man--and that is how I will remember him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in mourning the death of Rogelio Sanchez and recognizing his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 214, the United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act of 2005.

The U.S.-Mexico border region presents us with one of our Nation's most challenging sets of policy priorities. We read headlines everyday about the issues of migration, national security, illegal drug trafficking, and trade and commerce, all of which are centered on our southern border. However, the nation often forgets about other issues by which we are affected on the border that are complicated by the binational nature of the communities in which we live.

S. 214 will help border communities in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California as they approach an issue that will determine the viability of their communities to prosper indefinitely into the future: water. On the border, the question of water is not only one of negotiating resource allocation between countries, but also one of geography and scarcity. As we enter a century in which, according to many experts, wars between nations will be fought over water, not oil, S. 214 will offer an essential assessment tool to policymakers making strategic decisions about resource allocation.

Currently, although the U.S. and Mexico share information about surface water and other resources, no bilateral mechanism exists for cooperation and the sharing of information with regards to ground water. This lack of communication makes it difficult to ascertain the limitations and capabilities of those groundwater resources shared between the U.S. and Mexico.

The bill would provide for that mechanism by establishing a United States-Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program to evaluate and model groundwater resources along the border. The program will develop an integrated approach to assess transboundary groundwater resources, prioritizing the aquifers for further analysis, and creating a geographic information system database for each priority aquifer. The bill would expand existing agreements between the U.S. Geological Survey, border states, the research institutes, and U.S. and Mexican authorities to conduct joint scientific investigations and produce scientific reports that will assist technicians and authorities in managing our most precious resource.

Located in the Chihuahua Desert, the vitality of my district of EI Paso, Texas depends on the prudent management of our water resources. S. 214 will help us provide sustainable water resources for generations of Americans to come.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 214.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act. While I am pleased that we will have the opportunity to vote on this matter, it is important to note that we are not expanding accountability but are in fact correcting a mistake.

Earlier this year, language was included in the National Defense Authorization Act to terminate funding and authority for the Office of the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction. This organization is critical to ensuring that taxpayers dollars are being used wisely, and the office has already uncovered millions of dollars lost to waste and fraud.

Besides protecting the integrity of the Iraq reconstruction program and providing accountability to the American taxpayers, the Office of the Investigator General, is also helping the Iraqi government fight a culture of corruption. Corruption is a scourge on the Iraqi society that threatens its stability. It not only drains needed funds from the fledgling government, but funds skimmed from government coffers may also finance criminal and insurgent operations.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure to maintain accountability for the American people and the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sofia Guzman Garcia of my hometown of Canutillo, TX, who passed away July 29, 2006, on her 74th birthday.

Sofia Guzman Garcia was born on July 29, 1932, and was a 1950 graduate of El Paso High School. Later, she worked for the Borderland Farmers Cooperative Association for two decades. She was also a dedicated volunteer for numerous community causes and a tireless campaigner for her husband and sons as they sought elected office.

Mrs. Garcia worked on behalf of the people of Canutillo throughout her life, playing a pivotal role in strengthening the Canutillo Independent School District, local churches, and other community institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of a great woman, Sofia Guzman Garcia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to Representative Tom Lantos for introducing H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006.

Hurricane Katrina brought to light the difficult circumstances and decisions citizens may face when forced to evacuate their homes. Heartbreaking scenes and stories of evacuees being forced to leave behind their beloved pets were all too common. Thankfully, many evacuees were reunited with their animals after the storm. However, thousands of pets either did not survive or may still be separated from their owners.

H.R. 3858 would ensure that all States and communities include the evacuation of pets and service animals within their emergency and disaster preparedness plans. With pets present in 63 percent of American households, this legislation would provide the needed tools for citizens and communities to better navigate the already stressful experience of evacuation.

I was not present when the House considered H.R. 3858 because I was in Texas to participate in a critically important conference on Latino health issues. However, I would have voted in favor of this legislation. I now look forward to the President signing the bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2562, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

S. 2562 would raise the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and would increase dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain disabled veterans. Surviving spouses and children aged under 18 would be among those who would benefit from the compensation rate increase that would become effective on December 1, 2006. The increase in rates would be equal to the increase provided to Social Security recipients and is projected to be approximately 2.9 percent.

As a co-sponsor of H.R. 4843, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2006, which passed the House of Representatives on June 27, 2006, I also strongly support the Senate version of the bill.

In recognizing the contributions that veterans have made to our country, it is vital that we provide compensation that reflects today's rising cost-of-living. Many of the approximately 60,000 veterans who reside in El Paso, Texas depend largely on government compensation for supporting their families. Increasing the compensation rates for veterans and their

families allows us to demonstrate our immense gratitude for those who have courageously served our country.

Mr. Speaker, nation's veterans and their service to our appreciation for their service to our country. I ask all my colleagues to join me in voting favorably on S. 2562.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

I want to thank our chairman, Chairman Hunter, and our ranking member, Ike Skelton, the staff on both sides. So many people have put in so much effort and a lot of work on this bill that supports our men and women in uniform.

While I might have preferred a more inclusive process, taken as a whole, the product is worthy of everyone's support in this House. It provides our troops with tools and support that they need to defend our Nation at a time of war.

I am particularly pleased that the final legislation does not include language that linked funding for the Army's Future Combat System with the critical need to replace and repair equipment that has been lost or damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am also pleased to report that the final bill before us today contains bipartisan compromises on the issues within our jurisdiction. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee has oversight of numerous complex and contentious programs, including ballistic missile defense, space systems and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank our subcommittee chairman, my good friend from Alabama, Chairman Everett, for his leadership and the tremendous amount of effort that he put into forging a bipartisan effort to agree on these very complex and controversial issues at times.

In the short time that I have, I want to highlight elements of the conference report on ballistic missile defense systems.

The conferees adopted a Senate provision establishing U.S. policy on ballistic missile defense that clearly reflects our views. It says that we should accord greater priority within the program to effective near- term missile defense capabilities, including the ground-based midcourse defense system, the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, and the sensors necessary to support such systems.

The conferees also adopted the House provision preventing use of funds for testing or deployment of a space-based missile defense interceptor.

Mr. Speaker, while time does not permit me to describe in detail the rest of our subcommittee's accomplishments, I again want to thank Chairman Everett and our Senate colleagues for their cooperation in achieving this bipartisan, successful measure; and I want to recommend to all our colleagues that they vote ``yes'' on this very important legislation to support our troops and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Harlingen District Director Alfonso R. De Leon for his over 40 years of Federal service and in congratulating him on his upcoming retirement.

Mr. De Leon began his career in 1970, when he joined the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, as a radio operator with the U.S. Border Patrol in Del Rio, Texas.

In 1975, he transferred to Laredo, Texas, where he served with INS Inspections as Trainee, Journeyman, Training Officer, Special Case Officer, Supervisor, Assistant Port Director, Acting Port Director and, finally, Port Director.

In September 1988, at the height of the influx of asylum-seekers brought on by political turmoil in Central America, Mr. De Leon was selected as the Assistant District Director for the Harlingen, Texas, District Office. In 1991, he was promoted to Deputy District Director.

Mr. De Leon also played a leadership role during the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and in 2003 was named Interim District Director of USCIS. The following year he was promoted to USCIS District Director, a position he holds today.

I have known Mr. De Leon since 1970. My friend and former colleague is truly an American success story, having worked his way up through the ranks of INS and DHS. He has always exemplified expertise, dedication, and professionalism in every position he has held throughout his career.

As a result, Mr. De Leon has earned widespread respect from his colleagues and employees as well as numerous other local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. He has also been a leader in implementing innovative programs to enhance national security, eliminate the immigration caseload backlog, and improve customer service in the Harlingen District.

Most importantly, Mr. De Leon is also a devoted family man. He and his wife, Mary Blanch, have three children and four grandchildren. I know that of his many accomplishments, Mr. De Leon is perhaps most proud of his fine family, and deservedly so.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the House of Representatives' appreciation for Harlingen District Director Alfonso R. De Leon's service to our Nation and in wishing him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the White House/ Wilson bill. I want to detect and intercept terrorists before they reach the United States as much as anyone, but I don't want to give the President the ability to trample our Constitution in that process.

I have devoted my entire career to defending our Constitution, first in the military, then in the Border Patrol, and now in Congress. I am not willing to give the President unnecessary unchecked authorities just because it makes good election-year politics.

As a member of both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I would like to address the failure of this bill to deal with a very specific problem: the President's assertions that the authorization for use of military force gave him the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans.

I offered an amendment in committee that would have inserted additional language into the White House-Wilson bill to make clear that Congress did not, did not, Mr. Speaker, in passing that authorization, empower the President to engage in warrantless surveillance. Like every amendment offered in the Intelligence Committee, it was voted down in a party line vote. Anything that doesn't square with the President's wish list was unacceptable to the sponsor of this bill. That is disappointing, and that is not bipartisanship.

I take very seriously our obligation to provide the President with the tools that he needs to provide for national security, but I also reject the notion that the authorization for use of military force allows the President to ignore the fourth amendment and conduct warrantless surveillance on American citizens.

To this day, even the Intelligence Committee cannot be sure whether there are other secret programs that the President believes Congress has implicitly authorized. But we can at least make sure that this position, our position, is clear, that he must respect this one.

I still don't think that the authorization for use of military force authorized those things, and I continue to be amazed that the White House, with a straight face, thinks that it did. I am not afraid to stand up for our Constitution. I am not afraid to take a stand and provide the tools to the President either. But this is not the right vehicle. It should be a bipartisan effort.

The White House-Wilson bill is a terrible affront to our constitutional system, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, I understand the critical need to have the best possible intelligence both to prevent terrorist attacks against our Nation and to protect our troops in the battlefield. But those who have tied passage of military commissions legislation to the collection of actionable intelligence are simply misleading the American people.

I am deeply disappointed that military commissions legislation crafted by the White House and the Republican congressional leadership does not create a system that will pass constitutional muster. Like my colleagues, I demand that our Nation prosecute those who commit terrorist acts against us, but if Congress and the White House create a system of military tribunals that will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, we will further delay justice for the victims of terrorism and for their families.

The Bush administration has determined that we can legally hold all enemy combatants until the end of hostilities in the global war on terrorism, and as the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday indicated, we won't be able to declare victory in the fight against terror and extremism anytime in the foreseeable future. So I ask, why are we in such a hurry to pass legislation that may do more harm than good? Why are we putting politics above victims of terrorist acts? Why are we endangering our troops?

Protecting our Nation also includes protecting the men and women who are serving in uniform in battlefields around the world. I believe, along with other military and legal experts, that the Republican military commissions bill will be interpreted by the international community as redefining our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Our Nation must act from a position of strength, and we must think first of protecting our citizens before weighing how the world will view our actions. However, it is very unrealistic to simply ignore the impact that the changes included in H.R. 6166 could have on members of our military.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up, I cannot support H.R. 6166 as it is written. We can do much better for our troops, the victims of terrorism, and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit states that the assets would go to the immigration matters that are in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. It has no reference at all about going to conference. I think those are very germane differences.

Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent a border district in Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Border Patrol, including 13 years as sector chief in McAllen and El Paso, Texas. I have years of experience of patrolling the tough terrain of the U.S.-Mexico border region, supervising thousands of dedicated Border Patrol agents and working to do everything in our power to strengthen America's borders and to reduce illegal immigration. So I know from firsthand personal experience what works and what doesn't when it comes to border security and to immigration law enforcement.

Given my background, Mr. Speaker, I attended many of the hearings on the border security and immigration that were called by the majority this summer, along with my Republican colleagues. It is obvious from the bill before us today, however, that though the Republicans held these hearings, they did not actually do very much listening. Rather than charging our already overburdened local law enforcement agencies with enforcing immigration law, which is, I might point out, a Federal responsibility, we need to give the

Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to do their job.

With this motion to recommit, we help rectify the failure of the Republican leadership to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is 5 years overdue.

Specifically, over the next 4 years, we would authorize a total of 8,000 new Border Patrol immigration agents, 1,000 additional immigration detention officers, 1,000 more U.S. marshals and 100,000 new detention beds.

The idea that we have here, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If we are really serious about helping to stop illegal immigration, we have to give the Department of Homeland Security the personnel and the detention space that they so desperately need today.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that there are some Members of this House who either have no idea what Congress really needs to do to help keep Americans safe, or they are more interested in scoring cheap political points with the voters back home this election season than in actually protecting our country.

It is now 5 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Republican leadership is still wasting our precious time. We need real action now. We don't need more rhetoric. The American people are counting on us, and we cannot fail them yet again. Let's finally give the Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to keep this great country of ours safe.

I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate the issue of border security here, as we talk about an issue that is so vitally important to the American people, I am disappointed that we can't seem to work together on this particular issue. I have been in Congress for 10 years. I have been advocating that we hire 1,000 to 1,500 Border Patrol agents a year along with the resources necessary to support them. Yet we get this proposal for a fence.

This is the best we can do? This is the best you can do to assure the American people that we are going to focus on border security? It falls woefully short, and I say that with all due respect because I spent 26\1/2\ years on America's border. When I retired, I had been the chief for a little over 12 years in charge of McAllen sector and El Paso sector. I am the one who instituted Operation Hold the Line that shifted border enforcement away from apprehension and towards deterrence. I have, I think, the kind of experience that we ought to be able to count on on both sides of the aisle.

I have tried to work with many Members on the other side of the aisle and have always, as I put forth my ideas on the issue of border security for the last 10 years, have always been told, well, it is not the right time. It's too expensive, it is not the right strategy to pursue at this time.

I really felt after 9/11 we would have a new focus on border security. Today, 5 years later, the American people are focused like a laser on the fact that our borders are vulnerable.

I would say to my distinguished colleague, Chairman Royce, I was at the hearing in Laredo with you, as I have been at numerous hearings the last 2 months, hearings where the message has come across loud and clear from members of Customs and Border Protection. What they need: They need manpower, they need technology and they need infrastructure.

In Naco, Arizona, we have 1,200 to 1,300 Border Patrol agents housed out of a station that was designed for 25 people.

That is infrastructure that we need. How can we expect them to be professionals if we don't treat them like professionals, if we don't invest in the infrastructure that is so desperately needed? We were there, looking at their sensor systems, and it was a bipartisan group from the interparliamentary group. We looked at not just the physical layout of the station, but the condition of their vehicles. They need vehicles.

The vehicles, the technology that they were using, the cameras that they were monitoring, were over 15 years old. The sensors were 20 years old. That is why, consistently, the message has been at all these hearings the last couple of months that they need manpower, they need technology, and they need infrastructure support, new technology that is available that will serve as the force multiplier, Chairman, that you were referring to.

We can do much better than this. A fence is ludicrous in the face of the needs of the Customs and Border Patrol people.

When we talk about the issue of fencing, and we compare that with all the other needs, and, believe me, at all the hearings I was at the message was consistent. In fact, when the question was asked of the chiefs, what about fencing, well, fencing has limited use. As a former chief for over 12 years, I can tell you fencing would be down after those three priorities, because across that 2,000-mile border with Mexico that everybody is so concerned with, probably less than 10 percent, much less than 10 percent, in one of the hearings that we were talking about, we were concerned about a range in Yuma, Arizona. It seemed like it was an area that needed hundreds of miles of fencing. You know what? It came out to 37 miles of fencing that was needed.

I say, put up a fence for those 37 miles. I supported the fencing with my friend and colleague, Duncan Hunter, in San Diego, because it makes sense. But it does not make sense to put a 2,000-mile fence along our southern border. It does not make sense, and it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers to foolishly commit to spending at least $7 billion just on the construction of this fencing. We can do much better.

I am extremely disappointed that after all we hear about post-9/11, after all we hear about the concern that terrorists are apt to hit us here in the homeland again, that this is the best we can do. This is the equivalent of a doctor in the emergency room having a patient come in from a severe automobile accident with broken limbs and wounds over most parts of his body, and the physician saying, nurse, give me a Band-Aid. This is a Band-Aid approach that we can do much better with.

Let us do a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses the three major priorities that the Border Patrol wants, manpower, technology, infrastructure. Let's not forget that there is a whole pipeline. If you hire more Border Patrol agents, you need to hire

marshals, you need to hire detention officers. You need to hire judges. You need to hire prosecutors. All of that is essential. Let's do a comprehensive piece of legislation that the American people will finally say, this Congress gets the fact that we are in danger from terrorism. We can do better. This is a ludicrous proposal, as far as I am concerned.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

The reference to 2,000 miles of fencing I heard repeatedly by Members of your party at the hearing.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference in how we approach this issue. Our plan says, we want to fund infrastructure, let the chief make the decisions.

When the gentleman from Texas talks about there isn't any proposal in our bill for fencing, here is what infrastructure entails. It entails buildings, antivehicle barriers, observation towers, access roads and fencing. The difference is, we don't legislate from here and tell a chief patrol agent, this is how much fence you are going to get. We tell them, this is what is available, you tell us what you need.

When the gentleman talks about what is needed, what the testimony was, heard along the border, I don't know how many hearings he attended, but I can tell you this, at the hearings that I attended, the chief patrol agents wanted three things, and I will reiterate them: manpower, technology and infrastructure. All of those things are included under ``infrastructure.''

I think the professionals that we charge in protecting the border deserve the courtesy of telling us what it is that they need, what kind of combination.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me reframe the difference between what we want to do on this side of the aisle and what is being proposed on that side of the aisle.

First and foremost, we want to work together to address the issue of border security. We want to give the professionals the support that they have been asking for throughout these last 2 months of hearings. We want to make sure that we provide them the opportunity to tell us what kind of infrastructure, including fencing, they need. The buildings, the anti-vehicle barriers, the observation towers, the access roads, all of the kinds of things that they have told us are a priority in order for them to be able to control the border.

The fundamental difference is we trust them to make those decisions. We do not tell them we need a fence starting from 5 miles east of the port of

entry in Del Rio to 6 miles east of the port of entry of Eagle Pass. Let them make those kinds of decisions. They are the professionals. They are charged with that responsibility. Our job is to provide them the support and the resources. That is the fundamental difference.

As I have said, we need to work together on this thing. Regrettably, this rule freezes us out and we are unable to participate in this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This debate today is about whether or not this Congress can afford to micromanage what the United States Customs and Border Protection does on our border. This bill calls for a fence from Calexico to Douglas, from Laredo to Brownsville, from Columbus to El Paso, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and a fence in the Tecate area as well.

Our position in this motion to recommit is, instead of micromanaging, let us give the Customs and Border Protection the resources that they need. Let us give them real meaningful legislative support.

Under our bill we give them additional Border Patrol agents.

Under our bill we give them security enhancements, we give them surveillance enhancements, we give them practical infrastructure enhancements. In other words, what we do is, we provide them the support and ask them, what is it that you need; tell us how you are going to enhance the ability to better monitor the border.

We think that makes sense. We can do much better than micromanage from here. We wouldn't micromanage and tell generals in Iraq or Afghanistan how to fight that war. Why should we do that when we are trying to defend our homeland? We can do much better.

This bill, from my perspective, and from my 26\1/2\ years of experience with the Border Patrol, as I walked in, I listened to my colleague from California, Congressman Hunter. He was talking about a fence that was effective. There are limited areas where fencing is effective, but to put a fence from Columbus to El Paso, a stretch of 88 miles, is ridiculous. It is not only expensive, but the maintenance and the effectiveness is going to be expensive and questionable.

Part of this process has to include common sense.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, there is none. There is no money provided in this bill. This is purely a political ploy. This again, unfortunately, proves that the leadership of this House is putting politics ahead of good policy.

We can do better, we must do better, we must work together. Let's vote ``no'' on the bill itself, vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Our motion to recommit includes physical infrastructure enhancements; fencing is part of that. There is fencing in there, there are access roads, there are buildings in there. All of that is included in there.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 4893. This legislation seeks to make drastic changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without the option to offer amendments or have a full debate on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Instead of offering legislation that would weaken tribal sovereignty, Congress should be working hard to ensure American Indians are protected from corrupt lobbyists and given the means to care for their members.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to take a stand for millions of American Indians throughout the country by voting against

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the victims of 9/11 al Qaeda attacks, as well as the family members who mourn them, the first responders who helped their communities recover, and the brave men and women in the armed services who are risking their lives to make us safer.

Honoring the memories of those who gave their lives on September 11 should not, however, be a once-a-year endeavor. This should not be an occasion for speeches and ceremonies. Talk is cheap, but our actions, what we do in the war on terror, that is what speaks volumes. Through our actions, we honor our dead. I would like to talk about a couple of ways in which we could better honor their memories, ways in which we can actually act.

After September 11, we began a war of necessity, the war on terror. The whole world was with us. We made enormous strides quickly in Afghanistan in that war, but then we began another war, a war of choice, in Iraq. Now, because more than 130,000 of our troops are bogged down in Iraq, we have punted the ball in Afghanistan.

Let me be clear. Today, we are in danger in Afghanistan, the original breeding ground for al Qaeda. The Taliban is gaining ground and inflicting casualties on coalition forces. If we need reinforcements, will we have them? The major victory in the war of necessity, the war on terror, that was so close now appears to be fading because we are bogged down in a war of choice in Iraq.

The best way to honor our departed heroes and friends is by winning that war of necessity. The terrorists started the war on September 11, but if we set our priorities right we can finish it.

The men and women who died on September 11 deserve victory in the war on terror, our war of necessity. They deserve more than empty rhetoric. They deserve more than talking points and slogans. They deserve more than chicken hawk mud slinging. They also deserve more than insulting those as unpatriotic or weak anyone who dares to say that we need to make some changes in the way we are fighting the war of necessity. And finally, they deserve more than siphoning off resources from the war of necessity by a war of choice.

Yes, talk is cheap. If we want to remember those who died on September 11, let us give them a victory.