Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and faithful public servant of the State of Georgia, a woman of great faith, and a personal friend, Peggy Greenway.

Although she was born and raised in Alabama, Peggy's heart and home was our great State of Georgia. She was an active part of the Albany community for 37 years before moving to Vienna, Georgia, and finally relocating to Dublin, Georgia.

Peggy loved Southern Gospel music and had a deep faith in the Lord. She was a cherished member of the Byne Memorial Baptist Church in Albany, the Pinecrest Baptist Church in Vienna, and the Dublin Baptist Church in Dublin. Through her work with the Byne Memorial youth group, she touched many lives; those who knew and loved her described Peggy as a fine Christian and loving lady.

In addition to her devout faith, Peggy was an enthusiastic employee; I first witnessed Peggy's dedicated work ethic during my first term in Congress. Peggy served as a caseworker and as Director of Constituent Services for my district in our Albany office. For more than a decade, she worked tirelessly to fight for the citizens of the Second Congressional District of Georgia. Whether it was an issue with Social Security or the VA, Peggy was an expert at providing constituent care.

Peggy's expertise was a great asset to the Second District, a calling which first began under Rep. Charles Hatcher. Peggy also faithfully served the Eighth Congressional District of Georgia, handling casework for the constituents of Representatives Jim Marshall, and Austin Scott. She also worked for Congressman J. Roy Rowland.

As Members of Congress, we are well aware of Peggy's dedication to improving her community. She honed her commitment to excellence when she began her career working at WALB, the local television station in Albany, and also for Judge Asa Kelley.

Peggy's unyielding strength of character will truly be missed. She lived a full life, and her selfless dedication to the citizens of Georgia is her lasting legacy. My thoughts and prayers are with her family, especially her daughters, Tammy and Julee, and her beloved grandchildren, Cade Greenway, Cole Bailey, Camryn Bailey, Cara Bailey and Conner Bailey.

Leonardo da Vinci said, ``As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so a life well used brings happy death.'' Peggy Greenway utilized her God- given gifts to improve the lives of others, and her days were well- spent; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I know that she can rest happy.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we have heard some heated debate today. This so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance bill does just that.

It cuts and it caps programs that will work for everyone and put America ahead of our competitors. It cuts and caps our ability to jump- start new industries in our country, like clean energy. It cuts and caps our ability to rebuild our economic infrastructure, like roads and bridges and ports, and to put people to work. It cuts and caps education and job training opportunities to help middle class people get and keep good jobs.

Yes, it cuts and it caps, but it balances the cuts and the caps by protecting tax breaks for the wealthiest folks in our country by providing subsidies for corporations that take jobs overseas, away from American workers, and by cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits for our Nation's seniors--balancing it on the backs of them.

I have some problems with this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I am a realist, and I realize, reluctantly, that it might just pass. So, regardless of how we may feel about the underlying legislation, this motion to recommit is something upon which we ought to all be able to agree. It simply says that it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that could result in a reduction in veterans' benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen what a shortfall in veterans funding can do. I remember the problems with veterans care. I remember the $1 billion shortfall a few years ago when the Department of Veterans Affairs had to raid its operations and maintenance account to help pay for veterans basic medical care.

Even now, veterans have to wait years to have their claims adjudicated because they're just are not enough adjudicators. They have to wait too long to get doctors to get their treatment. Mr. Speaker, with more of our servicemembers returning home every day, more vets are returning home who have no opportunity or a limited opportunity for job training, returning home with PTSD, or returning home now having to face the possibility of limited educational benefits because of this bill and its progeny.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to endanger benefits to our Nation's veterans.

When veterans come home without limbs because they have defended our freedoms, we should not put in place Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation on their backs, the backs that are strained and damaged by the injuries they sustained fighting for this country. We should not stand idly by and watch this Congress endanger the welfare of our Nation's heroes.

Today's Nation's military remains deployed overseas as it has during the last 9 years. The funding requirements we face in meeting the needs have significantly increased as we continue to meet and address the longstanding issues from past and current wars. And we cannot watch the requirements for these fighting men and women who come home continue to die.

These needs last long after the last American combatants depart Iraq and Afghanistan. This motion to recommit would simply protect our veterans from any potential unintended consequence resulting from this ill-conceived bill, the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

The needs of America's veterans, past and future, should be one of our highest priorities. And this motion will ensure that our veterans are taken care of and they receive the benefits they have earned.

Let's be clear. The passage of this motion to recommit will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

So though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity with this motion to recommit and my amendment to speak with one voice in support of our veterans.

It is up to all of us. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. But let's make sure that if this bill passes, the Cut, Cap and Balance and any balanced budget will not result in a reduction of veterans benefits. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and protect our Nation's veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a faithful public servant, a dedicated civil rights activist, a devoted mother and wife, and a personal friend, Mrs. Mary Alice Shipp.

Mary Alice Shipp was born on November 30, 1927 in Alamo, Georgia, one of six children to the late Aaron O. Cook, Sr. and the late Abbie Hall Cook Steward.

Mary Alice Shipp had a thirst for knowledge and throughout her life continued her pursuit of education. She graduated from the Twin City High School in Telfair County and went on to Albany State College, where she received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education. She later attended Fort Valley State College, where she became certified in Guidance and Counseling. In addition, she became certified in Career Education at the University of Georgia and became a Master Cosmetologist at the Madam C.J. Cargo Beauty School in Savannah. As the years progressed, she completed advanced training in Christian Education at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

Her love of education led her to teach elementary school in Telfair, Bleckley and Bibb Counties for 28 years before retiring. In addition to teaching, she was an accomplished business woman, owning and operating the Debutante Beauterette in McRae, Georgia for 20 years and was co- owning and managing the Shepard Funeral Home in Sylvester, Georgia.

Mary Alice Shipp served her community, as well. She was appointed to the Georgia Board of Corrections, Georgia Hunger Coalition, Member of the Sylvester City Council, President of the Worth County NAACP, and Director of the Worth County Save the Children. She and her husband, the late Curtis Shipp, were dedicated to the citizens of Worth County and the surrounding area.

For more than 40 years, she was a part of the struggle for civil rights. She was a faithful believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the advocacy of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Because of her efforts, she was recognized by numerous organizations for her selfless efforts to help the poor, aged, and less fortunate. She donated many of her awards and memoirs to the Albany Civil Rights Museum. The Mary Alice Shipp Senior Center, named in her honor, also ensures Mrs. Shipp's lasting legacy.

Mrs. Shipp was a woman of great faith. She was converted at an early age and was a devout member of Corinth C.M.E. Church in McRae, Georgia, where she served in numerous capacities for many years. After moving to Sylvester, she became affiliated with Jones Chapel A.M.E. Church and later united with the Brown's Chapel C.M.E. Church, where she served faithfully until her death.

She was blessed with a loving family, including her late husband, Curtis Shipp, two beautiful daughters, Lynette Edwards and Paula Adams; son-in-law, Virgil Adams; grandson, Xavier Omar Edwards; sister, Annie Pearl Little; a sister-in-law, Delores Cook; devoted step-son, Ricky Shipp; nieces, Beverly Burks, Regina Daniels, Antoinette Smith, Judith Cook, Sara Shields and Nekia Daniels; nephews, Charles Little, Jr, Philip Burks, Kelsie Daniels, Jr., and Jason Smith.

Mr. Speaker, through Mrs. Shipp's endeavors to educate and improve her community, she touched many people. She leaves behind a lasting legacy of dedicated service, and I was fortunate to have her as a friend. My heartfelt sympathies are with her family, as it is always difficult to lose a loved one, but there is comfort knowing that today, heaven has a new angel and Mary Alice Shipp is with God.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a decorated soldier, community leader, public servant, and my longstanding friend, CSM (Ret) Eddie Roberts. Sadly, CSM Roberts passed away suddenly on July 6, 2011, but he left a legacy and a personality that will never be forgotten.

Eddie was a native of Pensacola, Florida. Spurred by a love of country, he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1965 and completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Throughout his military career, he had 13 military assignments, which included tours in Korea, Germany, and Panama. He served two decorated tours in Vietnam, during which he displayed remarkable heroism and earned the endearing nickname, ``Fast Eddie.'' During his tour in Panama, he trained soldiers to throw grenades. When one soldier dropped the grenade after pulling the safety pin, Eddie quickly grabbed the grenade and safely tossed it away from frightened soldiers.

His military career earned him many honors including: the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Ranger Tab, Jumpmaster Wings and the Pathfinder Badge.

After his distinguished military career ended in 1995, he found other ways to give back to the community that he loved so much. He started work at Columbus Bank and Trust as Vice President and Military Sales Coordinator. He never forgot his experience in the military and never forgot his love of soldiers. He used his position to help soldiers become better managers of their finances. Moreover, he advocated for their causes with a fervor and spirit that made you take notice and appreciate his passion for his comrades.

In addition to improving the lives of soldiers, Eddie was involved in many social and civic organizations dedicated to the improvement of his community. He was one of the founding members of the Controllers Civic and Social Club in Columbus, an organization that has given away more than 20,000 pairs of shoes to low-income children. Because of his infectious personality, Eddie never met a stranger he didn't like and always tried to put himself in the ``shoes'' of others. Consequently, thousands of young people have been able to walk in shoes with pride and dignity.

On a personal note, Eddie was my dear friend for many years. During my first Congressional campaign and subsequent campaigns, he was one of my drivers. He often joked that: ``He was never paid for his services.'' He continued to provide me with treasured friendship and wise counsel over the years.

The phrase, ``One of a Kind'' is used too much in our everyday discourse. I can truly say that CSM (Ret). Eddie Roberts was one of a kind and will never be forgotten. One of my mentors, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, once said that, ``Every man and woman is born into the world to do something unique and something distinctive and if he or she does not do it, it will never be done.''

Mr. Speaker, the world is a better place because CSM (Ret) Eddie Roberts passed this way. He did something unique with his life and the world is better for it. On behalf of my wife, Vivian and I, I extend my deepest sympathies to all those who knew and loved this special man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great leader in higher education in Georgia--someone who has been committed to improving the lives of young men and women throughout his career. Dr. Larry Rivers recently marked his fifth anniversary as the President of Fort Valley State University (FVSU), and what a remarkable 5 years it has been.

Dr. Rivers was born in the suburbs of Philadelphia and graduated from what was then Fort Valley State College. After earning a master's degree in history from Villanova University, and a Doctor of Arts degree in history from Carnegie-Mellon University, he went on to teach at Florida A&M University for more than 20 years and earned the rank of ``distinguished university professor,'' one of only two on the campus.

He returned to his alma mater in 2006, and in 5 short years, FVSU has experienced a remarkable turnaround under Dr. Rivers' leadership. Student enrollment is at the highest point in the 115-year history of the university. Since 2006, the university invested $160 million in new construction projects that are transforming the campus with additional buildings to accommodate more students and new research facilities. And FVSU now offers new undergraduate courses and master's degrees in fields such as biotechnology, teaching, and early childhood development that will provide the education and training our future leaders need to compete in a 21st century economy.

Because of FVSU's progress, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools recently reaffirmed the university's accreditation, and the school was ranked 25th on U.S. News and World Report's list of ``America's Best Black Colleges.''

To meet the demands of FVSU's growth, the City of Fort Valley has modernized its infrastructure through several rural development grants and wastewater reclamation projects. These fundamental improvements will attract new businesses to Southwest Georgia that are looking to take advantage of the talented individuals FVSU is producing each and every year.

Dr. Rivers has earned well-deserved praise for his efforts at FVSU. Georgia Trend magazine recognized him as one of the ``100 Most Influential Georgians'' and one of Georgia's ``Top 25 Leaders'' in its 25th Anniversary issue. While the transformation at FVSU is remarkable, I know Dr. Rivers will not rest until FVSU is ranked 1st.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Universities are based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind.'' I am confident that under the leadership of Dr. Larry Rivers, we will continue to expand the minds of our young men and women and educate the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the committee's recommended FY12 Defense appropriations bill.

I'd first like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks, Chairman Rogers, the subcommittee members and staff on both sides of the aisle for continuing the fine tradition of bipartisan cooperation and teamwork in producing this bill.

Of note, the bill provides $530.5 billion in total for the DOD in fiscal year 2012, $17 billion more than the current level. In addition, the bill provides $118.7 billion for contingency funding for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It continues our longstanding commitment to our troops and their families by including a pay raise for the troops, strengthening health care services for servicemembers and their families, and providing $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs.

The bill protects our troops in harm's way by providing $3.2 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, $2.8 billion for combating IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a total of $453 million for the modernization of the M1 Abrams tanks.

The bill also includes an additional $1.5 billion for the National Guard and Reserve equipment, $633 million for military medical research, including $233 million for cancer research, $125 million for psychological health and traumatic brain injury research.

I'm pleased that the committee included $141 million for University and Industry Research Centers, of which $20 million was included for Historically Black Colleges and Universities for research.

As a former member of the subcommittee, I'm reminded of my dear friend and colleague, former Chairman Jack Murtha, who followed one central creed and principle in developing an annual House Defense appropriations bill, and that was to create a bill which provided our servicemen and -women all the resources and tools they need to do their job as effectively and efficiently as possible. I believe this bill does just that. And I do earnestly believe that Chairman Murtha would be very proud of this bill. And I'm pleased to support its passage.

I move to strike the last word.

I also rise in opposition to this amendment, and I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from South Dakota.

I believe that with the economic challenges that our country has felt, much of which is related to the cost of fuel, this is an amendment that I think undermines our ability to recover and to create jobs.

In our rural community down in Mitchell County, Georgia, we have an ethanol facility there which contributes a tremendous amount to the local economy. It hires people and it is, I think, the example of how we grow our rural economy. In fact, this amendment would stop that kind of job growth. It would not allow this facility to expand and to be prosperous, and I just think that it's the wrong way to go.

When America and the American economy gets sick and gets a cold, the rural economy has pneumonia and it's on life support, and we need to make sure that--we had some 30, 40, 50, 60 individuals in rural Georgia who decided that they wanted to invest their own money in a home grown industry for renewable energy, so that we would be in a position to contribute to our own energy self-sufficiency and we would be able to do it in a way where our local individuals would be able to create jobs and to increase the economy there in our local rural community. It has worked very well except for the fact that they don't have the facilities, don't have the pumps, and we need to make sure that they do.

This amendment I think is pennywise and pound foolish, and I think that we need to go ahead and move ahead to help our country become energy self-sufficient. How do we do that? By making sure that consumers do have access to the blends so that we will not continually have to fight with the Middle East for the cost of fuel. Oil prices really are battering our economy. Energy costs are battering our economy. It's also battering our national security. When you look at how many billions of gallons of fuel are spent for our national security with our military vehicles, our weapons, we need to have alternative energy sources, and I think this amendment undermines that.

I oppose it and I associate myself with all those who oppose this amendment. I think that we need to move forward with energy self- sufficiency, energy independence for our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Arizona when he says that we've got to put everything on the table in order to eliminate this deficit and to put us on a path toward balancing our budget. We've got a fiscal crisis.

But at the same time, we need to make smart choices. We need to establish priorities. We don't need to cut off our feet or cut off our hands. We need to empower ourselves and have the tools that we need. And I think that if we're going to have a strong agricultural community, if we're going to have American farmers be able to produce high quality, safe, economical food for the people of this country and for export, and to be able to compete in the global marketplace, we are going to have to have reasonable and smart farm support.

Our authorizing committee has done a great job. And Members of this body have done a tremendous job in trying to review over the years what we need to do to tighten up and make more efficient our farm support programs. And we've got to do that. And of course they do have to be on the table. But let's be smart. Let's not take a meat ax to it when we need to take a scalpel approach.

An individual or a legal entity must be actively engaged in farming rules that are administered by USDA in order to participate in farm programs. To receive the payments when they are available, individuals or legal entities determined to be actively engaged in farming must prove their average adjusted gross farm and nonfarm income are below the levels that are set by the statute. If an individual is determined to be eligible, the total benefits for all crops are limited to a specific amount as dictated by the statute.

Now, we can't have a cookie-cutter approach to this. Our farmers in the Midwest and other parts of the country other than the Southeast have a different need in terms of farm support and farm support programs. We have a diversity of crops. We have a multitude of crops in our portfolio in the Southeast, from Virginia all the way to Texas. And in order to be able to grow those crops effectively, a producer has to have versatile equipment. For example, if you grow cotton you've got to have a certain kind of equipment for cotton. If you grow corn and grain, you've got to have a different piece of equipment for that. There are three different kinds of equipment. And peanut growers, cotton growers, and grain growers all in the Southeast have to finance those various kinds of equipment.

Now, the 2008 farm law made the most comprehensive and far-reaching reforms of eligibility and limitations on farm programs in 20 years. It substantially reduced the level of the income test that was established in the 2002 farm bill by creating two new tests to determine eligibility. Individuals or entities with a 3-year average adjusted gross nonfarm income exceeding $500,000 are not eligible for any commodity program benefits. Individuals

with a 3-year average adjusted gross farm income exceeding $750,000 are ineligible for direct benefits.

While this amount may seem generous, the gross income is calculated before debt servicing and other expenses are met. Since a new cotton harvester can cost upwards of $750,000, and investments in land and crop input such as fuel are escalating, you've still got to take into account the cost of the irrigation system, the labor cost, the rent on the land, the ad valorem taxes, and health insurance for the farmers and for their families. So you've really got a lot of expenses that are not taken into account when this statutory limitation on income is calculated.

It also, in '08, eliminated the three entity rule and replaced it with the direct attribution rule, which provides that each payment is attributed to a specific individual. That reduced the payment, since prior to 2008, individuals could participate in three entities receiving payments.

Congress thoroughly debated the level of income tax when we developed the 2008 farm bill so that the tests for farm income and the tests for nonfarm income were appropriate. The tests are administered by USDA, and the documents submitted to USDA by program participants are subject to rigorous review by USDA and IRS.

This is a bad, bad thing, and I suggest that we ought to let the authorizing committee do this in the farm bill and not do it now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much.

I couldn't agree with Mr. Farr more. The one thing that I think we need to understand that this program enhances is our trade deficit. We have been suffering with a global economy over the years. But the one aspect of the American economy in terms of our trade deficit that has kept us afloat has been agricultural exports. And it's programs like the Market Access Program that has allowed us to maintain a trade balance with our global competitors.

So I would think that this is a program that we ought to carefully protect. It's a program that works. And it's what has kept our trade deficit at

the level that it is. If we should take this away, we can look to have more products from China, fewer of our exports going overseas, and fewer of the smaller companies that benefit from this carve-out, being able to utilize the Internet marketing and to sell their products oversees. So I would think that this is, again, penny-wise, pound- foolish, and it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great educator and woman of tremendous class and grace, Dr. Robbie Latimore. Dr. Latimore will retire on June 30, 2011, after more than 30 years of service at South Georgia Technical College in Americus, Georgia. She has played a tremendous role in the development of South Georgia Tech into one of the best technical colleges in Georgia and our Nation.

Dr. Latimore was born in Dublin, Georgia, to the union of the late Mark Smith, Sr. and Katie Smith. She graduated from Northwest Laurens High School in Dublin, received her B.S. degree in Business Education from Fort Valley State College in Fort Valley, Georgia, and her Master's Degree in Business Education from Georgia Southwestern University in Americus, Georgia. And finally, she received her Doctorate of Education in Adult Education from the University of Georgia.

Since joining the faculty in 1981 as a Business Education professor, she has worked tirelessly to make South Georgia Technical College a dynamic institution of higher learning. Throughout her tenure, Dr. Latimore has held several leadership positions, including Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Student Services, Director of Instruction, Chair of the Business Education Department and Instructor.

The great author Zora Neale Hurston once said that, ``There is nothing to make you like other human beings as much as doing things for them.'' Dr. Latimore has learned this lesson and dedicated her life to helping others to reach their full potential. She is involved with many organizations that aim to make the world a better place for all. Some of her community organizations include the Fort Valley State University National Alumni Association, Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc., Phoebe Sumter Medical Center Board of Directors, the American Technical Education Association, and Education Committee Member for the Americus- Sumter County Chamber of Commerce, to name a few.

Dr. Latimore has also been married to her husband, Mr. Frank A. Latimore, for over 34 years. They have raised a daughter, Kourtney, and two sons, Brandon and Keiva, who are well on their way to making their own mark on society. And they have one grandchild, Bryce Alexander Latimore.

And lastly, Dr. Latimore is committed to her God. A dedicated member of the Bethesda Missionary Baptist Church in Americus, Georgia, Dr. Latimore believes that the Lord has ordered all of her steps and she gives Him all the glory for her successes in life and the ability to raise a productive family.

South Georgia Technical College should consider itself blessed for having a woman with the strength and character of Dr. Robbie Latimore, who gave her all to make the college a success. On behalf of the constituents of the Second Congressional District, I thank her for her service and wish her a happy retirement.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and to the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments in behalf of the committee of their willingness to help find a solution to the issue that serves as the basis for this point of order, these regulations.

We have cotton, peanuts and pecans in my district, and we also have poultry. We have pork, and we have cattle operations. The decisions of the FDA have an enormous impact on the farmers in my district at many levels. Many of the producers in my district are worried about some of the conclusions that FDA seems to have reached regarding antibiotics. They're worried about what will come next. They conduct themselves every day with the best interests of their animals in mind. A healthy animal means healthy food for consumers.

If there is scientific evidence that shows that current practices are not in the interest of public health, my farmers, of course, will change their practices, but there should and there must be clear evidence. Not unnecessary regulation. Certainly with the job situation today and the state of our economy, the FDA must be very careful, very precise, and very certain that any regulatory action they take is supported by scientific evidence. I very much welcome the involvement of the authorizing committee to help find a solution to this issue.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Let me just say this: Georgia is the second- largest cotton-producing State. It accounts for approximately 10 percent of the U.S. cotton production. In 2011, Georgia farmers intend to plant almost 1.5 million acres of cotton.

The average farm-gate value is more than $600 million. There are approximately 2,800 businesses directly involved in the production, processing, and distribution of cotton. Accounting for the broader economic effects, the Georgia cotton industry supports more than 46,000 jobs, and it generates economic activity of approximately $11 billion.

Now, the proponents of these amendments target provisions in the cotton programs that are at the center of a WTO trade case which Brazil has against the United States. The U.S. and the Brazilian Governments have scheduled a series of consultations designed to identify the modifications in policy that will resolve the case. The intention is to reach agreement on carefully thought-out provisions that can be included in the 2012 farm bill.

These hastily drafted amendments are not guaranteed to resolve the dispute, 1, since the U.S.-Brazil consultations have not resulted in any specific agreement and, 2, since these approaches will certainly undermine the future discussions as the two countries attempt to reach a final resolution that's fair and that is reasonable.

The amendments target cotton farmers in an effort to reduce government spending. The 2008 farm bill, including the cotton provisions, was fully paid for, offset, and did not add one single dime to the deficit. They cite the years in which the government's support for cotton was historically high, but they ignore the years when the support actually is at historic lows. We need to maintain the safety net so that it's there when it's needed but not utilized, as it hasn't been recently, when it's not needed.

Farmers understand the current budget pressures. They understand that very well. But they expect to be a part

of a debate involving all of the agricultural stakeholders, and not be singled out for ad hoc budget reductions with hasty policy decisions.

These proposed amendments would nullify the basic component of cotton policy. If these amendments are enacted, they would take effect October 1, and, as a result, USDA would have to change the cotton program rules in the middle of the marketing year and change them back effective October 1, 2012. This would undermine the confidence in commodity programs, especially among agricultural lenders.

This would compromise our agriculture policy, a policy that has been vetted very carefully by our authorizing committees and relied upon by our growers and our lenders in making their business decisions going into 2012. The reauthorization of the farm bill in 2012 is the proper forum to debate the cotton agriculture policy, not here on this appropriations bill.

We have got to do what is right in regular order. This is not the time. It's not the place. And what we're doing tonight, if they go forward with this, is pulling the rug out from under our cotton farmers and our agriculture when they have made financial plans through 2012. It is unfair; it's not right, and we should not do it.

I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments. They are ill- advised.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I think this amendment is very, very ill advised.

Storage and handling fees are an integral part of the peanut program and the cotton program. Removal of these fees will strike against the growers, the farmers' bottom line. The current marketing loan rate is $355 per ton. There has been no increase in the peanut loan rate, which is the safety net, since the 2002 farm bill. With the new farm bill expected to take place next year, it's unfair for the program to change dramatically in this final year of the 2008 farm bill.

Peanut growers changed their program from a supply-management program, in 2002, to a marketing loan program. We eliminated the old quota system. This included a price reduction from $610 per ton to $355 per ton marketing loan. The growers will lose even more if the program suffers another $50 per ton reduction due to the elimination of the storage and handling fees.

Peanuts are a semiperishable commodity. This is different from corn, from wheat and other commodities. It is economically unfeasible for producers to store their peanuts on the farm like other commodities such as corn and wheat. Peanuts need a secure and an atmospheric- controlled environment. Peanuts require intense and constant management in the warehouse storage, which a farmer does not have the skills to do.

Without proper management, a farmer's peanuts could go from what is known as a Seg 1 loan price, which is the best, to a Seg 3 loan price, which is contamination due to aflatoxin.

Elimination of the storage and handling program could certainly impact food safety, the safety of the product.

Shellers basically control over 75 percent of the peanuts after the peanuts leave the farmer's control. Since peanuts are semi-perishable and due to the highly concentrated shelling industry, farmers are at the mercy of the shellers in terms of pricing. Shellers could possibly force the farmer to accept a lower price that would cover the storage and handling cost. Farmers then have no alternative in selling their peanuts. That eliminates the competitive edge.

This could effectively lower the loan rate to producers, as I said, by $50 a ton. The storage and handling program has effectively been a no-net-cost program to the government. Thus, the elimination of it will not help to reduce the Federal deficit.

Again, we are here about to pull the rug out from under farmers who have relied upon what this Congress and what this government has done in setting farm policy starting from 2008 to 2012. Why would we come at this point and pull the rug out from under them and upset all of their plans? Many times they have made loans, they've had to purchase equipment, and particularly throughout the Southeast, the equipment that is required for southeastern peanut growers and southeastern farmers is varied. We've got a broad portfolio, unlike the Midwest. We grow multiple crops.

In the Southeast, from Virginia all the way to Texas, you will find that farmers will grow corn; they will grow grain, of course; they'll grow peanuts; they'll grow soybeans; and they'll grow cotton. Each of those commodities at least will require three different kinds of equipment, and the combines and the equipment for cotton costs anywhere from $250,000 to $350,000. Other equipment for peanuts, for grain, $150,000, $500,000.

This is going to undermine the bottom line, it's going to remove the competitive edge that American peanut growers have, and it's going to devastate our ability to maintain the highest quality, the safest, and the most economical peanuts anywhere in the world.

I think this is very, very ill-advised. I think it will undermine American agriculture. It will lessen our food security, and certainly that is the last thing that we need to do because we are already energy insecure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Again, I think that this is an amendment that is ill-conceived. I think it will do great harm, and I think it is not timely. I agree with the gentleman that the authorizing committee has great expertise. We have taken a lot of time to vet this program, and I think for us to come tonight willy-nilly and do it is very, very ill advised.

Nineteen years ago when I came to this body I was on the authorizing committee, on the Agriculture Committee, and the chairman of the committee at that time was a gentleman by the name of Kika de la Garza. Mr. de la Garza was fond of telling us one of his life experiences, and that was his submarine story.

He said that all of his life, from the time he was a little boy, even though he grew up in the rural areas in Texas on the farm, that he wanted to ride on a submarine. He always was just enamored with submarines. Finally, after he came to Congress and after he became the chairman of a committee, he had an opportunity to go out on one of our nuclear submarines. Of course, as the guest, he was allowed to take the wheel and to submerge the submarine, to get it up, to play with the periscope, and he was just really, really amazed at how impressive that nuclear submarine was. So he turned to the captain and he asked the captain, he said, Captain, how long can this nuclear submarine stay underwater without coming up? It is so fine, we have spent so much money and it is an excellent machine. The captain looked at him and said, Mr. Chairman, how long would you guess? And Mr. de la Garza said he thought for a while, and he said, Well, maybe a year? And the captain chuckled and said, Mr. Chairman, we can stay underwater for as long as we have food for the crew.

We in this country will be able to defend ourselves and we will be able to have a strong country as long as we have food, and right now we are headed to getting imported food for the majority of our people. If we continue with the route that we are going, if we impose these limitations, if we limit the ability of our farmers to compete on a level playing field with our global competitors, all of our food will be coming from Mexico and South America and China.

We cannot afford for that to happen. America cannot stay strong. Our people cannot be healthy. We cannot get safe food if we don't allow our farmers to have the capacity to earn a living and to produce the highest quality, the safest and most economical food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world.

We have to defeat these amendments. We have to studiously and assiduously study the way to reform these programs and to get cost- effectiveness. But tonight in this bill is not the place to do it. The time to do it is when we take up the farm bill in 2012 with the authorizing committee and all others having the opportunity to take our time and to thoughtfully craft a new farm policy.

With that, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the NATO Security Investment Program by $25 million and increase the Army National Guard account by $25 million. We support the Guard and our Reserves wholeheartedly, but I want to join Chairman Culberson in some concerns that I have about the amendment.

The MilCon portion of this bill for the most part is flat-funded, and the resources provided in this title were distributed, we believe, in a very judicious manner. The bill funds the Guard account at the budget request level, which makes the needed investments in Guard facilities.

In addition, I am concerned that the offset that the gentleman has chosen could cause shortfalls in the NATO Security Investment Program, which in turn could cause further delays in the NATO Security Construction Program. The Security Investment Program provides support for many of the important operations that we are involved in, including our current operations in Afghanistan. I believe that we have to get the NATO program back on track because it will ultimately save us money in the long run.

While I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I do have some concerns about the gentleman's amendment. I won't oppose it at this time, but I hope that we will be able to work through those concerns as we work through this process and as the bill goes to the Senate and it comes back and we can deal with these concerns in conference.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as much as I agree with many of the objectives expressed by the chairman in his discussion just a few moments ago, particularly that we want to make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, I think the very arguments that he makes support why we need to have project labor agreements.

This has nothing to do with union or nonunion workforce standards. The project labor agreements do not mandate or predetermine that a workforce has to be union or nonunion. It allows for the project owner, such as the government or a private sector entity, to establish workforce standards that both union and nonunion workers have to meet in order to be hired by contractors and subcontractors under the project labor agreements.

This is a model that increases the efficiency and the quality of construction projects. Of course the ultimate objective is that we will have a workforce that will ensure construction projects are built correctly the first time so that we won't have cost overruns, so that they are built on time, so that we won't have to extend the contracts, and so that we won't have safety problems because of having unskilled workers. Basically, in the awarding of these contracts, these project labor agreements will make sure that the government's money is spent well. We want to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks. We want to make sure we make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

There has been study after study after study that illustrates how the use of these project labor agreements does not extend costs to the taxpayers or to other projects--rather, that they often save money. In fact, in most cases, they do save money because, as a result of having a higher skilled workforce, they don't have to worry about equipment being broken; they don't have to worry about the waste of resources and materials; they don't have to worry about the contracts not being performed on time. It's to the contrary. If you're worried about protections, project labor agreements will prohibit strikes or work stoppages by any kind of construction workers on the project. They will establish a single procedure for handling workforce disputes.

It is a tool for ensuring that large and complex projects, as many of our government projects are, are completed on time. It allows for the employment of local citizens. And right now, with the unemployment rate as it is and with so many of our skilled workers out of work, it allows for flexibility.

The Executive order, which seems to be the source of the complaint, really does not require that they be used. It gives the government the option of making a decision that is in the best interest of the American taxpayers. Certainly, we want to do everything that we can possibly do to make sure that we come in on budget or under budget, with the highest quality, with the safest work environment, and that we are able to employ the people in our communities to get the job done. As much as we need to improve employment, to increase the number of people who are working, these project labor agreements just add another tool to allow, in the awarding of taxpayer funded contracts, the most efficient use of those dollars. So I join the gentleman in support of this amendment. I think it is well thought out and that it's a benefit to the taxpayers.

With all due respect to my colleague on the other side who is opposed to this amendment, I think, when it is all said and done, the bottom line is these project labor agreements in this Executive order, while not requiring the use of project labor agreements, will be an added tool in our arsenal to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks to enhance what we do for our country, for our citizens whom we put to work, and to make sure that the conditions and terms of their employment and the work that they do is done with appropriate standards.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The Davis-Bacon Act is a pretty simple concept, and it's a fair concept. What it does is to protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages for government contracts.

I noticed that the previous speaker was really concerned about the possibility that Davis-Bacon would raise the cost of the performance of these contracts, but it only requires that prevailing wages in the area where the contract is going to be performed is maintained. For example, if in some of the urban areas where labor costs are very, very high and the prevailing wages are there, the standard of living and the wage payment for that area would be consistent. If it was in a lower wage area, then Davis-Bacon wages would be the wages that were paid in that market. So basically it just allows the workers to be paid at a rate consistent with where the project is being conducted.

The act requires that every construction contract that the Federal Government participates in in excess of $2,000 has to have this provision defining the minimum wage. It was taken up by this House just a few days ago, and, of course, three times this House has defeated attempts to repeal this Davis-Bacon requirement. It would appear to me that this House has exercised great wisdom three times in this session in preserving the right of workers to earn the wages that are paid in the area where the project is being constructed. That just makes sense. We want our workers to be paid fairly. We don't want the government to overpay. So we won't pay higher wages in an area where prevailing wages are lower. We won't pay lower wages in an area where the prevailing wages are higher, where the cost of living is higher, where the cost of doing business is higher, where the cost of doing the construction would be higher. We want the government to get the best bang for the buck.

These amendments are probably very well-intentioned. We want to save the taxpayers' dollars, but we cannot and we should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The repeal of Davis-Bacon, I think, and I think that this House has stated on at least three occasions on this floor during this session of Congress, would be pound-foolish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the Davis- Bacon Act prevents competition for construction contracts from artificially depressing local labor standards. The Davis-Bacon Act will prevent subverting the prevailing wage laws, which will lead to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns.

Under the prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the basis of who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew, not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable workforce, either locally or through importing labor from outside.

The Davis-Bacon Act does not require a union wage; it requires prevailing wage based upon surveys of wages and benefits that are actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers, such as iron workers in a community, without regard to whether they belong to a union or not.

According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor survey determines that the local union wage is paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in that job classification.

Now higher wages and skills result in greater productivity and lower cost. It's so much greater among high-wage, high-skill workers that projects that use high-skilled workers and high-paid workers often cost less than those that use the low-wage, low-skilled workers due to repairs, revisions, and lengthy delays.

The opponents who claim that the government could save billions by eliminating the Davis-Bacon protections ignore the productivity, quality, safety, community development and other economic benefits which contribute to the real cost effectiveness of Davis-Bacon. A study of 10 States where nearly half of all of the highway and bridge work is done in the United States showed that when high-wage workers were paid double the wage of low-wage workers, they built 74.4 more miles of roadbed and 32.8 more miles of bridges for $557 million less.

Driving wages down will not help balance the budget. The Davis-Bacon Act will improve our local economies and it will result in increased productivity.

I am convinced that, again, we have people with good intentions that want to save us money, but if you pay cheaper wages, you will have to employ less skilled workers. If you hire less skilled workers, they will, in all likelihood, have to have work redone that will have to be repaired. It will extend the cost, it will extend the time, and ultimately it will cost our taxpayers more money, and we will not get the efficiencies that each and every tax dollar should have because they are hard-earned tax dollars, and our taxpayers don't give them up lightly. But when we do pay our taxes, everybody in this body and across this country wants to make sure that we get the best bang for the buck. Davis-Bacon would give us that result. It has proven that. The studies show that.

I would submit that this amendment is ill-advised and should be defeated.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I certainly can appreciate the concerns that the gentleman raises that have caused him to offer the amendment. Yet I want to remind the gentleman of the awful incident that occurred at Fort Hood in Texas. There were a lot of our servicemembers who were present who experienced that awful, awful situation. Under this amendment, it would prevent the veterans and servicemembers, once they're discharged, from being able to take advantage of the benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs because they were at Fort Hood as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq or in some other place of hostility.

Also, I would remind the gentleman that the servicemembers who operate our unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Predator, which has great capability for causing destruction in war--it's one of our great weapons--actually can see on video, in realtime, the death and the destruction and the dismemberment that is caused by the utilization of that, although they're in Nevada and the weapon is actually making its impact in Afghanistan. Of course, because of that, they would be disqualified.

Under this amendment, I think the gentleman's point is well taken in wanting to make sure that only those people who are entitled to veterans benefits in fact get them, but I think that perhaps there are some problems in the artful drafting of the amendment, which should be clarified. Because of that, I am reluctant to support it, and of course must oppose this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Let me just say that the gentleman's amendment is very, very well taken. I fully support it; and it works in tandem with some other legislation, some authorizing legislation that I think the chairman, Mr. Culberson, and I, along with Mr. Dicks and Mr. Young and many, many others, on a bipartisan basis, have often called the Hiring Heroes Act, which basically supports our veterans as they come back to make sure that they can be gainfully employed and that they are duly allowed to participate in the economy, to work and to engage in gainful employment.

I think that this amendment, as far as small businesses go, as far as veterans preferences, is very well taken, and I think that we ought to do that, as well as everything else we can possibly do, to make sure that the transition from full-time active service to the civilian population of our country on the part of our veterans is fully supported by this Congress and by the people of the United States.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) brought a matter to our attention that is very, very important and significant, and I think it's appropriate that we ought to at least examine that in the form of a

colloquy here on the floor as we consider this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, many veterans have returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe disabilities; and when their service results in a disability, we have a duty to help them. And one way that veterans receive this help is through the use of guide dogs. Now, the way the process works, veterans are assessed and they're trained for orientation and mobility. If a veteran needs a guide dog, information on how to contact guide dog schools is provided. Essentially, the veteran is referred to a nonprofit. There's no funding provided directly from the VA to these nonprofits; and with the costs associated with training these dogs, it takes time to raise the money which, in turn, causes a backlog for veterans, as well as for nonveterans.

We have to look at this issue and see what it is that the Veterans Administration can do to help because these dogs mean so much to those who need them.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Fattah and other Members will be very, very appreciative of you. We thank you for your comments, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues to support our veterans and their families.

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am pleased to join Chairman Culberson as the House takes up the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies. The MilCon-VA bill is critically important to the strength and the well-being of our military, our veterans, and the families who sacrificed so much to defend our country.

Working with Chairman Culberson and the members of the subcommittee, we have crafted a bill that will address the funding needs for military construction and family housing for our troops and for their families, as well as other quality of life construction projects.

In addition, it will provide funding for many important VA programs as

well as agencies like the Veterans Court of Appeals and the American Battle Monuments Commission.

The bill before us today touches every soldier, every sailor, every marine, and every airman. In addition, this bill will also impact military spouses, their children, and every veteran that participates in veterans programs.

I want to commend Chairman Culberson for his hard work. He has done his best to hold hearings that he believes are important to the work of the subcommittee. Together we sat through 12 hearings, gaining valuable insight into the working of all of the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.

I would like to thank all of the subcommittee members and recognize them for their hard work on the bill.

I believe that the minority was treated fairly during this process, and I want to thank Chairman Culberson for that. We worked very well in a very collegial fashion, and I think that is the way that this institution should work.

Chairman Culberson has already provided the funding highlights in the bill, and I won't repeat them all, but I want to point out a few items that I think are extremely important.

The Department of Defense schools. The bill before us today includes $483 million for the renovation and replacement of 15 Department of Defense schools. Six schools here in the United States and nine schools at overseas installations will be refurbished with this funding. Mr. Chairman, I believe that providing the funds for DOD schools will not only help our servicemembers' children get a quality education in a safe facility, but it will also give our servicemembers some peace of mind.

Medical center replacement. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that the bill includes $1.1 billion for the medical center replacement in Germany. As you know, a large proportion of the serious casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters are treated there in Landstuhl, and I am pleased to see we are making this very, very important investment.

Regarding veteran affairs, the bill contains $52.5 billion for advance appropriations for medical services, for medical support and compliance, and medical facilities at the VA, which is $1.8 billion above the amount that was included in the FY 2011 continuing resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that advance funding provides timely and predictable funding for the veterans health care system. For example, during the delay in the FY 2011 funding, veterans health care funding was already in place and the veterans health care programs were not subject to the continuing resolution process and our veterans did not have to go without their health care.

Mr. Chairman, overall the bill provides adequate funding for programs included in this bill. However, I am troubled by one item. Unfortunately, during the full committee markup, an amendment was adopted to eliminate funding to implement Executive Order 13502, which was issued in February 2009, which addresses project labor agreements, PLAs. Now, if you are opposed to that Executive Order, that's fine; but using the MilCon-VA bill to address this issue, I believe, is the wrong place.

This language is purely an ideological and political provision that really is beyond the scope of this bill.

If we want to deal with this issue, we should deal with it on a labor bill and not on the Military Construction-VA bill. The MilCon-VA bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and has avoided divisive issues like this no matter which party has held the gavel. I believe including this language only causes unnecessary complications and does nothing to help our servicemembers or our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, please know that as we continue through the process, I will work to address this issue because an item like this really has no place in a bill that has always placed our troops, their families and our veterans above ideology.

Before I close, I would like to recognize the staff for all of the work and the time that they have put into this bill. From the minority committee staff, I would like to thank Matt Washington and Danny Cromer as well as Michael Reed and Greg Browder from my personal office. From the majority committee staff, I would like to thank Tim Peterson, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey Russell as well as Alec Fritchie and Evan Ewachiw from the chairman's personal office.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), our ranking member; and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who set the standard for the committee and for the subcommittees with their collegial relationship in their ability to work together and in their efforts to make sure that we move these appropriations bills through regular order. I appreciate that very much.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee and of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee of Appropriations but who is a longtime member of this MilCon-VA subcommittee.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have, I think, presented a good bill, with the caveats that have been expressed by Ranking Member Dicks and myself, along with Mr. Farr. At this time, we are prepared to entertain the amendments. I think the chairman has some en bloc amendments that he would like to offer. We are happy to entertain those and move forward at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

We want to commend the gentlelady for her amendment and her compassion in offering it.

While I have the time, let me discuss the Altmire amendment which has been offered, and Mr. Altmire, I believe, is on his way to the floor. This amendment will move $22 million from the Veterans Administration's general administration account to the medical and prosthetic research account.

A recent Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs heard testimony from wounded soldiers about the disparity of prosthetics technologies between the Department of Defense and the veterans health care. This amendment will restore some of the funding that was cut from the medical and prosthetic research account by taking a small dollar amount from the VA general administration account.

Wounded warriors are deserving of no less than this Nation's full commitment. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated individual, a proud veteran, and an exemplary civil servant, Ms. Ava Berry Turner. She is retiring after almost thirty-five years of dedicated service to her country.

Ms. Turner has served her country in a number of ways over the last four decades. In 1974, she enlisted in the U.S. Army, where she rose through the ranks to serve as a Supply Sergeant. She honed her excellent communication skills in the Army and became an Army communications specialist. She was honorably discharged in 1980, and then went on to pursue academic endeavors, utilizing benefits under the GI bill.

In 1982, she enrolled at the North Carolina Central University in Durham. She graduated Magna Cum Laude in 1985, majoring in Public Administration, with a minor in Business Administration, and then began work at the Internal Revenue Service. She rose through the ranks of the IRS, starting her career as a Revenue Officer and advancing to the position of Bankruptcy Specialist. From there, she became Assistant Problem Resolution Officer, then Problem Resolution Officer. She was appointed to serve as the Local Taxpayer Advocate for the State of Arizona, then promoted to the national headquarters of the Taxpayer Advocate Office in Washington, DC, where she was the Manager in Systemic Advocacy, followed by appointment as the Manager in the office of Low Income Tax Payer Clinics.

Using her exceptional communication and management skills, she now serves as a Senior Program Analyst in Technical Analysis and Guidance. Her colleagues describe her work as outstanding, and her accomplishments are the result of years of hard work and dedication to her chosen profession.

There is no doubt that her service will continue, even into her retirement. She will be greatly missed by her colleagues at the Internal Revenue Service. It will be difficult to replace her, but her incredible work ethic is an inspiration to those who have served with her.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to stand before you today to congratulate Ms. Ava Berry Turner on her retirement and to thank her for her many years of distinguished service to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an American hero, MGy Sgt (Ret) Lewis Jay Stack. Mr. Stack is being honored by his church, the Avalon United Methodist Church in Albany, Georgia this Sunday. Master Gunnery Sergeant Stack was born on April 21, 1914, and recently celebrated his 97th birthday.

Spurred by a love of country and selfless sacrifice, Master Gunnery Sergeant Stack joined the United States Marine Corps on February 28, 1937 at the age of 23. He served admirably with the 1st Marine Division for several campaigns in World War II, which included Guadalcanal, Cape Gloster, Pllilieu and Okinawa. Master Gunnery Sergeant Stack also served one tour with 1st Marine Air Wing in Japan.

He was stationed at Intin during the Korean War and later served a tour in Vietnam. His final station in the military was at Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia on March 1, 1971. For his service to our country, he was awarded the Purple Heart, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Navy Achievement Medal, Nine Good Conduct medals, and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

He has been married to the lovely Ruth Stack for 65 years. They have four children, eight grandchildren and four great grandchildren. He has been a member of the Avalon United Methodist Church for almost 47 years.

GEN Douglas Macarthur once said that: ``Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.'' Master Gunnery Sergeant Stack did his duty by serving his country, and he did it with honor and dignity because of his deep and unwavering love of his country.

Because of him and thousands of brave men and women like him, millions of Americans and billions more around the world are able to taste the fruits of freedom. God Bless Master Gunnery Sergeant Stack and God Bless the greatest country in the world, the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Judge Henry Haywood Turner, III, a man of many talents and interests who sadly, passed away on May 8, 2011 at the age of 67.

Judge Turner was born in El Paso, Texas, on May 3, 1944. His father served as a Navy Corpsman physician in the South Pacific during World War II. Judge Turner graduated from Columbus High School in 1962, and earned a BA in math and history from Mercer University.

Inspired by his father, he served in the U.S. Navy as a radioman for the USS Charles R. Ware, DD-865 Destroyer. After completing his naval service, he managed the Texas Native Inertia Nutcracker Company, a business started by his father that held several U.S. patents for their inventions. He later went on to teach math and physics at Columbus Technical College.

Judge Turner earned a law degree from the University of Georgia in 1977, and was one of nine students who former Secretary of State Dean Rusk advised. This was the start of a very distinguished legal career that would include practicing general law, doing appellate work for the city of Columbus, and most notably, serving as an Assistant District Attorney, and Judge of the Municipal Court for 20 years.

The great Irish poet Brendan Francis once said, ``If you have a talent, use it every way possible. Don't hoard it. Don't dole it out like a miser. Spend it lavishly like a millionaire intent on going broke.'' Judge Turner was a man of many diverse interests and talents, who went broke sharing them with the world. He rebuilt engines, made his own diesel fuel and knives, gardened, and became well versed in geology, history, and music composition. He was a well-read man who loved stray cats,, and spoke several different languages.

The last skill served him very well when people who were unable to speak English came to his court. Judge Turner could communicate with the common person, but he could also communicate with the most sophisticated of individuals. This made him respected and loved by those who truly knew him who have described him in recent days as a: gentleman, a scholar, a man of his word, and a man of honor.

Judge Turner understood the importance of service and helping other people as evidenced by his involvement in numerous community organizations. Judge Turner and my wife Vivian worked together for many years on the Municipal Court, and we are both thankful for his service and friendship over the years. Vivian and I extend our deepest condolences to his mother, Rebecca Sellers Turner, his daughter Clisby Cox and his many other relatives and friends.

Mr. Speaker, we are all put here for a season to try to make the world a better place to live. I can truly say that Judge Henry Haywood Turner, III used his season to make this world more hopeful and less fearful because he travelled here.