Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``genocide'' is a fancy term for state- sponsored murder or extermination of a group of people. And that is exactly what President Ahmadenijad of Iran is trying to incite against the state of Israel.

The president of Iran has a one-size-fits-all foreign policy. His response, Madam Speaker, to all conflicts in the Middle East is to ``get rid of Israel.''

Ironically, while claiming that the Holocaust never happened, Ahmadenijad regularly pontificates on goals that could easily have been taken right out of the Nazi playbook of the 1930s and 40s.

``The real cure,'' he has said, ``for the (Lebanon) conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.''

And not only does he propose the ``elimination'' of the entire state of Israel, he definitively predicts that end. Israel, he said, ``will be gone, definitely.'' And, Madam Speaker, he predicts revenge against the West for standing by its greatest ally in the Middle East, saying that we ``will not see any result but the hatred of the people.''

Well, it should come as no surprise to the devil of the desert, Mr. Ahmadenijad, that the United States will not leave one of its greatest allies alone in the desert. We in America have the courage, Madam Speaker, to call Ahmadenijad a threat to world peace and an outlaw to Israel.

I believe in the freedom of speech, Madam Speaker. It is one of the foundations of democracy. But speech by a head of state that urges the annihilation of an entire nation mocks and dishonors the very notion of free speech, and it is the prelude to open aggression.

And that is why I have cosponsored this resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad with violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. He must be held accountable for his actions.

That's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Grand Bargain'' is what people are calling the new inclusive, comprehensive give-America-away immigration bill. Since it got nowhere in the Senate last week, Senators have returned to the back room and behind closed doors to come up with a ``Greater Grand Bargain'' than before. In other words, throw in something for the left, more family reunification for illegals, and something for the right, more border security promises, and this all done in an effort to get a deal, any deal, passed quickly. Of course, the underlying principle of this deal is if you are here illegally, you're going to get to stay.

Now, smart people on the left and the right say this is not amnesty. Of course they say it's not amnesty because these smart people know Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty. So they call it a reform.

Mr. Speaker, if 12 to 20 million people are on our land illegally, and shall I speak politically incorrect and call it trespassing, and if they pay some kickback fees to Uncle Sam but get to stay on our land, it's still amnesty.

So let's be honest. The new ``Greater Grand Bargain'' is a bargain for illegals, but a costly, bad deal for Americans.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the tiny principality of Liechtenstein has survived and thrived as an independent and sovereign nation for over 200 years, ever since Napoleon dissolved the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. And I rise today in support of a resolution commemorating their independence and their friendship toward the United States.

Like my home state of Texas, Liechtenstein has worked hard to diversify its economy, keeping its important agricultural markets in- tact while embracing the industrial and financial services sectors, clearly for its immeasurable good.

Small in territory, Liechtenstein boasts an unemployment rate of only 1.3 percent and some of the lowest tax rates in Europe. Every day, the country's population swells to double its normal size, as citizens from the surrounding countries of Austria, Switzerland and Germany join the hardworking natives at work. And those that live and work in Liechtenstein enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Liechtenstein is also, of course, a great friend to the United States and to democracy. I have invited the Ambassador of Liechtenstein, Ms. Fristche, to visit my district and observe for herself the pride Texans have in their own country and of course, the unique balance of our own economy--the rice fields planted right up against the oil refineries.

I hope she takes me up on the offer.

That's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, when Ms. USA recently appeared in Mexico City, she was repeatedly booed every time she was onstage. Apparently, the host and hostess and the ``Politically Correct Police'' missed it or just ignored it.

The pro-amnesty crowd is moving right along in its efforts to convince the American public that illegal immigration exists because people would do anything to be an American; interesting logic considering recent events. But I've never understood the logic in rewarding 12 to 20 million law breakers with amnesty for any reason.

In America, we seem to do things a little bit different. We cheer for our country. We wave our flag. We invest in our country, and we respect our neighbors. And by respecting neighbors, I don't mean we invade somebody else's country, demand benefits and protest brazenly in the streets waving foreign flags. And where I come from, we never boo a lady.

The booing incident of Americans doesn't come as a big shock to most of us. It has happened before in U.S.-Mexico sporting events. The Mexican team and the Mexican fans booed the U.S. players. It is the disappointment in the lack of reaction from some of our leaders to realize that they are not welcoming future Americans into our country with their amnesty giveaway; they are just giving away the country.

A pathway to citizenship, or earned citizenship, or any other giveaway program they want to call it only works if people really want to become Americans. If you want to be an American, then there are some responsibilities to that. You just don't get to take all you can and leave when you are done.

I don't agree that this amnesty nonsense is what's best for America, and I know, without a doubt, that the uncontrolled border is a natural disaster. Sure, it's great for Mexico. Their struggling economy depends on our citizens; or rather, their citizens' loyalty to their country, not loyalty to our country.

But the argument is that we have to allow those living in our country illegally the opportunity to come out of the shadows and be a part of our country and our culture. That simply is not going to happen, because their loyalty lies with their former nation. And an amnesty giveaway is going to legalize their loyalty to their home country, not make them Americans.

Mexico and other countries promote illegal immigration to the United States with one understanding: You send your money back home to Mexico. And America is not home. Billions headed south last year to Mexico alone. Remittances from the United States were the second highest revenue for Mexico, right behind the sale of crude oil, beating out tourism.

So when the United States gets booed, people that don't understand this are a bit taken aback. Is it irony or arrogance? Most people don't bite the hands that feed them, especially when you have them eating out of your hand.

The administration recently said, ``Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill this bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick out one little aspect of it.''

Although I respect the President greatly, I respectfully suggest he is in error. We cannot accept the narrow slice or the whole amnesty pie. We are not that much of a glutton for this pie in the sky.

Americans deserve better. They deserve real immigration reform that secures the borders with the utmost of urgency and an end to political preference policy for illegals, a policy that discriminates against American citizens and legal immigrants.

We need to end employment opportunities and social benefits intended and entitled to Americans and have legislation that puts the needs and benefits of Americans first.

Kowtowing to Mexico, the country that takes and takes from America but booed Ms. USA off the stage, is exactly what's wrong with this new Senate amnesty bill and this administration's position.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Theodore Otto Herman Hill--with a nickname of ``Thunderhead'' because of his fiery red hair--was my mom's father. He was born in Texas in 1899 and his grandparents were early Texas settlers from Germany.

Theodore was a cotton farmer, raised bees, and raised cattle. He married young and had three daughters that he called ``the boys'' who were expected to help him pick cotton.

Papa, as we called him, was a hunter, a taxidermist and a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. He found on his land hundreds of Apache and Comanche arrowheads that he organized, and his collection will soon be turned over to the Texas Ranger Museum.

He could tell the type of tree by looking at the bark or observing the leaves. He predicted the weather by watching the animals.

One afternoon in the 1950s while he was laying asphalt as a foreman of a work crew for the Texas Highway Department, a drunk driver broke through the barricade and killed my grandfather. I was 5 years old. My grandmother lived another 50 years after his death.

What I know of my grandfather makes me proud of my heritage.

This Father's Day we remember our fathers and grandfathers and know that a lot of good men have made us who we are today.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, binge drinking is the silent health epidemic attacking America's underage college students. It is defined as five consecutive drinks for men and four consecutive drinks for women. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, 43 percent of college students state they are binge drinkers. Parents and college communities are rightfully concerned.

However, some universities ignore the problem and, in fact, are complicit in this drinking binge. Middlebury College in Vermont claims to have the cure for binge drinking: lower the minimum drinking age from 21 to 18. The former college president proposes that lowering the drinking age will encourage students to drink responsibly. That is an irresponsible statement. This will only encourage younger people to get drunk.

The answer lies in admitting the problem, enforcing underage drinking laws, and educating students on the effect of binge drinking. Lowering the minimum drinking age just adds fuel to the epidemic and gives students a legal license to drink. Colleges cannot consent to the binge drinking by ignoring the problem and making outlandish statements.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today will help reduce the lengthy delays consumers are facing when applying for passports, while at the same time strengthening security at our borders.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated that the U.S. Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop and implement a plan to require all U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport or some other document when entering the United States, as of January 1, 2008.

For many years United States citizens and citizens from other countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a passport to enter the United States. They were admitted by stating verbally that they were from a country that didn't require passports or by presenting a wide variety of less secure documentation, including up to 5,000 documents that our border agents must be versed in.

The 9/11 Commission in their findings highlighted ``for terrorists travel documents are as important as weapons. . . . In their travels terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit documents, and they study and exploit America's vulnerabilities.'' The 9/11 Commission rightfully recommended we end the practice of traveling without passports. I am glad Congress took action on that recommendation. However, here we are 2\1/2\ years later, and it seems we are still going further and further away from putting this policy in place due to the bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

It seems bureaucrats implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative continue to spend large amounts of time and money to come up with other ``alternative documents to passports'' to comply with this law. The answer is why? We have a secure document, the passport, that has been implemented and is being used. But the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, even though they continue to say the passport is the ``gold standard'' for identity and citizenship documents because of its security, have come up with all different types of forms and documents that they are studying. All of these documents are unproven. They are called the Pass card, the BCC card, the SENTRI card, the Nexus card, the Fast card. And we are spending taxpayer money experimenting on these, while not implementing the proven document like the passport.

So this bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use and implement only passports and quit spending money on documents that are unproven. And that is the purpose of this amendment: to spend money on passports only.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman, I understand his concerns, but the problem is exactly as he stated. There are too many documents to allow people to travel back and forth across U.S. borders. The United States discriminates against citizens from other nations because we require all those people that enter the United States to have a passport. Because of the different special interest groups that have thwarted the implementation of passports by having other types of documents, those documents are unproven. In fact, Homeland Security is still studying those, which means they are spending money on trying to come up with various systems.

So rather than have three or four or five systems, I think it is important that we have one system, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. And that passport system is the one that is the most foolproof. It will take time to implement, but these other systems haven't been implemented at all.

So the purpose of this is to make sure that we are on the same page: Require a simple document, a passport document, one that I have here; one that is faster than trying to examine numerous documents; one that you can, as we say, slide and glide by coming across the border. It won't take any more time. In fact, it will take less time than some of these other unsecured documents.

So with that, I ask the approval of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, just in summary, we are requiring people who fly

into the United States to have passports. Even people from Mexico who fly into the United States will have to have passports. And when we fly to Mexico or Canada, we have to have passports. The same is true of people coming in by sea. And now it is appropriate that we have that same recommendation for those people who travel into the United States by land.

That is why I recommend and ask for the adoption of this amendment, that the universal document for entry into another nation be adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, North Carolina District Attorney Michael Nifong finds himself the accused and not the accuser this week. It seems his overzealous desire to make headlines by appealing to political pandering and making false allegations against three innocent Duke University lacrosse players has landed him in trouble.

The State Bar Association charged Nifong with making outlandish prejudicial public comments against the players and hiding evidence, and they want him disbarred.

Independent special prosecutors have found the sexual assault charges against the players to be unfounded, but Prosecutor Nifong tried to put them in jail anyway.

The mere accusation of sexual assault, even when false, can ruin an individual.

The role of the prosecutor is to seek, not convictions.

Rouge D.A. Nifong is yet another example of a prosecutor gone wild and an abuser of power. If the allegations against him are true, he joins the wall of shame and should never be allowed near the courthouse again, except maybe as a defendant.

Because justice is the one thing we should always find.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, part of our process in this country as a Republic and one reason we broke away from a monarchy was because of the fact that Americans, by nature, want things in the public view.

Back in the days of the king, the king made all of the decisions and he made them based on any reason or lack of reason the king wished.

Americans want their government to be public. That's why this House meets in public instead of in a back room someplace, because when you meet in back rooms, things seem to happen that are not in the favor or the benefit of the public or the American people.

And in this whole appropriations process, the American public is watching us and we are being asked to appropriate billions of dollars for different projects, appropriations bills; but yet we don't know where the money is going. Now, most Americans probably would find that difficult to understand. I find that difficult to understand. Why you would ever appropriate taxpayer money, set it out here in some fund, you can call it a slush fund or a sludge fund it makes no difference. We don't know where the money is going. We are being told trust us, we are the government; we will decide later how to spend your money. Trust us.

And how is that decision going to be made? It is going to be made really by one person and his staff, a good person no doubt, but will that decision be made upon partisan politics, how these false, fake, secret earmarks are going to be determined? Will it be based upon longevity in the House? Will it be based upon where a person happens to live in the United States? Will it be based upon other factors that are subjective as opposed to objective? Who knows.

We don't know because we don't know, first of all, where the money is going and how those decisions will be made.

But we are all asked in this House, including those on the other side, to write a letter and ask for one earmark, and then that letter will be reviewed by the staff. And the staff will meet with the one Member of Congress and the decision will be made whether to grant or not grant that earmark.

It seems to me that one person should not have that ability, that authority, that power. It goes back to the phrase from Orwell's ``Animal Farm'' that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And this is probably one of those examples.

So why not be open about it? Why not be democratic about it and air those public earmarks in the public sector. Let's argue and debate them on the House floor. Let's vote them up, let's vote them down, but let the American people see exactly what those earmarks are and then they can see where we stand and see how we vote as 435 as opposed to one person.

So deals made in back rooms are not good deals for the American public. All we are asking in this legislative body is that we take the taxpayers' money and we tell them up front where that money is going to be spent before we take it away from the taxpayers and say trust us, we are from the Federal Government, we are here to help you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Judge Carter.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in my other life, before coming to Congress, I spent 22 years on the criminal court bench in Houston, Texas, trying all kinds of criminals. During that experience, I learned a lot about the way the world really is.

It is unfortunate that, in the society we live in, the Immigration Service cannot protect the United States as far as interior enforcement goes. There aren't enough interior enforcement agents to track down people who are illegally in the system. When I say ``in the system,'' I am talking about the criminal justice system.

What happens too often is a person is arrested for a crime. He is put in jail. The person is illegally in the United States, but nobody knows about that. They are sentenced to some term in jail or in prison. They get out, and they continue to stay in the United States illegally. That continues to be a problem, especially in big jurisdictions like Houston, Texas, where I am from.

They are committing more crimes, yes. The last three peace officers in the City of Houston that have been shot, Mr. Speaker, were all shot by people illegally in the United States. Two of those individuals had been arrested several times and yet kept being released. The problem breaks down in the local jails.

It needs to be clear that this program, the 287(g) program that is being funded and that we are asking more funds to be appropriated for, is voluntary. Cities are not required to participate.

Sanctuary cities, and we know what cities they are, that harbor illegals, they won't participate. They don't have to participate. But not all cities in the United States are sanctuary cities.

Some cities want to help clean up the crime problem in their neighborhoods. One way they can do it is to receive Federal funds, going to local law enforcement, who know best about policing and who the people are in the area and what criminals they are; to track those individuals illegally in the country and make sure they are legally deported back where they came from. We find that it works, and it works very well.

For example, in local jails, sheriffs use the 287(g) program to find out who foreign gang members are, like the MS-13 gang members. Once they are in custody, they can determine who those individuals are, that they are illegally in the United States, and, as soon as they are released from jail, which happens to all of them, rather than be released back on the streets of our cities, they will be deported back where they came from.

Now that doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. We have ``catch and release'' of illegals in our county jail system. Then we got to go catch them again and then try to have them deported after some crime is committed.

So I think it is wise to use the 750,000 local peace officers in the United States, those peace officers that want to participate in the 287(g) program, train them with Federal funds and allow them to police their own jails and their neighborhoods so that people who are convicted of criminal conduct,

that are illegally in the United States, once they are captured, we can deport them rather than continue to release them back on our streets.

So I want to commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for proposing this important amendment asking for more funds for local law enforcement to do their job. Obviously, the Federal Government cannot, has not done its job in protecting interior enforcement, and I think it is a wise use of money to allow local law enforcement to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support border security, but for some reason, some political pandering pundits in Washington, D.C., want to pursue an unwise, open house amnesty policy before dealing with the real first important issue of national security.

It's an issue of trust. I don't think Americans believe our government will really ever secure the border, no matter how many empty promises are made. The reason is too many special interest groups want lax border enforcement for their own political agenda.

Those who want cheap plantation labor and those who want greater political power seem to want the border

laws we have ignored. The motives appear to always be about money or power.

However, our government would do well to assume its constitutional responsibility to protect America. The government has the ability, but not the will, to protect the border.

Congress needs to provide adequate resources for border security. The government has the responsibility then to enforce the law and not give in to special interest groups. Then we can deal with the people that are here illegally after the government proves it has the will to secure our homeland.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Noe Aleman is a 12-year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol in the El Paso sector. He and his wife, Isbell, who have no children of their own, plan to adopt his wife's three fatherless nieces from Mexico.

They hired a U.S. immigration lawyer and paid him $40,000 to help with the process. The girls were given temporary visas, but when they expired after 6 months, Agent Aleman went to the immigration service to find out why.

Aleman was arrested for harboring illegals and making false reports on the application. Apparently the lawyer listed the girls as adults instead of minors. In any event, Aleman was prosecuted and convicted. The girls were arrested and deported back to Mexico and live in an orphanage where they have been for 2 years.

Today, Aleman went to a Federal penitentiary. And yes, he was prosecuted by the same U.S. Attorney's Office, the same judge heard the case as the Ramos and Compean cases.

Unfortunately, every time a border agent is prosecuted in the Western District of Texas, the U.S. Attorney's Office has a credibility problem; and this case is automatically suspect and suspicious.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the great giveaway of American land has not occurred. The Amnesty International plan to grant legal permanent residents to 12 to 20 million illegal people from all over the world did not succeed in the Senate, and rightfully so.

The bill that the Senate tried to push off on the American public was too massive, too complicated, too long. It was almost longer than the Bible and had less to say.

Madam Speaker, the American people get it. They understand that the first problem that has to be solved is the border. Border security is the number one issue. The Federal Government, our government, the most powerful superpower that has ever existed, cannot protect the borders. Or is it that they don't protect the borders or refuse to protect the borders?

The American public want our borders secure before we start talking about immigration, whether it's legal or illegal. And that's what our Federal Government should do, simply follow the law that's already existing.

We have enough laws now to protect the border, but for some reason, the law does not get enforced by the executive department. We hear all kinds of reasons why it doesn't occur, but the bottom line is our borders are porous, on the northern border and on the southern border, and the first duty of government is to protect the people, and that means protect our borders and protect it first. When we solve that problem, then we can move on to the other issues.

And the second issue is not what to do with the people that are here illegally. We first close the gap, close the border, keep people from coming here illegally, but the next thing we have to deal with is the immigration service. It's in chaos, it's in turmoil, and this last week's example is a perfect example.

The passport service. Now, the law requires that all Americans traveling anywhere, including Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean islands, have passports. Congress passed that law 3 years ago. The Federal Government, the executive branch, had 3 years to get ready to make sure that Americans had those passports, and sure enough, 2007 came, Americans were following the law. They started applying for passports, and all of the sudden, there are lines all over the United States for people waiting for their passports. First it was 4 weeks; then it was 6 weeks. Now, it's 3 months to 5 months. The Federal Government cannot even process a simple passport for an American citizen, and it is a relatively simple process to deal with a passport.

And now, what has happened? The Federal Government says, well, since we can't follow the law, we'll suspend the law until we're able to get it together. Now, it's not the fault of those workers in the passport office. They're working as long as they can, as hard as they can, but those people that run the passport office, the Federal bureaucrats, never were organized enough to make sure that Americans, in a streamlined process, could get passports.

So now the law's not going to be followed until the passport service gets it together, and that's very unfortunate because the problem is we're going to use this same department, the immigration service, to so-called legally legalize the 12 to 20 million people in the amnesty bill, the so-called Z visas which are very complicated to understand, something that will take a lot longer to process than a passport. So the Z visas for 12 to 20 million illegals will take forever to process if we ever go to that service.

What I'm saying, Madam Speaker, is we deal with the border first. Second, we fix and streamline the immigration service so it doesn't discriminate against people who are coming to the United States legally, that we make it efficient for Americans to travel abroad. And once we fix that problem, then down the road we deal with the third issue, the issue of what to do with people that are here illegally.

Until we take it in that order, until Congress addresses those three respective acts with three bills, we will never solve the problem. And a massive, so-called immigration reform bill, the American public is suspect and skeptical of that plan because, frankly, I

don't think the American public trusts the Federal Government to do the job of securing the border and reforming the immigration service.

But we know that the Federal Government does have the capability to grant amnesty to people that are here illegally. So, hopefully, Congress will do its job, get organized, pass three separate bills so that we have border security; that we have an efficient, workable immigration services; and then down the road, we deal with what to do with the people that are here illegally in the U.S.

The American public expect it. They have expected it for a long time, and it's time for us to get about the people's business and resolve these three problems as efficiently and quickly as we can.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe

Amendment No. 28: At the end of title V, add the following

new section:

Mr. Speaker, when Hurricane Rita hit southeast Texas, a pine tree fell on our house and caused a leak in the roof. The water came into the house, and I couldn't put enough buckets under the leak to catch all that water. I didn't really know what to do. Eventually it dawned on me, I had to go up on the roof and fix the leak or water would have continued to fill all those buckets and more. The ``grand bargain'' immigration plan is really a plan to buy more buckets for the big leak on our border.

The government is missing the obvious. Until we fix the leak, we can never deal with all of the water from the leak. Until Uncle Sam enforces border security, we cannot solve the problem with the illegals already here.

The so-called immigration reform bill deals with the wrong issue first. It legalizes the illegals while inadequately securing the border. Secure the border and then come up with a plan that is not amnesty in dealing with the people here illegally. Otherwise, we will keep buying more buckets and the real problem will never be solved.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I was a prosecutor and a judge in Texas for 30 years total, and I can tell you that I saw the results of poppy and opium fields in my courtroom. Opiates make victims out of capable, independent citizens, and they turn decent people into monsters, and I have seen it with my own eyes. Case after case after case.

Illicit drugs take complete control of people's lives, and they are now strangling the democracy in Afghanistan. Opiates not only poison Americans, the poppy trade funds our enemies. The Taliban, or more appropriately, those demons in the desert, are getting rich off of the poppy fields, and they are using that money against American troops and NATO troops.

They are using their wealth to become more numerous, more organized, and more deadly to the military of NATO and the United States. They are promoting intolerance and propping up evil and propelling Afghanistan really back toward the dark ages to a fundamentalist rule.

In the 2005 and 2006 growing season, poppy production in Afghanistan actually grew to almost 60 percent. That resulted in a net growth of almost 50 percent in the production of illicit opium, and all the profit from this drug trade lined the pockets of our enemies, the Taliban. Those poppy fields are growing like weeds, and they are choking Afghanistan's freedom. Also, those narcotics are eventually choking the lives out of many Americans addicted to opiates.

The administration, I know, recognized the importance of counternarcotics operations. However, judging from the rapid spread of the poppy production in Afghanistan, it's evident that whatever we are doing is not working. The time has come for a clear and comprehensive and truly wide-reaching counternarcotics strategy in Afghanistan.

That is why I rise in support of this bill, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act. This bill does numerous things, but it specifically provides a comprehensive strategy and a priority to deal with the narcotics. It allows the military to give greater logistics support to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and, more importantly, though, this bill creates a coordinator role that will reach across government departments to develop a comprehensive strategy in how to deal with this problem.

Our military is unmatched in its ability to get the job done. Any time, anywhere. But including enhanced civilian interdiction teams, the fight against the drug trade will help our troops get the bad guys, the kingpins in Afghanistan, these people that are making money off of the drug trade.

Also, the team will receive support from our military, international resources and Afghanistan law enforcement officers. I believe that allowing law enforcement to participate in taking down these desert kingpins will give the Afghanistan police a sense of ownership over their own security and help further train them in counternarcotics operation. That could only be a good thing for the citizens of Afghanistan.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the administration's commitment to taking care of the poppy fields in Afghanistan that fund our enemies, but I think we're missing a link somewhere in our strategy. Provisions in this bill focus on funding that link, and that's a good start. All of our sacrifice and that of our NATO allies and the future of Afghanistan depend on establishing a stable and viable democracy in that region of the world. That democracy can only thrive amidst a legitimate economy. Our troops, our allies, and, most importantly, the Afghanistan people deserve a chance to live unfettered and free of the rule of kingpins of the drugs and the Taliban.