Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge my friend Jimmy Scurlock, who is retiring from 25 years of public service to the town of Dover, Tennessee, which I am proud to represent in this chamber.

Jimmy has served as City Administrator in Dover since 1983 and also currently serves on the board of Local Government Data Processing. He was elected to two terms on the Tennessee Municipal League Board of Directors and served as President of the Tennessee City Management Association in 2001 and 2002. He was honored statewide last year when he was elected city manager of the year by the Tennessee City Management Association.

Over the years, Jimmy has been instrumental in enacting the infrastructure improvements that we know are so important for our families' quality of life and to support economic growth. Jimmy has worked closely with others to upgrade Dover's water and sewage facilities and revitalize the downtown business district. I am proud of the progress made in Stewart County over the years, and I know our families there will continue to see the benefits of Jimmy's hard work.

Before Jimmy became City Administrator, he was associated with his mother Mary Ann in the family's florist business. Many of us who have known the family for years know that Jimmy inherited his flair for public service from his father, the late J.T. Scurlock, who represented a portion of northern middle Tennessee in the Tenessee General Assembly with distinction for a number of years. Betty Ann and I have had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with Jimmy and his wife Nan as Jimmy and our friend Don Cherry have been among my closest advisers in northern middle Tennessee. We have frequently turned to Jimmy and Don for leadership and guidance in working with the people of Stewart County.

Madam Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me in thanking Jimmy Scurlock for his long service to our community and State and wish him and his family all the best as he begins his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I think I speak for a lot of us when we say that we welcome an intellectually honest debate on the issues that we are charged with confronting on behalf of the American people. And a discussion about the pros and cons of the provisions of the bill, I think, is in order. This is the place to do that.

When one talks about, though, ancillary matters, like whether or not this

violates PAYGO, that's why I come down here today.

Let me tell you something. Neither party is always right and neither party is always wrong. But we don't need to embarrass ourselves by trying to belittle those of us who are trying to pay the bills.

The fact is, during the first six years of this decade, the people who are criticizing the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Caucus for a PAYGO rule, sat here and helped this President borrow more money from foreign sources than all 42 before him combined. You don't have to believe that. That's not an argument. You can go to the U.S. Treasury Web site and look at it and see for yourself.

So if we want to talk about the relative merits of the legislation, we welcome that, and we want to talk about that. And we won't always vote alike. We won't always vote with the Democratic Caucus, some of us that are Democrats, because neither party's always right or always wrong.

But to come here and criticize us for somehow saying we're violating PAYGO; first of all, there's an unemployment tax that employers pay for this very purpose, and it will fill up the coffers again in time.

But don't come here with that, because I think that is not only demeaning and misleading, but embarrassing to some people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Dr. Paul E. Gallis, specialist in European Affairs with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Gallis is retiring on July 3, 2008, after serving the Nation for approximately 28 years in various positions at CRS, in the Senate, and in the State Department. In particular, Dr. Gallis served the Congress for 24 years as an expert in and objective observer of European security affairs. He has been the institutional memory of Congress on vital transatlantic political and security issues spanning multiple Congresses, several U.S. administrations, and key events in foreign policy. He has been an especially valued resource to Members and committees in Congress on all matters relating to the NATO alliance and relations with our European allies.

Dr. Gallis started working at CRS in June 1984 as an analyst in West European affairs. He came to CRS after working for 3 years in the office of Senator Joseph Biden as a policy advisor and speech writer. Before that, he served as a special assistant to Ambassador Rozanne Ridgway at the Department of State. Dr. Gallis received an M.A. and Ph.D. in European history at Brown University, and a B.A. in history and French from Davidson College. He studied at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris, France.

Dr. Gallis quickly emerged as a leading CRS expert on European security affairs. His early work focused on vital and often controversial cold war-era security issues such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, and allied responses; the conventional arms balance in Europe; and policy issues surrounding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force, INF, Treaty. With the end of the cold war, Dr. Gallis's work incorporated significant changes in the transatlantic relationship, turning to burdensharing issues surrounding the first Persian Gulf war, as well as international diplomacy leading to Germany's unification.

Throughout his career at CRS, Dr. Gallis served as an authority on NATO political affairs and the allied relationship. He produced numerous timely reports on NATO's missions and institutional processes, including alliance partnership programs and enlargement. He led or coordinated important studies on NATO's emerging operational challenges in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Over the telephone and in person, Dr. Gallis frequently shared his expertise on these difficult issues with tact and judgment. His work informed thousands of Members and staff in congressional offices over the years as they grappled with the complex foreign policy and security issues of the day in hearings, legislative initiatives, and ongoing consultations with U.S. and foreign officials. In all of his work, Dr. Gallis upheld an unswerving commitment to the core CRS mission of supporting an informed national legislature with nonpartisan research and analysis.

In addition to the above, Dr. Gallis spent several years at CRS handling managerial duties as head of the Europe, Middle East, and Africa section of the Foreign Affairs Division. In this capacity he supervised the work of many CRS analysts and instilled in them his high standard of work and professionalism. He represented the Library of Congress at the National War College in 1991-1992.

I got to know Dr. Gallis personally in the context of his many years of intensive work with Congressional delegations to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. For the past several years, Dr. Gallis has been asked to serve as lead policy staff for delegations to the regular meetings of the NPA. In this capacity he has taken on yeoman's work in coordinating preparatory research analysis for delegation

members, directing staff support for the NPA working sessions, and providing essential on-site expertise to Members. Paul has been an invaluable resource to me and the other Members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. His knowledge of the issues facing the United States in regards to our relationship with our European allies is immeasurable and he is a truly valued resource to us in our discussions at these meetings. It goes without saying that he will be sorely missed by all the participants in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings both here and abroad.

On behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I want to express my deep appreciation to Paul Gallis for his long service to the Congress and especially for his direct assistance to the United States Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I will regret his absence in future NPA meetings but wish him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, during the recent district work period I led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) meetings in Berlin, from May 23-27. The co-chair of my delegation was the Hon. John Shimkus. Participating in the delegation were Representatives Marion Berry, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Jo Ann Emerson, Carolyn McCarthy, Ralph Regula, Dennis Moore, David Scott, and Mike Ross, and staff worked to make this a successful trip in the examination of a number of key NATO issues.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly brings together members of parliaments of the NATO allies, as well as observer participants from NATO partner states such as Russia and Ukraine, for discussions of current issues of interest to the alliance. Members attend committee meetings where reports are read and debated. The meetings afford an opportunity to sound parliamentarians from allied states on public opinion, defense and foreign policy, and trends in thinking on issues of mutual interest. The meetings also provide the opportunity to come to know members of parliaments on a long-term basis, an invaluable asset in developing insights into policy development in allied governments.

After the Assembly meetings in Berlin, the delegation traveled on to Turkey and Afghanistan, where we explored issues that I will address in a moment.

Recurrent themes on key NATO issues were evident in the Berlin committee meetings. Above all, NATO's International Security

Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan was a constant topic of discussion. It is clear that ISAF needs more combat personnel, and that caveats--restrictions that allies place on the use of their forces--are adversely affecting efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Energy security, Russia's foreign policy objectives, defense capabilities, and Iran were also important areas of discussion.

I am chairman of the NPA's Committee on Economics and Security. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that our friend and colleague, Ralph Regula, continued his long and distinguished service on that committee during the Berlin meetings. His contributions over many years have been invaluable.

Representative Boozman and a Lithuanian colleague presented a well- received report in the Economics Committee on India's economy. India plays an important role in south Asia, and U.S.-Indian relations have strengthened over the past decade. India's proximity to Afghanistan and its often tense relations with Pakistan play a role in the stabilization of that volatile area. The Indian economy has opened up in recent years, and there is clear evidence of a growing middle class in the world's largest democracy. There was also a report on the Afghan economy, which must grow and diversify more rapidly if Afghanistan is to stabilize. The report emphasized the negative effects of Afghanistan's extensive poppy culture and poor governance on ISAF's stabilization efforts.

Our friend and former colleague, Doug Bereuter, who was once president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, gave an interesting presentation on the efforts of the Asia Foundation, which he now heads, to assist schools and women in Afghanistan and other parts of Asia. His report, a version of which he also presented in the Political Committee, was enlightening and extremely well-received.

The Political Committee is normally the most contentious of the Assembly's committees, and that was once again true. As I mentioned, Russia sends observers to the Assembly who may participate in debates, but who may not vote. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a former Russian general and candidate for the Russian presidency, is now a member of parliament, and he made his presence frequently felt. He repeatedly denounced NATO and its efforts to stabilize the Balkans and Afghanistan as ``terrorist'' incursions in Russia's supposedly legitimate sphere of influence. The Russian delegates have chosen during the past several years to play a disruptive role in Assembly proceedings.

Representative Ross delivered a well-received report in the Political Committee on ``NATO and Iran,'' which looked forward prospectively to ways that the alliance might work with the EU and the U.N. to induce Tehran to terminate its nuclear enrichment program that is in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. His ideas ranged from political pressure to greater economic sanctions to carrots in the form of limited military confidence-building measures in return for a cessation of Iran's illegitimate nuclear activities. I should mention that Representative Chandler is a vice-chairman of the Political Committee, and he played an active role in a number of sessions.

The Committee on Defense and Security also engaged in some interesting debates. ISAF's prospects in Afghanistan were sharply debated. The representatives of several allies, such as Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands that have combat forces in Afghanistan, urged other allies to contribute more troops and to lift their caveats. The debate was sharp at times. ISAF now has 52,000 troops, of which approximately 22,000 are from the United States. The Russians continued their erratic behavior in the Defense Committee, denouncing the allies' stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Rep. Shimkus is the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Defense and Security Cooperation, and he made several valuable interventions on such issues as the need for allies to spend more on defense, and on NATO's efforts to stabilize the Caucasus.

Two of our colleagues play key roles in the Assembly's Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security. Representative Moore is vice- chairperson of the Committee on Civil Dimension, and Representative Emerson is vice-chairperson of the Subcommittee on Democratic Governance. Each made important contributions to the debates in the Civil Dimension Committee. An interesting discussion took place in response to a report on NATO and energy security. Representative Scott made a valuable contribution in detailing ways that NATO could play a constructive role in building energy security and thereby enhancing global security.

The Committee on Science and Technology also heard a report on energy security. The German rapporteur contended that Russia is a reliable supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, a controversial point of view that some believe is contradicted by Moscow's occasional cut-offs of energy to Ukraine, Georgia, and Lithuania. Increasingly, our European allies are dependent on Russian energy resources, a development that could open the door to Russian pressure and influence in NATO in the event of a crisis. Representative Scott chided the Russians for not having ratified the Energy Charter Treaty, which obligates signatories to follow market practices and disavow the use of energy as a political tool. Representative Shimkus raised the point that diversification of supply and types of fuels is key to enhancing energy security. This was a forceful debate on an issue that is likely to engage NATO's interest in the decades to come.

The last day of the Assembly's meetings was spent in a plenary session. There were a number of interesting speakers, including the German foreign minister and the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. De Hoop Scheffer urged the parliamentarians to go back to their publics and make the case for the importance of developing reliable, deployable combat forces, and for making a meaningful contribution to ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan. A German general also spoke. The Russian Zhirinovsky again made his presence felt when he claimed, to the amazement and amusement of the delegates, that Russia had generously brought down the Berlin wall and made democracy possible in East Germany. He contended that NATO would fail in Afghanistan, just as Russia had. The German general--General Ramm--calmly replied that Russia failed in Afghanistan because it had sought a military solution, and that NATO would succeed because it is seeking a political solution.

Our delegation had an interesting private meeting with Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, during which we had a highly informative discussion of such issues as Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran's relations with its neighbors. The delegation also met with the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, who gave us her valuable perspective on the issues that she considers to be most important on the NATO agenda. We also visited the new U.S. embassy, near the line of the old Berlin wall, and met with our ambassador, William Timken. During a dinner the final night of our meetings, German Chancellor Angela Merkel sat at my table, and we had a lively discussion about a range of issues of mutual interest.

After the meetings in Berlin, we flew to Turkey for meetings with a range of senior Turkish officials. Turkey remains a key ally, perhaps even more important than it was during the Cold War. Turkey's strategic location--on the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, facing the Mediterranean, at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and on the route of critical energy supplies--is vital to NATO security. In addition, Turkey is a Muslim country and a democracy. An important issue confronting Turkey is its application to join the European Union, a step that some EU governments strongly oppose. Today, there is a vigorous discussion in Turkey about the role of Islam in society. An Islamic Party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, is in a protracted but restrained contest for power with other parties and the Turkish military. On May 28 the delegation met with specialists in Istanbul who represent a range of views in Turkey's academic and journalistic world on the country's future, and on the debate over the role of Islam and secularism in Turkish society.

Our meetings in Istanbul prepared us for our visit the next day to Ankara, where we held a succession of meetings with senior government officials. We met with prime minister Erdogan, with whom we had a direct but constructive discussion over U.S.-Turkish relations and on Turkey's future. We then met with our former NATO Parliamentary Assembly colleague, Abdullah Gul, now the president of Turkey and also a member of the AKP. We had a very cordial discussion on a range of issues. It is clear that U.S.-Turkish relations have improved since November 2007, when the United States began to assist Turkey in its effort to subdue the Kurdish terrorist movement known as the PKK, which is seeking to carve away Turkish territory and unite it with part of northern Iraq, where Kurds also live. Finally, we had a meeting with the defense minister Vecdi Gonul, a civilian who is an important link for the AKP to the Turkish military. We are hoping that our Turkish friends in the political parties and the military will resolve their differences peacefully, and that Turkish democracy will be strengthened.

While in Ankara, the delegation went to the tomb of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. I laid a wreath and signed a memorial book in honor of the man who established the secular Turkish state. It was a solemn occasion on a brilliantly bright, sunny day.

After our meetings in Ankara, that night the delegation proceeded to Adana, where the Turkish military base Incirlik is located. U.S. forces, with Turkish permission, fly supply missions to Iraq and Afghanistan from Incirlik. Adana and the base are located near the Syrian border. The following morning we met with the governor of Adana, who gave us a briefing on PKK activity and on political developments in the Adana region. He was a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the EU, which he believes would strengthen Turkish democracy.

At Incirlik, we also had the opportunity to meet with some of our troops who are from our constituencies. These are the young men and women that make the United States safe and secure, whether serving here or in distant places. We should keep them in our thoughts as we appreciate the stability and security that we enjoy here in the United States.

By chance, we crossed paths at Incirlik with Gen. David Petraeus, who was at the base for a brief stay. He offered to meet with the delegation, and there was an interesting exchange of views on a range of strategic issues.

On May 31 we left Incirlik at an early hour for the flight to Kabul, where we spent the entire day. The stabilization of Afghanistan is NATO's principal mission. Many believe that NATO's credibility is on the line in Afghanistan because the allies have pledged to commit the resources to stabilize the country to prevent the reappearance of a failed state, a failed state that caused the tragedy of 9/11. There are clearly differences in the alliance over how to accomplish this objective. Some governments prefer to employ economic reconstruction assistance and avoid sending their troops into combat; these tend to be the governments that have the most restrictive caveats on their forces.

We met with the most senior U.S. officials in Kabul to discuss Afghanistan's path to stabilization. Our meetings were highly substantive, and we all gained valuable information on ISAF's effort and on U.S. perspectives and initiatives. We also met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and had an extensive discussion of Afghanistan's problems and prospects.

In Afghanistan, there can be no reconstruction without security. The Taliban is not a strong force, but the Afghan state lacks strong, enduring institutions. There must be security therefore for the rebuilding effort to succeed. ISAF may need more forces in the coming year in order to secure territory cleared of the Taliban. A positive development is that approximately 25% of the combat missions are now led by the Afghan National Army (ANA), with strong backing from the U.S. and some other NATO militaries. During our meetings in Kabul, U.S. officials were upbeat on the progress of the ANA, but the task of securing Afghanistan is far from finished. The poppy crop continues to thrive in the south, some warlords maintain a sway over territory that has never been under the control of an Afghan government, and there are enduring tribal rivalries and distrust of Kabul.

Closely associated with the issue of engagement of the Taliban in combat is the need to establish a viable economy and justice system. The Soviet and Taliban eras decimated the educated elite. The number of persons trained as lawyers and judges is minimal. At the base of the justice system is the police. The EU has struggled to develop a program to train the police, so the U.S. military has stepped in. Gen. Cone is developing more professional police cohorts one region at a time, and backing them with the U.S. military until they establish their authority. This will be a long-term effort, and it is going to require patience on the part of NATO publics.

Members and staff also met with U.S. participants in ISAF's Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the leading edge of bringing reconstruction to Afghanistan through such efforts as road building, school and hospital construction, and the development of local markets. A basic economy has begun to appear around some of the PRTs, but there remains much to accomplish.

There are three key needs for the PRTs. The first is the placement of agricultural specialists in each of the 26 ISAF PRTs. The United States only recently placed one agricultural specialist at each of its 13 PRTs; the need is great for agricultural specialists at other NATO PRTs, and in the local agricultural schools. Afghanistan is and will remain for the foreseeable future an agrarian economy, now dependent largely on poppies. This poppy culture must diminish over time, perhaps to be replaced by orchard crops and wheat. This effort will take time.

A second need for the PRTs is the hiring of local Afghans who can assist our own officials in understanding local practices and political authority, and who can serve as guides as we plan efforts to rebuild the country.

A third need for the PRTs is the availability of transport. Today, our civilians in the PRTs must rely heavily on the military to move them around the region where they live. But because security comes first, the civilian specialists must often wait lengthy periods of time to obtain the transport and accompanying security to accomplish their tasks.

Our trip to Afghanistan was highly informative and there remains much to digest about what we learned. This was a difficult, but valuable trip that provided insights into one of the United States' most difficult foreign policy problems.

As always we were extremely well-served by our accompanying military personnel. The 932nd Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve now at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., provided exceptional professionalism in assisting us throughout our trip and ensuring our safety in moving throughout Europe and to Afghanistan. All worked long hours to ensure that our trip went smoothly. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club, founded 100 years ago as an official organization of the spouses of those of us serving in this House and in the Senate. I am very familiar with their great work, because my wife Betty Ann is an active member and presently serves on the Congressional Club's board.

The Congressional Club is host to one of the most important nonpartisan events that happens in Washington--the annual First Lady's Luncheon. It also hosts monthly lectures, children's parties, tours for charitable organizations and senior citizen luncheons.

The members of the Congressional Club realize the incredible opportunities and responsibilities they have toward national service. During WorId War I and World War II, the Congressional Club curtailed many of its social events so that members of the Club could roll bandages for the Red Cross, help provide for servicemembers' families and assist troops in transit to their service. At the encouragement of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the Congressional Club sold war bonds, using the proceeds to purchase two evacuation airplanes, one named The Congressional Club and one named The U.S. Congress, to airlift wounded troops from the battlefield.

The important role spouses play in the work we do is evident in one legend surrounding the establishment of the Congressional Club. According to the story, one wife knew her husband, a member of this body, planned to vote against the incorporation of the Congressional Club, so she came into the Capitol and distracted him outside the House Chamber while the House voted on and approved the resolution that allowed for the formal recognition of the organization.

Mr. Speaker, no one is quite sure whether that story is true, but it does help stress an important point with which few can argue: Congressional spouses play an instrumental part in the work we do. I am honored to join with you in honoring their work on this 100th anniversary of the Congressional Club.

Mr. Speaker, when these people say they're going to provide the resources for the war and for the veterans but they're not going to pay for it, what they're really saying is China is going to provide the resources to our veterans; China is going to finance this war because that's what has been going on. They have borrowed more money from foreign sources since George W. Bush took office than all 42 Presidents of the United States before him put together, and they still want to keep borrowing.

And talk about working families, we are asking people who make over $1 million a year to increase their taxes $500 for these veterans to go to college so the veterans will not be subject to future deficits and future matters that may be beyond our control where the program has to be cut.

This is dedicated funding, and it comes from those in this country who have the most to give to the people who gave the most with no arms and no legs. I have seen them and you have seen them at Walter Reed and Bethesda.

And we're going to provide resources? No, we're not going to provide any resources for these veterans unless you vote for this bill. What you're doing is we're going to ask China and Japan to give the resources to our veterans. I think that's a moral outrage.

If we can send more, we can damned sure help them get through college when they get home with one arm and one leg.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important resolution.

The movement to establish a modern homeland for the Jewish people launched in 1896 with the publication of Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State. Out of the atrocities and horrors of the Second World War, the long sought dream of re-establishing that homeland was finally realized. In 1948, Israel claimed its hard-fought independence.

Since Israel's beginnings, the United States has held a special bond with this important ally. As the only liberal democracy in the region, Israel knows all too well what it means to fight against violent agents of intolerance and religious extremism for the sake of personal freedom and fair government. From the birth of their modern state, the Israeli people have struggled to keep and maintain their homeland.

I have had the great privilege of traveling to Israel. It is only in visiting this great country, that one can appreciate the beauty, history and danger that dominate the lives of its everyday citizens. Nowhere in the world is there such a confluence of religion and faith. However, peaceful worship often gives way to violent conflict, and despite the holiness of the land, terrorism has become all too common in this region.

We have stood with Israel in its fight against terrorism, and we will continue to do so. For six decades, our shared commitments to democracy and freedom, as well as our shared cultural heritage, have kept the link between our two nations close, despite existing in very different parts of the world. With passage of this resolution, we honor that bond and look forward to our continued friendship.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of my friend Mary Kate Ridgeway, who recently began an exciting new opportunity as director of the Henry County office of the University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Service. Her new position will allow Mary Kate to continue more than 30 years of service to family farmers in Henry County and across Tennessee.

Mary Kate is originally from Obion County. Her husband Don is deputy director of the Northwest Tennessee Economic Development Council. Don represented the 75th district in the Tennessee House of Representatives, where he served with distinction as the Democratic Caucus Chairman and Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Their son, John Penn, who several years ago worked in our Washington office, and his wife Melissa have two children, Walker and Jackson.

With bachelor's and master's degrees in family and consumer science education from the University of Tennessee at Martin, Mary Kate is also active in other important organizations in our community, including as secretary of Helping Hand Incorporated and co-chair of the Lifeline blood board.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate you and our colleagues joining me as we thank Mary Kate Ridgeway for her long service to the agricultural community in west Tennessee and congratulate her on her new position as county director for the University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension program.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joe H. Hill, one of my oldest and dearest friends, a man whose 35 years of service to the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee has had a lasting impact on our area that will be felt for generations to come. Joe is retiring from Congressional service as the longest-serving district staff member in Tennessee history and has begun a new opportunity to continue his public service as a member of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole.

Joe is originally from Henry County, Tennessee, and attended Bethel College in McKenzie, Tennessee. After that, he served four years as Project Director for the Northwest Tennessee Development District and, in 1973, came to work on the district staff of my predecessor, the late Congressman Ed Jones, Joe worked as a field representative and then district director for Congressman Jones until his retirement in 1989. I was fortunate both to have the honor of succeeding Congressman Jones in this chamber and to have Joe Hill remain on the 8th District staff as District Director.

Over the 35 years Joe has served the 8th District, he worked very closely with an outstanding district staff that has helped thousands of Tennesseans who reach out for assistance with Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits. He has played an important role in the economic development of our area, working directly with every community in our district to upgrade the public infrastructure that rural towns like ours need to improve quality of life and create jobs.

Joe has also been very active with local and state politics, having worked with practically every Democratic candidate in our area over the past 35 years. I have appreciated his guidance over the years and know that countless other elected leaders have also depended on his keen political sense in working with the public in West and Middle Tennessee. Among the candidates Joe advised are Vice President Al Gore and Governors Phil Bredesen and Ned McWherter.

Joe and I have never worked as employer and employee but have instead maintained a working relationship more closely resembling a partnership and friendship. Betty Ann and I enjoy the time we get to spend with Joe and his wife Susan and their children, Adam and his wife Niketa, Judith and Travis. Fortunately, Joe is not going too far, and I know our families will have many more opportunities to spend time together in the future.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, there is one main reason we come to serve in this body: to help the people we represent. It is with the assistance of such exceptional staff members as Joe Hill that we are able to achieve those goals. There are thousands of West and Middle Tennesseans whose lives have been touched by Joe's dedication to improving our area.

I ask you and our colleagues to join me as I thank Joe for three-and- a-half decades of service to the 8th District, express my gratitude for his long friendship and congratulate him as he enters a new phase of his public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Members of this body have been forced to make such a difficult decision with regard to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As you know, the Bush Administration sent this proposed agreement directly to Congress without the level of dialogue many of us would liked to have seen to ensure we can reach agreement on this matter. I fear that the poor and unprecedented decision by President Bush to place this matter before the House of Representatives without the consent of leadership will result in collateral damage to the Trade Promotion Authority protocol that is instrumental in our work to promote commerce with other countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to voting ``present,'' with the hope that continued dialogue between Congress and the White House will lead to a positive resolution of this entire matter.

Madam Chairman, we have seen, as Mr. Boyd pointed out, an unprecedented amount of borrowing take place since 2001. No political leadership in this country has borrowed as much money as quickly as we have seen over the last 80 months or so. That's just part of the story. Let me tell you the other part of the story.

This administration has borrowed more money from foreign sources than all 42 administrations before it put together. And apparently, some here on the floor want to keep doing what we've been doing.

This budget resolution is like an aircraft carrier. It takes seven miles to turn an aircraft carrier. This starts the turn back toward some degree of fiscal sanity. Let me tell you what the consequences of what we have witnessed are with this foreign borrowing.

Today, because of these practices, we are borrowing. Remember, now, we are in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are borrowing from foreign sources $505 million a day, $21 million an hour, which means we've borrowed probably close to $80 million since we started this debate, $351,000 a minute, $5,852 a second, for a total a year of $182 billion a year that everybody around the world is letting us have so that we can maintain, as some would suggest, our standard of living.

All of you know that when you degrade your financial base to the extent that we have and that we are continuing to do unless we begin to change courses, as this budget does, this country is going to wind up in the trash bin of history. No country can continue to do this. You would be interested to know that we owe China almost half a billion dollars. We owe Mexico $35 billion. We owe Taiwan $38 billion. Maybe Taiwan will give us a loan so we can defend them against China if that ever occurs. We owe Switzerland $39 billion, Japan over a half a trillion, the UK, Brazil, Caribbean Banking. We owe Luxembourg $70 billion, and it's going up every day to the tune of $500 million a year.

This budget starts to turn back toward some degree of fiscal sanity. Everybody in this country knows we can't continue to do what these people want to continue to do without bankrupting ourselves and our children.

Madam Speaker, I recently led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Brussels and Paris, and to additional meetings in Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM), and Albania from February 16-24. The co-chair of my delegation was the Honorable Jo Ann Emerson. In addition, Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Ellen Tauscher, Dennis Moore, Jeff Miller, Mike Ross, and Ben Chandler, and staff, worked to make this a highly successful trip in which we examined current NATO issues, above all the coming decision at the NATO summit in Bucharest on possible enlargement of the alliance.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) consists of members of parliament from the 26 NATO states, as well as members of parliament from associated states such as Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia. During NPA meetings delegates discuss and debate a range of issues of current importance to the alliance. At the February meetings, three issues dominated the discussions: enlargement of the alliance, Afghanistan, and developments in Kosovo. Delegates have the opportunity to listen to presentations by specialists from NATO and on NATO affairs, and to engage in discussion of the issues raised. An additional element of the meetings is the opportunity to meet and come to know members of parliaments who play important foreign-policy roles in their own countries. Some of these acquaintances can last the duration of a career, and are invaluable for gaining insight into the developments of allied states.

Enlargement is one of the key issues before the alliance today. NATO will hold a summit in Bucharest April 2-4. Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia are candidate states, and each must receive unanimous support from all 26 allied governments in order for it to receive an invitation to join. From that point, each member state will follow its own constitutional processes to amend NATO's founding Washington Treaty to admit new states and to make a commitment to defend additional territory. There must again be unanimous support in this process for a candidate if it is to be admitted to membership. The alliance is still at an early stage, therefore, in considering the applications for membership of these three countries. Congress will hold hearings on the qualifications of the three states, and the United States and other allies will expect them to continue to work to meet NATO requirements under their Membership Action Plans (MAPs).

Our delegation also held discussions over NATO's effort to stabilize Afghanistan. It is clear, as Secretary of Defense Gates himself reportedly noted on February 8, that U.S. involvement in Iraq has damaged the effort to persuade allies to send forces to Afghanistan. European public criticism of the Iraq conflict has made more difficult our allies' task of persuading parliaments to contribute more troops to Afghanistan. The United States now contributes approximately 15,000 troops to NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and will soon send 3,200 additional Marines to compensate for shortfalls in allied forces in the fight against a resurgent Taliban. This is a highly important mission in the effort to stem the growth of fanaticism and barbarism that remains a threat to civilized peoples everywhere. Each of us in the delegation made an effort to persuade our counterparts from the NATO parliaments to support ISAF and to contribute the forces necessary to stabilize Afghanistan.

Kosovo declared independence on February 17. Our delegation arrived for meetings in Brussels the day before, and reaction in southeastern Europe to the decision to place Kosovo under the EU's ``supervised independence'' was a principal topic of discussion. The United States and most allies quickly followed with recognition of Kosovo's new status and urged its continued development as a democratic, multi- ethnic state. NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR), of whom approximately 1,500 are U.S. soldiers, continues to provide security and is an important factor for stabilization in the current tension between Kosovo Albanians and the Serb minority in the north of the country. With the assistance of our embassies, the delegation closely followed developments in Kosovo throughout the trip.

While in Brussels, we met first with Ambassador Nuland, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO. She provided a briefing and responded to our questions on a wide range of issues. There followed two days of meetings of the NPA's Economics and Security, Defense and Security, and Political Committees. The meetings raised such issues as NATO's political agenda, the effectiveness of the alliance's public diplomacy efforts, and a possible new Strategic Concept, which would lay out NATO's mission and goals for the coming several years.

We also held a private meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Afghanistan and public support for ISAF were important topics of discussion, as was Kosovo. De Hoop Scheffer offered to come to Washington to meet with Members of Congress in the near future, and this is an idea worthy of consideration. There was also a ``brainstorming'' session at NATO headquarters, attended by Representatives Ross, Moore, and Miller. Representative Ross made a forceful presentation outlining the importance of the ISAF mission, and of allies making a fair share of the contributions to NATO forces in Afghanistan. The rest of the delegation attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's governing body, comprised of representatives from the 26 member states. A range of issues--Russia, energy security, Kosovo, and Afghanistan among them--was discussed. We ended the day at NATO headquarters with a meeting with U.S. General Karl Eikenberry, who is the deputy head of NATO's Military Committee; he was also formerly commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. He briefed the delegation on the effort to defeat the Taliban, and on the complexities of the political situation in Pakistan that is affecting Afghanistan's stability.

The delegation held meetings at the European Commission the following day. As chairman of the NPA's Economics and Security Committee, I presided over some interesting meetings on trade and the international economy. A highlight of the day was an exceptional presentation by the EU's Director General for trade, David O'Sullivan, who gave a lively presentation and concise overview of the principal points of controversy in the Doha round of trade talks, and in broader trade issues.

The delegation then traveled to Paris for meetings at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). After a brief session with our ambassador to the OECD and his staff, I chaired sessions at the OECD on a number of issues. The global economy, Russia's economic practices and potential, and the value of education in economic development were key subjects of discussion. That evening we met with members of the French-American Foundation, together with our ambassador to France and a number of members of the French parliament who are in the French-American caucus.

The following day the delegation traveled to Zagreb, Croatia, for the beginning of meetings with candidate state governments for membership in the alliance. Serbian reactions to Kosovo's independence and recognition by many governments had set the region on edge. The U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was attacked on February 21, as were the Slovenian and Croatian embassies there. U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Robert Bradtke accompanied us during much of our stay in Croatia and kept us up to date on developments in Belgrade and on the safety of U.S. personnel at our embassy there. He also briefed us on Croatia's efforts to qualify for NATO membership.

While in Zagreb, we met with Prime Minister Sanader, President Mesic, and other senior officials. We were interested in discovering the

progress that Croatia has made in military modernization and in other aspects of the program outlined for the country in the MAP. That evening Ambassador Bradtke arranged for us to meet with members of the Croatian parliament, including opposition figures and key members of the foreign policy and defense committees, as well as independent voices in Croatia. This meeting allowed us to hear a wide range of views beyond those in the government, and added to our ability to evaluate Croatia's progress in the MAP. There is a consensus that significant progress has been made over the past several years. A key issue was the relatively low level of public support--somewhat over 50%--in the population for NATO membership, a figure that appears to be climbing. There must also continue to be progress made in the fight against corruption.

The following day we flew first to the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), then to Albania. In Macedonia, our ambassador gave us a briefing that touched on several issues of relevance. The delegation then proceeded to meetings with Macedonian President Crvenkovski, Prime Minister Gruevski, and other senior officials, including General Stojanovski, the chief of defense forces. The internal political situation in the country remains complicated and unsettled, and issues range well beyond ethnic divisions in the country. Macedonian troops serve in NATO operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia-Hercegovina, and we met several soldiers who had returned from assignments there. A key issue in NATO is the formal name of the country, and there are continuing discussions with Greece to attempt to reach a compromise under U.N.- sponsored talks. We are hopeful that Skopje and Athens can reach a settlement of this issue, and that Macedonia's candidacy for NATO can be judged solely on its qualifications under the MAP.

In Albania we met with President Topi and with Prime Minister Berisha. We also met with members of parliament from both the governing parties and the opposition. We were accompanied throughout our meetings by U.S. Ambassador Withers, who provided an overview of developments in Albania. There are conflicting views on the depth of the problem caused by organized crime and corruption in Albania, and this was one issue raised in our discussions with government officials. While laws have been passed to fight crime and corruption, it may be useful for Congress in the coming months to examine the degree to which such legislation has been implemented. It should be said that Albania, although a poor country, by all accounts has made progress in downsizing and modernizing its military.

The Serbian reaction to Kosovo's independence time and again surfaced during our meetings. In the coming months, we are likely to see a range of ideas raised for and against the possible membership of the ``Adriatic 3'' in the alliance. These are small countries with correspondingly small militaries; they must concentrate on niche capabilities to make a contribution to allied security, and each is making progress along this road. Given the continuing tensions in the region in part brought on by Serbia's reaction to Kosovo's independence, proponents of the three governments' candidacies are likely to argue that their developing democracies and contributions to multinational, cooperative efforts to bring stability are factors in their favor. These are issues that my delegation and other Members of Congress will be considering in the coming months.

As always, members of the United States military contributed greatly to the success of this trip. The logistics of such a trip, compressed into a tight time frame, are complicated and require lengthy and detailed preparation. Our crew was from the 932nd Air Wing at Scott AFB, Illinois. This is an Air Force Reserve unit, and they did an outstanding job. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with one of the proposals being used to fund this legislation. I agree that improving coverage of mental health services is a laudable goal, and long over due, I might add. However, the proposal to help fund this increased coverage through increasing the Medicaid drug rebate is troubling to me. Drug companies already provide deep discounts to Federal and State governments for the prescription drugs covered by the Medicaid program. This legislation calls for a 33 percent increase in that rebate. I hope that a substantial increase in the rebate will not have a chilling effect on research and development for the next generation of treatments for those very patients with mental health conditions we are trying to help today.

As everyone knows, I am a strong supporter of pay go provisions. So I want to commend our leadership for their efforts to continue to address these funding issues. The other funding provision being used for the improved coverage in this bill is designed to ensure that any potential conflict of interest created by physician ownership interests in specialty hospitals is limited. I think this provision goes a long way toward creating a more equitable situation for all hospitals.

I plan to support final passage of this legislation. However, I hope that we can work together as this process goes forward to negotiate a conference agreement that offers a more balanced approach.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the majority leader for 1 minute.

Mr. Cohen, I do appreciate this courtesy, and I thank the gentlelady from Oklahoma for allowing me to go ahead and speak.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Federal response to the tornados that occurred in Tennessee. I left here early last week and went down to my district in west and middle Tennessee to view, with the Governor of our State and others, the tremendous damage that was done, the loss of life that occurred. And I want to say that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of FEMA were there as I got there last Thursday morning.

And as we toured in Tennessee, most of the damage that we saw occurred near Jackson, Tennessee, where our daughter, our two grandchildren and son-in-law live, at a place called Union University. President David Dockery met us there that Thursday morning, and I can only describe the devastation to Union, the dorms and so on as horrendous; and also conclude that it was a miracle that there was no more bodily injury or loss of life than occurred at Union.

But the other thing, other than the Secretary and the Director of FEMA being there was, in the aftermath of these tragedies like we've seen, and this is the fourth tornado that has basically hit Jackson, Madison County, Tennessee since 1999, the outpouring of help from friends, neighbors and others there gives one a great sense of resolve and gives one the magnanimous feeling of the human spirit rising out of the ashes of these tremendous natural disasters.

Let me just make the observation that we appreciate the quick response of the Federal Government, the State government, all of the FEMA people there, but particularly to the friends, neighbors and my constituents, of those who were injured, who lost everything, their houses gone, it is truly a blessing to see people come together, even under tragic circumstances.

I want to commend Mr. Cohen for bringing this. It hit Memphis, also, as well as middle Tennessee and the other States. But let me just simply add my congratulations to those who brought this resolution, and my thanks to those for the recognition of so many who are doing so much at this time to help those who have suffered so much.