Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 5658.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I appreciate the fact that we will be again having a rule taken up in the Rules Committee. I look forward to the second rule for tomorrow.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, in favor of the rule. This is an excellent bill. It is, of course, the annual defense authorization bill, bipartisan I should say, very bipartisan in nature because the vote on final passage out of our committee was 61 Members to none. And I cannot be more pleased with the work that our committee has done, the ranking members, the subcommittee chairmen who really did yeoman's work, and I want to thank them for all their excellent and successful efforts.

I might mention at the outset that this defense authorization bill, which is for 2009, is named in honor of former chairman, now ranking member, who will not be returning to us next year, the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter. That is certainly fitting and proper that we do so to recognize his efforts on national security through the many years he served on the committee, as well as the leadership positions.

This bill authorizes $531 billion in spending for the defense and national security functions of the Department of Energy. It also authorizes a $70 billion bridge fund, which will be considered shortly.

The pay raise to the troops, 3.9 percent, is five-tenths of a percent more than the administration recommended. And it rolls back the administration's proposed fee increases on health care as well as pharmacy costs. It increases the size of the military, something I have been urging since 1995. It increases the size of the Army by 7,000 and the Marines by 5,000. They're overburdened and they're strained, and this is one step towards relieving that strain.

A major problem today is that of readiness, or a lack of readiness. We restore a great deal of readiness to the military in this bill in various manners, essentially in training and equipment.

There is $800 million in National Guard and Reserve equipment; $650 million to upgrade military barracks for those trainees that are coming through. It improves our efforts in Afghanistan. It bans permanent bases in Iraq. It requires Iraq to do more for itself in the reconstruction area, establishing a formula by which they, with their oil surplus, will have to contribute toward that end.

There are additional steps regarding contractor oversight.

Regarding nuclear nonproliferation, we increase the funding by $245 million. That's a very major step. The European missile defense effort was cut by $370 million. It does a great deal toward national security.

I want to take this opportunity to support the rule, and of course when the time comes, to support the bill itself. Hopefully we will have some excellent amendments that will be considered tomorrow. And we will send this on to the Senate and hopefully have an excellent bill at the end of the day.

The young people in uniform, of whom we're so very, very proud, deserve the best. This is one way we in Congress can make sure they get the very best through this defense authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks on general debate concerning H.R. 5658.

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

Mr. Chairman, today the House begins consideration of H.R. 5658, which is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

This bill is a collective effort in the bipartisan tradition of the House Armed Services Committee which approved the bill in markup by a vote of 61-0. It is an excellent bill.

I want to thank the members of our Armed Services Committee, particularly the subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members, and actually every member of the committee.

Let me take this opportunity to also, Mr. Chairman, recognize the ranking member and former chairman, Duncan Hunter, for once again being a great partner on this bill, and he is certainly to be commended and thanked for it. I am proud that Duncan and I have worked so well together through the years and always with the common goal of enhancing American national security.

It is only fitting, Mr. Chairman, that as Duncan Hunter plans to retire at the end of this Congress, our committee colleagues unanimously voted to name this bill in his honor, recognizing Duncan Hunter's many years of service on the Armed Services Committee, and also recognizing his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform. And we thank him publicly for that.

Mr. Chairman, let me discuss some significant provisions of the bill. It reflects our committee's view that restoring military readiness must be our number one priority. This is serious business. If, after more than 6 years of war, our effort is to restore military readiness, then it must be sustained in order to meet not just current military challenges, which are monumental, but prepare for the unexpected conflicts we may face in the future.

We don't know what is around the corner. I might point out, in the last 31 years American military forces have been engaged in no less than 12 military conflicts, four of which have been major in size.

The bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives requested by the services. It includes $932 million to deal with equipment shortages as well as for equipment maintenance. The bill also provides for some $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks.

To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of our military; 7,000 additional Army troops, 5,000 additional marines, and prevents further military to civilian conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 Navy sailors and 450 additional Air Force personnel.

The bill also maintains our efforts to support and honor the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform and their families, providing a much needed 3.9 percent pay raise increase, and again, prohibiting increases in health care fees, among a range of other initiatives.

I might point out, the administration recommended only a 3.4 percent pay raise, and we raised that, as we should have.

The authorization bill also keeps our focus on Afghanistan, which is the primary front in the war on terror. The bill requires the administration to submit separate budget requests to clearly lay out the requirements for the war in Afghanistan, and on the other hand, the war in Iraq. It requires a system be set up to measure the success of the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and requires more robust congressional reporting on the training of the Afghan Security Force.

Finally, the bill requires the Department of Defense to address the issue of command and control for forces in Afghanistan operating under Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as the NATO International Security Assistance Force.

The bill authorizes a $70 billion bridge for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we remain convinced that it's well past time for the Iraqis to step up and contribute more substantially to their very own security, as well as their prosperity. With the Iraqis' overwhelming budget and capital account surpluses, the bill requires Iraqis to invest more in their own reconstruction, as well as their own security efforts.

The bill also includes steps toward contracting reform after the substantial improvements in the law which we enacted in our previous bill last year.

This bill underlines our commitment to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It adds $31 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs of the Department of Defense, and some $215 million from the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. That's important.

Finally, I want to say a word about the need for reforms in the way our government coordinates and executes its national security policy. Many here in Congress as well as the executive branch are working to improve our interagency system. It's a massive effort that cannot be accomplished in any one single year.

I remember well the now famous Goldwater-Nichols Act. It was an effort over 4 years in the Congress of the United States which, of course, made jointness part of the military culture, and this may well be along the same line, although hopefully it will not take 4 years to accomplish. But it cannot be done in one single year.

At the appropriate time during the bill's consideration, I will offer an amendment along with Chairman Howard Berman of the Foreign Affairs

Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey to establish a standing advisory board to work with the Secretaries of State and Defense on interagency matters and report to Congress their recommendations.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, let me pay tribute to those Members who plan to leave Congress at the end of this session and for whom this will be their final defense authorization bill. In addition to the retirement of our friend and ranking member, Duncan Hunter, I want to express my appreciation to two other senior Members who plan to retire, Congressman Jim Saxton and Congressman Terry Everett. Both these gentlemen have made a very important contribution to our committee through the years and, consequently, have been wonderful partners, as well as outstanding Americans.

In addition, two of the most capable and committed members of our committee, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, plan to leave in order to seek other offices. The House and our committee are all the better for their service, and we wish all of these members who are not going to return to our committee next year all the best. They will be missed.

This is a critical time in our Nation. This defense bill is a very important one. I urge Members of this House to support this defense authorization bill. It does so much in the area of readiness, to support our men and women in uniform and their families, and to protect the American people.

With that, and additional thanks to my friend, Duncan Hunter, on his final bill, we appreciate your work, your efforts, your friendship, Mr. Hunter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) who also is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady, our friend and colleague, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Washington, who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Conventional Threats and Capabilities, Mr. Smith.

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, the gentleman from Ohio.

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlelady from California, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is also a senior member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my colleague and friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Let me add, if I may, an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman spoke about the need to study strategy. After we passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, I chaired a panel on professional military education that did a great deal in upgrading the Senior and Immediate War Colleges. The Senior War Colleges really are the bosom of where strategic thought, both military as well as diplomatic, is taught and is learned. Sometimes the lessons that are so plain to those in the War Colleges do not seem to be learned by others in responsible positions. That is why I think the thought of working on strategic thought itself is an excellent one, and I commend the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), who is also a member of our Armed Services Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlelady for raising this very important issue, and assure the gentlelady that I certainly share her concerns. The Department of Defense is facing the same shortage of nurses as we are across the Nation. However, the need for the Department is more directly felt as we are at war, and our military nurses are caring for our wounded and injured in addition to all their other duties.

Let me say to the gentlelady that we have taken serious, substantive steps to increase the number of nurses, both in the military and in the civilian community. In this bill we have mandated the establishment of a Department of Defense School of Nursing, following the successful models of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to produce medical doctors, the Interservice Physician Assistant Program to produce physician assistants for the military, and the Army's new School of Social Work, which will enroll its first class this summer.

Although the graduates of the Department of Defense School of Nursing will initially provide much needed care for our troops, I'm confident that following their military service they will continue to serve our Nation as nurses in civilian communities.

Finally, we've included a demonstration project to encourage retired military nurses to become faculty members at civilian schools of nursing to help alleviate the nurse instructor shortage of which you speak.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Let me assure the gentlelady that we look forward to the results of the demonstration project, and I'm always open of course to practical approaches to address the military nursing shortage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for raising this very important issue. The Department of Defense has made many improvements to its suicide prevention programs, but more can be done. I look forward to working with the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from California. And I must add that this is properly named for Duncan Hunter in honor of the hard work that you've done through the years. Thank you.

When you put a bill together like this that's $531 billion of taxpayer money for national security, there are unseen hands that have helped glue this together bit by bit and part by part. And that's the unsung but very valuable and absolutely terrific staff of the Armed Services Committee under the direction of Erin Conaton, and I particularly wish to complement her on her hard work. Everyone on this staff is outstanding and an expert in his or her field, and I want them to know that they are appreciated, and that we're very grateful for their work.

This will close out the general debate on this bill. It's an excellent bill, and I think that in truth and fact it has made a great stride toward increasing the readiness of our troops. People in the country should take a great deal of comfort in knowing that there's such bipartisanship on this committee. So I thank the gentleman from California.

I am very, very proud of the members of this committee, the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 5658.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I speak in favor of this resolution.

Saturday morning in my hometown of Lexington, Missouri, I attended the graduation ceremonies of my alma mater, Wentworth Military Academy and Junior College, and at that ceremony, I had the privilege of presenting a scholarship to one of the young women of that student body in memory of my late wife, Susie Skelton.

But one of the most memorable aspects of this was the commissioning of 10 of the junior college graduates to receive their second lieutenancy in the United States Army Reserve. After two more years of college, they will be able to go into the active duty of our country or be full-time active members of the National Guard or Reserve.

What I speak about today very briefly is, of the 10, half of those newly commissioned second lieutenants at Wentworth Military Academy were from American Samoa, outstanding students, good soldiers, fine young Americans. I think that it should be brought to this body's attention that they are doing their best and their part in the national security of our Nation, and I must say I'm very proud of them.

I certainly thank the gentlelady from California for her addition and leadership on this bill, as well as my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) for sponsoring it.

It's with a great deal of understanding as well as a bit of nostalgia that I speak in favor of this resolution.

I know full well of the bipartisanship of which my friends from California speak. I know full well of the work that this Congressional Club has done over, now that I've witnessed, nearly 32 years. I know of the friendships, both Democrat and Republican, that have been formed and have been forged together that will last a lifetime. I know, and I hope this body will fully recognize the fact that this Congressional Club has set forth the real standard on understanding one another in this body in the full spirit of bipartisanship.

It was my late wife, Susie, who had the honor to serve as the Treasurer of this Congressional Club in 1983 and 1984, and again as President of the Club in 1987 and 1988. And it should be of note that our colleague from California, Doris Matsui, served as an officer in the Club simultaneously with my late wife, Susie.

It is an excellent resolution for an excellent organization. I hope the next 100 years will see the same effort in friendship and bipartisanship reign as it has in the past.

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of rural Missouri, let me take this opportunity to share my support for the 2008 farm bill.

I commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for producing a balanced and bipartisan bill that would bring a level of stability to commodity markets and ensure farmers throughout the United States can make long-term business decisions.

Important to farm families in the Show-Me State, the 2008 farm bill would extend the farm program safety net for producers while also reforming eligibility requirements and strengthening payment limitations for those who receive farm program payments. While I cannot overemphasize the importance of having a safety net in place to help farmers recoup some expenses associated with agricultural production and to ensure they are not put out of business if markets collapse, I am pleased that reforms were made to address some concerns of the administration and other farm program critics.

In addition to ensuring a strong safety net, the farm bill would make historic commitments to food security and nutrition, expand conservation, promote rural development, streamline agricultural research, and invest in renewable energy.

The farm bill would make essential commitments to the health of the American people and would help families in need by boosting nutrition funding by over $10 billion. In Missouri and elsewhere, food pantries are short of food and low-income Americans are having a difficult time affording groceries. The legislation would allocate resources to food banks, modernize the food stamp program, expand farmers' markets, extend food programs for low-income senior citizens and pregnant women, promote student health, and fight obesity.

The farm bill would expand popular conservation programs designed to preserve farmland, improve water quality, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat. In Missouri, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, among others, have allowed farmers to more easily address conservation problems and comply with expensive, but important, environmental regulations.

By expanding USDA rural development loans and grants, the farm bill would foster critical investments in small town America. The measure would improve rural Internet broadband access, expand first responder and emergency medical services in rural areas, and authorize grants for weather radio transmitters to alert rural citizens about coming storms. It would also provide grants for drinking water and wastewater improvements, foster rural small business development, and provide for greater value-added loans and grants for small farmers.

With respect to research and development, the farm bill would create a National Institute of Food and Agriculture within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to maximize coordination throughout USDA's research

agencies. The bill would also create the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative to stimulate business development and access to capital in rural America and create the Energy Research Program to improve research on the production and sustainability of biofuels, like ethanol and biodiesel. Additionally, the bill would address concerns raised by livestock producers and others regarding the high cost of corn by slightly reducing the corn ethanol producers' tax credit and creating a subsidy to accelerate commercialization of advanced biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol.

Also important to Missourians, the farm bill would continue price supports for dairy farmers and increase funding for fruit and vegetable producers. It also contains the first-ever Livestock Title, which would increase market access for small, state-inspected meat processing plants, better protect producers who have contracts with livestock firms, and better enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. Additionally, the legislation would require that all meat sold to American consumers have a country-of-origin label. But, importantly, this labeling agreement represents a compromise that would simplify record keeping and other requirements associated with the law.

The farm bill would also prohibit the closure or relocation of county Farm Service Agency offices for 2 years, would encourage additional funding directed to Historically Black Colleges, like Lincoln University in Jefferson City, and would establish an Office of Homeland Security within USDA to better protect our Nation from terrorist attacks aimed at America's agricultural sector.

The people of Missouri and Americans from all walks of life do well by the 2008 farm bill. I am pleased to lend my support to it and hope it will pass the House with broad, bipartisan support. I further hope that the President of the United States will reconsider his threat to veto the farm bill, which would be a disservice to rural Americans and to low-income citizens of our Nation who would benefit from the bill's commitment to food security.

Mr. Speaker, over the past months, economic conditions in our country have soured. Particularly troublesome to our Nation's economic engine are skyrocketing home foreclosures and loan delinquency rates, which have risen over 85 percent in the past year.

Foreclosures and delinquencies are harmful to borrowers and lenders, but they also stifle economic growth, shake consumer confidence, and lower home values for those who live near foreclosed properties.

While borrowers in our country must certainly bear a great deal of responsibility when it comes to financial planning, the government can and must carefully examine the impact of soaring mortgage foreclosures on the whole U.S. economy and also thoroughly review regulatory oversight with respect to the mortgage business.

I have been pleased that the House has been active in addressing the mortgage crisis, voting last year to strengthen consumer protections against risky loans and to overhaul the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, among other things. Under the leadership of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House is again poised to pass critical, market-driven housing legislation designed to reduce foreclosures, to help families avoid foreclosure in the future, and to alleviate the negative impacts of foreclosures on property values and the national economy.

I am pleased to support this legislation, which would create a new voluntary program within FHA that would offer lenders an alternative to foreclosure. This approach, which is driven by the lenders' desire to save costs associated with foreclosing on property, forces the lender, the borrower, and the government to all make sacrifices to ensure families have the ability to stay in their homes. While some have criticized this initiative as a government bailout of those who have made poor financial choices, in my view, it represents an innovative, market-driven way to shore up the housing market and the overall economy.

The measure would also create a $7,500 tax incentive for first time home buyers and other important tax incentives while simultaneously modernizing the FHA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae and increasing the loan limit for FHA and Veterans' Administration loans.

I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly on this well written bill and that it will be signed into law by the President.

Mr. Speaker, in matters of national security, experienced leaders never forget that the unexpected is always just around the corner and that danger is never far away. The Roman orator Cicero immortalized these ideas in his story about the Sword of Damocles.

Damocles, a citizen of the ancient Greek city of Syracuse, wanted to be king for a day. The king agreed to this request, and Damocles feasted and reveled with wine and fine meals. Only after his merrymaking did Damocles discover that a razor-sharp sword, suspended by a single thread, hung over his head all day. Damocles was immediately cured of his desire to rule.

When I consider the challenges confronting the U.S. national security today, I see not one but two swords of Damocles dangling above us. The first danger concerns the strain current operations place on U.S. military readiness, and the second concerns the deterioration of security and stability in Afghanistan.

Military readiness ratings measure how prepared U.S. forces are to perform their assigned combat missions. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, more than 6 years of war have resulted in serious readiness shortfalls, with our Army and Marine Corps ground forces experiencing the most acute problems. In spite of efforts to fill the gaps in equipment, training and personnel, readiness deficiencies serious enough to cause alarm last year have only continued to expand.

Today, two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades in the United States are not ready for duty. Units in the U.S. are suffering from shortages of personnel, and units are preparing for deployment without having all of their assigned personnel or equipment during training. To fill shortfalls in Army personnel, the Navy and Air Force are supplying over 20,000 troops to conduct ground force tasks such as convoy security and logistics support.

While U.S. military forces are getting by, painfully, and performing today's missions despite readiness shortfalls, we are simply not prepared for the emergence of a new conflict. Experience tells me that we cannot assume another crisis won't come our way. In my 31 years in Congress, the U.S. has been involved in 12 significant military conflicts, none of which were predicted beforehand. Because we can't know with complete certainty what dangers lurk around the corner or when they might strike, we need the insurance policy military readiness provides for America's security.

Our current readiness situation demands a massive investment in time, effort and money to restore our full capability. Of course, devoting the resources required to solve our readiness problems will force us to make painful tradeoffs with some elements of modernization, which is tomorrow's readiness. But with current readiness levels, this is a predicament our Nation cannot avoid. It is simply a cost we must bear.

The second danger I worry about is the deterioration of security and stability in Afghanistan. For too long, the war in Iraq has overshadowed the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan. While the military effort there is actually a qualified success, the political effort at this point is not, and the benefits of economic progress are far too uneven. Too many Afghan citizens do not yet see tangible improvements in their daily lives. The effort in Afghanistan is not really reconstruction, but the creation of a stable, secure, and unified nation which has never existed.

The recent decision to send an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan is a necessary and positive step in the right direction, but that alone will not be sufficient. This undertaking is gargantuan and requires a far more significant effort than the United States or our allies have been willing to commit. History will judge us very harshly if our focus and effort in Afghanistan is insufficient to the task. A failure of the mission there would not only damage our security, it would also seriously damage NATO.

So how do we deal with these twin challenges? To start, we must focus our Nation's strategic priorities to find the right balance between the near-term needs and the long-term health of our military. We must address the imbalance in our deployment and use of troops overseas, because our readiness problems cannot be resolved as long as we continue to deploy in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq. A responsible redeployment of a large percentage of that force is a strategic necessity.

In addition, we must do first things first by focusing on Afghanistan, just as in World War II we focused more of our resources on Germany and the war in Europe until that war was won. Finally, we must substantially increase the use of our soft power, our diplomatic, economic development, and strategic communications efforts in Afghanistan and around the world.

We can and should receive much more help from our allies. Together, the U.S. and the international community must make the war in Afghanistan a top priority and provide the leadership, strategy, and resources necessary to ensure that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are destroyed for good and that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe harbor for terrorists.

To his great credit, Secretary of Defense Gates has been arguing for several of these solutions. The truth is, though, that the U.S. has as much or more to lose in Afghanistan as any other nation, and the same would be true of whatever new conflicts emerge. Until our country is prepared to lead and act decisively, these problems will fester, and the threads holding up those twin swords will stretch ever thinner.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This is a good bill in many ways. I particularly appreciate the bills' emphasis on holding the Coast Guard accountable for the funds the service receives from us, the Congress. The well-documented problems with the Deepwater program make it clear that more, needs to be done to ensure the Coast Guard's procurement policies are producing results. This is not just a budget issue, although that is certainly important, but it is also a national security issue. We depend on the men and women serving in the Coast Guard to defend our Nation's waterways, and for that critical task they need new ships and aircraft. Congress can no longer stand by while billions of dollars are wasted on a program that has failed to give our coastal defenders the tools they need. This bill takes steps to demand the type of accountability from the Coast Guard that we expect from the other uniformed services, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this good and necessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday the front page of the New York Times included a story about the efforts of the Pentagon's public affairs operation to influence retired military officers now working as military analysts for some of our Nation's largest media organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I am very angry about the issues raised by the New York Times story, as are many of my colleagues who have called me aside to discuss it. The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I am too idealistic, but this story is appalling to me on a number of levels. For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officers corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our Nation's freedoms.

Through the years, I have frequently urged our military services to improve their efforts to tell America about the good work that is being done by our country's sons and daughters in the uniform. Our military services have an important story to tell, and public affairs offices are critical to that task. But credibility is paramount. Once lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.

There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and to the press; but, there is a

problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers, and then basically using them as pawns to spout the administration's talking points of the day. There are allegations that analysts who failed to deliver the message required by the administration mysteriously lost access to future briefings and information. I find this deeply troubling. We deserve to be able to trust the actions of the Pentagon.

We also deserve a retired officer corps that is worthy of the respect it receives from the American people, who place great faith in their judgment and their loyalty to our Nation. Americans trust our Active Duty and retired military, and rightly so.

I know a number of the retired officers employed by the media as military analysts to be honorable people. But the special access they are alleged to have received and the circumstances of their employment, without proper disclosure of their outside interests or biases, raise a number of uncomfortable questions that deserve serious answers.

Which master do these analysts serve: The United States Government, which supplies their retirement pay? The Pentagon, which may reduce the amount of analysis they actually need to do by providing detailed talking points promoting the current administration's message agenda? The defense contractors, who pay them for serving on boards for their defense expertise and, perhaps more to the point, for their Pentagon connections?

Will their analysis, either by design or just by lucky coincidence, result in contracts or other advantages for the companies from which they take home a paycheck?

Mr. Speaker, it hurts me to my core to think that there are those from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous positions with the Department of Defense. I would hate to think that, because a few people have blurred ethical boundaries and cashed in on their former positions, that we might tarnish the military's hard-won reputation for professionalism and objectivity and love of country first and foremost.

Finally, I think our media have a serious responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they do their reporting. This applies to all of their stories, of course, and not just to those that include retired officer military analysts. I understand that different organizations have different rules, but perhaps it would not be out of order for our journalism schools and professional journalism organizations to develop ethical guidelines for dealing with such issues.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's military exists to protect America's freedoms for its citizens today and for future generations. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans, including retired servicemembers and members of the press, to speak freely and without restraint. But with our rights come responsibilities to act honestly and ethically.

I have no doubt we will continue to discuss these matters in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to share my strong support for Israel upon its 60th anniversary and to remind the House of Missouri's unique connection to the creation of Israel--a critical democratic ally of the United States.

President Harry S. Truman, Missouri's favorite son and the 33rd President of the United

States, was a long-time supporter of establishing a Jewish homeland and worked as President to ensure Israel's creation.

A supporter of the Balfour Declaration, a British statement issued in 1917 that endorsed the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine, when Harry S. Truman became President of the United States in 1945, he made clear his sympathy for the Jewish people and his concern for the sufferings they had endured during the Nazi Holocaust.

In 1946, President Truman urged British Prime Minister Clement Attlee to allow a reasonable number of European Jews to immigrate to British- controlled Palestine. The governments of the United States and Great Britain created the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to study the situation. The Committee recommended that the United Nations establish a trusteeship over Palestine, with the goal of reconciling Jewish and Arab interests in the region. The Committee also agreed that 100,000 Jewish displaced persons should be admitted to Palestine. On the eve of Yom Kippur in 1946, President Truman issued a statement supporting these recommendations.

In response to a British request, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine was created in May 1947. This Committee recommended that the British mandate over Palestine be terminated and that the area be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. President Truman forced a reluctant U.S. State Department to support this plan. On November 29, 1947, the partition plan was approved by the U.N. General Assembly, thanks in large measure to vigorous American support. Palestinian Arabs and Arab governments remained strongly opposed to partition, and efforts to find a peaceful settlement disintegrated.

In February 1948, President Truman's close friend and former business partner, Eddie Jacobson, himself a Jewish person, sent Truman a telegram asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Angered by criticism from some American Jewish leaders, President Truman refused to meet with Mr. Weizmann. In March 1948, Mr. Jacobson walked into the White House without an appointment and pleaded with his old friend to meet with Weizmann. The President relented, and when Weizmann came to the White House a few days later, Truman assured him that the United States would continue to support the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, the British mandate over Palestine expired and the new State of Israel was proclaimed. Eleven minutes later, by order of President Harry S. Truman, the United States granted diplomatic recognition to the new Provisional Government of Israel. Following Israel's declaration of independence, Arab armies invaded the new nation, and a long and continuing struggle for security began for Israel.

Mr Speaker, throughout the time I have been privileged to serve in Congress, I have worked to foster a strong alliance between the United States and Israel. I am proud that Missouri's favorite son, Harry S. Truman, was first to recognize Israel and that our Nation has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with that country for these 60 years.

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and to her people on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel.

Last August, I had the honor of going on an enlightening and humbling visit to Israel.

As a child, I had heard the stories of Israel from my mother. I pictured busy markets and crowded streets, and men with yarmulkes in synagogues. Visiting the Holy Land was the experience of a lifetime, and I was entranced by the sheer beauty of the living history that surrounded me.

However, as I made my way through the striking juxtaposition of modern and ancient architecture, I worried that I might find a grim reminder of what this cherished place might become after years of fighting.

One mother with whom I spoke told me a sobering story. While driving in Israel with her family, as we do here everyday, a rocket exploded next to her family's car. Without thinking, she jumped over the front seat to cover her children from the shrapnel and smoke that filled the air around them. Protecting her children was all she could think to do--in Israel this is a conditioned response, a learned reflex.

Israelis want to live in peace. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told me that Israel is willing to make changes in the West Bank, release prisoners, or give up land if that means peace. Many Israeli leaders share Livni's optimism, as do I, that peace will come to the region.

We must begin to find ways to look beyond comfort zones to stem the tides that divide and find ties that bind. If we can take substantive steps to stop the violence and move towards peace and justice we will have moved mountains.

On May 14, 1948, Israel rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. Over these last 60 years, the American people have formed a profound and unshakable friendship with our democratic ally.

The United States must continue its commitment to Israeli sovereignty, security, and democracy. We face common threats, share common values and we must continue to work together to achieve our common goals.

I praise the miracle of Israel. The history of Israel and of her people is a story of freedom and rebirth that gives hope to oppressed peoples across the world and that will for millennia to come.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to add my voice of support to the Head Start program. As you know, since the program began more than 40 years ago, it has served millions of low-income children and their families across the United States.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit Head Start centers across Missouri's 4th Congressional District, which I have the honor to represent in Congress. I am always impressed by the dedicated staff who do so many good things to help prepare the children for their school careers. Every child in America has the right to a good start in life. It can make all the difference in their future. By partnering with parents to promote early childhood development, which is so critical, Head Start helps make sure that those futures are not jeopardized on the basis of a family's income.

This year, I have continued my strong support for Head Start funding and will work with my colleagues in the days ahead to see that this vital program's future is secure. Children truly are the hope of our Nation. They will be the leaders of tomorrow, and we owe it to them to see they have every opportunity to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Through the years, Congress has recognized the President's role in negotiating trade deals and has granted the President a great deal of leeway with regard to trade. Congress, however, must ratify every trade deal, and the President has a great deal of responsibility to work with elected members of the legislative branch before pressing forward with any negotiated trade agreement.

One power Congress has occasionally authorized for the President is the so-called ``fast track'' negotiating authority. ``Fast track'' permits the President to negotiate a trade agreement while giving Congress an opportunity to ratify the agreement without amendment and within a certain time frame. ``Fast track'' allows the House and the Senate to set its own rules with respect to considering a trade agreement under these expedited conditions. In November 2006, using its ``fast track'' powers, the Administration signed a Trade Promotion Agreement with the South American country of Colombia.

In June 2007, I visited Colombia and met with President Uribe, other Colombian leaders, and U.S. embassy and military professionals serving there. Through the years, I have been extremely skeptical about U.S. involvement in Colombia's civil war and have voted in the House to reduce U.S. military aid to that country. That said, Colombia is an important ally of the United States and the trade agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Colombia is worthy of support. Should it pass, most U.S. exports to Colombia--including Missouri's agricultural exports--will enter that country duty-free. Under current law, nearly all Colombian goods enter the U.S. duty-free.

On April 8, 2008, the Administration took the unprecedented step of delivering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to Congress without having fully consulted with the House and the Senate. In my view, the Administration's maneuver seriously jeopardizes prospects for the trade agreement's passage in the House. Without bipartisan support, I am convinced the House would reject it, sending a negative message to Colombia and derailing important benefits to Missouri agriculture that would be brought with the deal.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to give Congress more time to review the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and to prevent an embarrassing defeat of the agreement on the House floor, I will vote today to delay its consideration. I remain hopeful that the agreement can be considered before the end of the 110th Congress.