Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment in the defense authorization bill.

This amendment will safeguard national security and ensure fiscal responsibility by preventing the security clearances of defense contractors from expiring until the Department of Defense resumes processing their requests for security clearance investigations and fully funds its personnel security clearance program for fiscal year 2007. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

On Friday, April 28, I discovered DOD's security clearance processing arm, the Defense Security Service, was imposing a moratorium on all requests for private sector security clearance investigations. DSS reported that it experienced a massive spike in the number of clearance requests and that it didn't have the resources to handle this spike. DSS, therefore, decided to just turn off the spigot. This is, frankly, unacceptable. It is an unacceptable solution to what should have been a very foreseeable problem.

I will be chairing a Government Reform Committee hearing on May 17 to examine this issue in more detail. In the meantime we cannot put defense contractors that need to review employees' clearances in the position of having to choose between firing their employees or granting uncleared personnel access to classified materials and facilities.

The government spends billions of dollars each year on defense contracts requiring workers with security clearances to do the work. If contractors are unable to find enough cleared personnel who have access to classified information, the cost of these contracts increases dramatically. Simply supply and demand, not enough people with the clearance, too much work to do, and the taxpayers are then forced to pick up the tab and our national security suffers.

Therefore, I rise in strong support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment to prevent the Department of Defense from revoking expiring security clearances until DOD is able to get a handle on the current crisis and resume processing requests for security clearance investigations in a timely and efficient manner.

This amendment does not fix the problem, but it keeps it from getting worse. It is an important issue for national security and fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Chesapeake Bay is one of our region's greatest assets. Keeping the Bay clean is a major priority for the state and local governments.

Our colleague Wayne Gilchrist recently held a hearing on the status of the Bay. One of the participants in that hearing was Supervisor Penelope Gross from Fairfax County, Virginia. I would like to enter into the Record her thoughtful comments presented at that hearing. Supervisor Gross has long been an advocate for Bay restoration and her testimony reflects how local governments can be critical partners in that effort.

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee

May 4, 2006.--Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

the opportunity to appear today to discuss Chesapeake Bay

restoration activities and the vitally important role of

local governments in those efforts. I am honored to be

invited to provide testimony. Chesapeake Bay issues are of

particular interest to me, which is why I serve on the

Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee of the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments, was a member of the

Chesapeake Bay Program's Blue Ribbon Financing Panel and

recently was elected Chair of the Bay Program's Local

Government Advisory Committee, also known as LGAC. I also

chair Virginia's Potomac Watershed Roundtable, and I

represent the Mason District on the Fairfax County Board of

Supervisors. As you may know, Fairfax County is one of the

largest jurisdictions, population-wise, in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed.

Each of these responsibilities has helped shape my

perspective on what is needed to keep our efforts to achieve

a clean Bay on track. I would like to share several themes

that are the basis of my remarks today:

Implementation and restoration happen primarily at the

local level and we need more state and federal funding to get

the job done; EPA and their state counterparts need to

provide stronger leadership on regulatory issues that will

drive much of the multi-billion dollar Bay cleanup effort; a

more focused approach to enforcement of existing federal

laws, regulations, and policies by EPA to the state would

alone make significant strides to clean up the Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners need to set clear

implementation priorities, emphasizing those measures that

offer the greatest pollution reduction return on investment;

The implementation and funding burden must be shared

equitably between and among sectors and levels of government.

Of the 98 commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, 22 specifically involve local governments, and other commitments imply local government involvement. And I want to remind you that there are more than 1,650 local governments throughout the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay Watershed. From a local government perspective, we know what to do to continue making progress, but we need more help from our state and federal partners. The Bay Program has successfully generated plans and documents that outline what actions local governments should take to help restore the Bay. However, I believe we're heavy on written plans, and we're struggling on the follow-through--i.e., technical and financial assistance to get more done. This was the most common and strongly voiced concern

among LGAC members from all jurisdictions at our most recent meeting, held right here in this building. And I want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gilchrest and his staff for engaging in substantive dialogue with LGAC members about this legislation.

Local governments throughout the watershed are currently

spending millions of local citizenry dollars to do our part

in cleaning up the Bay. However, there needs to be a greater

emphasis on developing mechanisms to capture those

substantial implementation efforts by local governments and

others which are not funded through state or federal

Chesapeake Bay funds. For instance, the Commonwealth of

Virginia still does not have an effective mechanism to track

urban nonpoint source Best Management stormwater facilities.

This could be accomplished through a direction to the

Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the states to develop an

enhanced tracking and reporting system. I understand that the

states may already be working on such a system, but to

facilitate reporting by implementing entities, I would

recommend that this system be web-based and simple to use.

I'm sure it is no surprise to you that the biggest help we

could use is additional federal and state funding. The ``Cost

of a Clean Bay'' report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay

Commission estimated that more than half of the cost for

meeting C2K nutrient and sediment reduction goals would be

borne by local governments. In some of the most expensive

programmatic areas, such as stormwater management and urban

nonpoint source pollution control, the local government share

is closer to 100% since there are virtually no federal or

state funds to help address the problem. While, sadly, the

thoughtful recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon

Finance Panel seem to have faded from memory, the needs that

were identified there have not. It is critical that the

federal and state governments in the watershed assume a major

role in providing financial assistance for implementation at

the local level.

On the issue of funding, I also need to mention my concern

with deep cuts being proposed to the Clean Water State

Revolving Fund (CWSRF). While local governments and our State

partners are working to increase funding for clean water

programs, the federal SRF is being targeted for cuts totaling

$199.2 million. Many local governments, especially in rural

areas, in the Bay watershed depend on this federal funding to

pay for high priority water pollution control projects, and

the proposed budget cuts are exactly the opposite of what's

needed to achieve our goal of a clean and healthy Bay.

But funding alone isn't enough. We also need our state and

federal partners to work cooperatively with local governments

on a watershed basis to:

1. Clearly articulate measurable goals for local

governments to achieve and couple these with appropriate

levels of funding support. I support the requirement for

measurable goals for local governments under the Local

Government Involvement section, with the provisions that this

be woven into a realistic implementation plan that includes

equitable levels of funding support. To guarantee success of

the Tributary Strategies, it is critical to have a detailed

plan for implementation that explains who, what, when, where,

why, and how.

2. Increase the level of support for the Small Watershed

Grants Program to the proposed authorized amount of $10

million. While far short of the estimated funding necessary

to achieve the C2K goals, the Small Watershed Grants

are perhaps the most effective mechanism for engaging

local governments in the common effort to achieve water

quality and habitat goals. The current funding level of $2

million translates into just $1,212 for each of the 1,650

local governments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In

addition, I recommend increasing the cap on individual

small watershed grants to as much as one million dollars,

a substantial increase over the present $50,000 limit. Let

me give you an example: in Fairfax County, we often do not

apply for small watershed grants because the staff time

involved in preparing the grant application actually costs

more than the grant itself. The current $50,000 cap

effectively eliminates larger jurisdictions from

participating in the Small Watershed Grants Program. In

addition to the review and prioritization of grant

proposals by the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory

Committee, there also should be a mechanism for

prioritizing grants within watersheds or metropolitan

areas to ensure that grants address priority local or

tributary-specific issues. A good example of a priority

might be the ongoing efforts to restore the Anacostia

River which flows into the Potomac River just a few blocks

from here.

3. Establish a ``Measurable Goals'' provision for Soil

Conservation Districts comparable to the provision for local

governments. As the level of accountability and

responsibility for local governments is increased, equity

suggests that there be a comparable provision for

``Measurable Goals'' for the agricultural sector. A logical

geographic unit would be the soil conservation district. As

above, implementation should be coupled with equitable levels

of funding support.

4. Enhance the Tributary Strategies and Implementation

Plans to explicitly address nutrient and sediment ``Cap

Management'' as growth continues. Cap management is clearly

required by the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, and the population

of the watershed is projected to increase by upwards of 2

million between now and 2030. If not explicitly addressed at

the State level in Tributary Strategies and related

implementation plans, there is a very real risk of losing

ground, literally, as new development occurs.

5. A one-size-fits-all approach to local government

coordination and C2K Agreement implementation will not work.

Outreach and implementation must be tailored to the abilities

of large and small jurisdictions to undertake those efforts.

Differences in local government access to technology must be

considered during the development of communications

strategies. A strong, structured technical assistance program

to local governments is needed, especially in smaller, more

rural jurisdictions that lack staff expertise in stormwater

management and watershed protection. In many localities,

watershed management still is not reflected in land use

planning. As a result, development patterns and practices

ignore the many values that riparian buffers, protected

floodplains and protected natural resource lands offer for

water quality, water supply, and wildlife habitat. More

importantly, as a local elected official, I know that local

government officials need to understand the local benefits

that would result from changes in land use policies.

Otherwise, they won't be persuaded to defend these changes

before their constituencies.

6. We are concerned about the proposed language that

requires tributary strategy goals or BMPs to be included in

NPDES permits, both point and nonpoint source, or MS4

permits. In Virginia, nonpoint source pollution standards

should not be written into MS4 permits because, as mentioned

earlier in my testimony, the Commonwealth does not yet have

an effective mechanism to track urban nonpoint sources.

Each of these areas is of strong interest to LGAC. With

appropriate staff and requisite resources, I can envision an

activist role for LGAC, as the Tributary Strategies are

turned in to action plans, including:

Developing goals at the local level and helping to ensure

that localities live up to their responsibilities;

Partnering with state and local agencies to achieve an

equitable allocation of funding;

Reaching out to other sectors, especially agriculture and

private industry. We need to open or continue dialogue with

all our partners in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We are all

in this together: from those who labor under the Statue of

Freedom atop the Capitol dome to the Pennsylvania farmer, the

Maryland waterman, the Virginia technology worker, the long-

time resident, and the new Americans. Finger-pointing won't

clean up the Bay; working together just might.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear

here today and for your leadership in helping to keep the Bay

restoration effort moving forward. We are looking forward to

working with you, other members of Congress, and our State

and federal partners to achieve our shared goals of a

restored Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006.

In support of this proposal, consider the following:

The U.S. continues to face a wide spectrum of threats at home and abroad, including terrorism, natural disasters, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other emerging perils. In meeting these threats, the U.S. relies heavily on the men and women of the National Guard. The National Guard is a force essential to the Nation's security and safety.

At no time in America's history has the National Guard played so critical a role in the security of our homeland and in our Nation's military objectives abroad.

The National Guard is a critical component of Department of Defense's contribution to the security of our Nation and has been key to the Department's accomplishments at home and abroad. Much of the success DOD has had would not have been possible without the participation of National Guard forces.

The National Guard's response to our Nation's emergencies in the post 9/11 world has been unparalleled.

The National Guard is a vital part of this Nation's security, and this country relies on the exemplary service provided this Nation by the members of the Guard, their families, their employers and their communities.

The men and women of the National Guard have earned the right to be represented at the highest levels of the Department of Defense.

To ensure the appropriate representation, manpower, training and equipment are provided to the National Guard for their future missions at home and abroad, the National Defense and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006:

Establishes the National Guard Bureau NGB as a joint activity of the Department of Defense rather than strictly of the Departments of the Army and Air Force as it is now.

Increases the Chief of the National Guard Bureau billet from the grade of Lieutenant General to General.

Tasks the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to serve as an advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and eliminates the current National Guard major general position established for that function.

Provides a seat on Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Elevates responsibility for development of the NGB charter from the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force to the Secretary of Defense.

Specifies in law one of the functions of NGB to facilitate the use of National Guard forces for contingencies, military operations other than war, natural disasters and support to civil authorities--all in coordination with the States. This function exists in policy as part of the current NGB charter from the Departments of the Army and Air Force.

Requires NGB to, in coordination with the State Adjutant Generals identify gaps between Federal and State emergency response capabilities which might best be filled through military assistance to civil authorities and to make recommendations for National Guard programs and capabilities to fill those gaps, in coordination with the States.

Charges the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with the State Adjutant Generals, to validate state requirements for military assistance to civil authorities, develop doctrine and training requirements, and acquire materiel, etc. for this purpose, in coordination with the States.

Requires a report on requirements for military assistance to civilian authorities that are validated but not funded--which in essence will become an unfunded requirements list.

Changes the titles of the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard to Vice Chiefs of the National Guard Bureau for Army and Air respectively to reflect the unity of purpose inside the organization.

Prohibits growth in the size of the NGB staff in order to answer concerns about the possibility of the NGB bureaucracy growing as a result of the changes sought herein.

Strengthens the Total Force talent pool by encouraging the Department of Defense to include Reserve Component major generals of the line for promotion to fill Lieutenant General positions.

Requires that the Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM be a National Guard officer.

The Committee on Government Reform and the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation and Response to Hurricane Katrina, have conducted oversight investigations and have held many hearings that have focused on the contributions of the men and women of the National Guard. The following are findings that I submit for the Record. These 50 findings represent the States in the Union we seek to defend.

1. Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center, 1,500 New York National Guard troops reported for duty. Within 24 hours of the attacks, over 8,000 New York National Guard Soldiers and Air men and women were on active duty supporting New York State's security needs. These troops provided not just a calming presence on the streets of New York during unsettling times; they provided New York's first responders with critical perimeter security support, refueling for civilian emergency vehicles, emergency lighting, power generation, communications, emergency transportation, engineering assets and other logistical support.

2. At the request of the President, State Governors supplemented the security of the Nation's airports with National Guard personnel. Their missions encompassed over 400 airports in 52 States and territories. National Guard troops along the northern and southern borders were used to support the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Border Patrol in the heightened post 9/11 security posture.

3. In contrast to Hurricane Andrew, 1992, in which National Guard forces constituted 24 percent of the military response, National Guard forces represented more than 70 percent of the military force for Hurricane Katrina.

4. The response to Hurricane Katrina proved that the National Guard is the Nation's first military responder and that the overwhelming majority of forces that respond to disasters in the United States will be National Guard who will be on the scene before the Department of Defense is requested to respond.

5. More than 9,700 National Guard soldiers and airmen were in New Orleans by August 30. National Guard deployed over 30,000 additional troops within 96 hours of the storms passing. In wake of the Hurricane Katrina devastation, the National Guard mobilized over 50,000 personnel in support of hurricane relief in the largest and fastest domestic deployment since World War II, saving over 17,000 lives. The Air National Guard flew nearly 3,500 flights and over 12,000 tons of cargo in support of all Hurricane relief in the last year.

6. The National Guard Bureau will be a part of any large-scale emergency response. As demonstrated during the Hurricane Katrina response, the National Guard Bureau is a significant joint force provider for homeland security missions.

7. The National Guard is continuously on active duty supporting State security missions, Federal security missions under Operation Noble Eagle and overseas military operations as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and more are engaged in regularly scheduled training and operational requirements around the Nation and the world. Under Title 32, counter-drug activities are a daily operational mission of the National Guard, fortifying a longstanding successful relationship with civil authorities.

8. The Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force could not fulfill current title 10 responsibilities without the Army and Air National Guard. In 2005, National Guard units at one time made up 50 percent of the combat forces in Iraq.

9. The National Guard has mobilized over 340,000 soldiers and 46,000 airmen supporting the Global War on Terror since September 11, 2001.

10. Since September 11, 2001, more than 85 percent of the Army National Guard has been mobilized. Since September 11, 2001, the Air National Guard has flown over 226,000 sorties accumulating over 680,000 flying hours. These deployments abroad have created a battle hardened and seasoned force of experienced veterans ready for the challenges of the 21st century.

11. National Guard forces have provided: 55 percent of the Army's combat capability; 55 percent of the Air Force's airlift capability; 50 percent of the Army strategic and tactical manpower; 45 percent of all in-flight refueling missions; 33 percent of all aircraft in Operation Iraqi Freedom; 100 percent of Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 missions; 66 percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom A-10 missions; 45 percent of all F-16 fighter missions; 86 percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom tanker sorties; 94 percent of Strategic Air Defense Alert; and 75 percent of all domestic combat air patrols in the Global War on Terror.

12. The National Guard offers unique efficiencies between State and Federal, and domestic and overseas missions, operating under three different command relationships: Federal funding and Federal control; Federal funding and State control; and State funding and State control.

13. National Guardsmen and women are their State's primary emergency response force, providing support in their communities and to civil authorities and other first responders throughout their States.

14. The National Guard is invaluable to civil support mission, homeland defense and emergency preparedness. The National Guard has an undeniable record of military assistance to civilian authorities since the birth of this Nation, responding heroically and meeting every mission asked of them, particularly in times of crisis--terrorism, natural disasters, plane crashes, blizzards, wildfires, floods.

15. There must be strong agreement between State and Federal leadership as to the operational objectives during emergencies. State concerns about maintaining sovereignty must be respected. Governors, who are most intimately familiar with and better understand the National Guard's unique capabilities, must retain the ability and authority to deploy their National Guard forces in times of crisis.

16. Governors using State-to-State emergency mutual assistance compacts are an integral part of the use of National Guard resources in responding to emergencies at home.

17. The National Guard and State Adjutants General provide an invaluable nexus of coordination between Federal and State planning, exercising and response to emergencies and disasters. Over 50 percent of State Adjutants General are also in charge of their State's Emergency Management operations, thereby offering unparalleled integration of planning, preparation and response capabilities in emergencies.

18. National Guard forces are also uniquely positioned to engage within the U.S. and its territories by virtue of their geographic dispersal and relationships to State and local governments.

19. The National Guard is familiar with the local area and local culture. The National Guard has close ties with first responders such as local and State law enforcement, fire departments, and other emergency service providers. The local community relies upon the National Guard because they are part of the community. National Guard personnel are more likely to have more experience working with local responders than the active component.

20. WMD Civil Support Teams are a specialized homeland security capability based entirely in the National Guard.

21. As America prepares for an influenza pandemic, the National Guard has more domestic response training and decentralized capabilities than any other military organization and is ready to respond on a moment's notice.

22. The National Guard Bureau has proved its ability to plan for and respond to natural and man-made events with the development of essential concepts including: Joint Force Headquarters-State, Joint Task Force State, CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages, CERFP, National Guard Reaction Force, NGRF, and the Joint CONUS Communications Support Environment, JCCSE.

23. The Department of Defense has not adapted to the significant role of the National Guard in this Nation's security.

24. The Department of Defense, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force have not sufficiently integrated the National Guard into planning, procuring or decision-making processes.

25. The Department of Defense, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force do not have a long-term strategy to equip the National Guard at a high level of readiness for overseas or domestic missions.

26. The Department of Defense does not adequately resource or equip the National Guard for its current operational missions. Currently the National Guard receives only 4.5 percent of the Department of Defense's budget.

27. The Army National Guard has long been equipped at less than war- time readiness levels and is forced to transfer equipment to deploying units. Army National Guard units that have returned from overseas deployments have also been directed by the Department of the Army to leave behind hundreds and in many cases, thousands of equipment items for use by follow on units. Army officials do not track accurately or develop plans to replace this Guard equipment.

28. Army and Air National Guard forces are generally expected to perform homeland defense and civil support missions only with equipment supplied for their warfighting mission or equipment supplied by the States.

29. In the current budget, the Department of the Air Force does not fund the Air Sovereignty Alert, ASA, mission of the Air National Guard at full capacity.

30. During the BRAC process, the Air Force failed to adequately solicit input of National Guard Bureau leadership and systemically failed to confer with State Adjutants General.

31. When developing Future Total Force Strategy, the Air Force has failed to adequately consult Air National Guard leaders and State Adjutants General.

32. The Department of Defense does not have adequate knowledge of the role of the National Guard at home nor has it incorporated the National Guard's significant capabilities into plans for homeland defense or security. Left unchecked, the Department of Defense will continue to ignore the Federal requirements of the National Guard to perform homeland defense and civil support missions.

33. The Department of Defense has not recognized the value of including State Adjutants General in all homeland defense and military support to civilian authority planning.

34. The Department of Defense has not recognized that Governors will rely on National Guard manpower and equipment before relying on Federal forces.

35. Although DOD has a Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, which recognizes the National Guard's critical role in Federal and State missions, the strategy does not detail what the Army or Air National Guard's role or requirements will be in implementing the strategy.

36. The Department of Defense and Northern Command have not articulated specific requirements or capabilities that National Guard forces need during major homeland disasters. Without formal requirements, equipment deemed necessary for the National Guard to assist civilian authorities in Katrina had not been purchased by the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force.

37. The readiness of the National Guard to perform homeland missions that may be needed in the future is unknown because the National Guard's roles in these missions has not been defined; requirements for manpower, equipment and training have not been established; and preparedness standards and measures have not been developed by the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense does not provide for the purchase of equipment for the National Guard specifically for military assistance to civilian authorities.

38. WMD Civil Support Teams' face challenges and shortfalls in personnel, equipment acquisition and facilities under current Department of Defense and service budgets.

39. Lack of coordination of National Guard and active duty forces hampered the military response to Katrina. Advance planning between active-duty personnel and the Guard is vital during emergencies. The Department of Defense and the National Guard must plan and exercise together to prepare for events in the homeland.

40. National Guard Bureau leadership and State Adjutants General are not adequately involved in Department of Defense planning

guidance developed at Northern Command, including concept of operations plans and functional plans for military support to civilian authorities.

41. There was a lack of coordination of Joint Task Force Katrina and the National Guard Joint Forces headquarters in supporting states.

42. The Department of Defense has not adequately incorporated or funded the National Guard to participate in joint exercises in military assistance to civil authorities, which would have allowed for a more effective response to Hurricane Katrina and other homeland emergencies.

43. Northern Command does not have adequate insight into State response capabilities or adequate interface with governors, which contributed to a lack of mutual understanding and trust during the Katrina response.

44. There is an unresolved tension between the Department of Defense and the States regarding the role of the military in emergency response that could be resolved if along with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense adopted and made the National Incident Management System a priority for emergency management.

45. The National Guard lacked communications equipment during Hurricane Katrina, suggesting that the Pentagon does not assign homeland defense and military assistance to civilian authorities a sufficiently high priority.

46. The Department of the Army decided to reduce Army National Guard force structure and end-strength without substantive consultation with National Guard Bureau leaders or State Adjutants General, and the Air Force has decided to reduce Air National Guard force structure and end- strength without substantive consultation with National Guard Bureau leaders or State Adjutants General.

47. The Department of the Army currently plans to scale back the Army National Guard to 324,000 soldiers from 350,000. The Department of the Air Force plans to scale back the Air National Guard by 14,000 airmen and women. To cut Guard manpower in this time of increased homeland need, and the fluxation of current Department of Defense transformation policies affecting the Army and Air National Guard, creates an unacceptable risk to the security of this Nation.

48. States and Governors are not adequately represented at the Department of Defense when planning and exercising for homeland events.

49. The role of the National Guard Bureau as the channel of communications between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security and the States needs to be enhanced.

50. USNORTHCOM and its subordinate headquarters lack knowledge of their domestic theater of operations, specifically State emergency plans and resources, and knowledge of National Guard resources. USNORTHCOM and its subordinate headquarters need to be reformed to include substantially increased National Guard general officer command presence and participation by other senior National Guard personnel in all levels of their operations.

Mr. Speaker, the front line in the global war against terrorism is right here at home. Cold War structures and distinctions separating projected active duty forces and stateside reserve components no longer meet the strategic imperatives of this century. This proposal updates those structures to reflect the integral role of the National Guard in the modern battle plan and ensures the Guard will have the clout and resources necessary to meet that vital mission.

National Guard Association

of the United States, Inc.,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2006.

Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Davis: The National Guard Association of the

United States (NGAUS) applauds your introduction of a House

version of the National Defense Enhancement and National

Guard Empowerment Act of 2006.

This legislation is a powerful first step in providing the

appropriate presence for the leadership of the National Guard

in the decision making processes of the Department of

Defense. The security of American citizens was forever

altered on September 11, 2001. Since that date, the National

Guard has grown in stature and importance as a full partner

in ensuring their well-being.

It is completely logical that the policies and procedures

that heretofore have guided the effective use of the National

Guard should be considered for revision in light of the

sweeping changes to the missions and employment of our armed

forces. NGAUS looks forward to working with you and with

members of the United States Senate in passage of similarly

innovative legislation.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the National Guard.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. Koper,

Brigadier General (ret), President.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 108, final passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act, I am recorded as not voting. Although I was present in the Chamber, my vote was not recorded.

I intended to vote ``aye'' and would like to be recorded as such.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Oakton High School Cougars football team, who won the 2005 Virginia High School League Group AAA, Division 6 State Championship.

On Saturday, December 10, 2005 at Darling Stadium in Hampton, the Cougars all but shut down the Landstown Eagle's infamous passing game, accumulating 401 total rushing yards against the Eagles' defense.

Led by head coach, Joe Thompson, and his assistant coaching staff, David Foley, John Glufling, Tom Goggin, Bryan Gordon, J.J. Hetman, Brent Newell, Kolapo Olarinde, Pat Purcell, Jason Rowley, Donny Samson, Rick Wells, Joe Drewer and Packy Purcell, the Cougars trained intensively throughout a dramatic and triumphant season. The Cougars dedication and teamwork culminated in their 28-7 state title victory, the first in Oakton High School's history.

I congratulate all the talented members of the Virginia High School League Group AAA, Division 6 State Champion Cougars: Keith Payne, Thomas Rupp, Michael Lee, Handel Stephen-Dowd, Ervin Gamer, Adrien Laffitte-Smith, Donald Murphy, Brian Sweeny, Aaron Dishner, Stephen Poumaras, Mark Davis, Curtis Eward, Bradley Rhodes, Kumail Baig, Kevin Houghton, Derek Zimmerman, Tyler Morris, Ilyas Karimov, Sean Purcell, Erich Kottke, Alex Wargo, Connor Madden, David Kidwell, Trey Watts, Peyton Mahaffey, David Shumway, Dylan Grimm, Justin White, John

Henry, Chris Rainwater, Ryan Harris, Mike Bautista, Chris Coyer, Jack Tyler, Jackson Kibler, Kevin Swanson, Taylor Naleppa, Jonathan Kedrock, Justin Otley, Josh Nelson, Mark Bleiweis, David Crain, Jim Roberts, Zachary Capozzoli, Patrick Tyler, Jeremy Rudolph, Carl Myrville, Bo Farrar, Flory Niyonkuru, Alex Hanson, Joshua Lewin, Kevin Miller, Jared Ruppert, Evan Fiore, Tim Seeger, Asif Kazmi, Gavin Wait, Jared Green, Rob Koster, Mark Larsen, Clark Scheible, Marques Wilson, Kevin Schweiker, Ryan Keely, Mike Shvenderman, Joe Sullivan, Drew Whalen, Joey McCallum, Thomas Vitale, Kevin Culkin, James Wheatley, Chad Faulkner, Michael Pournaras, Wade Reynolds, Kenny Hanson, and Morad Motamedi (Manager)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor their championship, and to wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Mason District Little League as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

In 1956, the Bailey's Crossroads community saw a growing demand for baseball, which at the time was the only organized sport available for young children. This spurred organization of the Bailey's Crossroads Little League. The league was organized and maintained by volunteers, mainly fathers of the players, as it still is today.

The league built their first fields in the Skyline area. After 12 years in the Skyline area, the league moved to JEB Stuart Park, and in 1978 the league underwent its largest reorganization when it joined with the Annandale American Little League, and was finally renamed to what it is today, Mason District Little League.

For 50 years, the Mason District Little League has been a strong part of the community, teaching kids the game of baseball. Hopefully in 50 more years the league will still be carrying on its great tradition of instilling in its players the values of sportsmanship, fair play, physical fitness, teamwork and an appreciation for the American pastime.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the thousands of parents, grandparents, children, and volunteers who have participated in and contributed to the success of the Mason District Little League. By teaching their community's children the game of baseball, the many Mason District Little League volunteers have contributed to the development of honest, productive, and decent citizens. I congratulate the League on its successes over the last 50 years and I wish it more successful years in the future. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this outstanding institution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 764); that the resolution shall be considered as read; and that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and its preamble to its adoption without intervening motion except 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House today, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 764) recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many contributions throughout the history of the Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 764. Each year in this country heroic firefighters respond to more than 24 million calls. These brave men and women provide all kind of lifesaving services such as emergency medical care, life safety education and fire prevention education. Many of these firefighters are volunteers and risk their lives every day. For this reason it is important that we adopt this resolution and honor the bravery and perseverance of these individuals that they show on a daily basis.

I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania on bringing forth H. Res. 764.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I just would add that I want to give my thanks once again to Mr. Weldon for bringing this to our attention today and to Mr. Hoyer for his continued leadership on this issue. We are happy to expedite this and move it through the House, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 320, calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.

The Vietnamese people have endured extensive struggles for many years in their ongoing fight for basic human rights and freedom.

As a member of the Vietnam Caucus, I am dedicated to promoting awareness and policy debates among the U.S. Congress, the American public, and the international community about the greater need for fundamental human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

I would like to voice my support for H. Con. Res. 320, as it calls for the immediate release of Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners of conscience.

In March 2002, Dr. Pham was arrested after he had translated an article entitled ``What is Democracy?'' from the Web site of the United States Embassy in Vietnam and sent it to both friends and senior party officials. On August 26, 2003, the Vietnamese Supreme Court sentenced Dr. Pham to 5 years in prison, to be followed by 6 years of house arrest.

The arrests of Dr. Pham, along with many others, demonstrate the ongoing human rights abuses and lack of religious freedom in Vietnam. We must continue to bring attention to

these issues, generate pressure on Vietnamese officials, and hold the Vietnamese government accountable.

I am hopeful H. Con. Res. 320 will serve as a small stepping-stone towards the ultimate liberation and freedom of the Vietnamese people, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dell Rovansek of Fairfax, Virginia, upon receiving the Commonwealth Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award.

The CARE award presented by Commonwealth Academy of Alexandria, Virginia honors outstanding educators who work to enhance the lives of their students. This year's honorees are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. Dell Rovansek, a second grade teacher at Bonnie Brae Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia, is honored for her work in promoting academic achievement for all in the spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Ms. Rovansek has been teaching for twenty-one years, and has extensive experience working with special needs students. She is originally from Wadley, Alabama, and received her B.S. in Education from Auburn University and her master's in Education from George Mason University.

Ms. Rovansek has been teaching in the Fairfax County Public Schools for the past fifteen years, and she calls teaching her ``calling.'' She says, ``I have the opportunity to directly impact children's lives, hopefully in a very positive way. Even at my level, early childhood education, I feel a great obligation to prepare children for future challenges, academic and social. I want children to walk into my classroom and feel safe and happy.''

Ms. Rovansek has traveled extensively as the wife of an Army officer. She calls living in Hawaii and Korea ``great adventures.'' She and her husband have a daughter, Kelly, and a son, Joey.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Dell Rovansek and congratulating her on this distinguished achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. It is important to not only remember those that perished in this terrible tragedy, but to keep in mind that individuals in the affected area are still suffering.

Although the world's worst nuclear disaster occurred at Chernobyl nuclear power station in Northern Ukraine, the wind carried 70 percent of the radioactive material into the neighboring country of Belarus. This disaster has impacted the region economically, socially, and medically.

I would like to recognize the efforts of Chernobyl Children's Project International, a not-for-profit organization that works with the people of Belarus to help them overcome the lingering effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. This organization provides humanitarian and medical aid to over three million children the United Nations recognizes as suffering from the Chernobyl disaster. In addition, I would like to recognize Children of Chernobyl which is an organization that works to provide a respite from ongoing exposure to radiation by bringing children to the United States to stay with host families for the summer.

In my district, Annandale United Methodist Church has worked with Children of Chernobyl since 1993. Annandale area host families have opened their homes and hearts and allowed children from the effected region to stay with them for the summer to get some much needed rest. These children significantly benefit from the clean water, healthy food, fresh air, and love that Annandale area families provide. The children return to their homes with a new understanding of American culture as well as new clothes, shoes and other necessities. During the children's visit, Northern Virginia area doctors donate their time to provide the children with medical care, dental checkups and vision and orthopedic care.

It is important that here in America we continue to support the recovering from the Chernobyl disaster. Twenty years after this tragic accident, we are observing the devastating affects of long term exposure to radiation, and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the amendment offered by congressman Jon Porter and others today that would add Federal employees and other public servants to a Department of Education program that helps people in certain jobs pay off their student loans.

I am a longtime supporter of student loan relief programs for our valuable Federal workforce. The programs are an effective recruitment and retention tool, helping to keep the Federal Government competitive with the higher salaries of the private and non-profit sectors.

We have to take proactive steps to ensure the best and the brightest will be attracted to public sector employment. The average Federal worker is over 50--more has to be done to appeal to younger workers. Offering up to $5,000 a year for student loan repayments, as this amendment does, is an obvious way to attract the attention of recent graduates and those with remaining educational balances.

As chairman of the House Government Reform Committee and as a representative from northern Virginia, I am keenly aware of the need to safeguard the health of the Federal workforce. These are talented, well educated people with a strong sense of duty. We likely will never be able to compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the private sector, but we do have to take steps to make government service a viable option.

We are debating the Higher Education Act today; the recurring theme of this legislation is the fact that tuition costs for college degrees are skyrocketing. For that young man or woman considering a civil service career, we have to make tools available that will allow them to forgo the higher salaries they could otherwise command.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment today, but we should go even further. Under current law, agencies can repay student loans on behalf of their employees--up to $10,000 a year with a $60,000 total cap per employee. My bill, the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service, GOFEDS, Act, which I have introduced in the last two Congresses, would improve these benefits by making them tax free.

I encourage my colleagues to join with me in ensuring the American taxpayer has the benefit of a vibrant Federal workforce--truly the best and the brightest. You can start today by support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the U.S. Military Academy Class of 1951.

The Class of 1951 has many noteworthy members such as the first black four-star General in the U.S. Army, Roscoe Robinson, a Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Edward C. Meyer, David M. Abshire a NATO ambassador and Special Counsel, and Bill Richardson who served as the Commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Buzz Aldrin, one of the first two men to land on the moon also graduated with this profound group.

The Class of 1951 has produced 3 four-star generals, 7 three-star generals, 12 two-star generals and 4 one-star generals. In addition, the Class of 1951 has earned 5 Distinguished Service Crosses, 6 Distinguished Defense Service Medals, over 100 Purple Hearts, and over 60 Silver Stars. The Class of 1951 also has approximately 200 Combat Infantry Badges, 100 Distinguished Flying Crosses and over 50 Distinguished Service Medals.

The Class of 1951 played a major role in securing the safety and security of the people of the U.S. during a critical period in our history. The class participated in the inaugural parade of President Harry S. Truman, and the funeral processions of General John Pershing and General Henry Arnold. The Class of 1951 also participated in the wars of Korea and Vietnam with direct participation in The Battle of Pork Chop Hill in Korea, the battles connected to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and the Cambodian operations in mid-1970. Most notably a majority of the class of 1951 saw combat during the Cold War. The class assisted in many new initiatives that were tested and implemented during this period. The class supported efforts during the Cold War, by assisting in the introduction of the nuclear age to the Armed Forces, participating in the activities to secure the Berlin Wall and additional activities involved or related to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate the U.S. Military Academy Class of 1951 on all of its contributions and accomplishments. They have served this country well, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in the applauding the Class of 1951's past accomplishments and in wishing the class continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th Anniversary of West Springfield Elementary located in Springfield, Virginia.

West Springfield Elementary, like all Fairfax County public schools, has a commitment to excellence, and the students, parents, and staff of West Springfield are all dedicated to having each student reach their highest potential. To kick off the celebration of their 40th year of excellence, tonight the WSES students will perform a night of patriotic music. The program is entitled ``Songs of America'', and each grade level will perform a song, and the school ensemble will close the night's celebration. In addition, on May 31st, the school will hold an open house to reunite old friends and enjoy art displays and refreshments.

West Springfield Elementary School's commitment to excellence has extended outside the classroom and into the community. For the second year, West Springfield Elementary is holding its Wellness Walk on April 5th to benefit Sickle Cell Anemia. Last year's walk raised funds for lymphoma research. In addition, the school has a chess club, and a Just-Say-No Club in which fourth and fifth graders promote ways to resist negative peer pressure. The parents, teachers, and staff of the West Springfield Elementary community get involved in various activities including the Fun Fair, which raises money for the school, and BINGO nights which allow the school community to gather for a night of fun.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the West Springfield Elementary School faculty and staff for the immeasurable contributions that they have made to the community by shaping today's youth and tomorrow's future. I congratulate the school on its many successes over the last 40 years, and I wish it more successful years in the future. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this outstanding and distinguished school.

Mr. Speaker, George Mason University hosts two Nobel Prize winners, a top 25 law school and the most ethically diverse student body in the world. But today, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor the George Mason University men's basketball team for overcoming incredible odds to make it to the 2006 NCAA Division I Final Four.

George Mason is only the second team with a double-digit seed to advance to the Final Four and the first to do so since 1986. George Mason is also the first team in Colonial Athletic Association history to advance this far in the tournament. Under the guidance of Coach Jim Larranaga and assistants Chris Caputo, Scott Cherry and James Johnson, the Patriots have shown America that with hard work, dedication and, most importantly, teamwork, any goal, no matter how farfetched it may seem, can be reached.

They provided several heart-stopping moments throughout the tournament

while relying on their wonderful sense of teamwork, which should be an example to all of us. Twice they rallied from double-digit deficits in both the round of 32 and the round of 8 against the Nation's top-ranked teams to accomplish this historic feat.

Members of the 2005-2006 Patriots include Tony Skinn, Jordan Carter, Makan Konate, Gabe Norwood, Tim Burns, Jesus Urbina, Lamar Butler, John Vaughan, Will Thomas, Chris Fleming, Folarin Campbell, Sammy Hernandez, Charles Makings and Jai Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, the George Mason University men's basketball team will be one to remember for the entire Mason community, from the student athletes who achieved this amazing feat, to the coaches, to the students and the entire Northern Virginia region.

I wish them the very best in this weekend's tournament in Indianapolis.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act. Since its inception, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as ONDCP, has been the cornerstone of drug policy in America, improving the lives of all Americans by reducing the presence of drugs in our society. This office has been producing results Americans need and want. Teen drug use is on the decline, and ONDCP deserves much of the credit for that.

ONDCP's success means we are faced not with the question of whether to reauthorize it, but how best to do so. The many positive signs and trends reported in this year's National Drug Control Strategy clearly demonstrate the difference the office can make with adequate resources and sound policy.

Drug use and abuse is a national crisis that affects the health of all of our citizens, and because of this ONDCP must remain an active body in the executive office. In order to win the war on drugs, we need to address the problem of drugs in our society from every single angle. This legislation gives ONDCP the appropriate resources to stop drug use before it starts, heal drug users, and disrupt drug markets.

We all know that drugs affect people from all walks of life. Addiction does not discriminate. A strong national drug policy is in the interest of every American. Mr. Chairman, this bill we bring to the floor today was crafted in true bipartisan fashion. It is a product of careful negotiations and strong bipartisan agreement. We aim to provide the best possible support for the administration and Director Walters in implementing the President's strategy, making a strong office even stronger.

We sought to make ONDCP more efficient by reducing outdated reporting and structural requirements required by law. The bill also improves ONDCP and its programs by enhancing effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment and requiring greater diligence in addressing our Nation's methamphetamine epidemic.

We also gave significant attention to reforms of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the HIDTA program to make them more effective. Both of these programs have grown in ways that were not originally intended, and the bill reflects the desire to ensure the programs remain accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.

This bill recognizes the media campaign as an effective prevention tool and important element of the Federal Government's commitment to reducing teen drug use. We have all seen the well-known advertisements on subjects such as drugs and terrorism, the consequences of marijuana use and parenting skills. These advertisements carry important messages to youth about the consequences of abuse and remind parents of the importance of keeping kids away from drugs. The media campaign works, and the message is being heard. It is preventing drug abuse before it starts.

When it comes to addressing the complex dilemma of drug addiction, prevention is only one part of the equation. Treatment of substance abuse and addiction is also essential. Because addiction has so many dimensions and disrupts multiple aspects of an individual's life, treatment is never easy. Drug users need the support of family, friends, and institutions to help guide them in treatment and recovery. This bill gives ONDCP the tools to maintain and strengthen programs so Americans who need help can receive it and begin on a path to recovery.

It also recognizes an important part of helping the addict is to remove the supply of drugs from our society. I have been to Colombia with Chairman Souder on numerous occasions. It is apparent to me that ONDCP is making every effort to attack the economic basis of the drug trade by disrupting markets at home and abroad. We need to continue to wage war on the supply side of the drug equation while reaffirming our commitment to addressing the demand side as well.

I want to thank Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and my ranking member, Henry Waxman, for their leadership and hard work on this reauthorization legislation. I am happy we could reach bipartisan agreement on this bill since there is no place for partisanship in protecting our children against drugs. This bipartisanship was reflected in a unanimous vote to pass this bill out of our committee.

I am confident that we have put together a cohesive, effective piece of legislation that gives ONDCP the necessary tools to reduce elicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, drug-related crime and violence and drug-related health consequences.

America's families need this legislation. I urge support of all of my colleagues for H.R. 2829 to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the attached exchange of letters between Chairman Buck McKeon of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Chairman Peter Hoekstra of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman James Sensenbrenner of the Committee on Judiciary, and myself for the Congressional Record.

U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence,

Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of

expediting the passage of H.R. 2829, the ``Office of National

Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' the

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

hereby waives further consideration of the bill. The

Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R. 2829,

including intelligence and intelligence-related provisions

contained in the bill.

The Committee takes this action only with the understanding

that this procedural route should not be construed to

prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any

similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any

provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction

during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on

this legislation.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional

Record during the House debate on H.R. 2829. I appreciate the

constructive work between our committees on this matter and

thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Peter Hoekstra,

Chairman.