Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand we now have 1 minute each to close on the amendment; is that the order of the day?

Mr. President, I tell my colleagues that this is a multiple perils amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program. It is backed by the National Association of Realtors.

The CBO will tell you it is budget neutral because the premiums have to be based on risk and actuarially sound. There are changes that could be made to make a good amendment perfect. We might not have those tonight. But I can assure my colleagues of this: The passage of the Wicker amendment tonight will ensure that a solution will come quicker to the problem of millions and millions of Americans not being able to ensure against wind and water damage at the same time. I urge passage of the Wicker amendment for that reason, if for no other.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this week the Senate will consider the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. Today, I have filed an amendment to this reauthorization legislation which is of critical need, not only to the gulf coast but to the entire country. My amendment would add a multiple peril insurance provision to create a new option in the National Flood Insurance Program of offering coverage of both wind and flood risk in one policy.

The proposal would require premiums for this new coverage to be risk- based and actuarially sound, so that the program would be required to pay for itself. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the multiple peril program:

. . . would increase premium receipts and additional

claims payments by about the same amount--resulting in no

significant net budgetary impact.

By covering wind and flood risk in one policy, the multiple peril option would allow coastal homeowners to buy insurance and know that hurricane damage would be covered regardless of whether that damage is caused by wind or water.

It has been just over 2\1/2\ years since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast with its 30-foot storm surge and winds over 125 miles an hour. Katrina was the most devastating natural disaster ever to hit North America.

The people of Mississippi and Louisiana have made great progress in rebuilding the communities along the gulf coast. Everyone knows the Federal Government's response was not perfect, but the Government and this Congress have done a lot to help to rebuild communities, homes, businesses, and lives along the gulf coast.

As much as the Government and this Congress have done, there is still more work to be done. There are still too many destroyed homes left uninhabited, too many slabs of concrete that represent all that is left of what used to be homes and businesses. A major contributing factor to this problem is the cost and availability of insurance. Since the day I became a Member of this body, the cost of insurance has become an issue I continually hear about. As I stated in my maiden speech, if you can't insure it, you can't build it or finance it. It is that simple. The problem is harming the efforts of small businesses to rebuild and grow and succeed, and it is driving rental rates beyond affordability. It is increasing the cost of home ownership and, in many cases, making it impossible for people who lost their homes to Katrina to rebuild.

Congress needs to act to find a workable solution to this problem, and the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization gives us an opportunity to do so. I say this not only for the good of the people of Mississippi and Louisiana but also for every single American taxpayer and for every person who lives along the American coastline.

This is not just an issue for the gulf coast. From Bar Harbor, ME, to Brownsville, TX, millions of Americans live on a coastline in the path of future hurricanes. As the Biloxi Sun Herald noted this week in an editorial in support of my amendment:

More than half of the Nation's population lives within 50

miles of a coastline, and 50 miles is well within harm's way

when a major storm makes landfall.

We have not always had a national flood insurance program. In 1968, Congress was forced to act to address the problems associated with flooding from hurricanes. Now the same problem that led to the National Flood Insurance Program is happening with wind. As it did in the past, Congress needs to act to address the problem. The National Flood Insurance Program was created because insurance companies quit offering coverage for flood damage caused by hurricanes. With competing wind and flood policies, the same has happened to wind insurance in these same areas.

Wind versus water--that is the debate which still occurs today in courtrooms on the Mississippi gulf coast between insurance companies and storm victims. It is a debate that necessitated the multibillion- dollar supplemental appropriations package this body approved after Katrina. Unless Congress changes the law, the wind versus water debate will result in a multibillion-dollar supplemental appropriations package after the next big hurricane wherever in the United States it may land. This is driving more and more homeowners and business owners into a State-sponsored wind pool, which is required to provide coverage. But this is not a reasonable long-term solution because too much risk is being placed in too small of a pool. What was initially conceived to be the last resort has now become the only resort for many Mississippians living along the gulf coast. The reality is that State wind pools, especially in my home State of Mississippi, are unable to spread the risk to balance the claims.

As the Government Accountability Office has pointed out, these competing wind and flood policies provide a conflict of interest in determining who is responsible to pay these claims. The flood insurance companies say it was wind. The wind insurance companies say just the opposite. Because of this, my constituents on the gulf coast are paying thousands of dollars to the State wind pool. That doesn't count flood insurance or homeowners insurance on top of that.

The picture I am painting here is quite clear: The unaffordability of insurance is driving people from their homes.

Some of my colleagues may point out that every homeowner can purchase wind insurance. I would argue that, as a practical matter, they cannot. As I mentioned before, this is not just a Mississippi problem, nor is it just a gulf coast problem. For instance, in Massachusetts, since 2003, 10 insurance companies have dropped homeowner coverage in the Cape Cod coastal area. This affects approximately 44,000 homeowners in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts State insurance backstop is now insuring 44 percent of the market.

I hope my colleagues from the following States, in addition to Mississippi and Louisiana and Massachusetts, will pay attention to this debate. States such as New York, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Texas have all experienced the same problem. In North Carolina, for example, the State insurance plan known as the ``BEACH Plan'' saw its liability increase over 260 percent in just 4 years. I assure you, I would prefer that the private market write these policies, but this simply is not happening. Every day, more and more liability is being thrust upon the shoulders of the States.

To help address this problem, the best solution available is to allow homeowners to purchase wind and flood insurance coverage in the same policy. This would spread the risk outside of defined State borders and would ensure available, affordable, and total insurance for coastal homeowners. That is exactly what my multiple peril insurance amendment does.

Multiple peril insurance will allow property owners to buy both wind and flood coverage from the National Flood Insurance Program. Residential coverage would be $500,000 for structures and $150,000 for contents and the loss of use. For nonresidential, it would be $1 million for structures and $750,000 for contents and business interruption.

Under this amendment, property owners would be able to buy insurance and know in advance that hurricane damage would be covered without disputes over the cause of damage. No longer would home and business owners have to go to court to try to prove it was either wind or it was water that destroyed their property.

The premiums for this new single coverage would be risk-based and actuarially sound, according to the terms of my legislation. The CBO has agreed that the program will, over the long run, pay for itself.

Windstorm insurance would be available under my amendment only where local governments adopt and enforce the international building code or equivalent building standards. This Federal multiple peril program will spread risk geographically to form a stable insurance pool, compared to State pools that cover only a small area.

Again, I state this issue doesn't just impact the gulf coast. It impacts most directly the 55 percent of our country's population that lives within 50 miles of a hurricane-prone coastline.

Beyond that, however, this is a good-government issue that affects every single taxpayer. Multiple peril coverage would also protect the taxpayers by saving them from having to pay for another giant emergency relief package the next time a hurricane hits. It is not a question of if but when it happens and, I might add, where it happens again.

With the legislation before us, the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, we have been provided an opportunity to take action to begin to correct this inequality. I believe my multiple peril amendment is a good start.

I realize there are several philosophies about solving the coastal insurance crisis, and I am not wedded to any single approach. I would simply point out that this amendment has already been adopted by the House of Representatives in an amendment offered by my friend and former colleague, Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi. What I am committed to is providing my constituents relief before the next hurricane hits. I do not believe Congress should take over the entire private market of all insurance. I believe in free market principles, and I believe Congress should look seriously at the State-by-State rate regulatory structure that forces insurers to set their rates on the basis of geographical boundaries within individual States in which they are admitted to do business. I believe Congress should consider other thoughtful proposals such as the one being advanced by the St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, which would allow limited rate regulation relief for the purpose of creation of a coastal band. This is simply one of a number of good ideas that deserve consideration. But the status quo does not work, and that is what we have an opportunity to correct this week.

Some of my colleagues will argue against my amendment for a number of what they see as problems. Very seldom is legislation error-free or exactly correct at the outset, and my amendment is no different. We should not, however, let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I ask my colleagues to remember all of the places along the coast of North America and perhaps invite them again to visit Hancock County, in my State of Mississippi, ground zero, where Katrina made landfall, and see for themselves why action is needed now and why we should not miss this opportunity on the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.

This amendment is badly needed. At the appropriate time during consideration of amendments, I will urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I request permission to speak as in morning business for no more than 7 minutes.

Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, the U.S. Air Force announced its award of the KC-45A air refueling tanker program, a replacement to the aging KC-135 fleet. The two competitors in this process were Northrop Grumman-EADS on the one hand and the Boeing Company on the other. After a 13-month-long process, the Northrop Grumman proposal was selected as the better product for the American soldier and also the better value for the American taxpayer. It should come as no surprise that this decision amounted to a major disappointment for Boeing. Their employees and executives would understandably have appreciated the economic benefit such an award would have brought to them.

The award of the tanker program to Northrop Grumman was not the first setback to the Boeing Company in this regard.

In 2004, Congress intervened, in the fiscal year 2005 Defense bill, to terminate the Air Force tanker lease agreement. This agreement would have been costly and simply bad public policy. Afterward, the Air Force responded with one of the clearest and most transparent acquisition processes in history. The Air Force is now able to purchase and own 179 KC-45s for the same price it was going to spend to lease 100 Boeing 767s.

Compared to the reactions in States where Boeing has a presence, the selection of Northrop Grumman was greeted with enthusiasm in Mobile, AL, and along the gulf coast of my State of Mississippi, where thousands of jobs will be created locally. The tankers will be built in Mobile, but the economic impact will be felt throughout the gulf coast and, in reality, throughout the Nation. Such is the nature of the competitive process. One contestant is selected, and the other must deal with disappointing news.

It is important for Senators to understand that the Air Force and the Defense Department utilized an extremely fair and open acquisition process. The Government requested and received proposals for the tanker in early 2007 and then continued with an open review process until Northrop Grumman was announced as the winner in February of this year.

In winning this contract, Northrop Grumman simply did a better analysis and provided a better solution for the Air Force. The KC-45A carries more fuel, more passengers, and more cargo. It will also cost less to produce, passing along savings to the American taxpayers. By utilizing a broad base of suppliers in 49 of our 50 States, the Northrop Grumman tanker will create 48,000 direct and indirect jobs across our country.

Despite this, some want to stop this process from going forward. I have been disturbed by the words and actions of Boeing and its supporters. The level of misinformation injected into this process with the clear intent of derailing the award is troubling for many reasons-- not the least of which is the precedent that would be set by Congress should it overturn this decision. The Air Force should be allowed to make this acquisition decision based solely on the facts and the merits of the two competing proposals, and that is exactly what it did in choosing the Northrop Grumman tanker.

Let's look at some of the claims made by Boeing and its supporters-- first, that the competition was somehow unfair. The Air Force and the Defense Department testified recently to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the KC-45A tanker competition was perhaps the most rigorous, fair, and transparent acquisition in DOD history. This open process allowed for a significant amount of dialog among the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the two bidders. This included weekly teleconferences with the Air Force, which, during the review process, sent Northrop Grumman 295 evaluation notices. They sent approximately 250 notices to Boeing.

Furthermore, following the formal request for proposals in January 2007, the Air Force received no complaints from Boeing or anyone else that the proposal request was somehow unfair. There were ample opportunities for those concerns to be aired, but no one said a word in this regard. Considering this, it is very hard to make a straight-faced claim that the process was not open or fair.

There has also been a high level of misinformation about the so- called exportation of American jobs. Some erroneously claim the Northrop Grumman award will outsource thousands of U.S. jobs to Europe. This is simply not true. No jobs are being exported to Europe. On the contrary, the KC-45A will create thousands of new jobs in America and will support a total of 48,000 direct and indirect jobs in 49 States, as I have said.

More than 230 suppliers across the United States helped make up the 60 percent U.S. content in the KC-45A tanker. This will truly be America's tanker, assembled in America by American workers and for the protection of the American military. The KC-45A will be fully assembled and militarized for U.S. Air Force operations by American workers in two separate facilities in Mobile.

No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe in connection with this program. Instead, a new aerospace corridor will continue to grow and flourish along the gulf coast region.

The KC-45A tanker will join the Global Hawk, Fire Scout, joint cargo aircraft, and the light utility helicopter production facilities that are already successfully producing high-reliability defense systems for our Nation. The light utility helicopter, for example, is being built by EADS North America in Columbus, MS. It is a true success for the Army and for our economy. The Lakota, as the helicopter is known, was delivered to the Army 3 months ahead of schedule. To date, 24 Lakota helicopters have been delivered on or ahead of schedule. The Lakota has over 2,000 flight hours, with over a 90-percent full mission capable rate. In addition, EADS North America completed a 314,000-square-foot expansion to its Mississippi facility to manufacture this helicopter. Perhaps most importantly, the program is on budget and on schedule to deliver a critical platform to the American warfighter--just another example of EADS North America producing a product for our country's defense, using American workers.

There should be no doubt that the workforce in the gulf coast region is up to the task of building these complex systems. The results to date on the systems I just mentioned speak for themselves.

Our workforce is second to none in the Nation. So this debate, as much as some would make you believe otherwise, is not about American jobs versus European jobs. It is about where in the United States those jobs will be.

A recent full-page ad in newspapers across the country represented the worst of the misinformation. The ad claimed the Air Force selection ``penalized the warfighter and the taxpayer.''

The facts tell another story. The KC-45A was evaluated to be a superior product for the warfighter. It was also judged by the Air Force to be a better value for the taxpayer, providing superior military capability across the board at a lower total cost than the competing KC-767 aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force is not alone in choosing the KC-45A. Our friend and ally, the United Kingdom, recently announced the selection of this same aircraft frame as the best solution to meet their national security requirements. The U.K. selection is the fifth tanker competition in a row where the EADS platform was chosen as the winner over all other competitors. Australia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have also recently placed orders for this tanker.

Some are calling for tighter restrictions on the level of international content in U.S. defense systems. That, to my mind, would be a mistake and would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The U.S. economy is tightly integrated into the global economy, and the aerospace sector is no exception.

There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital U.S. military programs where foreign suppliers do play essential roles. Some of the more visible programs include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace; the VH-71 Presidential helicopter produced by Lockheed Martin and Augusta Westland, a European consortium; and the Joint Cargo Aircraft produced by L-3, Boeing, and Alenia, built in Florida from an Italian airframe.

I don't recall anyone in this Chamber or from Boeing expressing concern about the level of European participation in the Joint Cargo Aircraft, which has only about 60 percent U.S. content, nor did anyone complain about possible interruption of supplies of spare parts, which some have suggested would be a likely outcome of buying the KC-45A.

To repeat, Boeing's Joint Cargo Aircraft is 60 percent U.S. content and 40 percent international. When this contract was awarded, no one raised a single complaint about that. Now, when Boeing loses a competition to a partnership with a similar domestic-foreign ratio, they make it sound as if the world is coming to an end.

It seems to me the level of noise depends on whose ox is being gored.

Mr. President, might I inquire, how much of the 10 minutes is remaining from the request of the Senator from California?

I will do my best.

Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for putting forward this proposal. I was delighted to see it. I would, frankly, hope that Democrats and Republicans could come together on this issue in a bipartisan manner and provide this temporary relief for hard- pressed Americans during the summer months.

Many people ask us, why are gas prices so high? Why is this continuing to happen? As we know, there are many complex factors involved in that: worldwide demand, countries such as China and India increasing their demand for oil and gas at this point; also, unstable governments in oil-producing regions; and Americans' continued reliance on foreign sources of oil.

But, also, I must confess the problem being experienced by Americans, in large measure, is due to Federal policies. In the mid-1990s, President Clinton vetoed a proposal to drill in ANWR, even though the residents of the State of Alaska have asked us for permission to drill there and have told us they are satisfied it can be done in an environmentally friendly manner. Also, we have had the refusal to produce energy in America when we know it can be done in an environmentally safe way, whether that be the production of more crude oil, oil shale, or liquefied coal.

So the Federal Government and this Congress bear a good bit of the responsibility. In light of that, I think we have to ask ourselves--Mr. President, might I have an additional 1\1/2\ minutes?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think this Senate--Republicans and Democrats--needs to ask: We have a choice. Do we ask the Federal Government to tighten its belt a bit and adopt this summer-long Federal gasoline tax holiday or do we continue to require American families to tighten their belts and pay higher gasoline prices? Do we continue to require American farmers and small businesses, who have to use transportation to earn a living, to tighten their belts?

I think the better answer there is to provide 18 cents per gallon of relief for American families, 24 cents per gallon of relief to those who are required to use diesel to earn their livelihoods, and for the Federal Government to tighten its belt and absorb this $8 billion to $9 billion that the Senator from California talked about.

The Senator from South Carolina mentioned we have already passed a much more expensive economic stimulus measure because we are concerned about the economy. This economy could go either way. We can take action to prevent it from sliding into a recession. We have already adopted one a few months ago. The McCain plan is another one. I enthusiastically support the concept. I think it is time we give Americans a break at the pump. This would do so during an important period as our economy teeters on the edge.

I hope we continue to have this debate, as the Senator from California suggested, and adopt it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding me an opportunity to speak. This is an example of how those in Government can work together to help citizens who have been disadvantaged by a storm, where Members can work together in a bipartisan manner.

The Senator from Louisiana will be able to explain briefly the base amendment she offered. I simply want to thank her for agreeing to incorporate two very important amendments into hers. One is with regard to the bonus depreciation piece of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, known in shorthand as the GO-Zone. Because of bureaucratic delays, and because of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, people who wish to take the opportunity of the GO-Zone bonus depreciation have not been able to commence construction. The Wicker-Cochran amendment, which the Senator has agreed to incorporate into her amendment, would move the commencement date of GO-Zone construction.

The Senator from Louisiana has also graciously agreed to add a Brownback-Roberts amendment that will help the small town of Greensburg, KS, which was completely devastated in a storm recently. I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this simple change in the date on bonus depreciation.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, as I address the Senate for the first time today, I could not be prouder of the people I represent. From the northeast Mississippi hills and De Soto County suburbs, down through the Delta, and from metro Jackson, across to east central Mississippi, and down through the Piney Woods, from southwest Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, my native State of Mississippi is on the move, having added over 50,000 jobs in the past 4 years. But we are also in the process of recovering from the most devastating natural disaster ever to hit North America--Hurricane Katrina. With its nearly 30-foot storm surge, its winds of over 125 miles per hour, and an eye that stretched the entire coastline of Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina reshaped not just the landscape of our Gulf Coast; Katrina reshaped how our public officials must approach every quality of life issue in our State, be it housing, insurance, economic development, education, health care, or public safety.

While there are a number of issues, accomplishments and challenges facing my constituents, today I will speak about the most pressing issue facing my State, the rebuilding and renewal of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and the ongoing need for this Congress to follow through until recovery is indeed a reality.

Steady progress has been made, but great challenges remain that cannot be overcome without a partnership from the Federal Government. Continued Federal resources are needed before our State can truly recover.

For most citizens on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Katrina is not just one issue; it is virtually every issue.

Every Mississippian remembers what they were doing on August 29, 2005. My wife, Gayle, and I were at home in Tupelo, in the path of a storm that would cause damage 300 miles inland and in the path of thousands of Mississippians and Louisianans fleeing Katrina. Like citizens across the country, we joined our community in opening arenas and churches, preparing Red Cross shelters and organizing gifts of clothing and supplies. Our family and friends were among the foot soldiers in the army of compassion that responded to the devastation in south Mississippi.

Days after Katrina's landfall, Gayle and I had the opportunity to deliver an 18-wheeler full of supplies to Jackson County. What we saw was indescribable to those who had seen the coverage only on television. Tens of thousands of homes obliterated. Businesses and schools destroyed with no trace of previous existence. Bridges wiped away, cutting cities off from one another. And an eerie silence because of the lack of electricity for hundreds of miles.

The Federal Government's response to this disaster has come under an immense amount of criticism, much of which is justified. But it would be irresponsible for us to ignore what went right.

The night of the storm, Coast Guard helicopter crews saved hundreds of my fellow Mississippians.

Katrina generated twice as much debris as any hurricane in history, but it was picked up in half the time.

Our school superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents led the effort to get every one of Mississippi's public schools open as quickly as possible.

Our business community responded, reopening shops, restaurants, and manufacturing plants so our people could get back to work.

And our citizen volunteers and the faith community shined. Mr. President, 500,000 volunteers have offered help to Mississippi since Katrina, and that number continues to climb.

Over the last 2\1/2\ years, a lot of progress has been made. South Mississippi is not just recovering; south Mississippi is on its way to building back from the worst natural disaster in American history bigger and better than ever before.

As a Member of the other body, I was glad to be a part of the team that worked to produce much needed appropriations and economic development incentives for our State and others impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Our governor, Haley Barbour, our senior Senator, Thad Cochran, my predecessor in this body, Senator Trent Lott, and our entire congressional delegation--Republican and Democrat--were a part of this effort. Katrina was not a partisan storm and in Mississippi, we are working in a bipartisan way to rebuild our communities.

On behalf of a grateful State, I thank the Senate for its support of our rebuilding efforts. In return, Senators--and the taxpayers--deserve a report on our progress.

Housing is still being rebuilt, as evidenced by the shrinking number of families in FEMA-provided temporary housing.

The CDC recently announced that those still living in FEMA trailers could be exposed to formaldehyde levels 40 times the normal level. This news only serves to underscore the fact that while FEMA trailers were necessary immediately following the storm, we must redouble our efforts to move the remaining citizens from them.

The State of Mississippi is deploying ``Mississippi cottages,'' which are real homes built to HUD standards that are free of formaldehyde contamination.

It is imperative that FEMA work with the State of Mississippi to purchase and deploy Mississippi cottages for all individuals along the gulf coast who live in FEMA trailers.

We are also rebuilding our infrastructure. The bridges connecting Bay St. Louis to Pass Christian, and Biloxi to Ocean Springs have been rebuilt, literally and spiritually reconnecting communities to one another.

The GO Zone economic development incentives have been an essential boost to our job creation initiatives. Our State's largest employer, Northrop Grumman, has made great progress and is working to get back to pre-Katrina employment levels; Chevron has announced an expansion of its refinery in Pascagoula; PSL has announced its first plant in North America in Hancock County where they will manufacture steel pipe; and Trinity Yachts has a new facility in Gulfport.

Much has been done, but there is much left to do.

Chairman Donald Powell, the Federal coordinator for the Office of Gulf Coast Rebuilding, acknowledged these challenges last week when he announced- he was stepping down. He said it would be ``some time before the area recovered.''

I say this to my colleagues in the Senate: Katrina is not over. There are tall hurdles still to overcome. And there is more the U.S. Congress must do.

The most urgent issue facing the Mississippi Gulf Coast is insurance. If you can't insure it, you can't build it or finance it. The rising cost of insurance cripples the efforts of small businesses, increases the cost of home ownership, and drives rental rates beyond affordability.

This is not just an issue for Mississippi. From Bar Harbor, ME, to Brownsville, TX, millions of Americans live near the coastline, in the path of a future hurricane. For many years, insurance companies have refused to offer insurance protection for water damage caused by hurricanes; this led to the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is up for reauthorization soon. After Katrina, the most important question for a homeowner or a small business person was ``wind or water?''

Wind versus water. That is the debate which still occurs today in courtrooms on the Mississippi Gulf Coast between insurance companies and storm victims.

This debate is what necessitated the multibillion-dollar supplemental appropriations package this body approved after Katrina, and unless Congress changes the law, the wind versus water debate will result in a multibillion-dollar supplemental appropriations package after the next big hurricane--wherever it may land.

Even worse, since Katrina, it is also common practice for insurance companies to not offer wind insurance at a rate that is even close to affordable. This is driving more and more homeowners and business owners into a State-sponsored wind pool, which acts as an insurer of last resort. But this is not a reasonable long-term solution, because too much risk is being placed in a too small of a pool.

The best solution available is to allow homeowners to purchase wind

and flood insurance coverage in the same policy.

This will not only help the storm victims so they can know their hurricane damage will be covered; it also will protect the U.S. taxpayer. The American people are the most generous in the world, and their elected representatives will continue to respond to natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane on the east coast or an earthquake in California, with supplemental disaster appropriations packages. But the size of these packages will be smaller if more people have insurance.

As a Member of the House, I voted for Congressman Gene Taylor's multi-peril insurance legislation when it passed last September. I am committed to achieving the same success here in the Senate.

Another key initiative we must focus on in order for the gulf coast to continue rebuilding is the extension of tax provisions included in the GO Zone legislation. I mentioned earlier the boost this legislation has given the gulf coast, and I want to ensure this body that it has provided much-needed help.

However, in order for the legislation to be fully utilized by families and small businesses who have not yet been able to begin rebuilding, these important tax provisions should be extended.

Other issues remain, especially at Katrina's ``Ground Zero.'' Hancock County, and the cities of Pass Christian and Long Beach in Harrison County, bore a direct hit from Katrina, and their issues are not the same as the rest of the gulf coast.

With their property tax base decimated, basic government operations are still run out of trailers. Hancock County has no jail, an essential part of maintaining public safety. Mayors, supervisors, and other community leaders now are forced to completely rethink their economic development and planning strategies because the new FEMA flood plain maps will make rebuilding next-to-impossible in many areas.

Ground Zero needs extra help. In many cases, Congress has provided the necessary resources, but the Federal Government's current rules and regulations do not recognize the reality on the ground. The Federal Government needs to be flexible, and if it can't or won't, Congress needs to step in. At some point, as Chairman Powell stated, ``commonsense has to come to the fore.''

My Senate office has been in existence for only a few weeks, but we are already at work trying to help constituents wade through the bureaucratic process to receive the permits from Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that are necessary to rebuild.

This is, obviously, not the first time the Federal Government redtape has needlessly caused real problems, and it will not be the last. But that does not make the problems any easier, particularly when people are hurting. For example, affordable housing initiatives developed by the State are being delayed needlessly because Congress has refused to give the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority to waive environmental regulations which require an archaeological dig for remnants on each piece of property, property that already had a home on it before Katrina. Such redtape does not make sense.

In this case and in others like it, Congress and the Federal Government's bureaucracy needs to get out of the way so the States, cities, and counties can use the resources already provided to them. But there are other cases where this Congress needs to provide more resources.

Off the coast of Mississippi lies a chain of barrier islands and coastal wetlands which provide a first line of defense against the storm surge of a hurricane. According to the Corps of Engineers, a storm surge is reduced by 1 foot for every 1 acre of wetland. Without the barrier islands, the storm surges would be 8 to 12 feet high.

Hurricanes such as Katrina and Camille before it, two of the most powerful storms ever recorded, have caused significant damage to Mississippi's natural defense systems. If they are not restored, this problem will only get worse, putting more people and property at risk during future storms.

Gulf coast ecosystems are also threatened. The barrier islands and wetlands provide a natural regulator of salinity levels, which is vital for shellfish and other marine life to have a vibrant habitat.

I do not hail from Louisiana, but I strongly support the restoration of levees in New Orleans. These levees are necessary for the restoration and protection of a great American city. Our barrier islands provide the same purpose to the Mississippi gulf coast as the levees do to New Orleans.

In the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the gulf region to provide the funding necessary to restore the natural habitats that protect not just the environment and its ecosystems but also protect our citizens who are in harm's way.

Through the leadership of many in this body today, the Congress has stepped up to the plate and time and again provided assistance to the people of the Gulf States after Katrina. It is appreciated, but I must simply remind my fellow Senators that we are not finished. We should celebrate our progress but keep our eyes on the work that needs to be done. When there is a clear and compelling case for additional Federal involvement, I will be persistent in making that case. The people of the Mississippi gulf coast, who have demonstrated such untiring resilience and strength over the last 2\1/2\ years, deserve no less.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share information with my House colleagues about the application of the rule of law and free market economics in Russia. While economic growth has been positive since the 1998 financial crisis, Russia's legal and political system has regressed, threatening the development of a diverse economy based on market principles and the rule of law. The Russian government's 2003 expropriation of the YUKOS Oil Company raises concern about the stability of the economy and continues to remind us that investing in Russia is still very risky.

As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus Russia Working Group, I would point out that the same legal system that has undermined the civil and human rights of former YUKOS head Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev, also caused the company's downfall. In the YUKOS case, the Russian courts failed to adhere to basic principles such as private property rights protection, independent judges, due process and equal application of the law.

YUKOS, once Russia's largest oil company, was forced to declare bankruptcy in August 2006, when it could not pay claimed back taxes. After a series of auctions, YUKOS' remaining assets fell into the hands of the state-owned company, Rosneft. On November 22, 2007, Russia's Federal Tax Service announced it had completed YUKOS' bankruptcy procedure and that the company had ceased to exist as a legal entity.

In contrast to their experience in the Russian judicial system, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have won several court rulings in other countries. The first favorable decision came in August 2006, when a Dutch court refused to give the Russian receiver of YUKOS, Eduard Rebgun, full control of its Dutch unit.

In August 2007, the Supreme Court of Switzerland ruled that the case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev was politically motivated and refused to release bank documents to Russia in connection with the case.

Shortly afterwards, in October 2007, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia had violated the rights of Lebedev during his arrest and pretrial detention, and the Russian government was ordered to pay him compensation.

However, in the most recent and significant ruling on October 31, 2007, a Dutch court ruled the YUKOS receiver did not have the right to sell off the firm's foreign assets in a bankruptcy auction in August. The court nullified all actions taken in that auction. The court also ruled that YUKOS was denied a fair trial to establish how much back taxes it owed to the Russian government.

The Dutch court ruling is important because it highlights three vitally important issues: First, the ability of Russian officials to appoint their own managers to run YUKOS; second, the bankruptcy of YUKOS and the process used to achieve it; and third, the validity of the original tax claim against YUKOS.

This decision, like many others before it, raises concerns about the legitimacy of the Russian court rulings in the YUKOS case. When the European Court of Human Rights along with courts in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and other jurisdictions all reach the same conclusion, it strongly indicates that there is something very wrong in the application of the rule of law in Russia.

I want to share details of the October 31st Dutch court judgment relating to this case, and would like to submit for the Record the ``Decision'' section of that ruling.

Judgment

District Court of Amsterdam, civil law division, case

number/docket number: 355622/HA ZA 06-3612.

Judgement dated 31 October 2007 in the case of 1. David

Andrew Godfrey, resident in London (United Kingdom); 2. Bruce

Kelvern Misamore, resident in Houston, Texas (United States

of America); 3. the private company with limited liability

YUKOS Finance B.V., with registered seat in Amsterdam;

claimants, procurator litis: Mr. R.J.

van Galen versus 1. Eduard Konstantinovich Rebgun, in his

capacity of trustee in the bankruptcy of the legal entity

under the law of the Russian Federation OAO YUKOS Oil

Company, having chosen domicile at Rotterdam; 2. Leendert

Jacob Hogerbrugge, Resident at Leiden; 3. Sergei Savelyevich

Shmelkov, resident at Moscow (Russian Federation);

defendants, procurator litis: Mr. P.N. van Regteren Altena.

Claimants jointly hereinafter to be called Godfrey et al.

and separately Godfrey, Misamore and Yukos Finance.

Defendants jointly hereinafter to be called Rebgun et al. and

separately Rebgun, Hogerbrugge and Shmelkov. OAO Yukos Oil

Company hereinafter to be called Yukos Oil.

The decision

The District Court:

Passes a declaratory judgment that all Shareholders'

Resolutions in regard to Yukos Finance, in so far as taken by

Rebgun in his capacity of trustee of Yukos Oil, including but

not limited to the decision to dismiss Godfrey and Misamore

as directors of Yukos Finance B.V. dated 11 August 2006 and

the alleged decisions to appoint Shmelkov and Hogerbrugge as

directors of Yukos Finance, are null and void;

Passes a declaratory judgment that all decisions taken by

Shmelkov and/or Hogerbrugge in their supposed capacity of

directors of Yukos Finance B.V. are null and void;

Orders Rebgun to lend his immediate and unconditional

cooperation to the reversal of the (consequences of the)

Shareholders' Resolutions he made in Yukos Finance, subject

to a penalty of 10,000 Euros for each individual violation

and of 1,000 Euros for each day that such violation

continues, to a maximum of 500,000 Euros;

Forbids Rebgun to exercise any rights with respect to the

shares of Yukos Finance or to have these rights exercised,

subject to a penalty of 10,000 Euros for each individual

violation and of 1,000 Euros for each day that such violation

continues, to a maximum of 500,000 Euros;

Orders Shmelkov and Hogerbrugge, both jointly and

severally, to lend their immediate and unconditional

cooperation to the reversal of the (consequences of the)

managerial decisions taken in Yukos Finance, whether

individually or jointly, subject to a penalty of 100,000

Euros for each individual violation and of 100,000 Euros for

each day that such violation continues, to a maximum of

100,000 Euros;

Forbids Shmelkov and Hogerbrugge to exercise any rights

with respect to their alleged representative authority in

Yukos Finance or to have these rights exercised, subject to a

penalty of 100,000 Euros for each individual violation and of

100,000 Euros for each day that such violation continues. to

a maximum of 100,000 Euros;

Orders Rebgun, Shmelkov and Hogerbrugge jointly and

severally to pay the procedural costs on the side of Godfrey

et al., estimated up to this judgment at 332,87 Euros in

disbursements and 1,808 Evros in local counsel's salary:

Orders Shmelkov to pay the costs incurred in connection

with the Russian translation of the Writ of Summons, being

10,882,06 Euros;

Declares the aforementioned orders and injunctions as well

as the orders to pay the procedural costs immediately

enforceable;

Dismisses all other applications.

This judgment was passed by Mr. W. Tonkens-Gerkema, Mr.

C.S. Naarden and Mr. A.W.H. Vink and delivered in open court

on 31 October 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the amendment, thanking my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Edwards, for his kind remarks about me 2 days ago and about the staff, expressing regret that we couldn't have done the MilCon-VA bill earlier.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a word or two about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs portion of this omnibus bill. When the legislation was before the House earlier this week, Chairman Edwards was generous in his praise of our majority and minority staff members of the subcommittee. I wholeheartedly echo that sentiment. We have been blessed with a capable and hard-working staff.

Chairman Edwards was also kind enough to acknowledge that he and I have worked in partnership on this bill from day one. I want to take this opportunity to return that salute. Mr. Edwards sought my input throughout the process, and I am grateful that together with our subcommittee members we have been able to put together a bipartisan product that provides historic increases for our veterans, for our troops, and for the quality of life of current military families. These funds come on top of substantial increases for these accounts during the 12 years when Republicans were in the majority.

I would also gently remind my colleagues that this vital funding has been unnecessarily delayed. We could have moved to conference quickly on this type of funding--in a bipartisan and unifying way. Instead, powers above Mr. Edwards' and my pay grades decided to attach the bill to a much more controversial Labor-HHS-Education measure, and there it has sat, now some 80 days into the new fiscal year.

In an attempt to break the logjam, I introduced legislation identical in every respect to the Milcon-VA conference agreement, and every Republican member of this body co-sponsored that bill. We could have had funding in the pipeline for family housing, childcare centers, veterans and military construction early on. But the bill was held hostage as leverage for an additional $22 billion in completely unrelated areas.

In the end the ploy did not work. Thankfully we are passing an omnibus bill at roughly the President's level, and the veterans and troops are finally getting a bill. I would simply urge my fellow Members to resist these types of maneuvers in the future. Let's not hold up Milcon and VA spending in an effort to spend more elsewhere.

Having made that point as cordially and charitably as I can and in the spirit of the Christmas season, I again thank and commend my Chairman for allowing me to participate in an excellent bipartisan achievement.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the third anniversary of the imprisonment of Egyptian parliamentarian and presidential candidate Ayman Nour. He was jailed on charges of forgery during the 2005 presidential elections in Egypt.

Nour suffers from numerous health problems. He has been subjected to documented physical abuse and has been denied visitation rights afforded to other prisoners. His health condition continues to worsen.

Many Members of Congress stand in solidarity with Ayman Nour and respectfully call on President Mubarak to grant his unconditional release. December 10 is Human Rights Day, marking the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In honor of that day, the Egyptian Government should release Ayman Nour. This action would symbolize a recommitment to the inherent dignity of all people and to their equal and inalienable rights.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats have failed in their misguided attempt to hold veterans spending hostage. Yesterday the Senate voted to delink the MilCon-VA bill from the Labor-HHS conference report. The Senate's action was commendable and should have been expected.

Veterans groups from around the Nation have made it clear it is wrong and cynical to use their bill for political purposes. Now the Democratic majority is saying they will not even try to have this vital legislation on the President's desk by Veterans Day. But there is a way out of this box.

Yesterday, I introduced the MilCon-VA conference agreement as a stand-

alone bill, H.R. 4104. It is identical to the bill already agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators. It could be passed today by unanimous consent and immediately sent to the Senate.

Members who are tired of the political games should cosponsor this bill and urge Speaker Pelosi to take it up today.

I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support the bill. As Mr. Frelinghuysen stated, if I had been writing it line for line, it wouldn't be quite the way it is, but it is a good bill and worthy of our support.

I support the rule also. I hope that it can be amended to make it even better, and here is why. This is the Defense appropriations bill. It will be acted on today, it will be acted on perhaps tomorrow by the Senate and on the President's desk. There is another bill that very much needs to be on the President's desk by Veterans Day, which is November 11. I suppose we will be celebrating it on Monday, November 12, this year because we don't have the Federal holidays on Sunday. That's the bill making appropriations for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. That bill is ready to go and also ready to be sent to the President of the United States.

The House passed its version of the MilCon-VA bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate passed its version of MilCon-VA on September 6, over 2 months ago, by a vote of 92-1 in favor of the bill. For over 2 months, we have stood ready to conference this bill to send it on to the President and send vital funds for infrastructure, for our troops and for their families, and also for our heroes who have served in the past.

As we all know, this is the latest the Congress has gone without sending a single appropriation bill to the President in the past 20 years.

Now, what this amendment that the gentleman from Florida will do, if he is allowed to offer the amendment, is simply to instruct the Speaker to appoint conferees immediately for the MilCon-VA bill. It will do nothing to the Defense bill whatsoever, but it is a way for us to proceed immediately on legislation, which all of our veterans service organizations say is important, which is a good bill, and which should be sent to the President by Veterans Day.

I will be joining Mr. Diaz-Balart and others in voting against the previous question, not because there is anything wrong with the Defense bill, but in order for this amendment to be added and simply allow MilCon-VA to proceed also.

Now, as we say sometimes in the rural south, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If Members feel that defeating the previous question is not what they want to do and requiring the Speaker to appoint conferees immediately, there is another way to move the MilCon-VA immediately and have it sent to the Senate this very day, and that is some legislation which I introduced last night. It's H.R. 4104, and here is what it does. It contains the exact language that was signed by the conferees with regard to MilCon-VA. It is a stand-alone bill with the conference language on MilCon-VA, and it could be adopted this afternoon by unanimous consent. It could be adopted under a suspension of the rules, sent to the Senate immediately, and sent on to the President for his signature before Veterans Day.

What a way to honor our veterans. What a way to honor and pay tribute to the families that will benefit from the MilCon projects and to the troops that need that vital infrastructure.

Defeating the previous question and amending the resolution, I support. But if Members feel they cannot go along with that, I urge them to look at this bill, H.R. 4104. We already have over 100 cosponsors. As I say, it is identical to the bipartisan MilCon-VA conference agreement that Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obey and I and Mr. Lewis worked out as a conference agreement with Members of the Senate. It is the exact language that was passed as an attachment to the Labor-HHS bill.

You know, this should not be a partisan issue. I strongly disagreed on the floor of this House with my friend Mr. Obey and the leadership of this House with the strategy of linking MilCon-VA with the Labor-HHS appropriation bill. I stated that I thought it would slow things down, and, indeed, it did slow things down. The strategy didn't work. The Senate delinked those two bills yesterday afternoon, and now we are really not sure where we are.

H.R. 4101 is the best way and the quickest way for this House and for the Senate to simply send that legislation on to the President. He could be signing it tomorrow afternoon.

So I call on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. I like Mr. Diaz-Balart's strategy. Frankly, I like my strategy a little better because it's cleaner. Let's pass a stand-alone MilCon-VA conference report, the exact language that every one of us has already agreed to, send it on to the President and honor our troops by Veterans Day.

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from Washington.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida says that this new Democratic majority was determined to govern differently than previous majorities. He has succeeded in this regard, Madam Speaker: This is the latest the Congress has gone without sending a single appropriation bill to the President for his signature since 1987. I don't think that is what the Democratic majority had in mind when they said they would govern differently, but they have certainly done so.

So I rise to express my opposition to the rule and to the conference report that will serve no purpose other than to delay funding for veterans, for our troops and for their families.

The conference report before us includes both the Labor-HHS Education appropriation bill and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriation bill. The President stands ready to sign the MilCon-VA bill into law. He could have done so already and made funding available for key veterans health and benefit programs and much-needed military construction projects.

But the majority has chosen to link that bill with a bloated Labor- HHS, Education bill, a measure which the President will veto. So this exercise today amounts to a waste of time and sends the wrong message to veterans and military personnel. Instead of honoring these men and women for their sacrifices and providing assistance to them today on the eve of Veterans Day, we are short-changing our veterans in the interest of political gamesmanship.

The majority's strategy was to couple these bills with the expectation that many Members of Congress would not have the political will to oppose funding for veterans even temporarily. We should not use our veterans as pawns and we should not insult their intelligence. Give our Nation's heroes more credit than that. Our veterans can see through this ruse. So can the American people, and they should be rightly outraged by it.

I have in my hand a statement taken from the Web page of the American Legion, our Nation's largest veterans organization. The American Legion says, ``Here we are again, the start of a new fiscal year and Congress still has not passed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.'' The American Legion goes on to ask the question: ``So what is the problem?'' And their answer is accurate: ``Politics.''

The American Legion goes on to denounce Congress' plans to hold VA funding hostage.

Another veterans organization, VetsForFreedom.org identifies this process for what it is: ``A cynical attempt to use veterans as a political shield for further wasteful government spending.'' VetsforFreedom goes on to say they call on Congress to pass clean bills for the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker, we should be moving this legislation under regular order. It is true that Congresses in the past have used omnibus bills, but always as a last resort after first trying to follow regular established procedure. In this instance, the Democratic leadership did not even attempt to follow regular order. Instead, their first attempt to bring these conference reports to the floor amounts to an unprecedented departure from established procedure.

I very much regret the decision of the majority to link these two bills. The House passed its version of the MilCon bill in June by a vote of 409-2. The Senate passed its bill on September 6, 2 months ago, with a vote of 92-1 in favor of the bill. For 8 weeks, Chairman Edwards and I stood ready to conference these bills. We could have brought a bill to the floor weeks ago that would have passed overwhelmingly and been signed into law by the President.

Instead, after waiting 8 weeks, when we were finally given the green light to move forward with a conference, the members of our subcommittee were not appointed as conferees as is normally the case. The majority decided that the Labor-HHS conferees, most of whom did not attend MilCon-VA hearings or participate in our bill's creation, would be involved in deliberations on VA-specific provisions.

Mr. Edwards and I, as chairman and ranking member, have worked along with our Senate counterparts and our staffs to craft a compromise between the two versions of the MilCon-VA bill. The compromise before the House includes funding for numerous military construction projects that are vital to support the working environment and quality of life of our soldiers and their families.

We have included funding for base realignment and closure. We have included funding for initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their families to Europe and Korea; projects necessary for increasing the active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces in South Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; barracks and family housing projects; new medical facilities; and needed support facilities for our Guard and Reserve. And all of this on a bipartisan basis.

I was especially pleased to join Chairman Edwards in a very important quality of life initiative, funding much-needed child development centers.

With regard to the VA portions of the bill, the department is receiving the largest increase in the department's history, an increase of $4.8 billion over fiscal year 2007. This increase even exceeds the independent budget request submitted by the various veterans service organizations. The bulk of this increase is going to boost medical services at VA hospitals and clinics. In fiscal year 2008, it is estimated that the VA will treat 5.8 million patients, including 263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

The conferees have produced a bipartisan conference report. It is a good work product. It continues the long-standing tradition of support and commitment for the men and women and their families who are serving our country and those who have served our country in the past.

It is unfortunate that these worthy projects are now joined with a bill that includes $10 billion in excessive spending on domestic programs.

Included in the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is a new duplicative program for the CDC for comprehensive sex education; a new grant-making initiative at the Department of Education targeting the creation of full-service community schools.

The only office at the Department of Labor the majority has seen fit to cut is the one responsible for union oversight. Apparently union accountability is unimportant to the majority, so they cut the labor management standards budget by 20 percent.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I mention these things to point out that there are legitimate differences surrounding the Labor-HHS bill. There are good reasons the President will veto Labor-HHS. But there are no good reasons for this bill to be linked with MilCon-VA. Vital funding for the VA and infrastructure for our troops could be in the pipeline within a matter of days, but the majority will simply not allow that. Instead, we are sacrificing veterans for the sake of a cheap, cheap political stunt. Our Nation's veterans deserve better. The American people deserve better.

Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the conference report.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas, with whom I have worked closely and for whom I have the greatest regard, mentions proudly and properly this, the largest increase in veterans spending in history.

I have to say that it does come on top of record spending increases for veterans over the past 12 years. So, I take a second place to no one in my support and in defending our stewardship of the Veterans Administration over the past 12 years.

My friend quoted the DAV organization. I am sure they support this bill. I am also sure, just like the American Legion and the Vets for Freedom, that they don't want it delayed as this process will do, and that's why I urge a defeat of the previous question and of the rule.

My friend says that not one Republican Member voted for the budget resolution. The budget resolution provided great funding for the veterans, but it also included the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and that's why Republicans voted against the budget resolution.

Madam Speaker, this really is an unprecedented move. We were originally told that it would be scheduled for first thing this morning. Then it was rescheduled for early this afternoon. And once again, the matter was so controversial that it had to be pulled again and we find ourselves discussing it now at this moment.

I frankly wish my friend from Wisconsin would pull the motion again, because there is only one way to understand this process. This is, as the Republican leader said, a political stunt. If it is allowed to proceed, the result will be predictable. The President will veto the product of this conference committee, because it will attempt to spend billions and billions of new dollars on domestic programs we cannot afford, just when a balanced budget is within sight again. The President will veto the bill, the President's veto will be sustained, and we will be back to the drawing board.

While all of this is unfolding, much-needed funds for our veterans clinics and for our servicemembers and their families will be delayed, not to mention essential funding for our Nation's defense in the global war on terror, for our troops in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq who are risking their lives for our country even as we speak. These key national security expenditures will have to wait even longer than they have already waited.

The other result of this process will be just as predictable. Some people in this town, in this very House, will have gotten what they wanted: more political theater, more attempts to link good policy with excessive spending in an attempt to score political points.

Madam Speaker, does the Democratic leadership of this Congress want to pass appropriation bills or do they just want to make new campaign commercials?

Four and one-half months ago the House of Representatives passed the Military Construction-VA bill with an overwhelming 409 votes. The Senate passed its version of MilCon-VA with only one dissenting vote on September 6, 8 weeks ago. The President has expressed his willingness to sign the bill. Mr. Edwards and I, along with our subcommittee, have stood ready to go to conference for almost 2 months. Why, other than politics, have these funds for military quality of life and for our Nation's veterans been delayed?

Mr. Edwards and I, as chairman and ranking member, have worked along with our Senate counterparts and our staffs to craft a compromise between the two versions of MilCon-VA. Only a few outstanding issues remain. We are ready to go with this essential bill. The same is true for the Defense appropriations bill.

That means we could have bills on the President's desk within a matter of days. Funds for vital infrastructure for our troops, child development centers and veterans programs could be in the pipeline within a matter of days. Do we really want to hold our present and former troops hostage for political games?

So I urge my friends on the other side the aisle to reconsider this unprecedented maneuver. Send the bills by regular order according to the established rules. Let's get the funds to our troops without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for the remarks that he has already made.

Actually, it is not usually my practice to come before this House and defend the New York Times. But it was actually an advertisement, a full-page advertisement taken out in the New York Times by the ultra- leftist group, moveon.org. I have a copy of it right here.

Mr. Speaker, it is by George Soros and moveon.org. It says: ``General Petraeus or general betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.'' I was astonished to see even moveon.org attack the messenger as they did today and attack the credibility and integrity and, if you please, the patriotism of this great servant who has served so many years in the military and who was confirmed unanimously in the United States Senate. It was and is an insult. It shows the level to which the opponents of this surge and those who would legislate defeat in Iraq would go.

I was glad to see Ranking Member Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen take this group to task during the hearing and to call on members of the committee at the hearing today to disassociate themselves, whether they agree with our policy in Iraq or not, to disassociate themselves from this type of smear tactic that we saw coming from moveon.org in the New York Times in the form of this full- page ad.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that more Members on both sides of the aisle didn't rise and denounce this scurrilous attack on the integrity of one of our great public servants.

Amen.

I appreciate my friend yielding, and I have also been in need of a poster before and not been able to find it. If the gentleman would put that quote from General Petraeus back up, I will refer to it while he looks for the other quote from the ambassador.

To emphasize this point again, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security. Now, that is the testimony of this well-respected general that we have entrusted with this very important mission.

And it disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, that often the message of the accomplishments doesn't get through to the American people. We hear only about benchmarks not quite being met or expectations not quite being realized. For example, people point to the fact that an oil law has not yet been enacted by the leadership in Iraq and submitted to the Iraqi Parliament.

As a matter of fact, as the testimony indicated today, oil revenues in Iraq are up and the revenues are in fact being distributed out to the local governments and the provinces. Now, this is in the absence of a final piece of legislation enacted by the parliament. But the fact remains that under this interim procedure that they have now, the oil revenues are there. Iraq is exporting oil for the first time in quite some time, and the oil revenues are being distributed out where they can benefit the people. That may not be a benchmark of legislation, but it is a real accomplishment; and it is the sort of thing that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were talking about.

Also, there has been much made of the fact that there has been no reconciliation statute enacted into law over there. But as was pointed out today in the testimony, former members of the Iraqi Army, former Baathists, if you please, are now being accepted into the government and being given pensions from the government and many of them are being accepted back into the security forces there in Iraq.

Now, a law hasn't been passed, but in my opinion that is de facto reconciliation and de facto amnesty for these people who were formerly in Saddam's Iraqi Army. By the thousands, these people are being integrated back into the mainstream of Iraqi security forces.

Also in the Anbar province, it is well known at least in this capital city that the sectarian leaders all across that province have turned on al Qaeda. They were in league with them a year ago. They have now turned on them, and they are helping the United States and coalition forces because they realize that their future does not lie with this destructive, violent al Qaeda force, but with the forces that would bring freedom and liberty and self-determination to more Iraqis.

Sectarian violence is down, as Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain pointed out in their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, and I would commend that to our colleagues. There is an excellent bipartisan piece about that. Sectarian violence is down all over the country, down 70 percent in Baghdad alone. So there are real accomplishments there.

Certainly, as the general said, innumerable challenges lie ahead. The assessment is optimistic, but it is sober

and this is no rosy scenario; but there is much reason to be optimistic.

Let me just say this about the feeling of the American people: I know that they are frustrated about this. This war has gone on longer than expected, and they have been conflicted about it. But I believe after being home for much of August and talking to my constituents, I think the American people do want us to succeed in Iraq. They realize that failure there, that withdrawal there, that leaving too early would leave a huge void that probably al Qaeda would fill and probably our detractors in Iran would fill, and they know that would be a disaster. They want success, and I think these two gentlemen who testified before us give us a good opportunity for success.

A few moments ago we gathered on the east steps of the House of Representatives, and we commemorated the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Two other speakers on the floor today were not Members of the House of Representatives at that time. I was, and I shall never forget the resolve and the determination of the Congress, both ends of this building, both sides of the aisle, on that day to defeat these terrorists.

The al Qaeda terrorist network that we are fighting in Iraq today is the very same network that brought down those two buildings in New York. They are the very same network that sent a plane crashing into the Pentagon. And they are the very same al Qaeda that had a plane headed toward Washington, DC, which undoubtedly was headed towards the Capitol Building.

We are still fighting al Qaeda, and I appreciate people like Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus who are fighting that war as capably as they know how. Al Qaeda must be defeated, Mr. Speaker. And our best opportunity, our greatest chance to defeat al Qaeda today is to be successful in Iraq. That's what I would urge my colleagues to support, and I believe that is what the American people want us to do. I thank my friend for calling this Special Order.

If the gentleman will just yield on that, I'm glad that both of my colleagues have pointed this out, Mr. Speaker.

In just the short time that we've been hearing quotes from this Jones report, which I very much appreciated, I don't know how many times the gentleman from Minnesota read the word ``progress,'' progress in this respect, progress in other respects, challenges of course, but progress, progress, progress, the word ``success,'' the words ``pleasantly surprised.''

So it would certainly be inaccurate to say that the Jones report was totally negative and that the Petraeus report was somehow far different. So I very much appreciate the gentleman pointing that out, and I simply wanted to underscore the very optimistic words that the general had in his testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation to fund our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Bill Young for their leadership and for working with the members on both sides of the aisle in crafting this important bill.

This measure provides the funds to enable our military to meet the challenges it faces in the global war on terror and to protect our homeland. It contains resources to address the needs of our military families and includes initiatives to produce the advanced weaponry, equipment, and training to ensure that our military remains the best in the world.

I am particularly pleased that the Committee did not include restrictions on funds that would prevent the President and our military commanders in the field from implementing the surge strategy in Iraq.

In the debate on funding for the troops and the surge earlier this year, some of my Democratic colleagues and many in the news media proclaimed this operation to be a failure even before it began. Many said the war was lost. Despite signs that the new strategy was taking hold, the Democratic majority sought to undermine this effort with attempts to cut off funding and set a date-certain for withdrawal. President Bush and Republicans in this Congress countered that we should support the troops fully and give the surge time to work.

There is solid evidence now that this strategy so ably put into place by GEN David Petraeus is working. Two military commanders on the ground there reported this week that they are denying freedom of movement to Al-Qaeda and that the citizenry have a new level of confidence in the Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. More Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda and working with Coalition forces to make their communities safer.

Further proof about progress in Iraq was provided in a July 30 op-ed in the New York Times. The column, entitled ``A War We Just Might Win,'' was written by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two fellows at the Brookings Institution who have been harsh critics of the war effort. They spent eight days in Iraq and spoke of the significant changes taking place there.

They wrote that troop morale is now high, that Coalition forces are confident in the strategy, and that they have the personnel on the

ground to ``make a real difference.'' Army and Marine units are working well with Iraqi security units and the political and economic arrangements being forged at the local level are helping provide basic services to the Iraqi people.

They visited Anbar province and its capital of Ramadi, which has gone from being described as the worst part of Iraq to the best in just six months. To quote, ``A few months ago, American Marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.''

Mr. Chairman, in a previous House debate on this issue, I noted that the American people are war-weary and impatient with the progress of our efforts there. I also said I believe the American people want us to win. I understand the frustration they feel about this engagement, but I still believe they want us to succeed in bringing about a free and stable government in Iraq and in defeating Al Qaeda. The reports I referenced earlier offer encouragement that our strategy may yet produce those results.

Our success there would stymie the plans outlined by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Jihadists who consider Iraq a central battleground in the war on terror. They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and use it as a beach-head to spread their terror and intolerance throughout the region and around the world.

We have taken the fight to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to deny them the staging ground to plot more September 11-style attacks in the U.S. We have also been vigilant about protecting our homeland since 9- 11, and we must continue to provide the support our military and our intelligence communities need to meet that challenge. That includes modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enable our intelligence agencies to remove outdated restrictions on the collection of information needed to stop terrorist plots before they can be carried out.

The funding in this bill and revising the FISA provisions will send a message about our commitment to providing the resources to protect our homeland, enable our military to defend American interests, and fight terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Madam Speaker, less than 6 months ago, House Democrats promised not to hold recorded votes open to change the results. They went even further. They changed the House rules to prohibit this practice. But last night the Chair held a 2-minute vote open so that five Democrat Members could have their arms twisted, change their votes and pass the Udall amendment.

And what was this amendment? Democrats broke their promise for a provision that prohibits America from producing energy from our plentiful supply of shale, further demonstrating what a fraud the Democrats' energy policy is, a policy repeatedly preventing us from developing our own petroleum reserves.

Shame on the Democratic leadership for going back on their promise with such breathtaking speed. More importantly, shame on the Democrats for a policy that stops Americans from producing our own energy, for causing gasoline prices to continue to rise, and for making sure we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil.