Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 272) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries, as amended.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss an issue that is of utmost importance to my constituents in rural Nevada. As you may know, Nevada has one of the highest percentages of public lands of all the States in the Union. Close to 90 percent of our State is managed or controlled by the Federal Government. This poses many problems for my constituents, including the burial of our loved ones and the preservation of grave sites of our ancestors. H.R. 272 authorizes the transfer of two cemeteries back to the respective local control of Lander and Eureka Counties in Nevada. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as public cemeteries. Specifically, the town of Kingston, Nevada, requires an additional 8.75 acres of Forest Service land to supplement the 1.25 acres of Forest Service land conveyed to it in 2000 for the town's cemetery. The added acreage would ensure that the areas of unmarked graves are included in the town's cemetery and that space is available for future graves in the Kingston cemetery. Additionally, this bill would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to convey 10 acres of disposable land to Eureka, Nevada, for continued use at the Maiden's Grave Cemetery. It is important to note that these cemeteries have been in use since the late 1800s, well before the creation of either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Currently, the counties are required to go through a Federal permitting process to operate these cemeteries. H.R. 272 eliminates the excessive red tape of the Federal Government and gives control of these lands to the local governments. It is appropriate that the operation of these cemeteries be continued through local public ownership rather than through the permitting process of the Federal Government or Federal agencies. It is my intention to ensure that the residents of these communities have some certainty and closure on this issue which they have been burdened with for many decades. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that every Member will see the importance of this legislation and the simple fairness of transferring these historic graveyards back to the communities that have buried their loved ones there since the 1800s. After all, the role of the Federal Government is not to play real estate agent. The role of the Federal Government is to serve the people, and H.R. 272 serves the people of Eureka and Lander counties fairly and should be expeditiously passed by this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding me this time. I rise in support of Project BioShield. It is a very important step for the Department of Homeland Security. Project BioShield aims to rapidly transfer technology into products that can be used to protect individuals against biological and chemical agents used as weapons of terrorism or mass destruction. The emphasis is on rapid introduction of new countermeasures into actual use, as many technologies currently under development need to be transitioned through regulatory commercial or regulatory cycles. The Homeland Security Act gave the Department of Homeland Security responsibility for integrating intelligence information and assessing terrorist threats and vulnerabilities. This information makes full use of the Department's capabilities. Identifying the most urgent threats and setting research priorities will be vital to meeting the bioterror threat. Obtaining the best intelligence and performing accurate threat assessment is absolutely critical. By properly understanding the threats that confront us, we can allocate our resources and focus our efforts where they are most needed, on agents for which the risk and potential consequence of attack are greatest. BioShield tasks the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with using the best information available to identify the greatest threats to the national security. Incorporated into the bill are several provisions that will strengthen the Secretary's threat assessment capabilities. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the authority and resources needed to quickly hire the necessary bioterror analysts and rapidly build a bioterror intelligence infrastructure. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as I was absent during the legislative days of July 8, 9, and 10, 2003 on an authorized Congressional Delegation trip abroad, I would like to submit, for the record, the way I would have voted on rollcall votes No. 334 through No. 353: No. 334: ``No''; No. 335: ``Yes''; No. 336: ``Yes''; No. 337: ``Yes''; No. 338: ``Yes''; No. 339: ``Yes''; No. 340: ``Yes''; No. 341: ``Yes''; No. 342: ``Yes''; No. 343: ``Yes''; No. 344: ``Yes''; No. 345: ``Yes''; No. 346: ``Yes''; No. 347: ``No''; No. 348: ``No''; No. 349: ``No''; No. 350: ``No''; No. 351: ``No''; No. 352: ``Yes''; No. 353: ``Yes''.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer some views as part of this evening's Special Order recognizing the third anniversary of Plan Colombia. As a senior Member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, I wanted to take note of the significant gains that have been made since Plan Colombia was announced in July of 2000 in strengthening the rule of law and enhancing the stability of this important democratic ally. As important, the strategy set forth in Plan Colombia has achieved major positive results in initially slowing and now reducing Colombia's cocaine production during the past 3 years. A recent U.S. Government assessment of global coca production trends notes the recent progress achieved under the Plan Colombia strategy: ``Coca cultivation in Colombia (in 2002) declined by 15 percent--the first decline in Colombia's coca crop in a decade. . . . This reduction was largely because of a sustained aerial eradication campaign in what had been the country's densest coca growing areas. . . . Cultivation in the Putumayo--site of the country's most intensive eradication effort-- declined by 80 percent.'' Nevertheless, the U.S. and Colombia Governments assessed in 2002 that Colombia's coca production zones totaled nearly 362,500 acres with the potential to produce 680 metric tons of pure cocaine. With respect to Colombian heroin production, the latest assessment in that in 2002, Colombia's opium poppy production zones totaled some 12,200 acres with a potential yield of some 11.3 metric tons of pure heroin. According to the DEA, Colombian heroin captures approximately 70 percent of the U.S. marketplace and virtually all of Colombia's heroin production is intended for export to the United States. Unlike the aggressive strategies being applied against Colombia's coca production, the bilateral efforts to locate and eradicate opium poppy under Plan Colombia have lacked a consistent strategy and adequate resources and personnel. Both the U.S. and Colombian governments need to work much more effectively to apply new technologies to combat and defeat the heroin industry. I wanted to briefly cite two initiatives that are elements of the Plan Colombia strategy, which have real potential to improve Colombia's security and to enhance the rule of law within Colombia's borders. With Plan Colombia funding, the United States Southern Command provided resources and training for the establishment of a Military Penal Justice Corps within the Colombian military. Since the establishment of Colombia's Military Penal Justice Corps in August 2000, over 300 military, police, and civilian attorneys have received professional legal education and training focused on military justice, international humanitarian law, and operational law. This legal training has had a direct and positive impact on the Colombian military's performance in the field against terrorists and narco-traffickers as well as on its adherence to international legal standards in very difficult combat environments. A second initiative under Plan Colombia is the reestablishment of the binational airbridge denial (ABD) program, which is designed to interdict illegal aircraft engaged in transporting narcotics. The ABD program merits close oversight, but it has real potential to reduce narco-traficking and to limit illicit weapons support to terrorists and other criminal organizations in Colombia. When I was in Bogota last November, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue at some length with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. President Uribe was very clear about the urgency of implementing the ABD program. I am concerned that legal disputes over the ABD program's implementation have delayed the renewal of this important interdiction program. I strongly urge the Bush administration to resolve any outstanding issues affecting ABD implementation immediately, and to provide the Colombian Government with the appropriate support to carry out an effective and accountable ABD program. While these recent trends are somewhat encouraging, it is equally clear that our two governments need to maintain their focus on the Plan Colombia strategic objectives by intensifying ongoing narcotics eradication and interdiction programs, and by restoring security and essential government services to areas threatened by terrorists and narco-traffickers. I am convinced that Colombia's fight is also our fight--as the terrorism and the narco-trafficking that are destabilizing Colombia's democratic institutions pose real threats to America's people and our national security.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the intelligence authorization bill, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. This bill addresses vital intelligence needs, and may I say there is no greater need nor more important need, in my view, than the need for more and better human intelligence, also known as HUMINT. For America's intelligence community, fighting terrorism, as the chairman has said, is job one and rightly so. In order to learn the plans and intentions of America's terrorist enemies, which we must do to defend against another terrorist attack, we must improve the quality and quantity of intelligence from human sources. Technology certainly can help, but it has limited application. For instance, the overhead collection systems of the Cold War era continue to be a wonderful resource. However, they are not much good for tracking individual terrorists, and they certainly cannot get inside the heads of those individuals who are plotting to kill Americans. For that we must have HUMINT. HUMINT is the force multiplier. As good as the information is that the National Security Agency collects, it is that much more powerful when HUMINT officers down on the ground locate individuals who can tell them just what those electronic signals mean while talking to them in their native language. This authorization bill recognizes this fact, and I am very proud of the significant bipartisan support given to our HUMINT capabilities by the community. As I have said previously, throughout much of the 1990s there was a debate about whether America really needed to spend so much money on defense; and as for intelligence, some people even said there was no longer any need for the CIA. Mr. Chairman, that debate is long over. The task before us now is to continue to provide the necessary resources for HUMINT programs so that our policymakers can have a better, more detailed understanding of what the intelligence analysis means. Unfortunately, the HUMINT programs of the CIA, America's premier HUMINT agency, were nearly starved to death during the mid-1990s; and with the help from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Congress, and now a supportive administration, those programs are being resuscitated and brought back to new life. But despite this renewed commitment, the CIA still has to surge to cover the world's hot spots. This needs to change, and this bill helps us get there. The men and women of the CIA wherever they are found are doing a wonderful job; but they need encouragement, they need support from Congress, and they need the support of the American people. Our committee has again this year, under the leadership of the chairman and with the support of the ranking member, made the commitment to provide the resources to properly support these fine people to add to their numbers, to improve their foreign language skills, and to get them overseas where they are needed and needed badly. The support for the effort of these people must be sustained and a vote on H.R. 2417 is a perfect expression of that support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 1416, the technical corrections bill for the Homeland Security Act. Mr. Speaker, following the events of September 11, 2001, our Nation began the most significant reorganization of the Federal Government since 1947, all in an effort to better protect America from terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security was founded in an effort to create a centralized authority capable of streamlining and harmonizing our country's domestic security. One of the clearest lessons learned from the tragic events of September 11 was the need for our intelligence and security agencies to share information and unify their efforts to the most feasible extent possible. Tasked with meeting this challenge is the Department of Homeland Security's directorate of information analysis and infrastructure protection, commonly known as the IAIP. H.R. 1416 will help the directorate achieve the goal of information-sharing. The Homeland Security Act established the IAIP as a critical component in providing comprehensive threat analysis and management capacity to our Nation and will serve as the primary focal point for intelligence-sharing and analysis related to domestic security.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of, and announce the death of, former Nevada Congressman David Gilmer Towell, who lost his fight with cancer this past week. Congressman Towell dedicated his life to both national and local politics from a very early age. In 1966, he founded the Douglas County Young Republicans; and within 4 years, he became the chairman of the Douglas County Republican Central Committee; and in 1972, he defeated a 10-year incumbent and was elected as Nevada's only Member of the House of Representatives. In Congress, he would serve the people of Nevada with great distinction. He believed that government should be held accountable for a balanced budget and responsible to spending, those ideals which all of us in this House continue to echo and support 25 years later. I extend my sympathies to his family and friends as we join together in mourning the loss of this valuable member of our community. His leadership of Nevada and of our country will serve as his legacy, and he will be remembered for years to come.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, On April 26-28, 2003 more than 1200 students from across the United States visited Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that for the second year in a row the class from Incline High School from Incline Village represented the State of Nevada in this national event. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals for the second straight year and through their experience gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals of our government. It is important for our next generation to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. In addition, I would like to recognize the commitment and support received from all of Incline Village, community organizations and parents. Individually, Bob Heilig, a community volunteer, has helped out a great deal with the students in the program. Judy Simpson, the State Coordinator of the program, and Daniel Wong, the district Coordinator of the Program have also contributed countless hours into making these students better citizens. It is also important that we recognize the participants of this program individually. I would like to commend David Allison, Rochelle Comeaux, Ashley Hanna, Kristi Cole, David Gregory, Jonathan Shoop, Meghan Flanders, Daniel Herr, Danny St. John, Betsy McCann, Lee Rogers, Britt Van Hees, Elliot Becker, Ali Deroche, Jamie Ellsworth, Brooke Downey, Erin Myrmel, and Meredith Tiras for their hard work and tireless dedication. The class from Incline High School diligently conducted research and prepared for their participation in the national competition. I again commend these young ``constitutional experts'' on their work for and commitment to the We the People . . . national finals. They represent the future leaders of our Nation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me time in which to speak in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This important legislation will create real job growth in America. In fact, according to some research institutions, it will create close to 6,000 jobs in Nevada next year alone. Mr. Speaker, that is 6,000 more Nevadans who will be better off, better able to feed their children, better off to save for retirement, better off to pay their mortgage next year as a result of this important economic bill. With more pages than the Bible, our Tax Code contains many outdated, unnecessary and unfair taxes, many of which place an undue burden on our seniors. One example is the double taxation on dividends which punishes both savings and investment. It is simply unfair. Worse, seniors bear a disproportionate share of the burden under this tax because they typically have higher levels of savings being used as income during their retirement years. In fact, seniors receive an average of 47 percent of their income from dividends every year. With enactment of this bill, seniors will be able to depend on that steady source of income. In addition, over 230,000 Nevadans who filed returns in 2001 with dividend income will benefit from this bill and be able to reinvest their money, thus providing a real and positive impact on both the Nevada and U.S. economy. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear some Members on the other side of the aisle today express their views that this bill is too expensive and unnecessary. I say to them, tell that to the over 230,000 Nevadans, mostly seniors, who pay taxes on the dividends and the more than 6,000 Nevadans who will find a job as a result of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 170, 171, and 172, I was detained in a closed intelligence briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1350. As a father of three, I know the importance of educating our children. There should be no greater priority then providing our children with the educational tools needed to succeed in life. H.R. 1350 fulfills our commit to the youth of this Nation, by providing special education children with the mechanisms and funding needed for success. Mr. Chairman, since the Republicans have controlled Congress we have increased IDEA part B funding by $6.5 billion or 282 percent. All the while, the political rhetoric continues to fly in the face of these facts. However, this is still not enough. Since 1975, when IDEA was originally established, Congress committed to provide Federal funding at 40 percent. Since 1975, IDEA funding levels have not even come close to reaching the 40 percent level. H.R. 1350 sets up a bold plan, by setting a clear 7-year path to reach the 40 percent goal to make the full funding of IDEA a reality. I strongly support this effort, and this is one of the reasons I will be voting in favor of this bill. Still, many on the other side of the aisle will confuse the issue, by asserting that this needs to be done by making IDEA a new Federal entitlement program. Mr. Chairman, this is a misguided attempt. Making the program a mandatory Federal entitlement will only make it nearly impossible to make much needed reforms in IDEA for the future. Making IDEA a new Federal entitlement spending program will cause an explosion of new paperwork and bureaucracy in special education at the very time teachers and parents are seeking a simpler process to ensure children with disabilities receive the education they deserve. In addition, this could even prevent IDEA from receiving substantial funding increases in the upcoming years. Finally, mandatory spending through a Federal entitlement will remove the accountability and oversight mechanisms that Congress provides through the annual discretionary appropriations process. Instead, we need to continue our commitment to increasing the IDEA budget as well as the overall education budget to ensure real academic improvements results for children with disabilities and their peers. Mr. Chairman, education is a top priority for this Republican- controlled House and Senate and this bill is a shining example of this continuing commitment to our children's education. In spite of the continuing challenges of war and economic recovery-- the Republican administration and Congress remain dedicated to funding our priorities. For this reason, I am proud to support the full funding of IDEA and H.R. 1350.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment. Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor of this amendment, the coal leasing provisions in the underlying bill are not about giving breaks to western coal companies and they are not about creating monopolies and controlling Federal coal leases. The underlying bill is about modernizing and improving current law to allow the Federal Government and the Federal coal lessees on Federal ground the ability to protect the environment and to optimize the recovery of Federal coal, coal which they have already paid for with fair market value. This amendment will delete the provisions that will prevent the wasting, the wasting of America's most abundant and reliable energy resource; and it will delete provisions that maximize Federal and State revenues in the form of royalties and taxes. Now, a recent letter sent by the amendment's sponsor mistakenly attempts to tie this bill, with the coal leasing provisions, to the electric utility cases filed before the Surface Transportation Board. Those cases involve the railroad transportation costs and have absolutely nothing to do with coal production. There is no relationship between the coal producers and the railroad rates as represented in that letter. The current law gives coal operators only two options, and that is to shut down mining operations after they have reached an arbitrary time limit or surface area, or the alternative of dumping coal at bargain basement prices, as we have heard from the gentlewoman from Wyoming previously. Current policies artificially raise the cost of bidding on Federal coal leases so high that only the largest, best capitalized corporations in the world can afford to mine the abundant coal resources. The Rahall amendment encourages monopolies; it does not prevent them. The current law forces coal producers to leave Federal coal in the ground forever by not allowing them to buy the coal located just across the line of the lease. If this amendment passes, this coal will never be mined and America will lose this important energy resource. Mr. Chairman, the Federal coal leases are located on Federal lands that have been designated for coal production and have passed stringent environmental tests regarding the suitability of coal for production. The Surface Mining Act that the gentleman from West Virginia wrote in 1977 ensures the environmental integrity of these coal operations is met. However, this is not really an environmental issue; it is one of maximizing the public's interest in coal resources on public land. It is simply a matter of giving the Federal Government the same flexibility that private lessors have to maximize their return on investment while ensuring a strong energy future for America. Who will pay the price if the Rahall amendment passes? Millions of Americans across the Southwest who pay nearly double the electricity rate will pay the price. Small coal operators, America's coal miners, and America's energy losers will all be denied America's largest domestic energy source. The Federal Treasury will be denied revenues, and they will be denied royalties and taxes from them. No one wins with the Rahall amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for granting me the time to speak on this very important bill, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. A keystone part of this bill is moving America into cleaner and better, cheaper fuels. This bill contains an important provision which will make geothermal power production on Federal lands competitive with power produced from fossil fuels. Close to 75 percent of all geothermal resources suitable for generation of electricity are located on public lands. Nevada, where the Federal Government owns close to 90 percent of the land, has some of the best geothermal potential in the United States. Unless geothermal power derived from public land is more competitive with other power sources, little of Nevada's geothermal potential will be developed. This energy bill allows Nevada and more of our Nation as a whole to become more energy self-reliant. By promoting greater use of geothermal energy, a clean alternative energy source that is relatively abundant within Nevada and the West, our Nation will make great strides in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and other energy sources blamed for increasing pollution. I urge the adoption of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, which will benefit not only my State but our entire Nation by encouraging alternative energy production and finally creating a national energy blueprint for greater self-reliance in the 21st century.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to a legislative process which has allowed a critical wartime supplemental appropriation package to become a vehicle for billions of dollars in nonrelated war spending. As a veteran of both Vietnam and the Persian Gulf wars, I know all too well how imperative adequate funding is to the success of any modern military campaign. When I hear our President and the Secretary of Defense rally behind a package of funding for military, I do not flinch in offering my sincere and strong support, no matter how great that price may be. Our brave men and women in uniform are making great sacrifices in the deserts of the Middle East every day and they deserve our support and the funding to help them achieve their mission and a victory. However, when I learn of last-minute deals between Members of Congress and certain special interests which bog down this crucial defense spending package with non-war related gifts at the expense of my constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, I cannot help but question the entire process. Today the airline industry will get billions more dollars in Federal aid without a full debate on the financial problems still plaguing that critical industry, even after this Congress gave them over $15 billion in aid in 2001. Now, tourism in Nevada is the number one industry for us, and I work hard every day to see that certain economic reforms are enacted to benefit the hardworking Nevadans who rely on a healthy travel and tourism industry. However, I strongly disagree that an emergency supplemental spending package intended to fund our Nation's Armed Forces and provide necessary humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime of tyranny is the proper vehicle for another Federal funding crutch for the airline industry without a full debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, while I will vote ``yes'' to support the overall bill, I want to register my strong opposition to the process which creates any delay in the expedient delivery of necessary funding to our Nation's brave servicemen and servicewomen fighting for freedom around the world.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 109) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the Blue Star Banner and the Gold Star, as amended.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 109, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the author of this resolution.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and I commend the gentleman for bringing this important resolution to the attention of the House. House Concurrent Resolution 109 reminds the Nation of one of our most cherished wartime traditions, having the families of military servicemembers display the Blue Star Service Flag and wear a service lapel pin. The daily lives of most Americans remain unchanged by the conflict in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Aside from the television news coverage, many Americans do not think about these very challenging conflicts during the rush of their busy days. However, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans whose family members are fighting on the front lines of these 21st century wars and enduring all the same dangers and hardships that confronted our warriors during previous conflicts. Mr. Speaker, all of us need to remember that these Americans are experiencing this war in a very personal manner and with a level of fear and uncertainty for loved ones in uniform that only they can understand. Mr. Speaker, that is why the Blue Star Service Flag and its accompanying service lapel pin are so important. They will be an eloquent reminder for friends and neighbors that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are fighting and sacrificing their lives to keep us safe and to keep us free. We can all benefit from a short, somber moment every day to remember those brave Americans and pledge to do more during our day to support our troops and the families they leave behind. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his lifelong dedication to the service and our troops. It is a pleasure to serve on the committee with him as the ranking member. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and I urge strong support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, with the eloquent words of my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, I would also urge each and every one of our colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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