Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I appreciate his dealing with this subject. It is important right now, while we are talking about Mr. Zarqawi and his timely departure, that we consider why it has taken so long to find him.

Under President Clinton, we began to see the budget cut for our intelligence services by up to 30 percent. But one of the most damaging things that happened during that time was that the intelligence services, under Presidential order, began to refuse to pay or refused to use the services of anyone who had a criminal background or anyone who had an association with unsavory elements.

It was an attempt to bring purity into a system that frankly cannot work on purity. Many times people with information are insiders, and they are insiders because they are willing to cooperate with the officials.

So what we did when we eliminated all intelligence sources with any crimes in their background, we eliminated in Iraq, for instance, all of the people who had fought with the Ba'athists, either willingly or unwillingly.

Because we eliminated them, we eliminated any capability to really get information from them. So we dismantled in the 1990s, we began to dismantle our overseas operations, especially in North Africa, we said we do not need information anymore. I do not if the President looked at the falling of the Berlin Wall and assumed that the American threats were finished.

But President Clinton severely hindered our capability to find information from human sources, and instead said we will accomplish all of our intelligence operations through electronic means.

Well, electronic means do not tell you the heart and soul and plans of what people want to do. And so 9/11 had many indicators and in the period leading up to it, but we were not able to capitalize on those, because we did not know future plans.

The entire operation that nabbed Mr. Zarqawi was, in fact, a very strong indicator that our intelligence system is beginning to work again. President Bush reinstated our security, our using of human intelligence in other countries.

We began to search for information. And because of that, we began to reestablish intelligence that, in the end, began to tell us where Zarqawi was. Then we watched him for several days. We saw the places where he went, and a coordinated attack took out not only Mr. Zarqawi, we took out several of the people that he was with.

But we hit 17 different sites on the same day. Now we did not damage or completely take out of all of those sites, we simply hit the sites, cleared everybody up and then we went in and captured all of the hard drives, the computers, all of the intelligence.

Now the important thing about what our opponents are saying these days in the streets of America, that we should not be listening to any of the conversations of al-Qaeda on the telephone, is that in the aftermath of those 17 sites being captured, we have access to computer records, phone numbers, that tell us who the terrorists are talking to every day.

And we do not have the time, if we want to get timely information, to go through the laborious process of filing all of the documents, building the case, taking them in, getting the warrants under the FISA provisions. Instead, the President has said, we are in a time of war. The Constitution says that the President can use means to monitor the enemy in times of war. And, in fact, we are doing that at this point.

We have got good, well-meaning people in America who would dismantle that program and hinder our capability to even capture or kill more of the terrorist, but I think that President Bush is on the right track, and the fact that we cannot not only hit the leader of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zarqawi, but in addition to that, hit 17 different spots in the same day and take out other people and capture important hard drives, computer-generated information, is an exceptional thing.

I have more comments, but I would yield back to the gentleman from Iowa for him to make his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I would make a short comment, Mr. Speaker, that we, in essence, have helped the message. Mr. Bin Laden and Mr. Zarqawi have been telling all of their peers that it is better to die for your beliefs, that you should go out and die for your beliefs.

Please, go out and through yourself into the enemy, sacrifice your life. And so Mr. Bin Laden and Mr. Zarqawi, up to this point, have been unwilling to do that. They have been willing to preach it, but not to do it. So either unwilling or willingly, Mr. Zarqawi has been given over to his fate.

So I would just say that we are beginning to see the dismantling of the leadership. I will tell you that the Civil War failed for the South because they could never keep enough generals in the field. The Union had more generals and more depth. And as the Confederacy began to lose generals, then the decisions that were made became not so sound, the military maneuvers, the military battlefields were not commanded with the same professionalism, and that is where the South began to really have its difficulties.

I think we are going to see al-Qaeda have the same difficulties. I think we are going to continue until we ultimately tap Mr. Bin Laden, allow him to find his glory in this great struggle also.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I would remind the body that we had warning signs. Just because Mr. Zarqawi is no longer part of the conspiracy of al-Qaeda, the war of terrorism, just because of that, that does not mean this struggle is over.

Again, the war on terror started in 1972 with the Munich Olympics. At that point, the world negotiators gave the terrorists center stage. They allowed them to come to the table. That was a mistake that we continued all of the way up through President Bush, almost 30 years of giving them credibility instead of trying to dismantle the operation.

So I would remind our viewers that this is not going to be an easy task, even with this significant loss this week. And I would yield back to the gentleman from Iowa to close the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle state that we should be discussing and using alternative energies. I agree. But where are they going to get them?

The veterans in my district drive 305 miles one way from my hometown to the VA clinic. That is 305 miles. Where are they going to stop and fill up their car with this alternative energy that our friends are talking about today?

Many of the spots in New Mexico have no primary provider, health care providers, and yet our opponents want to simply gloss over that fact and say we need wind energy. When is wind energy going to start fueling these cars? The truth of the American situation today is we drive cars. We have large, expansive spaces in many States, and the only source of gasoline is from petroleum. Now what we have today is a $3 price on gasoline. That is because we had choices in the past not to develop our refineries, number one; or, number two, not to increase the supply of petroleum products. We are paying $3 a gallon today because of our decisions.

If we choose not to develop energy in this country, we are on the way to $4, $5 and $6 a gallon gasoline because our friends in the rest of the world are beginning to demand more.

When I look at a chart of crude oil prices over a period of years, I can see when it is overlaid with the demand of the Chinese, the demand of the Chinese is increasing just about like the price of crude oil is increasing. There is no accident in that. The price of petroleum is where it is, not through the simplistic explanations of our friends. The price of petroleum is where it is because of the law of supply and demand. That law of supply and demand says when the supply is less, you will pay more, which is exactly what we are doing today.

Vote for the bill, expand the drilling and give the American consumer a lower price for gasoline at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, the urgency and that the last speaker said that we should save our assets, keep the money in the bank. I had a friend whose father was in his 80s. His father did not spend much money. His son went to his dad one day and said, Dad, you are putting every penny in the bank; why are you doing that? He said, I am going to save it until I am old. The son said, Dad, if you are not there yet, you better start spending your money.

I don't know at what point the opponents of this legislation say that the price has to get to before we start spending out of our savings account. But if $70 a barrel doesn't compel you that we should dip into that savings account, I am not sure where you are going to be compelled.

The fact is that we have the resources. We need to utilize the resources. We need to buy ourselves the time while we convert to these renewables that were incentivized in the energy bill last year. But the renewables are going to take 20 years to get to market. I am not sure when our opponents feel like we should dip into that savings account. I think it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to the discussion by the gentleman from Massachusetts describing himself as a referee.

Now he was showing the American taxpayer held by their feet shaking the money out of their pockets. The truth is that this program is actually funded by revenue from taxes on oil and gas production, and that is it.

So, first of all, the money for the program comes directly from oil and gas companies. But then the big beneficiary is, the money that is being poured into the pockets of the taxpayers, $15 million was used previously by universities to study coal bed methane gas. This last year, 2005, $327 million came into the budget from that $15 million dollar budget, and every year we are increasing the production of coal bed methane gas.

The beneficiaries are not Texaco, Chevron. They are not ExxonMobil. The beneficiaries are MIT, Stanford, Penn State, and a whole plethora of other research institutions.

This makes sense to lower the costs of energy to our American consumers. One party is in favor of that. The referee stands here trying to block the American people from having lower energy prices. That is a very simple fight to referee, my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from New York. As the National Parks Subcommittee chairman, I would say that this issue has not been brought to us and that we would gladly hold a hearing on it.

On my own last year, Mr. Chairman, last year in October I did go to the Statue of Liberty to ask similar questions. The island is open. The statue is open to the base.

Originally, the stairs all the way to the crown were installed for maintenance. They are extremely narrow, and the problem with evacuations, I forget the exact time, but the time to evacuate the statue is very high.

Again, the gentleman talks about securing the statue, and that is a plus and a minus question. The idea of securing the World Trade Center would have 5 years ago or 6 years ago been just, yes, it is possible. I don't think we can anticipate all of the factors that could come in.

Like I said, I would be more than happy to look into the issue. I would be

happy to have public hearings, but I would like that request submitted to the Parks Subcommittee.

I would oppose the gentleman's amendment, with all due respect. I understand what he is trying to do, and I understand the frustration. I am not always on the side of the park's management team, but in this case I have been; and I have taken a look at it myself and see the problems they are wrestling with. No amount of money can change the size and scope of the stairways. It is limited by the inside diameter of the statue itself.

I recognize what your concern is. Our attempt in going to see so many parks is to see how we can increase visitation, how we can increase the enjoyment. So you and I are approaching this from a very similar fashion. But, myself, I struggle.

The Park Service did have a significant study, a multiple-page study; I have copies of that and would be happy to share them with the Members of the Chamber. But, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment.

Yes, I would be happy to do public hearings. Since I have been chairman, just almost a year, I suspect we have done oversights or hearings on business plans and the numbers of visitors coming into parks. We have done two field hearings. We have done hearings on access for the handicapped.

So we have done multiple, multiple oversight on subjects such as this. I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words for purposes of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, I am deeply concerned with the fate of our national parks along our southern border, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Coronado National Monument, Big Bend National Park, Amistad National Recreation Area, Padre Island, National Seashore and others. Both staff and I have seen firsthand the wanton destruction and detrimental effects that illegal immigration and drug-running has had on some of our most fragile desert environments in our country.

It has become so bad at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that up to one-third of the park is now closed to the public because the area is occupied by armed drug traffickers, and park employees cannot work throughout the park without an armed escort. We are not talking about potential impacts or future problems. These damages are occurring as we speak.

I believe the National Park Service has blatantly ignored the congressional mandate to conserve these resources, including a number of listed species, unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

While the U.S. Border Patrol is doing what it can to slow the flow of illegal activities through our parks, resource protection is not their priority. The National Park Service must be given the manpower to protect the visiting public and the national resources.

I would like to thank the chairman for his recognition of a serious problem and take seriously his commitment to meet with both Director Mainella and incoming OMB Director Portman to discuss what we can do. I think if we address this serious growing problem, then your willingness to work with us will cause the situation

to become much better for the public to be better served and for the Park Service to be better served. I thank the chairman for his indulgence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language contained in section 501 of the bill violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language contained in section 502 of the bill violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk here. I have heard about a corrupt political system.

I would point out that I went to Russia, the Soviet Union, in about 1991. They are awash in petroleum. They are awash in enough petroleum to change the price of the world price of petroleum significantly. But they have a corrupt political system, and they can't even produce.

To claim that the American oil companies are somehow gaming the system simply just doesn't wash. Oil is traded as a commodity. No company is large enough to affect the price of oil. It is set worldwide. The price of oil is set.

When I look at a demand curve from China, I see that the price of oil is exactly mirroring China's increased demand through the last few years. India is sitting out there requiring a lot of oil too.

For us to begin to talk about punishing people who are bringing a product to the market when people desperately need it, and another system, the Soviet system, cannot even get into the market at $70, in which anyone should be able to get oil to the market at that price, seems ludicrous; and it seems like we are not even talking in the United States of America.

This is a free market economy. The price is set because of supply and demand. We have arbitrarily limited the supply through our failure to drill in ANWR. We are limiting the supply by not issuing BLM leases throughout the Nation. This BLM today is issuing one-third fewer leases than 5 to 10 years ago. Those are the reasons that we have a price that is going up rather than down. It is a matter of supply and demand.

Mr. Chairman, I find the arguments amazing. The Lincoln National Forest is in the Second District of New Mexico. One of the retired foresters grabbed me one day and said, You know, I used to run this 1 million acres by myself and one part-timer. Then he said, Myself and the part-timer did all the timber sales, all of the conservation projects, all of the business opportunity projects by ourselves. Now the Lincoln National Forest has 142 people.

If the gentlemen were really interested in the operation, in the use of the operation of the Forest Service and the use of Federal funds, they would go in and de-fund every timber sales department that has not sold a tree in decades, because we are still funding timber sales departments that don't fund it.

I find your arrogance tremendously offensive, that you come into another man's district and begin to take away his jobs. In the Second District of New Mexico, there used to be 22 mills that processed these forest products, and we are down to two. The Lincoln National Forest is in a position to offer them the product that would keep them in business. They grow 50 million board feet a year of new timber in Lincoln. They will not even commit 12 million.

There is a policy and culture in our Forest Service that says we will not cut trees, we will not keep our forests healthy. We will watch them burn down before we cut a tree. That is what I find offensive about the debate from our friends on the other side of the issue.

Will the gentleman from New York yield?

The gentleman from New York is right. It was and continues to be the intent of Congress that the National Park Service open contracts to competition upon their termination.

If the gentleman from New York will yield?

The Service did indeed extend the Circle Line contract from March 31, 2004, to March 2007 due to a number of factors stemming from the events of September 11, including the fact, as my colleague knows, that the statue was closed to the public from 9/11 through August 2004. During this time, Liberty Island underwent an extensive security and safety assessment that focused on a number of vulnerabilities such as the statue's 3/32 of an inch thick skin, and local park officials spent much more time focusing on those issues than preparing for a new contract prospectus. Obviously, they dropped the ball.

If the gentleman will yield.

I agree also with the gentleman from New York that the Circle Line contract set to expire on March 2007 should not be extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York and the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee to ensure that a new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held to account for their actions.

I also thank the gentleman for bringing this problem to my attention. With over 600 concession-related contracts in the National Park system, it is difficult for me and the subcommittee staff to always stay on top of these ongoing deadlines.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Gentlewoman from Connecticut for bringing this resolution forward today. In my district, almost 70,000 Medicare beneficiaries have obtained prescription drug coverage, which constitutes 72 percent of the number of Medicare beneficiaries who live there.

My staff and I are proud to have contributed to this achievement. We have held numerous town hall meetings across Southern New Mexico to help seniors sign up for this critical new benefit. We have also trained others to provide this assistance--creating a multiplier effect regarding the amount of help that is available to our seniors. And we continue to urge seniors to contact our offices if they need help as the May 15 deadline approaches.

Every senior should immediately check their enrollment status in order to ensure they are enrolled in the Medicare Part D benefit. I also encourage everyone who has a parent or grandparent who is eligible for Medicare to call them and check their status. Seniors must sign up before May 15 to receive the best benefits at the lowest cost.

The phone numbers and addresses for my district offices are listed on my website at www.pearce.house.gov. Several additional resources also exist that can assist New Mexicans in choosing and enrolling in a plan. Medicare beneficiaries and their family members with questions about Medicare drug coverage can call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) or visit www.medicare.gov. They can also obtain help from local community organizations, pharmacists, senior centers, area agencies on aging and groups like AARP.

No senior should go another day without this coverage and we in Congress have a responsibility to stand with them and help them get that coverage today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Hobbs High School, in Hobbs New Mexico, which recently earned the 2006 College Board Inspiration Award.

The College Board's Inspiration Award annually honors three schools nationwide that have demonstrated extraordinary achievements in expanding access to college, particularly in financially disadvantaged areas.

Hobbs High School is a model of educational success and its receipt of this award is an accolade to their hard work and dedication to improving the opportunities available to their students.

Hobbs is a community that receives less funding per pupil than any other district in New Mexico and has twice as many people in terms of percentage living at or below the poverty level compared to the national average. However, in spite of these setbacks Hobbs High School has made extraordinary advances in expanding access to college for their students.

Approximately 55 percent of all secondary students at Hobbs High School now participate in Advanced Placement and Pre-Advanced Placement courses and they currently have the largest Advanced Placement program in the State of New Mexico. Demonstrated success has already been seen with last year's 97 percent graduation rates and the increase in the number of those individuals who went on to college upon graduation.

Hobbs High School is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when teachers, students, and community leaders come together to ensure that plentiful opportunities exist for their students. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Hobbs High School for this wonderful academic achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3351) to make technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Congressional Record on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3351 addresses a number of minor, non-controversial tribal issues in one legislative package. H.R. 3351 contains 10 provisions to assist tribes with matters that are relatively small in nature but very important to Native Americans across our country.

Specifically, this legislation will make technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and Alaska Natives by reauthorizing certain Native American programs, clarifying statutes relating to particular Indian tribes and approving 99-year land leases for certain tribal lands.

The Senate amendment adds four provisions to the previous House- passed bill. The substitute adjusts the interest formula for the Fallon Paiute Shoshone tribal water settlement trust fund, increases the funding formula for the National Indian Gaming Commission, certifies rental proceeds for Indian-leased land and makes technical corrections to clarify provisions and amendments in the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004.

Each year, Congress passes a bill like this relating to technical corrections, and thankfully we have been able to utilize the consultation of many tribal leaders in examining this legislation.

I would like to thank Senator McCain, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, for working with our committee to craft a bipartisan and effective piece of legislation that will make a world of difference to the Native American community. I ask support for the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge Members to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2720) to further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and demonstration program to control salt cedar and Russian olive, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2720 would further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior to carry out assessment and demonstration programs to control salt cedar and Russian olive.

Salt cedar and Russian olive are small, deciduous harmful trees widely distributed along riparian areas in the Western United States, particularly along the Colorado, Rio Grande, Pecos and Gila Rivers. They are known both for their phenomenal reproductive output and their ability to deplete scarce water resources. According to experts, one salt cedar tree can absorb 300 gallons a day. In fact, studies have shown that salt cedar dries up 800 billion gallons more water per year than the native cottonwood tree that it is replacing. Given these facts, most can agree that controlling salt cedar and Russian olive is important for water salvage, riparian restoration, salinity control, wildfire control and habitat restoration.

H.R. 2720 will begin to address these problems by providing sound science and in turn developing and expanding on innovative approaches to control these harmful weeds. I urge adoption of the bill.

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

I thank the gentleman for his support for the bill and his hard work on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I express my appreciation to Mr. Udall from New Mexico for his hard work and support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time, requesting all Members to support H.R. 2720.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3929) to amend the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in research and development, environmental and feasibility studies, and preliminary engineering for the Municipal Water District of Orange County, California, Dana Point Desalination Project located at Dana Point, California, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3929, introduced by our distinguished colleague, Ken Calvert, authorizes Federal participation in a unique desalination research and development project in Southern California.

Water consumers in that area of the State depend on imported water, and local efforts are being undertaken to develop nearby water supplies to reduce this dependence.

Desalination and water recycling are some of the most important ways to create new local water supplies. This legislation provides limited Federal assistance to develop a unique subsurface ocean water collection system that can reduce desalination's cost and eliminate impacts on the environment.

This project will not only help Southern California, but could also be a model for future desalination operations nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of H.R. 3929.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3418) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3418, introduced by Congressman Chet Edwards, authorizes Federal participation in a water reuse project in McLennan County, Texas. As central Texas cities experience rapid population growth and increased water demand, these communities are being proactive to better utilize their existing water supplies.

This legislation is part of the effort to create new water supplies. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to my colleagues, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Udall, for their work on this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4882) to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as amended.

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

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

H.R. 4882, introduced by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, along with Ranking Member Nick Rahall, Congresswoman Donna Christensen and myself, would locate the congressionally approved underground visitors center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on land adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial.

Chairman Pombo felt compelled to take this unusual action in direct response to what he and I and others believe is the unreasonable bureaucracy choreographed by the National Capital Planning Commission.

In November of 2003, the President signed the bill into law authorizing the creation of the visitors center. For 3\1/2\ years, this project has been under way with the National Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund having promptly met all requests for environmental and related information on the siting of the center. Yet, the commission demands more.

Last November, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park Service gave the commission an extensive traffic analysis and met other information requests for a December 1 meeting at which the commission was expected to approve the site. However, without any notice to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the commission removed the visitors center from the meeting agenda and requested an extensive and unprecedented environmental analysis.

There is no need for an additional analysis. In compliance with the Commemorative Works Act, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund commissioned a site selection study environmental analysis in June 2005 that recommended the most appropriate site, which is cited in H.R. 4882, as amended. Site A, as it is known, would not interfere or encroach on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial or other memorials and protects the open space and visual sight lines of the National Mall as required by the authorizing legislation.

As a Vietnam veteran, I believe the visitors center is a long overdue complement to the most visited memorial in Washington, DC. While ``the Wall,'' as it has become known, certainly provides a visitor with an intense and solemn experience, it lacks personal context. Our brave soldier, sailors, and airmen desperately need something more, an experience that can help them heal while bringing closure. Their objectives were honorable and their sacrifice was exemplary. Yet their heroism remains unnoticed by younger generations.

As today's participants in the military, young men and women, fight the war on terror, there is no better way to reassure them that America will honor their sacrifice, no matter what the Nation feels. The greatest thing that we can do to reassure them is to honor our Vietnam veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, as amended.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments and would note that in this past week I was able to tour a brand-new school in my district, the 2nd District of New Mexico, that is named after the Bataan March.

The Bataan Death March occurred because the Nation forgot a small increment, a small group of soldiers, most of them in the New Mexico National Guard. Those people were taken captive, and now I find young school members, school kids today understanding the sacrifices that were made in that Bataan March back in World War II.

I was in Vietnam when the Nation turned its back on the young soldiers of the Vietnam Era. I was there as we were spit on and cursed as we came back. Right now, most Vietnam veterans look for only one greeting, that is, welcome home. Even today, those words are enough to satisfy the Vietnam veteran to whom a nation turned its back.

For the National Capital Planning Commission to turn its back on our veterans from Vietnam one more time is beyond belief. I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think your conversation is exactly correct, that right now in America, when I visit the troops in Iraq, the young men and women there ask me one question that I cannot answer, and that is, they ask how come my parents do not see the good things that I am doing on TV at night. How come they only see the bad things? Why is the press trying to mislead the public?

So I appreciate your truth squad here where you begin to talk about the magnificent things that our troops are doing because, when I am there, our troops tell us that we are winning in the neighborhoods and the hearts of the Iraqi people and the hearts of people who distrusted us.

I had three young men there from New Mexico. They call themselves the Three Amigos. They were telling me, when we were out on patrol the first days that we were there, and this was way back at the beginning of the war, they said that the people would peek out their window and open the window curtain and take a look out. The next week, maybe the window curtain was pulled open, the door still locked, the windows down. Gradually, the door opened up, and they would let their kids stand in the door and look at the Americans.

Then they talked about the thing that I found in the Philippines when I was in the Air Force flying into Vietnam when you walk out among kids, and Asia and kids in other parts of the country, the thing they want to do is they want to touch the hair on your arm. So these young troops are saying, you know, the strangest things, the kids came out and the moms are holding them up to our face where the kids can see. They want to touch the hair on our arm. It was exactly the same thing I had experienced back in 1971, 1972, and 1973.

It brings down to me the fact that these Iraqis had been told for 35 years that the Americans will kill you. The truth is Saddam Hussein would kill them. He was always telling them an untruth; and when the truth was known, then the Iraqi people began to settle down.

I would say also that, in this country, if there is a big issue today, one we as a Nation face, it is truth. It is the understanding of what objective truth is. It is the understanding of who can tell us and who will tell us the truth. So I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to bring some truth to this floor because often we have got our friends who come and they talk about special interests and are pointing at the other team. The truth is, the biggest special interest group in this body are the trial lawyers, and the biggest special interest group in the other body are trial lawyers. They are the ones that are getting the most influence here. Yet our friends seem to forget that they are a special interest group and they are causing great outcomes in legislation.

So I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to bring truth to the floor of the House of Representatives and especially as it regards our troops because our troops are doing magnificent things as they are in harm's way every day. We as a grateful Nation should always take the time to say thank you, not only to the troops but also to families of the troops, for being willing to be the last wedge between tyranny that originates in the Middle East and freedoms that we are trying to export from this country. I think that we owe all of our families and all of our troops a good round of thanks from a grateful Nation.

I salute the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of Fort Fillmore, New Mexico in honor of First Lieutenant John Salopek, as celebrated in the biography by Gerald Carson, ``Big John', or 1Lt John Salopek, to whom Fort Fillmore is being dedicated today, was born on September 17, 1921 in Croatia. At age eight, he arrived in the United States, settling in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Salopek received a Reserve Officer's Training Corps (ROTC) commission in June 1944. He was assigned to a platoon leader position in 1st Platoon, Company G of the infamous 42nd ``Rainbow'' Division, 7th US Army. Salopek's unit arrived in Marseille, France in December, 1944. The unit fought in the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign near Gambshein, France. On January 5, 1944, Salopek's platoon was attacked by German panzers, and most were taken prisoner of war (POW) the next day. Salopek was taken to a headquarters command post of the elite Waffen-Schutztaffel (SS). Later, Salopek was transferred to Hammelburg Offizierlager XIIIB (Oflag) POW camp of 1,500 officers, to include the son of Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and the son-in-law of General Patton. On March 26, 1945, General Patton ordered Task Force Baum to Hammelburg to rescue the paws. Only 300 of the 1,500 were rescued, to include 1LT Salopek. Two days later, Task Force Baum was captured by Germans. Most were either killed or again taken POW. Salopek evaded capture and fled to a German farm house near Richenbuch, where he remained until American troops liberated the Hammelburg POW camp on April 5, 1945. The following year, 1LT Salopek, returned to his family's farm in Mesilla, New Mexico.

Salopek's father left over 300 acres of pecan farms to John in the Las Cruces area. Salopek spent the remainder of his life working his land.

1LT Salopek was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze, and Purple Heart for action in the Ardenned-Alsace Campaign. He died on April 15, 2002.''