Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3159, introduced by my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, Ellen Tauscher, the gentlelady from California, as well as other Members of the House.

Our troops and their families are stressed and they are under pressure. Yesterday, the USA Today newspaper had an article entitled, ``Stress of War Hits Army Kids Hard.'' The article, sadly, was about the increasing number of child abuse and neglect cases among deployed Army families. The article quotes Amy Lambert, an Army wife living at Fort Stewart, Georgia. She states, ``I firmly believe that more time at home between deployments would be the most beneficial solution.'' I think that quote sums up the reason we're here and why this bill is before the House.

Our troops and their families are tired. They are being stressed by the continued and extended deployments. It's time that Congress takes a stand on behalf of our families and states in a clear, unequivocal voice that it is time that servicemembers have a minimum dwell time between deployments.

This bill would require that active component units and members be provided at least the same time at home as they are deployed. It would also require that Reserve and National Guardsmen who are called to deploy are given at least three times at home as they are deployed.

This proposed minimum period of deployment is less than the Department's own goal, which provides that active duty servicemembers should be deployed for 1 year, with 2 years back in home station, and Reservists and Guardsmen should have 5 years between deployments.

The Army recently implemented a policy that requires active duty units to deploy for 15 months and only spend 12 months back at their home station. This is a troubling sign, Mr. Speaker, since the time back at home station is used to reset, retrain and re-equip forces.

Servicemembers and their families are entitled to a predictable and stable time between deployments. Congress needs to step up on behalf of the troops, as well as their families, and say enough is enough.

We need to hold the Department accountable to their own policies and protect the readiness of our forces. That's no small thing. We have a moral responsibility to our troops to ensure

that their quality of life is reflective of the sacrifices that we ask them to make.

We need to ensure that our active forces have at least the same amount of time deployed that they have back home with their families, and that our citizen-soldiers have at least three times the amount home as that time deployed.

This bill is also about our national security and its readiness, and it's about strategic risk. This bill will help to ensure that our military can deal not only with Iraq, where they have been serving remarkably under extraordinarily difficult conditions for 4 years, but wherever the next conflict occurs, our force must have adequate time to train if it is to be prepared.

And in this exceptional all-volunteer force, we must keep our retention levels up if we are to insure that our military will be able to succeed both now and in the next fight, which, of course, is very unpredictable.

H.R. 3159 is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of our troops and in support of our families.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher) control the time on my behalf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit offered by my friend, my colleague from California who has served with me through the years on the Armed Services Committee.

The ground forces of the United States in particular are being stretched and strained as never before. For instance, during the Second World War, those that were involved with active combat after 3 or 4 months at the most would be taken off line for rest and recoupment. The young men and young women today that are in Iraq are on point in combat and now are extended up to 15 months. I think this bill helps alleviate that point and helps keep the readiness at a higher level.

The stretching and straining of the ground forces, in particular the Army, will have a breaking point. We already know about the equipment shortage of nondeployed units. Why stretch these young people? Why not bring them home? This is a reasonable proposal, reasonable, and should be enacted into law. And, as the gentlelady from California points out, should there be any problem with any unit, there are waivers provided for in this legislation.

This is simple and straightforward. It is about protecting our military readiness, it is protecting the health of the troops and, by the way, helping those families recoup with their loved ones as they come back home with predictability, knowing when they will be home and knowing when they will be due to be deployed once again.

So I find myself having to vote against this motion to recommit for all those reasons: the families, the troops, and the need for predictability; and I compliment the gentlelady on this proposal to bring about predictability for our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

As a conferee on this legislation, I worked on a number of provisions that strengthen U.S. nonproliferation and threat reduction programs, which the 9/11 Commission emphasized must be a top priority given the threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and terrorism pose to the American people.

I am particularly pleased that the bill strengthens the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which is an important tool for interdicting illicit transfers of WMD. The bill will help to expand PSI-cooperation with our allies and strategic partners; ensure that the PSI has the necessary budget, resources and structures; and enable Congress to exercise greater oversight of PSI activities.

I also strongly support the bill provision that establishes a high- level coordinator for preventing WMD proliferation and terrorism. This new coordinator will ensure that the U.S. strategy, budget, programs and initiatives, and interagency action are comprehensive and well- coordinated, and will provide leadership that has been lacking and is critical to the effectiveness of U.S. nonproliferation and threat reduction efforts.

Finally, I am pleased that the bill repeals limits on Cooperative Threat Reduction Program assistance, which have impeded the effectiveness of this Department of Defense program in past years; authorizes funding to strengthen and expand Cooperative Threat Reduction and Department of Energy nonproliferation programs; and includes other measures to counter the threat that WMD proliferation and terrorism poses to the American people.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Our government has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people. By implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, we are taking real steps to close security gaps and provide a secure future for all Americans.

Madam Chairman, from the time I was young, I was taught that a farmer's livelihood depends on two things: the weather and the markets. While the government can't control the weather, federal Farm Bills provide an invaluable safety net, bringing a level of stability to commodity markets that helps farmers stay in business, make plans for the future, and continue to feed America and the world.

The 2007 Farm Bill would ensure farmers have economic stability by continuing the direct payment program and by keeping in place a strong safety net that allows producers to recoup some of their losses when agricultural markets collapse. The bill would give farmers the option of participating in the counter-cyclical initiative that was created in 2002 or in a new, revenue-driven program.

At the same time, the legislation would make historic reforms by prohibiting those who earn more than $1 million in annual adjusted gross income from receiving federal agricultural subsidies, by closing loopholes that have allowed some people to avoid payment limits, and by re-balancing loan rates. These changes in current programs would free up additional revenue for the safety net and for the bill's investments in conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy.

The Farm Bill would make conservation a top priority by increasing funding and access to conservation programs that preserve farmland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat. Missouri is a very conservation friendly state, and the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, among others, have allowed farmers to more easily address conservation problems and comply with expensive, but important, environmental regulations.

By extending and improving the food stamp program and making a strong commitment to other nutrition initiatives, the 2007 Farm Bill would promote the health of the American people and help families in need. The measure would also renew our commitment to rural development, agricultural research, forestry and energy. Important to Missouri's corn and soybean producers, it would authorize $2 billion in loan guarantees for biorefineries to help finance the cost of developing and constructing renewable fuel facilities. In Saline County, I have witnessed the overwhelming success of Mid-Missouri Energy's ethanol production plant. I am hopeful this bill will foster similar success stories in Missouri and across our land.

Also important to Missourians, the Farm Bill would continue price supports for dairy farmers and create programs for fruit producers. It would also require that all meat sold to American consumers have a country-of-origin label beginning in September 2008. The measure retains the current prohibition on creating a national animal identification to verify the animal's country-of-origin.

I praise Chairman Collin Peterson and other members of the Agriculture Committee for producing a good bipartisan bill. I support it, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and ask them to defeat any attempt to strip away the meaningful safety net included in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of General Wayne A. Downing.

General Downing was born May 10, 1940, in Peoria, Illinois, son of Francis Wayne ``Bud'' and Eileen Downing. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1962 with a Bachelor of Science degree. In 1971 he received a Master's degree in Business Administration from Tulane University.

General Downing served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as an infantry officer in Vietnam. Later, he served a second combat tour in Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division.

During the 1989 operation JUST CAUSE in Panama, General Downing commanded the special operations of all services as a general officer. Additionally, during Operation DESERT STORM he commanded a joint special operations task force behind the Iraqi lines.

General Downing spent time at Fort Bragg, N.C., serving as Commanding General, United States Army Special Operations Command.

In May of 1993, General Downing received his appointment as Commander in Chief of the United States Special Operations Command, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. In this position, he was responsible for the readiness of all special operations of the Army, Navy and Air Force. In 1996, after 34 years in service, he retired from the military.

General Downing was appointed by the President soon after his military retirement to assess the 1996 attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. He served on the National Commission on Terrorism from 1999-2000. As Deputy National Security Advisor for combating terrorism, he served the White House in 2001. Two years later, General Downing was appointed as the Chairman of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

General Downing's awards and decorations include two Distinguished Service Medals, two Silver Stars, four Legions of Merit and the Purple Heart.

Madam Speaker, General Downing was an incredible leader who served our country with outstanding dedication. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife, Kathryn Bickerman Downing; two daughters, Elizabeth Revell, and Laura Downing; six stepchildren; his mother, Eileen Downing; a sister; and four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 533, I call up the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.

Mr. Speaker, out of all of this Iraq business, there's one star, and that star, as every American should know and appreciate, is the young American in uniform. That is the purpose of this legislation, and I take this opportunity to compliment those who serve our country wherever they may be, those in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world or here within our United States. I'm proud of them. And they are our stars.

Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged in Iraq since March of 2003. And in hearing discussion on the rule, it's obvious that some people wish to confuse the effort in Afghanistan with the effort in Iraq. They are separate and distinct.

The war in Afghanistan is something that we needed to do. The Taliban government gave sanctuary to the al Qaeda terrorists in that country of Afghanistan, and we did the right thing by going in there.

The war in Iraq is one of choice. There have been discussions and difficulty and debate over how we got there, but we are there. But people should know that the insurgency in Iraq and the subsequent sectarian violence between the Shiite and Sunni is a different and distinct war from that in Afghanistan.

You know, in history, we learn from the past. Strategic mistakes have been made, and we're supposed to learn from that. And we have to go to our revolution in 1776, when the British General Howell did not follow up his victories against George Washington's troops on Long Island. Consequently, George Washington's troops were able to encamp at Valley Forge and later attack successfully Trenton and New Jersey. That was a strategic mistake that allowed our revolution to be successful.

Lee's invasion of the north, the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg, were strategic mistakes of the Confederacy.

And, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we have seen not only strategic mistakes in Iraq, we have seen irretrievable strategic mistakes; no plan for the aftermath, the initial victory, the number of troops was not as General Shinseki recommended, far too few; the unguarded caches of weapons and ammunition, allowing the insurgency to have free access to them; the dismissal of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a pay check and a shovel, the closing of the Iraqi industries, the deBaathification, which put thousands of people out of work, including thousands of school teachers. These irretrievable mistakes made it very difficult for us to have any sort of positive success in that country.

We hear the call, well, wait until September. There'll be another report. Well, we have been in Iraq for four Septembers. There is the old song that those of us with a little gray in our hair remember as the September song. And one line from that song of yesteryear, ``we haven't got time for the waiting game.'' That's where we are now. We don't have time for the waiting game.

The purpose of this is a matter of readiness. It's a matter of national security. It's a matter that we must face now, or else the strain and stretch on our ground forces, particularly the Army and, of course, the Marines, will be beyond repair for many, many years.

It's a matter of strategic importance that we redeploy from Iraq in a responsible manner, and that's what this bill does. And we are able to keep our forces strong.

We never know what's going to happen. The last 30 years, we've had 12 military contingencies in which our Armed Forces have been engaged, four

of which have been major in size; none of them predictable. We don't know what the future holds. But for national security interests, we need to have a ready force, particularly our ground forces, which are being strained so very much now.

Further, it is important that we pass the security of Iraq over to the Iraqi government and to the security forces of that country. We cannot hold their hand forever. They must step up to the plate and take over their own security. It's important that that happen.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, initially sets forth a sense of Congress that the authorization for use of military force against Iraq was enacted into law in October of 2002, and that the government of Iraq that was in power at that time has been removed and it's leader tried, convicted and executed by a freely elected government of Iraq; and further, that the government of Iraq, the current government of Iraq does not pose a threat to the United States, and for more than 4 years, the efforts of our Armed Forces have been valiant in their work and in their combat in that country.

We need a responsible redeployment. This legislation gives it to us. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of armed forces in that country beginning not later than 120 days after the date of enactment. It also states that such redeployment shall be complete to a limited presence which is spelled out in the bill, not later than April 1, 2008.

The question before us, are we, as a country, any safer now than we were when we went into Iraq in March of 2003? What has it done for the security of our country?

We see the sectarian violence, on top of the insurgency, the insurgency being aided by foreign fighters, many of them al Qaeda, and consequently, we know that the end must be done by the Iraqi security forces. That's what we are trying to do in this legislation; responsible redeployment of the American forces, cause the Iraqi troops and forces to take over their own security, and restore the readiness to our ground forces here in the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, my friend, my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Armed Services Committee, my friend and colleague, Mr. Andrews.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, a gentleman who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Courtney from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, my friend (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from California, member of the Armed Services Committee (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from the leadership, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Davis of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee and also a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, a friend, my colleague, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, a veteran of the war in Iraq and member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the

gentleman from Maryland, my friend and colleague (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I have, and I offer as part of the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter I just received dated July 12 from Lee H. Hamilton from the Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars, who is the national president thereof. And I will

read just part of it and not take any more time. But it says, ``Dear Ike, thank you for sharing H.R. 2956 on responsible redeployment from Iraq. The legislation outlines the right change in mission for U.S. forces in Iraq, and redeployment within a responsible time frame. It effectively outlines the functions of the residual force that would remain in Iraq after redeployment, and makes an important contribution by focusing on the need for an accounting of U.S. interests in both Iraq and the wider region.''

I offer this letter at this time.

Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.

Congressman Ike Skelton,

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ike: Thank you for sharing HR 2956 on responsible

redeployment from Iraq. The legislation outlines the right

change in mission for U.S. forces in Iraq, and redeployment

within a responsible timeframe. It effectively outlines the

functions of the residual force that would remain in Iraq

after redeployment, and makes an important contribution by

focusing on the need for an accounting of U.S. interests in

both Iraq and the wider region.

Beyond what is outlined in the bill, much needs to be done

in Iraq. The training of Iraqi Security Forces must be

intensified. An aggressive diplomatic offensive is urgently

needed to press for national reconciliation in Iraq, and to

advance stability in the region. And some measure of

consensus needs to be reached in the country--and between the

President and Congress--so that we can move forward with

unity of effort.

The American people want a responsible transition for U.S.

forces out of Iraq. This resolution provides that transition.

It is not perfect, but it moves our national debate forward.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Lee H. Hamilton.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina who is our distinguished majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my friend, the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my friend, my colleague, the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

I just heard the minority leader say that we are willfully ignoring the consequences of Iraq. That is what I'm talking about, the willful consequences of Iraq when I spoke a few moments ago about the stretch and the strain and the difficulty of gluing our Army and Marines back together again.

This is serious business. We have a readiness crisis due to our extended operations in Iraq. Readiness in the Army's combat units has fallen to a dangerous level. Half of the Army's active brigades are in combat, and the remaining units are preparing for deployment. Units preparing for combat do not have all of their assigned personnel or equipment when preparing for combat. Combat units are experiencing equipment shortfalls; and let me mention that we have lost over 2,000 trucks and Humvees, over 100 tanks and armored vehicles, and over 100 aircraft. Combat units' readiness is being sustained at the expense of nondeployed units through the use of emergency war stocks.

I am worried. My heart breaks because no one seems to be listening on the other side, and no one who is opposed to this legislation mentioned in this debate anything about the stretch and the strain on our ground forces of the United States. That concerns me. That is the willful ignoring of consequences of Iraq. Something must be done.

Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, spoke in a letter to me, which I read a few moments ago, endorsing this legislation as a responsible bill: We must do something, and it must be done today. This is serious business.

Let me salute the eloquence of my friend from California, Mr. Hunter. He asked us to wait until September. We have had four Septembers already in Iraq. And you know what? It reminds me, and maybe some of those who have a little gray in their hair, Mr. Speaker, will recall a song that was popular decades ago, and that line in that song, the September song, that says, we haven't got time for the waiting game. We don't have time for the waiting game.

This is the right time, the right measure, the right issue. It is right for our ground forces. It is right for those in uniform. It is right for their families. It is right for our country. We have been engaged in Iraq since March of 2003. We have threats yet unforeseen.

If we continue to strain our ground forces as they are, we will not be ready for them. Hopefully they never come, but as sure as God made little green apples, those threats will be there. That's the purpose of this. The readiness of our forces and the capability of what they need to do for us in the days ahead, that is our job under the Constitution, to raise and maintain. That's what we are doing.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I say that we need to pass this legislation. We need to do so to pass the responsibility back to the Iraqis, to keep our forces in a higher state of readiness, and to make sure that the future is all the more safer for those of us here in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just received the motion just a few moments ago, and I reserve a point of order against the motion now pending.

Mr. Speaker, let me make the official point of order, if I may.

I do insist on it as of this moment, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that the motion to recommit that was just handed to me moments ago, a motion to recommit with instructions, relates to electronic surveillance and is not germane to the bill in front of us, which deals with Iraq, and I claim the point of order that it is not germane and should be stricken.

Mr. Speaker.

The gentlelady is not addressing the point of order. She's giving a closing argument. I urge the Chair to rule that she must confine her remarks to the point of order that I have raised.

Mr. Speaker.

I urge the Speaker to have the lady confine her remarks to the point of order that is pending before the House.

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker.

I, again, urge the Chair to request the gentlelady to address the point of order, that this is not germane to the bill regarding Iraq that is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a ruling on my point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the outstanding military service and contributions to our country of Rear Admiral (Sel) Earl Lenell Gay, U.S. Navy, on the occasion of his completion of assignment as Director, Navy Congressional Liaison, U.S. House of Representatives.

A native of Atlanta, GA, RADM (Sel) Earl Gay is a 1980 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. After attending flight school, he earned his pilot wings of gold in 1981. During several tours, he commanded a fleet operational helicopter squadron and the Fleet Training Squadron for all SH-60 aircraft. Selected to major command, he served as Commanding Officer of the Amphibious Assault Carrier, USS Belleau Wood (LHA 3) from March 2003 to October 2004, participating in combat support operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Rear Admiral (Sel) Gay was selected to serve as Director, Navy House Liaison in December 2004. In this highly visible tour, he assisted in the passage of critical Navy budget legislation during the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. Additionally, he planned and led 29 Congressional Delegations (CODELs) across the globe that included meetings with various world leaders in support of America's national security policy. His counsel to me and other Members of the House has proved invaluable in articulating the Navy's vision to Congress.

Please join me and our colleagues in thanking Rear Admiral (Sel) Gay and his family for their tireless contributions to a grateful Nation and in wishing them the best in their future.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the exceptional service of Mr. David J. Rigby on the occasion of his retirement from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Mr. Rigby is a graduate of the University of Tennessee, where he majored in journalism, and the University of Oklahoma, where he completed a graduate program in mass communication. He also attended the Defense Information School in Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, and the Federal Executive Institute at Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mr. Rigby has a distinguished history of outstanding work and service to his country. A U.S. Air Force Public Affairs Officer, he saw combat duty in Vietnam as an advisor to the Vietnamese Air Force. He was also responsible for directing the news media relations for the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as ``Star Wars.'' Mr. Rigby has had multiple assignments in the Pentagon and also served on the Reagan White House transition team.

On October 1, 1998, Mr. Rigby began his most recent position as Chief of the Public Affairs Office in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. From the office's inception, he played a central role in forging the agency's image, shaping its mission, and spreading its message around the world. His talent and leadership helped change what the U.S. Combatant Commands expect of the agency and better prepared U.S. military bases to respond to disaster.

Please join me in sincerely thanking Mr. Rigby for his unwavering service to this country, and in wishing him the best in the future.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to recognize the exceptional service of Mr. David J. Rigby on the occasion of his retirement from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Mr. Rigby is a graduate of the University of Tennessee, where he majored in Journalism, and the University of Oklahoma, where he completed a graduate program in mass communication. He also attended the Defense Information School in Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana and the Federal Executive Institute at Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mr. Rigby has a distinguished history of outstanding work and service to his country. A U.S. Air Force Public Affairs Officer, he saw combat duty in Vietnam as an advisor to the Vietnamese Air Force. He was also responsible for directing the news media relations for the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as ``Star Wars.'' Mr. Rigby has had multiple assignments in The Pentagon and also served on the Reagan White House Transition team.

On October 1, 1998, Mr. Rigby began his most recent position as Chief of the Public Affairs Office in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. From the office's inception, he played a central role in forging the agency's image, shaping its mission, and spreading its message around the world. His talent and leadership helped change what the U.S. Combatant Commands expect of the agency and better prepared U.S. military bases to respond to disaster.

Please join me in sincerely thanking Mr. Rigby for his unwavering service to this country, and in wishing him the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

I strongly support H.R. 556, and I voted for it when it first came through House, passing by a vote of 423-0. I support the bill because it will protect the critical technologies and the critical infrastructure of this country by ensuring that these invaluable assets remain in friendly and responsible hands. In so doing, it strengthens our national security, and I think the bill makes many needed changes, especially by adding homeland security and critical infrastructure as essential elements to be considered for protection during national security investigations, and also by adding opportunities for congressional oversight in the process. In short, I'm in complete agreement with the intent of this bill.

I've been working with the chairman, however, to try and clarify some elements of the bill that may not make the intent of Congress fully clear. I believe that it is the intent of the Congress in this legislation to extend the current practice of seeking consensus in the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. This practice requires that transactions being reviewed and investigated by the committee must satisfy the concerns of all the agencies involved.

I believe that it is also Congress' intent under this legislation that the appropriate committees of the House, including all relevant committees with a jurisdictional interest in the outcomes of specific transactions under review, be kept informed by the executive branch.

And lastly, I believe that it's the intent of Congress in this legislation to require the executive branch to monitor and enforce the mitigation agreements imposed under this legislation to ensure compliance and to regularly review compliance with these mitigation agreements.

Well, I certainly thank the chairman. I agree that there is a technical change required in the bill to ensure that Congress' intent be followed. I note that one good opportunity for making this technical and clarifying change to this bill will come during the House-Senate conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. Will the chairman work with me to ensure that this technical and clarifying change can be made to this bill, including having it considered during the conference on the National Defense Authorization Act?

I thank my friend, my colleague from Massachusetts, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend and colleague, Marty Meehan, the chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I would like to thank him on behalf of the committee for his distinguished service to our country and to the men and women who wear the uniform.

Marty came to the House of Representatives in 1993 to represent the Fifth District of Massachusetts. He's worked tirelessly to encourage economic development in the area, to redevelop and maintain the military presence at Fort Devens, and to preserve over 10,000 acres of open space in Massachusetts.

Additionally, Marty was the lead Democrat sponsor of the Shays- Meehan-McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

Marty has served on the Armed Services Committee since coming to the House of Representatives in the early 1990s. Marty was the ranking member of the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee and has been an active member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, where Marty has had a strong interest in helping Reservists and Guardsmen in their transition from military to civilian life.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Marty has led a bipartisan investigation into the development of the Iraqi Security Forces. The product of this investigation, a report on subcommittee's findings and recommendations, was unanimously agreed upon and signed by every member of that subcommittee. The report seeks to present information for the public debate and recommends increased transparency into the training of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish Marty Meehan the best of luck as he leaves this institution to serve as the next chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and giving me this opportunity to memorialize and to remember a truly outstanding Missourian and American.

Bill Hungate was elected to Congress in 1964 and served until my class of 1976 arrived. Undoubtedly one of the most popular Members of this body, warm, jovial, a musician, he always had a good word and a cheery smile. He will be remembered for his work in Congress, but I think remembered most as a warm and decent human being.

After leaving Congress he became a Federal judge, and did quite well in that position. Whatever he did, he did well, as well as make friends and did an awful lot for our wonderful State of Missouri.

So I ask, Mr. Chairman, if we may pause for a moment of silence remembering the late Bill Hungate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairwoman of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy on oversight on Iraq funding.

Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you for your hard work in ensuring that funds spent in Iraq are properly overseen. Your bill on the floor today contains a section concerning the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that extends the authorities of that office.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which came out of the Armed Services Committee and passed the House on May 17, contained a provision with similar goals that I had worked out with Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I want to thank, first, the chairwoman for pursuing this issue so strenuously. Also, I want to express my appreciation that we were able to work out a way forward so that our two committees worked together on the issue, rather than pursuing separate paths.

Rather than contesting it at this time, the inclusion of this authorization language in the State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations bill, I rise to assure you that you will be involved in the Defense authorization conference on the SIGIR issue. I am glad that in return you have offered to drop your provision in conference on your bill so that together we can ensure that there is only one version of the language instead of competing versions.

I yield to the chairwoman for a response.

Let me sincerely thank the chairwoman. I do look forward to working with you on this issue. I think this is the right way to approach this, and I certainly appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, we are speaking about today and not 1983.

I have had the opportunity, since being a Member of Congress, to work in the area of professional military education. I must tell you it's important not just for American students, American leaders, American service personnel, but it's important for our friends and allies as well.

I have nothing but great respect, great respect for my friend, my colleague from Massachusetts. I know how strongly he feels in his beliefs. But I must say that we are doing the right thing by keeping this school going and going well.

We do not teach human rights abuse. This school bestows upon its students standards. It teaches them military art. It teaches them military-to-military relationships. It also instructs in the area of human rights.

I have been to Latin America several times. Three weeks ago, I travelled again to the region with Dr. Gingrey and Mr. Conaway, visited Colombia and Panama. There we met with President Uribe of Colombia, President Torrijos of Panama, and other senior military and political leaders. Without exception, the leaders of those countries touted the WHINSEC program in Georgia as an exceptional opportunity for their men and women in uniform to gain not only technical knowledge but a deeper understanding of human rights.

Furthermore, spending time in the United States gives them an opportunity to learn of American values, gives them the opportunity to make friends within the American military, with whom they will undoubtedly, in days and years ahead, will have the opportunity to work.

I spoke with our American commanders in the field. They reiterated what I have heard many times before. Individuals who have been trained at WHINSEC performed better on their missions in their host country than those who have not.

Our military commanders also cherished the relationships that they have built with their Latin American counterparts who participated in the program.

In addition to comprehending our military culture and its operations, the school of graduates often are promoted and rapidly rise through the ranks. They understand what it is to have American values, and they understand about human rights which are taught there. The message from everyone was simple: Please keep that school open.

Professional military education is so important, but it's also extremely important to allow our neighbors, our friends to the south. We can't forget them to participate in the professional military education of our country.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize Brigadier General John F. Kelly, United States Marine Corps. From August 2004 to June 2007, Brigadier General Kelly admirably served as the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

During his time in this position, Brigadier General Kelly created numerous successes for the Marine Corps mission. His keen knowledge and experience in Congressional affairs, combined with an increased emphasis on Congressional relationships, propelled the Commandant's strategy and vision. His leadership has enabled the Marine Corps to make tremendous progress during a period of sustained high operational tempo and unprecedented interest in Marine Corps activities.

Brigadier General Kelly is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, the School for Advanced Warfare, and the National War College. He has served in numerous command and staff positions over his 31 years as an officer in the Marine Corps and is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I wish Brigadier General Kelly and his family the best as he continues his distinguished service to our Nation in his next assignment as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. I am confident he will continue to exemplify the best that the Marine Corps has to offer and will superbly command our troops in the field.

Madam Speaker, our Nation recently commemorated the 65th Anniversary of the Battle of Midway. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of that battle and remember the Americans who lost their lives in the defense of a small island northwest of Hawaii.

Between June 4 and June 7, 1942, the United States Navy defeated a Japanese attack against the Midway Atoll in what has come to be called the Battle of Midway. The battle was a decisive victory for Americans and is widely regarded as the most important naval engagement of World War II and a critical turning point in the Pacific Theater.

During the battle, 307 Americans lost their lives. We remember the sacrifices made by those men. They gave their lives for the cause of freedom. Through their actions, the war was won and peace preserved. We will not soon forget them.

At this time, it is also important to pause to remember the contributions of the many thousands of American sailors who participated in the Battle of Midway and survived. They--like so many of their generation--were touched by the ravages of war and continue to wear their scars. We owe them a debt of gratitude we cannot soon repay except by remembering their struggle, honoring their sacrifice, and continuing to keep in our thoughts those Americans who maintain our Nation's tradition of military excellence by serving with valor and distinction today.