Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Vincent Farias. On February 21, 2008 Mr. Farias will be celebrated for his contributions to Burlington County at the Burlington County Republican Committee and Burlington County Republican Women's Annual Lincoln Day Dinner.

Perhaps one of the most gregarious and enthusiastic Edgewater Park residents, Vince Farias was always a proponent of action leading to results. A veteran schoolteacher, banker, and small business owner, Vincent served 6 years on the Edgewater Park Township Committee and as mayor in 1987 and 1991.

After first filling a vacant freeholder seat in 1991, Vince went on to serve 5 terms as a member of the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders. During that time, Vince was an advocate for the county's open space preservation work and redevelopment plans. One of his most notable projects included the creation and implementation of the NJ Transit Riverline Light Rail system, which made its debut in 2004. Since then, it has had a positive ripple effect on surrounding businesses and residential communities along the Delaware River.

Vince was also instrumental in creating the county's Veterans Military Service Medal. Through this project, several military assistance programs have been developed to help aid our area veterans.

In addition, Vince worked with the South Jersey Freeholder's Association and the New Jersey Association of Counties, where he served as president in 2002. Vince has also worked with the American Red Cross and the March of Dimes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for his leadership, commitment, and service to the public.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Martha Bark. On February 21, 2008, Mrs. Bark will be celebrated for her contributions to southern New Jersey at the Burlington County Republican Committee and Burlington County Republican Women's Annual Lincoln Day Dinner.

Martha Bark has dedicated a lifetime of service to our communities. A resident of Medford for over 40 years, Martha served on the township school board for 10 years and the township committee for 7 years. She was also appointed mayor and served two full terms.

Furthering her interest in serving the broad community, Martha was elected to the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders in 1984. Given her background in education and community preservation, she became the chairperson of the Water Quality Management Board and worked on several additional committees aimed at increasing open space. Martha served four consecutive terms and was appointed freeholder director for 2 years.

After her tenure as a freeholder, Martha went on to become a member of the New Jersey State Assembly for 2 years and finally, a member of the New Jersey State Senate in 1997. As a senator, she served on the Transportation and Economic Growth, Tourism, and Agricultural Committee, where she was elected chairperson. As a former business owner, it was natural for Martha to become a member of the Senate Community & Urban Affairs Committee and also a member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Outside public office, Martha has volunteered her time to various organizations. She was a member of the Burlington County Farmland Preservation Advisory Board and the Burlington County Open Space Advisory Board. Martha also sat on the Burlington County Family Services Board and was a member of the HB Industrial Village Conservancy Board of Trustees.

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for her leadership, commitment, and service to the public.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Larry Chatzidakis. On February 21, 2008, Mr. Chatzidakis will be celebrated for his contributions to Burlington County at the Burlington County Republican Committee and Burlington County Republican Women's Annual Lincoln Day Dinner.

Since 1985, Larry Chatzidakis has represented the best interests of Burlington County residents. He was first elected to the Mount Laurel Township Council and remained until 2000. Proving a valuable asset to the community, Larry was re-elected mayor four times and spearheaded numerous projects during his tenure. Residents may remember him most for his role in the construction of Laurel Acres Park. It has become a natural choice for Mount Laurel residents looking for recreation, with its many exercise trails, playground equipment, and sledding hill. Most recently, a veteran's memorial was added to the site to honor those who have served in our Armed Forces. In addition to his mayoral duties, Larry was elected to the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders in 1995.

From 1997-2008, Larry represented the 8th District as a member of the New Jersey State Assembly. He continued to offer his talents in the Assembly as a member of the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and as vice-chair of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee. As a conscientious elected public official, Larry took the concerns of his constituents to heart as he became a member of the Commission to Deter Criminal Activity and a member of the Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee.

No stranger to the community at large, Larry served on the board of the Burlington County Red Cross and was also chairman of the Burlington County Boy Scouts Mahalala District. He is also a member of the Mount Laurel Rotary Club for 17 years and served one term as president.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, it gives me great honor to recognize Larry Chatzidakis for his tremendous efforts and devotion to his community. I and the people of New Jersey are greatly appreciative of him and sincerely thank him for all of his dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 21-day extension to FISA. If Congress does not act this week, critical tools that allow our intelligence officials to monitor terrorist communications overseas will expire. We not let that happen!

As we all know, yesterday, the Senate approved a comprehensive, long term, bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29 to close the terrorist loophole in our intelligence laws. Their bill represents a strong compromise between Congress and the Administration. It is a responsible plan for protecting our nation against the threats of terrorism.

The intelligence community needs a long-term fix to gaps in our intelligence laws--not a 21-day delay. After 7 months of stalling and a 15-day extension, passage of another short-term extension is irresponsible, when we have a long-term solution ready to be voted on.

The Senate has passed a strong, bipartisan bill. The House must now act quickly to pass the Senate's bill and send it to the President. Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this extension, and instead immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this important bill to the President.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 976 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

(1) Strike ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it''

and insert the following:

``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

``Sec. 2. It''.

(2) Redesignate section 2 as section 3.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, some years ago as I was working to have a subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee established on terrorism, I was making the rounds among my party's leadership. I

made the case about why I thought we needed, and of course this was before 9/11, a subcommittee on terrorism. And I will never forget, one of my good friends told me that he thought, he said, Jim, he said, I think you and your friends see a terrorist behind every bush.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democratic majority leadership has adopted that same frame of reference. There is not a terrorist behind every bush, but they present a clear and present danger. We were told so as late as today by representatives of the Intelligence Committee.

Passing a 21-day extension simply continues the uncertainty in the intelligence community, the uncertainty in the telecommunications community, and uncertainty among the American public itself.

Just yesterday, as it has been said here several times, the Senate approved a comprehensive, long-term, bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29 to close the terrorist loophole in our intelligence laws. Their bill represents a compromise between Congress and the administration. It rightly restores the original intent of the FISA by ensuring that intelligence officials can conduct surveillance on foreign targets without a court order while still protecting the civil liberties of the American people. It also grants liability protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government after September 11. Allowing these companies to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits threatens their future cooperation, which could cripple America's counterterrorism efforts.

The Senate bill is a responsible plan for protecting our Nation against terrorist threats. Many times the Senate sends bills over here and they are very shortly passed by the House. The House must act quickly on the Senate's bill, as well, and send it to the President so he can sign it. Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our country and American citizens.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5349 and instead immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this important bill to the President.

There may not be, Mr. Speaker, a terrorist behind every bush, but they, today, present a clear and present danger.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his kind remarks and great description, I might add, of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I obviously rise in strong support of H.R. 1834 and am very pleased that it's here under this bipartisan arrangement. It authorizes both the Ocean Exploration and National Undersea Research Programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, about 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored. This vast area teems with undiscovered species and natural and cultural resources. On virtually every expedition, oceanographers and explorers make fascinating new discoveries. Hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, numerous new species, and important archeological sites are but a few of the important discoveries made in the past 30 years.

Consequently, the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation should lead and expand our national ocean exploration and undersea research programs.

I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 1834. I'm proud that it's a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I'm proud that it promotes implementation of the commission's recommendations.

This bill authorizes two important programs: the Ocean Exploration Program as well as the National Undersea Research Program, also known as NURP. The Ocean Exploration Program was created to investigate the oceans for the purpose of discovery and the advancement of knowledge. It is the NOAA program established to, first, explore and map the oceans unknown and poorly known living and nonliving resources and, second, to gain new insights about its physical, chemical, biological, and archeological characteristics.

Title I of the bill, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act, will create better coordination between NOAA and the National Science Foundation. The purposes of the act are to expand the ocean exploration to discover new marine substances that potentially have therapeutic benefits; to study the unique marine ecosystems, organisms, and the geology of the world's oceans; and to maximize ocean research effectiveness by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community.

A new element created by the legislation is an Ocean Exploration Advisory Board. The National Undersea Research Program is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. As the Federal agency responsible for managing living marine and coastal organisms, NOAA requires a presence beneath the sea and the Great Lakes to better understand the systems under its management. NURP provides NOAA with the unique capability to access the undersea environment. NURP also provides scientists with the tools and expertise they need to investigate the undersea environment, including submersibles, remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles, mixed gas diving gear, underwater laboratories and observatories.

Title II of the bill, the National Undersea Research Program Act of 2007, formally authorizes the National Undersea Research Program for the first time, and we're very proud of this. The legislation creates a competitive process for the extramural undersea research centers to encourage the very best undersea research program for the United States.

Both of these programs authorized in this legislation are core to the mission of NOAA. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to very sincerely thank my good friend from Missouri for his leadership in bringing this revised edition of the National Defense Authorization Act to the floor in an expedited manner. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position, but through Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter's leadership, we were able to find a mutually agreeable compromise in an expeditious manner.

On December 12, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act, as my good friend just pointed out, by a vote of 370-49. This amended version is a good bipartisan bill, with very few changes from the original legislation. In section 1083, we ensure terrorism victims have the legal redress against state sponsors of terrorism, while granting the President the waiver authority to protect our relationship with the new government of Iraq. This provision was the crux of the issue that brought this bill back to the House after we sent it to the President, and it's something that is near and dear to many of our hearts, and some of us worked very closely with Members of the other body, in particular Senator Lautenberg, over several years to bring the language that we had in the original bill to the attention of the House and inclusion in the NDAA bill.

The new version simply gives the President the ability to waive the totality of this pertinent section as to claims against Iraq for terrorism acts that occurred before or on the date of enactment of the fiscal year 2008 NDAA bill. As my good friend, Mr. Skelton, just pointed out, this is perhaps a better way to write this because certainly we can't or shouldn't hold the current government of Iraq responsible for things done by its predecessor, Saddam Hussein. And so this is a good compromise and a good effort. We also make some other provisions. We make the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise and targeted pay raises retroactive to ensure American servicemembers are not penalized due to this delay.

Overall, the defense bill takes care of the brave men and women serving our country at home and abroad. It authorizes $506.9 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, it supports current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism by authorizing $189.4 billion in supplemental funding for operational costs, personnel expenses, and procurement of new equipment for fiscal year 2008.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton and Ranking Member Duncan Hunter for their hard work in shepherding this vital legislation expeditiously through their chamber. Through their work, this bill guarantees that our service men and women will get what they need, and when they need it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

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

I would just like to say to my friend from Cleveland, who speaks very articulately on this bill, as I am sure he did on the original bill, the gentleman made some points that he believes I am sure very much that there

are some things in the bill that he disagrees with, and the gentleman and 48 other people voted against the original bill, and I am sure for many of the same reasons.

In fact, it would be surprising if they weren't the same reasons, because the 1,513 pages that the gentleman has under his arm that he referred to are almost identical to the original bill which is here, which has been available since December 6 of last year. And the 1,513 pages that my friend referred to had one single change from the copy that I have in my hand that has been available since December 6. And that change, both the ranking member and I took care to explain, I think we explained it well, had to do with terrorism, had to do with Iraq, had to do with not holding the current government in Iraq responsible for acts committed by the previous regime. And we also of course added the second provision that had to do with back pay.

So, this is a good bill that passed by 370-49 previously.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by very, very sincerely thanking my good friend from Missouri, Chairman Skelton, for the great leadership that he has provided in the months past in writing the original version and then shaping the bill and then using his steady hand to guide us through the conference, of course with the help of my good friend, Ranking Member Duncan Hunter. Both of these leaders provided great direction for us, and I might say that the product of their work is here today. I agree with the chairman, that this is a very, very good bill, and I am very fortunate to be able to stand here today to say how important I think it is that we all support it.

Unfortunately, Ranking Member Hunter could not be here today, but I know he is very proud of this conference report as well. I'd like to thank all of the subcommittee chairmen and their ranking members for their hard work and leadership. It is responsible for almost 1,500 pages that this bill contains. And the staff that helped make this a reality, obviously Members would not have been able to be here today if it were not for them either.

This is a good, bipartisan bill. Last Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee filed this conference report after an overwhelming majority of conferees signed the report. Seldom in my career here have I seen this kind of agreement among Members on the bill. Our subcommittee chairmen and their ranking members will provide a detailed summary of the bill, so I will only highlight a few key areas.

Most importantly, this bipartisan bill takes care of the brave men and women serving our country at home and abroad. It authorizes $506.9 billion in budgetary authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, it supports current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism by authorizing $189.4 billion in supplemental funding for operational costs, personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment for fiscal year 2008.

This amount provides for end-strength growth in both the Army and the Marine Corps, continuing initiatives started several years ago by the Armed Services Committee, by authorizing increases of 13,000 Army and 9,000 Marine Corps active duty personnel to sustain our required missions.

Additionally, this conference report authorizes a 3.5 percent pay increase, as the chairman remarked earlier. These pay raises for all members of the Armed Forces for 2008 are extremely important.

We talk a lot about quality of life and here we're doing something about it. Some of the initiatives in this legislation continue successful, practical programs such as the Commander's

Emergency Response Program, which is working well in battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other initiatives reinforce good legislation that the House has already passed, such as the Wounded Warrior legislation to address the challenges that face our recovering servicemembers and their families. Still others modify existing authorities or establish promising new programs and new policies.

Some of the new programs and policies include these:

Providing $17.6 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, an armored vehicle which will save lives going forward; setting guidelines for all private security contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas where we have combat operations. And we know from recent news reports how important this provision is.

We also authorize eight additional C-17s to support the intratheater lift requirements and meet the airlift needs for the increased end strength in the Army and Marine Corps.

We added major acquisition reform initiatives, such as establishing new responsibilities for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and mandating that new acquisition programs be aligned with the missions of the Department and the competency and capability of the service proposing the program.

And finally, we acted to elevate the chief of the National Guard bureau to a four-star general and adopted many of the recommendations of the Commission on National Guard and Reserve Corps.

Just as importantly, this legislation avoids contentious language, such as the hate crimes provision, which would have put our bill at risk of a Presidential veto. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, whose hard work in shepherding this vital legislation through the conference has guaranteed that our servicemen and women will get what they need, and they will get it when they need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Chesapeake, Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hagerstown, Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rehoboth, Alabama (Mr. Everett), the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, Mr. McHugh.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel, Mr. Kline.

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to say a word on behalf of the Air Land Subcommittee. I want to first thank our great subcommittee chairman, Mr. Abercrombie, the gentleman from Hawaii, for his outstanding work and for his great cooperation on our subcommittee.

The major highlights of the Air Land Subcommittee's portion of this bill provide aircraft providing multiyear procurement authority for the CH-47 helicopter program; ensures continued development of two options for the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter; authorizes $2.3 billion for eight badly needed C-17 aircraft; and allows the Air Force to proceed with their request to divest 24 C-130E and 85 KC-135E aircraft. These retirements will greatly help the Air Force. The aircraft are grounded or are unable to be used in combat operations.

The land forces under our subcommittee benefited from several areas of upgraded armor: the mine resistant ambush protected MRAP vehicles; the up-armored Humvees; the body armor that we provide in the IED fragment armor kits are very important elements of the bill. We also authorized $3.4 billion for the Army's future combat systems.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense continues to have acquisition directives that are rarely followed. This is not a good thing. Requirements for advancement through research and development to procurement, these provisions are routinely waived by the Department of Defense. It is hard to know if acquisition policies actually work if we rarely follow them.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report takes steps to address some of these issues, and I am encouraged by some of the things that I have recently seen and heard coming from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report supports our military men and women and provides them with the equipment they need while at the same time taking steps to redress acquisition concerns of Congress. This conference report certainly in this regard deserves all of our support.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman as to how many additional speakers he has.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First let me, again, sincerely thank Chairman Skelton for the great job that he has done here bringing us to the floor with this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan used to say that all of the things that Congress does are important and all the programs that we fund are great programs and important programs. But then he would say, ``But none of that really matters much if we don't have a good system to protect the American people and our national security.'' I have kept that in mind ever since I was a freshman here, because that was when I heard him say that.

I believe that this bill today carries on that same kind of tradition, because we work together as Republicans and Democrats, understanding that we have a finite amount of money and resources to put toward our national security, and therefore it's incumbent upon us to do it the best way we can.

We do face a multitude of threats to our way of life and our national security interests, and as legislators, we therefore must accept that it is our responsibility to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have the best available tools at their disposal to combat those threats and protect those interests.

The provisions of this bill go a considerable way in demonstrating that kind of support. And so I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I happen to believe that this motion to instruct is extremely important. I think it is extremely important for two reasons. First, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, this provision provides instruction to authorize the full $192 billion supplemental for the war spending bill without strings or date certain to withdraw American forces from Iraq. I think that is important. And I will say why a little bit later here. But I also I think it

is important to recognize, as this provision also does, that there are consequences for not carrying out our actions in Iraq and in other places in the world, for that matter, in a responsible fashion.

This measure instructs the House conferees to accept a provision that has already been passed by the Senate. It is known as provision 1536 which states that it is the sense of Congress that a failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and others, who are determined to attack the United States here at home and our allies.

Let me speak to the first point to say why I think it is important that we go forward to authorize the full $192 billion supplemental war spending bill. All of us should be students of history, particularly recent history. I know that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is a great historian himself. But recent events I think are extremely important. Perhaps some of our colleagues here have not watched this as closely as perhaps some of us on the Armed Services Committee, but as we saw progress begin to take place in Iraq, many of us asked why. And I think it was universally accepted that one of the reasons was that the Sunni tribal leaders, for a couple of reasons, I believe, began to cooperate with our forces and our personnel who are there. One reason was in their own self-interest. They recognized that the time of wishing each other, that is Sunnis and Shias ill, was drawing to a close because the Iraqi people themselves were tired of the violence. So just like any of our neighbors here would be tired of violence under those circumstances, the Iraqis grew tired of it as well.

But the second reason I believe we began to make the progress that we see today is very simply that the Iraqi people became convinced, in spite of many days of rhetoric on this floor, became convinced that we weren't going to leave them, that we were going to stay and finish the job. And so the commitment that would be expressed by the passage of this language I think is extremely important.

But I also think it is important to recognize that the provision notes that a failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional conflict. There was a lot of talk here this morning on this floor and yesterday in the news media about the state of Iran, and why was it that in 2003 we now believe that they discontinued their effort to create nuclear weapons. Could it have been something that happened in their neighborhood? Could it have been the determination that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines showed next door in Iraq? And could it be that the Iranian leadership recognized that there were actions that they needed to take in their best interest which perhaps included the discontinuation of their effort to create nuclear weapons?

Senate provision 1536 concludes by stating that the Congress should commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq, that will continue the progress that we have seen in recent months and should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Joseph M. Laufer. On November 29, 2007, Mr. Laufer will receive the 2007 Lloyd Ritter Community Service Award on behalf of the Volunteer Center of Burlington County, NJ.

In 1997, Mr. Laufer retired as an associate dean at Burlington County College after 27 years of tireless service. Yet, he has continued to reach out and dedicate his time to the residents of Burlington County. Some of his recent activities include maintaining and updating the Southampton Township website and assisting a local fire relief company in obtaining a preservation grant. He has also served as a member of the Jack Allen Early Country Living Museum, the Roebling Main Gate Museum, the Rancocas Valley Tourism Association, the Burlington County Historical Society, and he volunteers at the Holy Eucharist Parish in Tabernacle.

In addition, Mr. Laufer does not shy away from providing valuable leadership to area organizations. He was appointed the Burlington County Historian in 2003 and elected president of the H.B. Smith Industrial Village Conservancy, the director of alumni relations for the Lenape High School District, and finally, was a past president of the Southampton Historical Society and Library Board.

Madam Speaker, the Burlington County community has truly benefited from Mr. Laufer's experience. As he is honored by the Volunteer Center of Burlington County for this very special award, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for his desire to utilize his talents for the greater good and enduring commitment to improving the lives of those around him.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend, Jane Maloney, the 2007 recipient of the Hope Award. This great honor, awarded annually by the Caregiver Volunteers of Central Jersey, recognizes a member of the community who has demonstrated outstanding dedication to the area's senior population. I am so pleased that this year's honor is bestowed upon Jane.

Jane has served as the director of the Ocean County Office of Senior Services since 2004, and was formerly the assistant to the director for 15 years. During this time, Jane has been a dedicated, tireless advocate for the seniors of Ocean County, NJ. She was one of 58 Americans to serve on the National Advisory Committee for the 1981 White House Conference on Aging, and was also a delegate to the 1995 and 2005 White House Conferences on Aging. Additionally, Jane is an active member of the New Jersey Association of Area Agencies on Aging, as well as other committees with common goals of improving the quality of life for older adults, and has been a long-time supporter of the Interfaith Volunteer Caregiver Initiative.

Jane and I have had the pleasure of working together over the past two decades on a variety of issues of importance to the seniors of Ocean County. Throughout this time, we have collaborated on many important initiatives, and it is always with great interest and appreciation that I learn of the valuable work she is doing.

These details are just a few of the reasons Jane Maloney is a deserving recipient of the 2007 Hope Award. I wholeheartedly congratulate her on this great honor, and look forward to our continued work together on behalf of Ocean County's senior population.

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

First, let me thank and commend the gentleman from West Virginia for expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 634, urging the establishment of a National Hunting and Fishing Day.

Since the founding of our Republic more than 230 years ago, hunting and fishing have been woven into the very fabric of our cultural heritage. There is no question that sportsmen are among the foremost supporters of sound wildlife management and the conservation of our natural resources.

In fact, without the billions of dollars that have been paid by sportsmen in excise taxes and duck stamp fees, it is likely that President Theodore Roosevelt's vision of a national wildlife refuge system would never have been achieved. Today, that system is comprised of more than 96 million acres, and more than 90 percent of those Federal lands are open to the 42 million Americans who hunt and fish.

It is appropriate that we designate a National Hunting and Fishing Day and that we celebrate on October 9, the 10th anniversary of the National Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997. This historic law, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and myself, has the fundamental purpose of working to ensure that the American people have the finest refuge system in the world and the ability to hunt and fish on lands they largely purchased with their hard-earned dollars. It is achieving that goal that I believe is very, very important.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 186. House Concurrent Resolution 186 recognizes Brookgreen Gardens in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, in honor of the 75th anniversary of its opening to the public.

In 1931, Archer and Anna Hyatt Huntington founded Brookgreen Gardens to preserve the natural flora and fauna and to display objects of art within that natural setting.

Today, Brookgreen Gardens is a Natural Historic Landmark and contains more than 550 works from American artists in what was the country's first public sculpture garden.

The Gardens also offer a nature and historical preserve, small zoo, and a nature exhibition center. To honor the 1932 opening of the Brookgreen Gardens to the public, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Additionally, I would like to recognize the strong efforts of Congressman Henry Brown for his persistence and diligent work in bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an extraordinary gentleman whom I have known personally for two decades. On September 15, 2007, Dr. Robert Messina, Jr. will be celebrated for his 20 years of Visionary Leadership at the Burlington County Community College in Mount Laurel, NJ.

Dr. Messina has been instrumental in the expansion of the Burlington County College community. While upgrading and constructing new buildings at the main campus in Pemberton, Dr. Messina saw an opportunity to truly push the College to the next level. He was steadfast in obtaining land for a brand-new, state-of-the-art second campus, located in Mount Laurel. The College and local community has enjoyed the use of six permanent buildings, including a corporate training facility and conference center, known as The Enterprise Center.

The College has expanded not only physically, but academically, as well. Dr. Messina implemented stimulating new programs that keep trend with today's industry demands. This new curriculum boasts Digital Media and Graphic Design, Biotechnology, Human Services, and several information technology certification programs that firmly cement Burlington County College as a leader in higher education for the twenty-first century.

To further reach out and benefit the surrounding Southern New Jersey community, Dr. Messina devotes his free time to the betterment of his neighbors. In the past, he has served on the national, regional, and local levels. He currently sits on the boards for the Deborah Heart & Lung Center, the Virtua Hospital Audit/Corporate Compliance Committee, and is a member of the Virtua Ambulatory Board. Nationally, Dr. Messina served two terms as the President of COMBASE, a Cooperative for the Advancement of Community-Based Postsecondary Education, and is a former board member of the American Association of Community Colleges.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Messina's infectious enthusiasm and abiding loyalty to his students is only surpassed by his genuine desire to embrace and enhance the community around him. As he celebrates 20 years of Visionary Leadership at Burlington County College, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for his leadership, commitment, and service.

Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding. And let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, Chairman Tom Lantos, for the great high level of cooperation that was exhibited on this resolution on a bipartisan basis with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and others. And also, let me acknowledge the great support of my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, on the resolution.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 508, obviously, which recognizes the strong security alliance between Japan and the United States and expresses appreciation for Japan's role in enhancing stability in the Asia-Pacific region in combating terrorism, and specifically in Japan's very significant contribution toward global missile defense.

I am pleased to highlight our special relationship with Japan following World War II. Our alliance has served as a valuable conduit allowing the United States to achieve our security goals throughout East Asia. This dynamic nation is the world's second largest economy, one of our top trading partners, provides 600,000 U.S. jobs, and is actively engaged with many other democracies.

Our two countries have encountered similar challenges and fought shared threats while working to guarantee political and economic freedoms for our citizens and for many others. This goal of spreading democracy-based prosperity became particularly evident following the events of September 11. Following these deplorable acts, Japan readily provided support for U.S. and allied forces. Their effort included invaluable maritime operations in the Indian Ocean, aircraft to conduct support missions for our troops in Iraq, and logistical support that even continues to this very day. These actions reveal Japan's dedication to eradicating the destruction caused by sponsors of terrorism. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Forces have provided roughly 30 percent of the fuel used by U.S. and coalition warships. They are the third largest donor in country for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan, and they have provided billions of dollars for reconstruction in Iraq, and Japan continues to renew the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law that allows for these activities to take place.

I applaud them for recognizing that the international threats of terror will require the cooperation of the world's strongest democracies to effectively combat the growing capabilities and support systems of terrorist organizations.

Our strategic relationship extends beyond Japan's involvement in the Middle East. Japan offers financial and material resources to the U.S.- deployed forces, 50,000 of which are stationed in the country.

Several years ago, our two countries agreed to redefine and strengthen the missions of both of our military forces. My resolution mentions examples of this coordination by reducing the number of troops in Okinawa and expanding the cooperation of ballistic missile defense.

Once again, I want to reiterate my thanks to Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their assistance in bringing this to the floor today.