Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, for his leadership in bringing this bill forward, as well as the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important resolution, H. Con. Res. 350, permitting the use of the United States Capitol rotunda to observe Yom Hashoah, the Day of Remembrance, for victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation to remember with great reverence and respect the victims of the Holocaust and to tell their story to all generations. It is our duty to never forget.

More than 70 years ago, a tyrant as evil as any known in the history of man rose to power preaching an agenda of hate and racial superiority. His shadow caused darkness to fall upon the Earth. He slew the innocent and pure, men, women, and children, with vapors of poison and burned them with fire. And when the light of freedom shined again, tens of millions lay dead, cities and nations lay in ruin, and a world stood awestruck at the horrors that had occurred.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim. On this day we read the Book of Esther, which tells of, in this case, another attempted genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people. Like Hitler, Haman wanted to annihilate the Jewish people from existence. Yet unlike the Holocaust, the Jewish people were able to rally an army and defend themselves against that attempted genocide. And on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Adar, the Jewish people take this opportunity to remember that threat and to celebrate their survival.

Sadly, today, we still face totalitarian regimes led by maniacal dictators who threaten the peace and stability of the world. The rotunda of the U.S. Capitol represents the seat of free and open discourse, the foundation of our democracy, and is an anathema to those tyrannical leaders and their regimes.

We in the U.S., the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, enjoy a great deal of freedom. We must not take those freedoms for granted. We must not forget that genocide and human rights abuses continue to occur around the world. We must not remain silent when such atrocities occur. And we must dedicate ourselves to continuing to educate people around the globe about the horrors of the Holocaust. We must be forever mindful of the danger of such intolerance and ensure that it never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act. This bill provides key safeguards to stabilize the economy in the event of a terrorist attack while putting us on a path toward restoring a private terrorism risk insurance market.

This legislation will ensure that terrorism insurance coverage is available, providing a degree of certainty in a still uncertain market place.

It is time to make the reforms necessary to encourage the continued development of a market for terrorism risk insurance. A healthy market for terrorism insurance is critical to continued economic growth and expansion. America's taxpayers expect Congress to help that market develop and relieve their burden for assuming much of the risk in the existing TRIA program.

That is what this legislation will do, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Florida, the chairwoman of the Middle East Subcommittee. And I also want to recognize the continued leadership on so many issues of import that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has displayed. I also thank the cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), as well as the gentlewoman from Nevada who just spoke, and Mr. Wexler.

I believe that this bipartisan display of support here for H. Res. 575 is no accident. It is an important resolution that demonstrates the unity of this House against what is going on currently in the Palestinian Authority vis-a-vis Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

The Palestinian people will elect a new parliament on January 25, 2006. But even before they choose their elected representatives, they must make another choice. That choice is whether to keep their allegiance with a terrorist past or to begin a new path towards peace.

When he was elected president, Abu Mazen was presented with a historic opportunity to change the direction of the Palestinian Authority from one of terror that existed under Yasser Arafat to one of peace.

But at every turn, he has refused to take the necessary steps to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure that results in the killing of so many innocent men, women and children on the streets of Israel. Now, with an election around the corner, rather than use all of the force he has at his disposal to get rid of the terrorists, Abu Mazen is giving Hamas and other terrorist groups legitimacy by allowing them to participate in the Palestinian elections.

Mr. Abbas has an opportunity right now to make a genuine gesture for peace, ban Hamas and other terrorist groups once and for all from the electoral process in the Palestinian Authority.

To understand the true nature of Hamas, one only needs to look at recent headlines. On Sunday, it was reported in the media that Hamas leaders and leaders from other terrorist groups met with Iran's foreign minister and in the resulting days escalated their terrorist attacks against Israel. Let us not forget that Iran's president recently called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Later he suggested that Israel be moved to Europe and called the Holocaust a myth.

Let us not forget that Hamas is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. It has never recognized Israel's right to exist, and it has now displayed an alliance with murderers, thugs, and developers of weapons of mass destruction. The bottom line: Hamas' entry into a Palestinian government would provide a veil of legitimacy to the terrorists.

As President Bush has said so often to the nations of the world, you are either with us or you are against us. In the United States we do not tolerate the terrorists or those who support them. This standard should and does apply to the Palestinian Authority.

It is an understatement to say there is nothing constructive that can come from Hamas' participation in Palestinian elections. In the strongest way possible, this Congress will speak out; and I urge my colleagues to insist that Hamas and other terrorists be banned from the Palestinian elections.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in favor of the underlying bill.

I want to talk about some of the allegations that have been brought up in this debate. One is the fact that perhaps by continuing the tax policies or extending the reduction in tax rate, especially in the area of tax dividends and capital gains tax, that somehow we are aggravating the deficit. I think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that we have seen a tremendous stimulus and tremendous growth in revenues because of this tax policy.

If I could quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, back in June of this year he said: ``I do think that there are parts of the existing recent tax changes, especially with respect to eliminating part of the double taxation of dividends, which I think enhances economic growth, enhances the tax base and, therefore, tax revenues, and that it is good economic policy.''

The second point that I think is being made in favor of the substitute and opposing the underlying bill is saying that the extension of the reduction in tax rates on cap gains and dividends somehow is a tax cut for the rich. I could not disagree more. And, in fact, our own Joint Committee on Taxation, on the AMT extension's impact, compares the two, the one that we acted on yesterday and the one today. The AMT extension impacts 14 million taxpayers; 62 million taxpayers benefit from reduced rates on cap gains and dividends. And per the most recent IRS data, 96 percent of taxpayers hit by the AMT in 2003 had adjusted gross incomes in excess of $100,000. So it is clear.

Furthermore, the Joint Economic Committee says that 60 percent of those paying capital gains taxes earn less than $50,000 annually; 85 percent earn less than $100,000 annually.

This is about jobs. This is about creating jobs for America's families, and I urge rejection of the substitute and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Admiral Barry K. Atkins of Richmond, Virginia, who passed away on Tuesday, November 15, 2005. Admiral Atkins spent a lifetime in service to his country and should be honored today.

In 1932 Admiral Atkins graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and began his distinguished career as a Naval officer. During World War II, Admiral Atkins took over command of the USS Melvin, a Navy destroyer. Admiral Atkins and his men were stationed in the Pacific and participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Philippines. In one engagement, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the USS Melvin fired a torpedo that hit the Japanese battleship Fuso, splitting it in half and eventually sinking it. According to historical reports, the USS Melvin was the only destroyer to sink a battleship in World War II. For his heroism and leadership aboard the USS Melvin, Admiral Atkins was awarded the Navy Cross. In 1959, Admiral Atkins retired after 27 years of faithful service to the U.S. Navy.

Admiral Atkins' bravery during the Battle of Leyte Gulf helped change the course of our Nation's history and I am truly grateful for his leadership and unwavering courage aboard the USS Melvin. I hope that you will join me in honoring the life and service of Admiral Barry K. Atkins and offering our most sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I want our troops home as soon as anyone here, but I will not let the sacrifices of those who will never come home from Iraq and Afghanistan be wasted or forgotten.

Our brave men and women went to battle to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, and to take the fight to the terrorists so that we do not have to fight them here at home. This is a fight for the free world. It is a fight that we must win, and it is a fight that we will win only when we support our troops.

Let us work across the aisle to help them succeed and get them home safely, and let us honor their sacrifice by continuing to support their vital mission.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

And I also would like to join the gentlewoman from Tennessee in really saluting the gentleman from Texas and his commitment to being a prudent steward of the taxpayer dollar. I do not think there is anyone who serves in this House who has more of a commitment to the notion that the dollars that we spend and we raise here at the Federal level, the fact that they are not really dollars that belong to the government, they are dollars that belong to the people and the businesses that earn them. Again, as a watchdog of the Treasury, I do not think there is any other more adamant and loyal soldier than the gentleman from Texas; and I do congratulate him on that accomplishment and know that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also return and just set the record straight for some of the statements that were made in the prior hour regarding the war in Iraq. If I could just diverge a little bit from the topic at hand here regarding the Federal budget, because of the statements that were made: ``We are helping cause the local insurgency in Iraq.'' The next quote was, ``If you want to end terrorism, get out of Iraq. Go after Osama bin Laden.''

As for the first, I am having a little difficulty following the logic of how the presence of American troops in Iraq would cause local insurgency. We all know, as we read the news reports every day, that there is a stream of outsiders coming in, joining with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and it has become ground zero for the terrorists who wish to do us harm in the United States, who wish to do Israel harm in the Middle East and, frankly, wish to do harm to anyone in the free world.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the individuals in the prior hour that, make no mistake, Iraq, Afghanistan, other parts of the world where we see the operation of terrorist organizations and cooperation by local regimes, that dynamic, that formula is what continues to fuel the war that we are engaged in. It is directly the sponsorship of unfriendly regimes of these terrorist organizations that allow these organizations sanctuary in which to train, that allow these organizations resources on which to operate and, frankly, allow them to pull off the terrorist attacks that we have seen, frankly, for almost two decades, if not longer.

One of the gentlewomen who were involved in the discussion prior said that we, if we want to go after the terrorists, should go after the individuals that perpetrated the attacks on 9/11; and, of course, we are. First of all, we know that 19 of them perished in their mission and demonstrated that their hatred of us knows no bounds. They avenged that hatred, including taking their own lives.

So we are engaged in a war for the free world, and the sooner that all of us in this House recognize that and support this President and this administration in what we are trying to do, and that is to secure our homeland and to provide national security for Americans, the quicker it is that we will see victory.

The fact that we are being accused by some on the other side of the aisle for not having a strategy, nothing could be further from the truth. Our strategy has always been very straightforward:

One, counter the insurgency and assist the Iraqis in forming their own military police and military so that they can take care of themselves. That is ongoing. Reports show that over 85 battalions of Iraqis are engaging with our troops, embedded with our troops, and fighting with us alongside our brave men and women in this War on Terror.

Secondly, we are to identify the Islamic jihadists and allow our Special Forces to deal with them; and I know that all of us in this House know that that is being dealt with.

Thirdly, we are using the appeal of democracy to attract the Sunni minority into the government to allow them the freedoms, allow them protections that a minority enjoys in a democratic state. As we saw 1\1/2\ weeks ago, the ratification of that constitution guarantees those minorities their rights, and we will see in another couple of months the elections of the full and permanent parliament.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, to underscore my opposition to their statements and the fact that I differ strongly with the representations that were made.

Now, back to the subject that the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Tennessee were engaged in and the fact that I, too, join with them in calling on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to lay down their partisanship, to join us, as 51 of their fellow party men joined the Republicans in 1997 in engaging in what was then the first Deficit Reduction Act under reconciliation since the Republicans took majority. I ask them to do that because it is imperative that we renew our commitment in this House to the hard- working American taxpayer and for what they do for their families every day. We owe it to these families to be good stewards of their money.

We all were elected here in our various districts by constituents and their needs. We certainly are here and are being judged each and every day by what we do and how we cast our votes. I know, Mr. Speaker, that I was elected by my constituents to take a good, long look at the way the government operates and to try to make the improvements to government and the structure so that it can be more efficient with the use of the taxpayer dollars; so that we can, as the gentleman and gentlewoman pointed out, root out the waste, fraud, and abuse that unfortunately has continued to grow as the bureaucracy expands.

Both the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Tennessee talked about the waste, fraud, and abuse in some of the entitlement programs that exist. Take, for instance, the Medicaid program. This is a program, as we know, that is a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. It is a program that offers to some in this country a very necessary support for the health care of those indigent citizens in our society. But if we look at the pattern of growth of this program, it is something that I think strays far from the original intentions of those in this body that created and passed the enabling statute. Over the past 5 years, this program has grown by 56 percent. Frankly, it is an unsustainable growth rate, given the increasing costs and escalating costs in health care.

So the reforms that we will have a chance to vote on next week, as the gentlewoman pointed out, under the Deficit Reduction Act, these reforms attempt to slow the growth and identify areas where waste, fraud, and abuse has been fueling that growth. And even after we enact the reforms under the Deficit Reduction Act, we will still see Medicaid with a 7 percent growth rate. So what we are doing is identifying savings.

How are we doing that? Well, first of all, we see the creation of health opportunity accounts. This will be a pilot program that will enable certain States to afford Medicaid beneficiaries the opportunity to set up essentially a health savings account. And we know that we provided that ability for anyone in the Medicare bill as well a few years back. We created the opportunity for individuals to purchase high-deductible catastrophic health care plans so that we could lower the cost of health care for American families and also emphasize the family's role in deciding the destiny, if you will, of their health care provision and to emphasize the role of that family in making choices as far as health care is concerned. We are going to afford the same opportunity to beneficiaries under the Medicare program as well.

Additionally, once we pass the Deficit Reduction Act, we are going to able to root out the asset transfer fraud that is going on with many in this country, which essentially allows those who could otherwise afford to pay for their health care services to become wards of the State. Again, this is far from the original intention of those who enacted this program of Medicaid. Medicaid is for the truly indigent, for truly those who cannot help themselves and are in need of health care.

We also provide for, in the Deficit Reduction Act, the cessation of States somehow going about double dipping, if you will, in order to gain more access to Federal moneys. We want to cut that out as well because, again, this goes against the original intention of what this program was supposed to do.

And the list goes on. Areas such as student loans, we wanted to make sure that we have an adequate supply or availability of financial aid as we see enrollment continuing to grow in our colleges and universities, as we see increasing tuition costs in our colleges and universities. And that is exactly what this bill does assure as well, that the financial aid will continue to be there. But, as it increases, we also increase the loan limit amount but also reduce the fees that our students will pay. Again, it is very important to afford access to our students to our education system in this country but at the same time make sure that the Federal dollars are used in the most appropriate and efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentlewoman more. Because there is one thing that I really have an aversion to, and that is somehow Washington knows best, that somehow we are going to provide a one-size-fits-all blanket solution to health care. And she is right, these health opportunity accounts get away from that. They allow individuals to determine the fate of their health care and how that will be provided, and that is exactly what these health opportunity accounts do.

Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from Texas I believe also has been a champion for the restoration of fiscal sanity here in Washington because we owe it to those American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, with the death of Rosa Parks, America has lost one of the great icons of the modem civil rights movement. No one could have known on that December day in 1955 what a great impact her simple yet courageous gesture would have on changing a perverse injustice in American society.

Mrs. Parks took a seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama after a long day at work. A white man approached her and wanted to take her seat. As was the custom at the time, she was expected to give up that seat. This happened countless times before in countless cities and towns all across the South. But this time was different. This time Rosa Parks decided to say ``no'' to this injustice, ``no'' to this ridicule, ``no'' to this insult.

By simply saying ``no,'' Rosa Parks set off a chain of events that in the subsequent months led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that segregation in public transportation was unconstitutional.

Having the courage to refuse to accept injustice freed people of the subjugation of an oppressive society.

While we have lost Rosa Parks in life, we have not lost the memory of her life's acts. She will endure as an inspiration to freedom loving people for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, September 24th, marks the 250th anniversary of Chief Justice John Marshall's birth. The principal founder of American constitutional law and one of Virginia's finest sons, Marshall's 34 years of leadership brought the United States Supreme Court great prominence.

His education, experiences, and service to the Commonwealth of Virginia enabled him to serve this country as Supreme Court Justice. Chief Justice Marshall presided over numerous landmark cases and authored many of the Supreme Court's most influential opinions.

Under his guidance, the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 expanded the definition of commerce, solidified the Supreme Court's dominance over the State court system, and defended the Federal Government's implied power.

These contributions and many others came after the first, and arguably most important, opinion he penned--judicial review. Shortly after his ascension to the bench, Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the ability of the Supreme Court as the only body to decide the constitutionality of Federal or State law under the United States Constitution.

It is fitting that Marshall's birthday occurs at the same time as the United States Senate considers John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Like Marshall, Roberts would become chief justice at a relatively young age.

It is reported that Roberts would touch the statue of former Chief Justice Marshall that sits at the Supreme Court for luck before each case he argued. It is clear that John Marshall established an enduring legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules as well as two measures under a rule: the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005; and H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. We do plan to be in session that first week of October, the week of October 3, after the Rosh Hashana holiday. We would expect to have legislative business on both Thursday and Friday of that week.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that votes will be delayed until the Members have adequate time to return for those who live on the west coast.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell my friend from Maryland that votes will be at 6:30. All I can say is there will be adequate time for folks on the west coast to be back here in Washington on Thursday for the votes that will be called. I would say further that we will be checking flights to ensure that Members will be back in time for the votes.

I thank the gentleman for that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would also note that the end of the fiscal year is next Friday. That looming date could lead to a flurry of appropriations activity; and, therefore, Members should expect the House to be in session next Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I do not believe that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has completed his consultations or made his decisions on the specifics of the legislation that we would need to pass next week to continue Federal programs after September 30, so I really cannot get into any more detail than that, because I do not think the chairman has completed his discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that suggestion, and it will be duly noted.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for organizing tonight's Special Order. I congratulate her on her outstanding leadership and her participation in the trip that we all were on.

I have been to Israel many times. I went on this trip, and this particular trip was special, like most others, because there is always something going on with the people of that land and their neighbors. And there is a constant quest for peace and one that, unfortunately, has not come to pass in the half a century or so that that country has existed.

One thing that strikes me always and struck me this summer was that Israel remains a beacon of freedom, remains our only democratic ally in the Middle East, and is proof of the survival of a people that have engaged in the war on terror that we here in America have found ourselves in, especially since 9/11.

As the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) before me stated, we were able to travel to or near the Gaza Strip as the pullout, disengagement, was taking place. One of the visions that I remember was one that will go down in history, I imagine, with the settlers that were leaving Gush Katif, the area of the Gaza Strip in which many Israeli communities existed. They were actually at one of the junctions in the road and were pulling down the traffic directional signs pointing to their community and putting the signs in the back of their truck, knowing probably that there would never be such a sign that existed again, because the community will not exist again. A very tragic moment in many families' lives, but I think something that reflects the bold move by Prime Minister Sharon in conducting the disengagement and formulating the policy of disengagement. It was a tremendous step. It was a tremendous step to create an environment where peace can flourish.

The problem is, and I am troubled by the Palestinian response to Mr. Sharon's move, because as we saw the Israeli Army pull out of the Gaza Strip, we then saw gunshots from the Palestinians in so-called celebration in what they had termed a ``victory'' that they had driven Israel out. We saw the transfer of arms across the border with Egypt into Gaza.

We saw the Palestinians conducting the burning of synagogues there in the communities that had been abandoned, and we saw and we read in the news while we were there that there were rockets being launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel, all in response or all coinciding with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

So it just troubles me that we did not see an in-kind gesture by the Palestinian Authority, by Mahmoud Abbas and others in his administration, that would show some type of gesture of goodwill to reflect the Israeli disengagement and withdrawal from the Gaza Strip; but if we look throughout what has happened over the past decade or more, we see that there is a continued pattern of this type of response from the Palestinian Authority.

Way back in the beginning of the last decade, in the early 1990s, with the formulation of Oslo, there was a lot of hope, hope among a lot of people that the Oslo process would bring a long-sought-after peace between Israelis and the Palestinians. In fact, what happened after the devolution of that period was the intifada which was the killing of many innocent people on both sides.

We saw the occurrence of the Wye Accords in 1998 with Arafat and then-Prime Minister Netanyahu, where Israel agreed to withdraw from Hebron, and it was a very holy place for the Jewish people; and the Palestinians responded with violence.

We saw in the year 2000, Camp David, potential of the accords between then-Prime Minister Barak and Mr. Arafat. It was at that time that Israel offered nearly 90 percent of the West Bank, offered sovereignty to the Palestinian people, offered east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. What happened? Mr. Arafat walked away, and we have seen nothing but continued violence, continued terrorist attacks on the people of Israel.

Yet, after all of that, we see Prime Minister Sharon conducting the policy of disengagement, again taking one last stab at trying to achieve peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. So I think that we must recognize that bold step.

Our President, who has been a terrific champion of a strong U.S.- Israel relationship, understands the importance that Israel plays in our national security strategy, the fact that Israel is fighting the war on terror on the front lines while we, our young men and women in uniform, are fighting that same war on terror, not too far away in that region in Iraq and Afghanistan. This President understands the importance that Israel plays and has supported Mr. Sharon in his moves to try and move the peace process forward.

Unfortunately, we just are not seeing any reciprocation on the part of the Palestinians. We now hear and read of the reports where Hamas is taking a part and intending to participate in the Palestinian elections that will occur soon. How in the world can we respect the participation of a professed terrorist group whose aim is to remove Israel from the map? How in the world does that help the Palestinian cause for peace?

I am here tonight to express some serious dismay at the response by the Palestinian Authority and to reflect and congratulate the policies of Israel and what they are trying to do to secure peace. Unfortunately, there again has been nothing in return that Israel has received, and I just encourage my colleagues to continue to monitor what is going on in that region and how it affects our security here in America and to, once again, commit ourselves to helping the security of Israel in its democratic way and to ensure its survival as our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kristin Young. After more than a decade of service to the House of Representatives, she is moving home to Connecticut. She spent the last four and a half years working in my office, currently serving as my Director of Administration.

I am very appreciative of all of Kristin's hard work over the years. I have been fortunate to have one of the most talented, committed and effective staffers on Capitol Hill handling my schedule and greeting constituents with a smile each working day.

Kristin's strong work ethic was invaluable in making sure I was able get the people's work done and meet and greet as many constituents as possible. Kristin's demonstrated ability

to get things done led me to ask her to assume additional responsibilities when the need arose. She always had a very full agenda, but she cheerfully took on any new task and made many valuable improvements in the office.

My wife Diana and I feel Kristin's departure is a personal loss for us and the residents of Virginia's 7th District, and we will miss her and her son Dylan greatly. I am very proud of the great and unselfish work Kristin Young has done on behalf of the citizens of Virginia. I am most proud to join many, many others in calling her a friend. I know that I reflect the feelings of all of her fellow staff members in wishing her continued success and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent Wallace ``Monk'' Sanford III of Orange, Virginia, who has been selected as the 2005 Virginia Farmer of the Year and will compete in October to be named the Southeastern Farmer of the Year by the Lancaster/Sunbelt Expo.

Mr. Sanford is most deserving of this honor, as he not only runs a successful dairy and beef cattle operation, but he also proudly and honorably represents a way of life that has helped define Virginia for nearly 400 years. Fittingly, the image of the barn and silos of Mr. Sanford's farm, Kenwood, will appear on a new Virginia license plate that celebrates the rich agricultural heritage of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Sanford began farming full time at Kenwood when he graduated from high school in 1965, and in 1975 became a partner with his parents in the farm. Kenwood is now twice the size it was in 1975, and Mr. Sanford has plans to increase its operation further. But Mr. Sanford's success should not be measured by his farming operation alone.

He is also a tireless advocate for the agricultural community, participating in and serving on the boards of numerous local and statewide agricultural organizations, including the Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, of which his farm was a founding member. Mr. Sanford also speaks up for standards and regulations that he believes will impact the survivability of agribusiness.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in recognizing Wallace ``Monk'' Sanford III--a man whose dedication to honest, hard work and commitment to his community embodies not only Virginia's proud history, but also our American spirit.