Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I returned from my fifth trip to Iraq since the President declared an end to major combat operations last May. I was able to visit with our brave men and women in uniform, many of whom still endure daily rocket strikes. Their resolve and ability to maintain good spirits in the harshest of environments is a testament to the caliber of our armed forces and their dedication to their jobs.

Last week I learned of the death Lance Corporal Michael Torres, a young man from my district who was killed by enemy fire in Fallujah. A high school scholar, athlete, and young Texas State Guardsman, Lance Corporal Torres joined the Marine Corps to serve his country and his fellow Americans. His pride for our Nation and his willingness to serve is an inspiration for El Paso and our country.

Yesterday, along with my colleagues Solomon Ortiz and Grace Napolitano, I joined Congressman Lane Evans in touring the Rock Island Arsenal, located in his district. Congressman Evans invited us to visit this premier facility of which he is so proud and to which he offers much support. At Rock Island, we were able to see armor kits being made for Humvees, and talk with the employees who have been tirelessly working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to produce armor kits for our Humvees that are in theater in Iraq. Having seen some of these armor kits being installed in Kuwait, and having talked to soldiers both installing the kits and receiving armored vehicles, I wanted to pass on their gratitude to the workers.

When our men and women in uniform initially crossed the burm in Iraq, fewer than 40 percent of their vehicles were armored. Today, thanks to the hard work of the men and women like those at Rock Island Arsenal, we are well on our way to having every vehicle armored. Since December 19th of last year, Rock Island has produced more than 2,500 full armor kits for Humvees that were sent to Iraq--many of which were installed in theater by the very men and women who built the armor. Our Nation owes great thanks to the men and women of Rock Island Arsenal. Their hard work and dedication is giving soldiers protection and enabling them to return home to their families.

While I am pleased that we are on our way to successfully armoring our vehicles, it does not make up for the fact that many, many men and women in uniform died when they could have been protected by properly armored vehicles. I am pleased that the House Armed Services Committee has been able to work in a bipartisan manner to give our soldiers and marines in theater better force protection measures, but this should not have had to happen after our soldiers were already in theater. When we use our forces, we need to ensure that they have adequate equipment, the best information and technology, and the best training possible.

Our men and women in uniform, like Lance Corporal Torres was, are among the best and the brightest that our Nation has to offer. They are our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers, our friends and neighbors. As a veteran and as a proud American, I pledge to offer my continued support to ensure that our men and women in uniform have what they need to do their jobs and return home safely.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time to rise in opposition to this rule.

First let me just say that like all of us in this House that represent communities around this great Nation of ours, I am proud of the job that our men and women are doing in the war against terrorism, whether they are in the military, whether they are in the intelligence community or civilians.

I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a veteran. But to me, today, the issue is about oversight and about funding the effort.

I think debate is healthy. I think we should exchange ideas and, yes, maybe even political philosophies from time to time. We go to the intelligence community and we ask them, what is it that you need? How much money will it take to get the job done? They tell us, they give us a budget, they give us a proposal; and then we come back and say, we can only give you 33 percent of that money. Do they give us 33 percent effort? No. They give us 100 percent, so we should fund them at 100 percent.

So why are we doing that? I am sure that our men and women that are putting their lives on the line are asking that very same question: Why? To them, it is not about politics, it is not about budgets, it is not about deficits, or even supplementals. To them, it is about support for their effort. To them, it is about funding that effort at 100 percent, and not giving them 33 percent and an IOU or a check-is-in- the-mail promise. It is about support for our men and women in an effort that is very important to our country.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we must do better; and, most of all, to the men and women of this body, we must do our job.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, and I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman, and the ranking member for the hard work that they always put into these kinds of efforts and legislation.

Mr. Chairman, there is much that we expect from our military, from our intelligence personnel, and from our civilian employees in what we call this war on terrorism. We all take a great deal of pride in their work, their professionalism, their dedication, and, yes, sometimes the sacrifice that they make by making the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our great Nation.

So my question this afternoon is, When we expect so much from them, why can we not expect the same from ourselves? Why can we not put together a piece of legislation that supports them with the same dedication, the same professionalism, the same level, 100 percent, of the funds that are required for them to succeed?

In this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to see that some focus in this bill is on improving the functioning of the new intelligence analysis element of the Department of Homeland Security. I was also pleased that the bill, in general terms, recognizes the importance of sharing information between the Federal, local, and State levels and also the Federal levels such as the FBI.

I was, however, Mr. Chairman, disappointed that the bill did not include language supportive of focusing on the necessary resources of the El Paso Intelligence Center, such as enhancing the key contributions that it makes towards homeland security through intelligence analysis and information sharing. Just as the committee has increasingly supported the FBI's joint terrorism task forces as a potentially useful model for information sharing, EPIC is also a successful model for focusing intelligence and law enforcement resources on protecting the U.S. Southwestern border.

I am most disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not include a

provision like the Peterson amendment, which would have funded the intelligence requirements at the full 100 percent level in this war on terrorism. This is not about whether we supported the $87 billion supplemental, not about politics. It is not about anything other than giving the full amount of resources that are necessary to dedicated personnel in the field.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate the remarks of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because it is important to set the record straight, let the facts come out and see where everything was.

I would remind everybody that for a whole year, post-9-11, when intelligence people would come and brief our committee, I would ask what was the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and repeatedly their answer was none. In one case, one individual said there might have been, if we stretch it, one instance. But I think it is important that we get to the bottom of this. This is a right way to do it. This is something that the whole House should support, and I applaud the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Intelligence authorization bill aimed at getting the full story on the prisoner abuse issue at places such as Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan.

The abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were reprehensible; I think we can all agree on that. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have agreed on that, particularly after reviewing the now-infamous photos behind closed doors that were made available to us on Capitol Hill.

I am equally disturbed by the indictment of CIA contractor David Passaro, who allegedly assaulted a detainee at a detention facility in Afghanistan. This indictment is yet another sobering reminder that the detainee abuses were not limited to the Abu Ghraib prison.

Make no mistake: interrogations are critical to the war on terrorism. I know that; I respect that. They are one way of generating dots that might lead to the intelligence community, providing information on the next terrorist plot.

But the prisoner abuse issue and the broader issue of our interrogation policy is one that cries out for stronger congressional oversight. Congress has got to get that straight and has got to get the story and understand how interrogations may have gone off track. Anything short of that would be a breach of faith with the American public which expects us to conduct vigorous oversight on issues of importance such as this.

The intelligence community has been trying to get the straight story on Abu Ghraib. We have had five hearings thus far. But, frankly, the witnesses that have appeared before our committee have not been very forthcoming, in my opinion. Nor up until last night has the

Department of Defense been very forthright with key documents for the committee, documents that we have requested, including documents from the Defense Department, which they promised to provide to our committee.

Our sixth hearing was to be an all-day affair, the majority's chosen topic that day: the value of interrogations. While that is a legitimate area of inquiry, it is not what I would call hard-hitting oversight, nor would it have enhanced our understanding of the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib.

My amendment would strengthen oversight in the Intelligence authorization bill. It would hold the executive branch's feet to the fire by fencing a large sum of money until the committee received all the documents related to the handling and the treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. It is intended to underscore the seriousness of the prisoner abuse issue and the committee's determination to get the straight story. It will take the Department of Defense little time at all to comply with this request from our committee.

I offered this amendment during the committee's consideration of this bill. Although the amendment was defeated on straight party lines, I am pleased to report that yesterday the Department of Defense finally, finally, sent over a large batch of documents on interrogation policy.

It included many of the documents that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was seeking, but not all of them. For example, it did not include the standard operating procedures for Guantanamo Bay which Major General Jeff Miller promised the committee; and it did not include documents related to interrogation policy in Iraq, signed by Lieutenant General Sanchez.

Nor does it include Brigadier General Karpinski's December 2003 response to the Red Cross.

This authorization bill needs to be stronger on oversight. We need to do our job properly. We should not fall for the administration's selective provision of documents simultaneously released to us and to the media.

The majority's report language called this amendment a petty action masquerading as a good gesture. Petty or not, this amendment and other actions generated pressure that yielded results, which is more than a few hearings have accomplished to date.

I believe that there is more to the interrogation story, like the revelation last week that Secretary Rumsfeld ghosted a detainee at the request of CIA Director Tenet in direct conflict of testimony presented to our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

For this and many other reasons that we have well documented, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would remind my colleague that we have provided a specific list of documents that we required that have not been complied with. And as to giving them to us as quickly as they possibly can, how long does it take to have somebody copy the interrogation procedures of Guantanamo Bay and provide them to the committee? It takes at the most maybe a day, so they have not been forthcoming.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, we have a comprehensive list of documents that have been put together. I will be glad to furnish it to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this was a list that we compiled of documents that were promised to us through the hearing process.

It was signed by the committee staff based on questions that we had and documents that had been provided.

If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend and colleague and the former ranking member of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to remind our colleagues that Members on both sides of the aisle were exasperated many, many times

because if we did not ask the right question or just the exact question, we were not provided the information that was requested.

Secondly, how many times have we held hearings and the day or weekend later we open up the newspaper and there is a conflicting story in there about information that we had been provided in the meeting.

So it is about our responsibility to do our oversight, it is about our responsibility to do this job right. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the bill before us today, H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2005. I particularly want to discuss how certain provisions in this legislation would affect my district of El Paso, Texas, and the entire southwest border region.

While the bill provides an overall funding increase of about 9 percent over last year for all homeland security activities, there are certain areas in the bill where we must do better. For example, H.R. 4567 provides only a little more funding for customs and border protection activities than is necessary to keep pace with inflation, and actually provides less funding than last year for citizenship and immigration services.

A Democratic proposal to add $3 billion to the bill for urgently needed improvements to our homeland security was blocked in the Appropriations Committee. This contingency fund would have given us additional resources to strengthen our border security, provide our first responders additional resources, and better protect against the threat of bioterrorist attacks.

I am very pleased, however, that the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Turner, was accepted. The amendment would require an independent study to assess staffing needs at the border, giving us reliable data to help determine the required level and allocation of personnel at the border. It is a great step forward in ensuring that our border security needs are adequately addressed and funded.

Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope that we will increase funding for critical homeland security programs, to ensure that even in a time of fiscal constraints we are doing absolutely everything possible to keep our borders, and all of America, safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sorrow on the passing of President Ronald Reagan.

I had the privilege of meeting President Reagan twice--once when I participated in a G.I. Forum event in El Paso, TX, honoring veterans, and the other time while I was in the Border Patrol providing security as the President visited Brownsville, TX.

It was easy to see that President Reagan was blessed with a good nature and positive spirit. All Americans remember his abiding love of country and strong defense of freedom.

President Reagan has left a lasting legacy in the way he confronted communism and helped to end the Cold War. He was the kind of leader we needed during those difficult years. For that, our Nation, and the world, will be forever grateful.

On behalf of my constituents in El Paso, I extend heartfelt condolences to the Reagan family during this very sad time.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor those men and women who have fought and died for the cause of freedom. The cost of freedom is not small, and throughout history our nation has risen to accept this mortal cost so that our fellow citizens of the world could be free.

This generation of Americans, like the generations before, has been called on to serve our great nation with honor, upholding our ideals for people at home and around the world. We are in debt to our brave men and women in uniform who have heeded the call to service in conflicts around the world throughout history, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today on the floor of the people's House, we pause to offer a special tribute to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. Our brave men and women in uniform selflessly sacrifice their own tomorrows so that we may live in freedom. Their families, and especially their children, make sacrifices for us too. As these children grow into young men and women, we need to remind them that their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their parents were not made in vain. We must remind them that as the Bible says, ``in the path of righteousness there is life, [and] in walking its path there is no death''. Most important, we need to remind them that they are the inspiration for their parents' sacrifices; that their parents sacrifice so that they and their children and grandchildren may know the blessings of liberty.

The citizens of the 16th District of Texas have volunteered to preserve freedom at home and abroad throughout our nation's conflicts. We, in El Paso, intimately know and understand the sacrifices that are made by troops and their families in times of war. We are used to seeing our soldiers leave and return, as El Paso's own Patriot battalions based at Fort Bliss are some of the most frequently deployed units in the country. The soldiers, who call Fort Bliss home, even if only for a brief time, are our neighbors, our friends, and our family.

Last year, the people of El Paso gathered together in prayer for the safe and swift return of members of the 507th Maintenance Company who were ambushed by Iraqi forces outside of Al Nasirriyah. The memories of those who were lost were not forgotten in the midst of the joy of welcoming many of them home. They will forever be sons and daughters of El Paso.

As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I know what it feels like to put on the uniform of the United States and leave my family and friends for an uncertain future in an uncertain place to defend the ideals of our nation. I was one of the lucky ones who returned home. We owe much to those who are not so lucky--to them and their families, we owe our deepest gratitude for their sacrifices.

Today, I give a solemn but proud salute to the men and women from El Paso and Fort Bliss who have lost their lives in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These fallen heroes will rest with their comrades from around our nation who paid the ultimate price for freedom. They will forever be honored with our sincere gratitude and respect.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) offered an amendment at full committee markup on May 12, 2004, and that the amendment was passed by the committee within a manager's amendment. Unfortunately, however, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) was not printed in the committee report 108-491.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment accepted at full committee be made part of the record.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment because it can potentially impact a very important part of the world for this country. It impacts not only trade, not only national security, but also cultural exchange programs.

As a Member, like my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) that has done extensive travel to both China and to Taiwan, the issues that we are talking about here are important issues for them to resolve. It can potentially upset the One China policy that we all recognize and respect.

It is opposed by the State Department, jeopardizes our One China policy. It creates perhaps another political crisis area at a time we can least afford it.

So I rise in opposition of this amendment, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Cunningham. The amendment would honor noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces with a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

Throughout American history, foreign-born men and women have served in our military, standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S. citizens in defense of our Nation. Today, there are over 36,000 noncitizens serving in our Armed Forces. Tragically, in the first year of the war in Iraq alone, 24 of these brave service members made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for their adopted country.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that we can never fully express our gratitude for the service and sacrifice these heroes have made. However, establishing a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in their honor is a fitting way to show the appreciation of a grateful Nation for the thousands of people who have come to this great country and given their lives for America.

I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it their strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I thank our chairman for always working together in a very strong bipartisan manner on this very important committee as it involves the national security of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee has jurisdiction over some of the most contentious and controversial issues considered by the overall committee, including ballistic missile defense and nuclear weapon development programs. While we did not reach complete bipartisan accord on these two issues, the subcommittee and the committee generally had substantive and cordial debates on all of these matters.

I am somewhat disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that even though the bill contains $10 billion for various ballistic missile defense programs, no amendment was made in order to allow for legitimate debate and a vote on important policy issues related to those programs.

I am, however, pleased that we will have an opportunity to debate the wisdom of developing new nuclear weapons. The mark contains the President's budget request for both the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and an initiative to study new nuclear weapons designs called Advanced Concepts. I will encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the Tauscher amendment which would transfer these funds to a more realistic and conventional alternative to ``bunker busting.''

Our committee reached bipartisan agreement on the space programs within this mark. We reduced funding for the Transformational Satellite Communications program by $100 million and prevent the Air Force from downselecting a prime contractor on space-based radar until they provide a report to Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the affordability and the technological readiness of these programs.

Overall, the mark of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is one that I support. I am especially pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to add funding for THAAD, which is critical and important to better protecting our troops in the field of theater-range ballistic missiles. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), my partner and my chairman, for his leadership on this issue and our subcommittee in general. Even on those areas where we disagree, he has always been a straightforward and fair individual, and it has been a pleasure to work with him.

I also want to state today my concern about the number of troops in our armed services. I am pleased that the

bill increases the end-strength levels for the Army and Marine Corps over the next 3 years, but I remain concerned that this surely is not enough. Simply put, we do not have enough troops to sustain our commitments around the world, facing the current challenge. We are starting to crack around the end-strength issue, and this may be an indicator that we may have to reevaluate and reprioritize the various theaters.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a fellow Texan.

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

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

I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), my good friend and colleague. In fact, we came to Congress together, and as my colleague knows, I spent more than 26 years in Federal law enforcement on the border between the United States and Mexico.

I was on the front lines of our Nation's war on drugs and against terrorism. I know how difficult it is to patrol and to secure our Nation's borders. And I know the need for additional resources and I surely understand the realities of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goode) concerns.

As a combat veteran and as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and as an experienced Border Patrol agent, I understand and I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia. However, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border.

This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 100 other countries around the world. We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders.

If this Congress wants to secure our borders, then let us deploy additional law enforcement officers to the border, but let us do it the right way. Let us make a commitment to hire and train 20,000 Border Patrol agents or 1,000 agents a year to be deployed along our borders until we fully staff our ports of entry and in between our ports of entry with Border Patrol agents and Customs personnel.

We should not use military personnel for these kinds of jobs. We need our military to be at their best. Patrolling our borders against illegal immigration and against drug trafficking has very minimal military value and detracts from the training with our warfighting equipment for our warfighting missions. It will also lead to decreased military training, which reduces unit readiness and overall combat effectiveness of our armed services.

We in Congress are very concerned about protecting our men and women in uniform from threats such as the improvised explosive devices. I submit that this amendment is an improvised explosive device except that instead of an IED, it is ill-advised, expensive, and detrimental to border communities in particular.

The Department of Defense, as we all know, is opposed to this amendment, has been opposed to this amendment year after year, every time it comes on this floor. Currently, requests for DOD support can be made to the Secretary of Defense either directly by a Cabinet member or through the President. The Department of Defense already plays a significant role in supporting the defense of our border, if not through armed personnel, then through activities in technology.

UAVs supporting border security are based at Fort Wachuka, Arizona. Other support comes from essential units such as the Joint Task Force 6 headquarters based in my district. It provides critical training to law enforcement personnel along the border, including engineering, barrier fencing, and lighting.

And while today, Mr. Chairman, I may not agree with the gentleman from Virginia, I do know that what he wants to do is the right thing for our country. I would, therefore, ask him now to join with me and find a way to place additional professional law enforcement personnel on the border and not military personnel that are already stretched so thin throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who knows and understands the issues that border communities have to face.

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

It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, we are talking on one level, and my colleagues are talking on another level. We are saying that we do not have the military resources and do not have the

luxury of doing exactly what my colleague from Colorado just talked about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a former sheriff who knows and understands and lives in a border community.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my colleague, the argument is made here that the effort in Iraq is part of homeland security and extending protection of our homeland there. Now we are hearing comments that this proposal retracts that to the homeland security border. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has made repeated trips to the border and knows and understands what these issues mean to border communities.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill before us provides for cooperation between our Armed Forces and Federal law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration.

Recent history shows us that there is no impediment to cooperation between the Department of Defense, that is opposed to this amendment, and our border law enforcement agencies.

It is also worth remembering and reiterating that in the event of a crisis, the President already has the authority. Let me repeat, the President today already has the authority to place our military assets or whatever assets he deems necessary and move them to protect the homeland. It is for these reasons that the Department of Defense has always opposed this amendment whenever it has been presented here on the House floor.

Essentially, the amendment grants the Secretary of Defense any authority that he already has under title 10 of the U.S. Code.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we understand that we cannot continue to debate an issue that further stresses and further puts military personnel in a situation that compounds and exacerbates the already evident pressure of our armed services. It is important that our colleagues understand that a vote for this amendment is a vote that may feel good, that may seem right, that may be politically expedient, but it is not the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Goode amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res 598, sponsored by my colleague Mr. Hayes of North Carolina. The resolution recognizes the valuable contributions of military impacted schools, teachers, administration, and staff for their ongoing contributions to the education of military children.

The federal Impact Aid program has been assisting school districts since its inception in 1950. The Impact Aid program provides financial assistance to school districts that are limited in their ability to raise local revenue by the presence of tax-exempt federal property, and must educate larger numbers of children because of the presence of federal employees. The program provides formula grants to cover a portion of per pupil education costs, as well as grants to support construction and maintenance needs.

This program has been a life-line for many school districts like the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD), which I represent, whose annual budget includes a significant amount of federal Impact Aid funds.

Fort Bliss, Texas, also located within my district, is home to the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center as well as the Army's Sergeant Major's Academy. Fort Bliss is also a major employer in my district. The children of troops and civil servants at Fort Bliss attend EPISD schools.

I ask my colleagues to support our troops, their families and this resolution. I would also urge my colleagues to support H.R. 932, a bill sponsored by my colleagues Mr. Kirk and Mr. Larson. This bill would make Impact Aid an entitlement for our local education agencies. This is a fair, just and more efficient way to fund our federally impacted schools.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am here to support and endorse this bill to congratulate the Air Force Academy.

My first term in Congress I was a member of the Visitors Board of the Academy; but most importantly, the Air Force Academy offered my son an appointment. He wound up going to West Point, but it was not an easy decision for him to make; and it was always, for us, a great point of honor to have that offered to my son and, also, more than that, to see the quality of young men and women that come through that great facility.

The academy, I think, symbolizes the best that this country has to offer through its national defense and its military.

I also, if I could, would like to mention that I strongly endorse the bill that reimburses our military personnel for their R&R expenses, travel expenses here as they come back from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the operations in Afghanistan; and in addition to that, I think it is vitally important that this people's House endorses and supports awarding a different campaign medal for Afghanistan from one for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the battle in Iraq. Those are all important issues for all our military personnel.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time.

I rise this afternoon on behalf of military families. I am particularly concerned today that the current statutory cap on the housing privatization will hurt our military families because this cap will be reached by November of this year, and it stands to affect nearly 50,000 military families from all services, families like the one that is pictured here, families that are currently living in substandard housing in all of these military facilities.

Mr. Chairman, this past Monday my wife and I were visiting my son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter in Fredericksburg, Virginia; and coming back on the train, we saw two young mothers with two toddlers and a baby struggling to get on that train. We helped them and we found out subsequently that their husbands are serving this country proudly in Iraq. In talking to them, they mentioned to us that one of the biggest challenges that they face is substandard housing, substandard housing for our military families while our brave men and women in uniform are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Unconscionable. We need to lift this cap and allow these 50,000 families to have decent housing.

In fact, just to end with this, Mr. Chairman, in my district there is a segment of military housing that is known as Bedrock. When I asked why is it called Bedrock, they said because the housing is akin to that that was found in the ``Flintstones.'' That is shameful. We need to change it. We need to think about our families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks that the House affirm that the United States and the world is a safer place today with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. Who can argue with that? Saddam Hussein, a tyrant that is responsible for so many thousands of deaths, a tyrant that has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.

There was a famous frontiersman who said, Be sure you are right, then go ahead. That was reported to be Davy Crockett. I think that is what we are about a year later, after going to war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

A colleague of ours mentioned earlier, this whole thing was about judgment. Well, I would submit that it is also about responsibility, it is also about accountability, and it is also about credibility. Why do I say that? Because when we talk about the world being a safer place today, I want us to remember that 55-some-odd families are without their loved ones today that have been killed in Iraq carrying out this war.

I saw into the eyes of Sergeant Rico's widow who asked me why. And I told her that we were very proud of the sacrifice that had been made by her husband and by her family. But she continued to ask me why. And that is why I think it is about responsibility. Did we do the responsible thing by attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein when we knew that he had nothing to do with 9-11? It is also about accountability. A year later, we are finding out that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. And, obviously, it is about credibility, because if we as the last superpower are going to benefit from credibility, we have to be patient, we have to understand what the threat is, and we have to act responsibly. That is what I think this is about.

I am going to support this resolution, as I support the men and women in uniform. But this whole issue is about those three words: responsibility, accountability, and credibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on its 30th Anniversary. The DEA has played a vital role in the battle against the drug epidemic in our country.

Before being elected to Congress, I was a federal law enforcement officer in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for 26\1/2\ years. Twelve of those years were spent as El Paso Sector Chief of the United States Border Patrol. One of the most important and most dangerous missions I had in the Border Patrol was the interdiction of illegal narcotics. I had the opportunity to work closely with the DEA in that mission, and can personally attest to the hard work, dedication and professionalism of DEA personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to represent the city of El Paso, Texas, a border town in the western-most tip of Texas. This area plays a critical role in our country's war on drugs. Last April my colleague Mr. Souder of Indiana, who is the sponsor of the resolution before us today, held a field hearing in my district to highlight the impact of drug trade in our area. Mr. Sandy Gonzalez, DEA Special Agent in Charge in El Paso, was a witness at this hearing.

As one might imagine, DEA has a significant presence in my district. The DEA-led El Paso Intelligence Center, or EPIC, was established by the Department of Justice in 1974 as an intelligence service center to be staffed by representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Customs Service and DEA. Initially, EPIC focused on the U.S.-Mexico border and its primary interest was drug movement and immigration violations. Today, EPIC has the same mission, but has broadened its scope to include all of the United States and the entire Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I can personally attest to the value of the DEA in El Paso. I urge every Member of this House to join me in congratulating the DEA for 30 years of service in our country.