Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member, and I thank the chairman for the work they have done on this bill. And for many years, the chairman of the committee and I have worked closely together.

But, regretfully, I rise today in opposition to the Intelligence Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2008, H.R. 2082. Actions taken in the bill regarding human operations, the irresponsible use of our intelligence professionals and the short-sighted steps to critical space systems justify a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

The bill slashes funding to HUMINT, or Human Operations, one of our most important intelligence collection functions in the global war on terrorism. Regardless of your position on the war, we cannot cut a primary intelligence function that is critical to protecting our troops in combat.

Like many, I have visited the front line, and we owe our brave American military the support they need to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also note that the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has stated that HUMINT is his number one priority.

Remarkably, rather than focus on national security, this bill places an emphasis on global warming. In the middle of a war which has our intelligence community overloaded with real-world intelligence missions, this intelligence authorization bill carves out scarce intelligence resources for an environmental matter that should be the purview of another committee.

Madam Chairman, we have already had 13 Federal agencies looking at the effects of climate change. The administration has requested nearly $7.4 billion this year for climate change-related activities. Since 2001 the Federal Government has devoted $37 billion for climate change- related activities. We are in the middle of a war against radical jihadists, and the terrorist plot of the radical Islamists at Fort Dix earlier this week should be a sobering reminder for all of us. It is wrong and misguided for Congress to overburden our highly skilled intelligence professionals by shouldering them with this unnecessary science project.

Lastly, this measure gives our strategic threat little attention. While engaging in the global war on terror, the strategic threat has grown. Having the

ability to peer into areas that would cause us harm is vital to advanced warning, known as ``Persistent Stare.'' We need to pay more attention to the architecture of ``stare'' and ``persistence''; yet this bill provides inadequate resources.

For example, substantial funds have been added to a space-based infrared program, SBIRS, that cannot be wisely used. In fact, if these additional funds were obligated, the program would be sent into procurement before it is ready, likely to cause schedule delays and cost overruns. This funding add was poorly conceived and would cause the Defense Department to literally bite off more than it can chew.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Representatives Robert Aderholt, Jo Bonner, Mike Rogers, and Jim Marshall, to assist American farmers in dealing with drought conditions and enable them to increase their farm productivity. The need for on-the-farm drought management has become increasingly evident as farmers and the government struggle to keep ahead of the effects of Mother Nature. The drought conditions for the 2005 and 2006 crop years underscored the devastating toll natural disasters have on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. The current approach of providing ad hoc disaster assistance is inadequate and does not give farmers the certainty they need. The Farm Reservoir Act would provide cost-share assistance to agricultural producers for the construction of small reservoirs on their farms.

By combining sound planning with the right resources, agricultural producers can reduce the impact droughts have on their operations. Small on-farm storage reservoirs are an economical way to save water for summer use. The collection and storage of surface water during the off-season, when rainfall and stream levels are typically high, can make irrigation possible in areas where direct pumping from streams, lakes, or wells during the growing season is not feasible. Because these reservoirs are small, the engineering and construction cost per acre-foot are less than big

on-stream reservoirs. Additionally, they are more acceptable from an environmental perspective, because they are off-stream and do not block streams or disturb riverine habitats.

In addition to protecting our Nation's farmers from the costly effects of drought, enhancing their irrigation capacity will allow our farmers to expand production to more acres and increase the productivity of existing acres. Cost-share assistance to construct small, environmentally-friendly, reservoirs located on the farm will provide us with the tools necessary to grow additional bio-fuel crops; which will allow us to wean ourselves from foreign oil. This will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the availability of the cleaner burning fuels these crops produce.

Madam Speaker, I introduced legislation today, along with my Alabama colleagues Reps. Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Bud Cramer, and Mike Rogers, to enable America's farmers to better manage the risk to their livelihoods in times of severe weather and skyrocketing energy costs. The Farm Risk Management Act (FARM Act) would create risk management accounts, using both USDA and individual farmer contributions, to reduce the financial impact of disasters on the agriculture community. The FARM Act would allow farmers to insure their income by creating a whole-farm risk management program based on total revenues from all their farming activities. This is a departure from the current crop insurance program, which provides coverage based on a specific commodity. The new risk management account goes beyond the scope of current crop insurance by allowing farmers to withdraw funds from their accounts to help offset any unforeseen farm expense including high energy or fertilizer costs. With my new proposal, a farmer would deposit money into the new risk management account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would then match the farmer's contribution in this tax-deferred, interest-bearing account, rather than subsidizing a portion of the crop insurance premium for the farmer as is done presently. As a result, farmers would effectively be self- insured.

More and more, we are seeing farmers lose their farms due to the unfortunate combination of increasingly harsh weather, rising operational costs and a Federal crop insurance program that is too expensive to help many cover their losses. Recent Farm Bill hearings and subsequent meetings I have had with farmers in the Southeast have led me to the conclusion that current crop insurance programs are not working. The present system is too expensive, leaving many farmers exposed to uncontrollable risks. It also allows room for fraud which only serves to drive up program costs for everyone.

There is an urgent need for significant crop insurance reform that will offer hard-working farmers the tools they need to manage the unique risks involved in agricultural production. This approach of individual risk management accounts could address many of the problems associated with the current crop insurance system and save the Federal government money by alleviating the future need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Most importantly, it will give farmers struggling against natural forces beyond their control greater flexibility to make a living while performing the vital task of putting food on America's table.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a veteran myself, this is an issue that I find of the utmost importance.

Following the public exposure of the problems at Walter Reed Hospital, it has become clear that changes are needed in order to provide our soldiers the level of healthcare they deserve.

With a growing number of servicemembers in need of medical attention, it is imperative that there is an adequate amount of staff at our military hospitals. By enforcing a minimum ratio of caretakers to servicemembers, this legislation will ensure that every soldier gets the personal attention that they need. In addition, service members will be assigned medical care case managers that would help them and their families deal with the administrative process involved with their care. This type of personalized care and assistance will help our wounded warriors with their recovery, and make an easier transition back into the field or civilian life.

Having spent years on the House Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen first hand the need for improved lines of communication between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the current system, there is no designated process by which military personnel become veterans; or for their medical and service records to move from one department to the other. This measure will streamline the transfer process by transmitting members' dismissal forms electronically to the correct agencies.

Another great concern of mine comes from the inconsistencies between the two departments' disability ratings systems. When given a different rating of disability as a member of the military than as a civilian, disparities are bound to arise in what benefits can be expected. Creating a single, standardized rating system will help ensure that both our military personnel and our veterans receive the best care that our government can provide.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation; and I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote for this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation today, along with my colleagues Mike Rogers and Jim Marshall, calling for a Federal study of the Chattahoochee Trace region of Alabama and Georgia to evaluate the feasibility of designating the corridor as a National Heritage Area.

The Chattahoochee Trace corridor is an 18-county region covering southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia. This proposal would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the Trace, to determine its suitability as a National Heritage Area. In Alabama, the study would specifically examine seven counties--Chambers, Lee, Russell, Barbour, Dale, Henry and Houston Counties.

The designation of the Chattahoochee Trace as a National Heritage Area would be the final piece in the Historic Chattahoochee Commission's corridor development plan wich will enable us to initiate new and innovative projects to help invigorate the economies of member counties.

The 18 county bi-state Chattahoochee Trace region meets all criteria outlined by the National Park Service to qualify for National Heritage Area status. During 37 years of work, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission has clearly demonstrated that this area has a unique collection of natural, historic and cultural resources that are distinctive aspects of American history worthy of recognition, conservation and interpretation. Furthermore, the Commission has demonstrated its capabilities to organize regional partnerships to help manage and promote the resources along the lower Chattahoochee River corridor. It is also a well-known fact that the Chattahoochee Trace region provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities for area residents and visitors. Ongoing efforts to conserve natural, cultural, historic, and scenic assets in the region will only be eranced by National Heritage Area designation.

National Heritage Areas are significant geographical, cultural and historical sites, a designated by Congress. In contrast to National Parks, National Heritage Areas are not federally owned or managed, but remain maintained and controlled by local entities.

Communities designated as a National Heritage Areas are eligible for federal funding to be used for promoting tourism and conservation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, a combat veteran from Vietnam and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to my ranking member and chairman, and to the service of all men and women who are serving in the Armed Forces and those who have prior service, many who serve in this distinguished body. And thank goodness. I say thank goodness, because I find that in this body we have too few people who have ever worn a uniform, but we have an awful lot of opinions about how to wear a uniform.

We have heard from many of these Members on both sides of the aisle. Some served in Vietnam, some in the first gulf war, and some in the war that we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cite their firsthand experience in serving our country as justification for why they believe we cannot afford to lose the war or why we should not support the Commander in Chief's reinforcement proposal or, in some cases, why we should bring the troops home immediately and cut off funding.

Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member in this Chamber who has served our country with honor and distinction. Each of them brings a different perspective to the debate. However, today I would like to bring another perspective to the debate, and it is that of Army pilot Keith Yoakum from Coffee Springs, Alabama, in my district. Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was killed February 2 in Iraq when the Apache helicopter he was flying was forced to land during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

While his death is a tragedy, his family is taking comfort in the fact that Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was doing what he loved, defending the country that he loved. This Army aviator was proud of what he was doing in Iraq, and told his father that there was no other place he would rather be until the war was over.

Much of his pride came from his ability to protect our guys on the ground using his Apache helicopter who were executing the dangerous missions of ridding the neighborhoods of those who wanted to kill his fellow troops as well as innocent Iraqis. However, equally as important was Keith Yoakum's belief that he was making a difference in this fight to make this world a better place for his daughters to live.

Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum is not alone in his belief. The hundreds of soldiers that I have visited with share his view of this war. Whether it was during a solemn sendoff of our brave men and women or an emotional welcome home ceremony, the soldiers I talk to believe in this mission and that we must prevail in this war.

They recognize the dire consequences if we don't succeed in Iraq. If we withdraw prematurely, the terrorists will have an unchecked sanctuary from which they can launch attacks to kill more innocent Americans, similar to what existed in Afghanistan prior to our toppling the Taliban regime in Operation Enduring Freedom. To abandon our fight against the terrorists is to have failed to learn the lessons of 9/11 and to revert to a policy that allowed two decades of escalating violence. That policy resulted in the death of thousands of Americans, as was so well documented by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we defeat this enemy, whose sole desire is to kill Americans anywhere, in any way they can. Today the theater is Iraq. But if we retreat from this war, as those on the other side of the aisle have advocated, then we will fight them in the cities and in the towns. Either way, this war will be fought.

Mr. Speaker, I have a guest essay from my hometown newspaper, the Dothan Eagle, from a war veteran by the name of Wayne Wood, and I would like this complete essay entered into the Record after I speak. But first I want to quote a couple of things from it. This is, as I said, from a former combat veteran, Wayne Wood.

``As I watch the current debate over the war in Iraq, I remember sitting in the day room at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, with my buddies and watching the collapse of South Vietnam and Saigon in 1975. I was thinking of, and I know my buddies were thinking of, all the guys we knew who'd gone over to fight for the Vietnamese who didn't come back. We cursed the ARVN soldiers as cowards because they would not stand and fight for their country. We were angry that the sacrifice of these good--no, great--Americans was in vain.

``It was only years later that I learned, to my dismay, that it wasn't the ARVN who betrayed my fellow soldiers' blood, it was their very own elected representatives in Congress who voted to cut funding for the defense of the Republic of South Vietnam.

``We are being told the Iraqi situation is unwinnable. We were told that we had lost the war in Vietnam.

``After Tet in 1968, Walter Cronkite, `the most trusted man in America,' went on the air and said so. Americans said, `If Walter says we've lost, it must be so.'

``Now, our media, and others, some in this body, ``tell us the same thing. We are being told of how hopeless the situation is in Iraq. What about the American people? What are the American people supposed to think?

``But the picture I got from former students who have served in Iraq tells another story. They are frustrated that the good things that are happening in Iraq aren't being shown, that the people only see the bad. There's a genuine fear that they won't be allowed to finish the job. Their sacrifice would be in vain.

``From a distance, the situation as shown looks grim. But as a soldier who has seen war up close, I know war is a grim business. I remember the words of Marine General Julian Smith, speaking of the Battle of Tarawa in World War II: `We were losing, until we won.' ''

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wood has a number of other examples here, and that is the reason I will include the letter for the Record.

No Comparison Between Vietnam and Iraq Wars

(By Wayne Wood)

As I watch the current debate over the war in Iraq, I

remember sitting in the day room at Fort Sill, Okla., with my

buddies and watching the collapse of South Vietnam and Saigon

in 1975. I was thinking of, and I know my buddies were

thinking of, all the guys we knew who'd gone over to fight

for the Vietnamese who didn't come back. We cursed the ARVN

soldiers as cowards because they would not stand and fight

for their country. We were angry that the sacrifice of all

those good--no, great--Americans was in vain.

It was only years later that I learned, to my dismay, that

it wasn't the ARVN who betrayed my fellow soldiers' blood, it

was their very own elected representatives in Congress who

voted to cut funding for the defense of the Republic of South

Vietnam.

We are being told the Iraq situation is unwinnable. We were

told we had lost the war in Vietnam.

After TET in 1968, Walter Cronkite, ``the most trusted man

in America,'' went on the air and said so. Americans said,

``If Walter Cronkite says we've lost, it must be so.''

Now, our media tells us the same thing. We are being told

of how hopeless the situation is in Iraq. What are the

American people supposed to think?

But the picture I get from former students who have served

Iraq tells another story. They are frustrated that the good

things they see happening in Iraq aren't being shown, that

the people only see the bad. There's a genuine fear they

won't be allowed to finish the job. Their sacrifice would be

in vain.

From a distance, the situation as shown looks grim. But, as

a soldier who has seen war up close, I know war is a grim

business. I remember the words of Marine Gen. Julian Smith,

speaking of the Battle of Tarawa in World War II: ``We were

losing until we won!''

Yes, I get saddened when I read the casualty reports and

see the pictures of the dead in the Army Times. No one knows

better than a soldier that if a nation goes to war, it owes

it to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fight to

win so their sacrifice isn't wasted. I think of my own son in

uniform. I can only pray for him and be proud that he has

``stepped up to the plate'' to serve his country,

particularly in time of war.

Today, politicians and pundits just know we are losing in

Iraq. Walter Cronkite and others just knew we'd lost the war

in Vietnam after TET. If only we had known that Ho Chi Minh

and General Giap didn't know they'd won.

They were about ready to throw in the towel after TET until

the anti-war people in America told them otherwise. Well, we

left Vietnam and millions of people died in Southeast Asia in

the turmoil caused by the power vacuum. Who can tell what

might happen if we withdraw from Southwest Asia.

In 1975 it didn't matter to most of America. The deaths

were far away and the Viet Cong couldn't cross the ocean to

attack us. Nor did they care to.

Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury today. We fight an

enemy who will stop at nothing to destroy us and our way of

life. If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home and it won't

be millions of Cambodians or Vietnamese dying in the killing

fields of Southeast Asia, it will be Americans in the streets

of our cities. Can we afford to be so smug in our knowledge?

We may not like the president. We may not like war. We may

not like this war or the way it has been conducted. But now

that we're in it, this is one war we cannot afford to lose.

In one thing I heartily agree with U.S. Sens. Edward

Kennedy and John Kerry: America can certainly not afford

another Vietnam in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, if we are not going to cut funding from this war, then bring up Congressman Sam Johnson's amendment that says we will neither cut nor restrict funding for this war. I ask my colleagues to stand with Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum and the thousands of other soldiers who believe in their mission and want to see it through to completion, and vote against this resolution. It can only do harm to our troops and bring aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, my friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, the Democrats' nonbinding resolution that does nothing to improve the outcome of the war, but does much to hurt the war against terrorism.

The resolution claims they support the troops. However, regardless of what the previous speaker said, they refuse to protect the money our troops must have while they are in harm's way.

If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military.

But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans.

Making Iraq a secure place is difficult because of deep-seated religious and ethnic divisions. This is highlighted by the murderous acts of Saddam's dictatorship that killed so many thousands. In addition, al Qaeda and local terrorists along with hostile foreign governments, including Iran, have both encouraged and funded the current violence in the hopes that Iraq will not follow the path to democracy. They must not be allowed to succeed.

Any American lives lost in the defense of our Nation is one too many. Yet we must not turn from our task of defeating terrorism before the job is done. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and intends to reinforce American troop strength by 21,000 soldiers to help Iraq's new government finally control violence and restore order. While I believe the decision to increase troop strength in Iraq could have been made much sooner and in greater numbers, it today presents the only viable option to bringing order to the country and laying the foundation for Iraqi Government control of that nation's security.

Iraq's government is taking new steps to control the violence from all ethnic groups and made it clear that

our abandoning them at this stage would guarantee failure for democracy in Iraq. And it would ensure a tremendous setback in America's battle to deny terrorism a foothold and give them more chances to continue to kill Americans. Pulling back now with no viable plan to stabilize Iraq would be a disastrous action. This sentiment was expressed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NIE is the intelligence community's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and is designed to help us develop policies to protect U.S. national security interests. Specifically, this report states: ``Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.'' In addition, it goes on to say: ``If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''

While America must not be in Iraq indefinitely, we should not leave without ensuring that the terrorists that are there are put down. To do otherwise would be terribly shortsighted and would ultimately embolden our terrorist enemies who have made no secret of their desire to continue to kill Americans.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, I have monitored the developments in the war on terrorism, including those in Iraq. I met with President Bush in the White House to discuss the military mission in Iraq shortly after he outlined his strategy for Iraq in early January. We explored what would happen in Iraq, the Middle East, and America if we withdrew from the fight before Iraq's democratic government is strong enough to maintain the peace. Our conclusion was that Iraq would become a sanctuary for terrorists and a base from which they could launch future attacks against Americans.

Some Members have tried to claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. That is the only way they can justify this nonbinding resolution, and that is pure nonsense.

We have the greatest military on the face of the Earth, one that no other military dare stand before lest they be destroyed. The only thing that can defeat us is the lack of will. And may God help us if we lose the will to defend this great Nation against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Reps. Jo Bonner and Mike Rogers, to assist American farmers in dealing with drought conditions and enable them to increase their farm productivity. The need for on-the-farm drought management has become increasingly evident as farmers and the government struggle to keep ahead of the effects of Mother Nature. In recent years, droughts have had a costly impact on agricultural producers throughout the country, and the current drought conditions for the 2005 and 2006 crop years dramatically underscore the devastating toll these natural disasters have on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Ad hoc government disaster assistance is often slow and inadequate, and frankly, a better use of tax dollars would be to help farmers take steps to minimize the impact of drought on their crop before the disaster strikes.

The Farm Reservoir Act would provide cost-share assistance to agriculture producers for the construction of reservoirs on their farms. For many farmers, pumping water from streams, lakes and wells during the growing season is not an option. However, by collecting and storing surface water in reservoirs during the off-season, when rainfall and stream levels are typically high, farmers can attain an effective source of irrigation. As population growth places more demand on water resources, we will need new sources of irrigation water. On- farm irrigation storage, which is made possible by my legislation, has the potential to greatly expand agricultural irrigation capacity and make farming more productive. Under the Farm Reservoir Act, cost share assistance would be provided through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to assist farmers with the construction of reservoirs. The maximum amount of cost share assistance is 50 percent of the cost of the reservoir. In order to qualify, a project must meet EQIP eligibility requirements and be deemed eligible based on its cost- effectiveness. The producer must maintain agricultural production on the land for at least 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much. We are going to miss Mr. Hefley. We still have some unfinished business between us that I am going to hold him to.

I want to recognize also the gentleman from California, my long-time friend, the chairman of the committee. I do not think in the 14 years I have been here that I have had the privilege to serve with anyone who has the patience that he has had. He has a great skill in leading this committee, and he mentioned earlier in his opening remarks about the fact that this committee works so hard, and it does. The members take very seriously what they are doing.

I had the great privilege, along with Mr. McHugh, of being the first Members of Congress into Baghdad after we invaded, and I just appreciate his outstanding leadership and his dedication to the fighting men and women of our country.

And also the gentleman from Missouri, who has the same type dedication, and who knows that he is welcome back to Dauphin, Alabama, any time he wants to. It has only been about 40 years since he has been there.

I do support the conference committee, the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5122. It supports the administration's objectives, while significantly improving the budget request.

Moreover, our national security investment must continue to develop transformation capabilities of future systems, and this conference report does that.

Finally, let me also say that my subcommittee, the one that I head, Strategic Forces, simply would not have been able to work like it did in a very bipartisan manner if it had not been for my good friend, Mr. Reyes of California. Much of what we have been able to do has been on a bipartisan basis, as he had mentioned earlier, on very complex, contentious issues, perhaps some of the most contentious issues in the committee. We were able to reach a consensus that would serve the best interests of the Nation and of our fighting troops, and I again thank him for his efforts as well as the other committee members who oftentimes had different views. But we all came together.

We also have an outstanding staff who has to study these very complex issues to see if we can't come to an accord that is in the best interest of the Nation.

So, again, I recommend supporting the final version of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 994, commemorating the cowardly September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Many Americans think the war on terror we are fighting began on September 11, 2001. However, 9/11 was just the deadliest attack in a war that began over 25 years ago.

For the first 20 years, we allowed terrorists to fight this war on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let terrorists continue to kill Americans and kill Americans and kill Americans. Under the leadership of President Bush, and with the support of this Republican- led Congress, we took the fight to the terrorists.

In Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom removed the oppressive Taliban regime that ruled the Afghan people with brutality. In Iraq, we continue to make progress after a series of historic elections in which millions of Iraqis defied the threats of terrorism and voted to establish a national assembly. While much remains to be done in Iraq, it is important that we continue to remain there against those who want to cast Iraq into a civil war.

Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on terror. We have significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by capturing and killing many of their leaders and associates. Despite these successes, the terrorists remain committed to launching another attack. It is not a question of if, but rather when.

As we mark the anniversary of these attacks, we must remain resolute to fight and win this war against terror. Mr. Speaker, this war on terror must be fought. We can do it in the streets of our own towns, or we can fight the terrorists wherever they are. Either way, it has to be done.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, it is more important than ever that our military have the best technologies available in their weapon systems and equipment. The tremendous strides that have been made in the area of technology have allowed us to do more with less. With a smaller force, it becomes imperative to provide the best technology and the best capabilities to our warfighters.

Our front line systems require cutting edge technologies to preserve the maximum advantage over our adversaries. It is important that we remain mindful of this as we look to the KC-135 Tanker replacement aircraft the Air Force is scheduled to purchase. We would be ill advised to disregard the technologies available in the aircraft being offered, as this aircraft will be in our inventory for decades.

This KC-X competition involves an older aircraft and a newer one. Old technology built today is still old, and offers little in the competitive environment. Retrofitting add-on technologies into older aircrafts' cockpits and elsewhere are costly modifications that offer only a partial solution to acquiring the best available aircraft.

Instead, the Air Force should consider the value of buying the latest, proven generation of commercial aircraft with modem technology already integrated into the platform. In closing, I believe we must procure the most advanced technology available for this aircraft to both accomplish the mission and to ensure the highest level of performance over its service life. The Air Force has a clear opportunity to procure the most advanced aircraft for the KC-X and our warfighters deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced legislation yesterday, along with my Alabama colleagues Representatives Jo Bonner and Mike Rogers, to enable America's farmers to better manage the risk to their livelihoods in times of severe weather and skyrocketing energy costs. The Farm Risk Management Act (FARM Act) would create risk management accounts, using both USDA and individual farmer contributions, to reduce the financial impact of disasters on the agriculture community. The FARM Act would allow farmers to insure their income by creating a whole-farm risk management program based on total revenues from all their farming activities. This is a departure from the current crop insurance program, which provides coverage based on a specific commodity. The new risk management account goes beyond the scope of current crop insurance by allowing farmers to withdraw funds from their accounts to help offset any unforeseen farm expense including high energy or fertilizer costs. With my new proposal, a farmer would deposit money into the new risk management account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would then match the farmer's contribution in this tax- deferred, interest bearing account, rather than subsidizing a portion of the crop insurance premium for the farmer as is done presently. As a result, farmers would effectively be self insured.

More and more, we are seeing farmers lose their farms due to the unfortunate combination of increasingly harsh weather, rising operational costs and a Federal crop insurance program that is too expensive to help many cover their losses. Recent Farm Bill hearings and subsequent meetings I have had with farmers in the Southeast have led me to the conclusion that current crop insurance programs are not working. The present system is too expensive, leaving many farmers exposed to uncontrollable risks. It also allows room for fraud which only serves to drive up program costs for everyone.

There is an urgent need for significant crop insurance reform that will offer hardworking farmers the tools they need to manage the unique risks involved in agricultural production. With the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization, we have a chance to address this critical issue, and I am offering this legislation to advance debate. This approach of individual risk management accounts could address many of the problems associated with the current crop insurance system and save the Federal Government money by alleviating the future need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Most importantly, it will give farmers struggling against natural forces beyond their control greater flexibility to make a living while performing the vital task of putting food on America's table.

Mr. Speaker. I was unable to vote on Rollcall Vote No. 357 H. Res. 895, a resolution that expresses, support for intelligence programs and condemns the unauthorized leaking of classified information. However, had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. Speaker, leaking classified information is a serious matter. It can expose both our intelligence gathering capabilities and operations. Moreover, divulging sensitive information, regardless of intent, can have grave implications for not only our national security but also our men and women in uniform currently serving in harms way. It is not up to the New York Times or any other media outlet to decide when a highly classified program tied to our national security should be made public.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war. Unauthorized public disclosure of classified programs being used to win this global war on terror jeopardizes our national security. It is my hope that in the future, those in government with knowledge of classified programs and news media organizations treat sensitive information appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act provides important guidelines to ensure the integrity of elections, yet the legislation before us chooses to reauthorize this Act with 30 year old information. I simply cannot vote to sentence Alabama to an additional 25 years under the foot of the Justice Department without just cause.

I am disappointed that the House chose not to update the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it reauthorized the measure. The whole debate was cast as either you're for the Voting Rights Act or you're not. There was no attention paid to the fact that the Act's formulas are out of date and place the Act itself at risk of constitutional challenge. As a result, states like Alabama continue to be punished for wrongs committed 40 years ago and the same criteria will remain in effect for another 25 years, through 2032.

Furthermore, I also oppose the Voting Rights Act's mandate that States provide bilingual ballots to non-English speaking voters. This provision serves only to impede the assimilation of non-English speakers into our society.

The Voting Rights Act remains locked in a time-warp reflecting the voting realities of 1964, not 2006. The very constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act may be in question. The Supreme Court found more than 30 years ago that the Act's formula, which is based on the 1964, 1968 and 1972 presidential election voting data, was constitutional because it is was temporary and narrowly tailored to address a specific problem. Thirty years have since passed calling into question the basis of this ruling.

``I supported an amendment to update the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are required to obtain Federal ``pre-clearance'' before changing voting procedures,'' said Everett. ``The formula would be updated to reflect voting participation in the most recent three presidential elections as a basis for Federal pre-clearance instead of decades old data.''

I also voted for an amendment to strike the provision in the Voting Rights Act requiring States to provide bilingual ballots.

It must be stated that efforts to reform the Voting Rights Act are not designed to weaken its effectiveness in protecting minority voting rights. These rights will continue to be protected. Reforming the Voting Rights Act is necessary to ensure that it reflects our current society.

Alabama has made tremendous progress in the area of voter participation due in large part to the Voting Rights Act. Out of the 50 States, it is second only to Mississippi in the total number of African Americans holding public office. As recently as 2004, African Americans and Caucasians in Alabama were registered to vote in equal numbers.

Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act remains focused on a core group of southern States which have long complied with its Federal mandate. Modernizing the Voting Rights Act would enable Alabama and other southern states to be properly evaluated on recent voter participation data. It also would help identify recent voter registration problems in other areas of the country that are currently hidden due to the antiquated formulas of the Voting Rights Act.

The provisions of the Voting Rights Act don't actually expire until 2007. Accordingly, Congress has time to go back to the drawing board and create legislation that would actually update and strengthen the Voting Rights Act. Modernizing the Voting Rights Act both serves the public interest and protects the constitutionality of the law.

Mr. Speaker, in November 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the former radical Islamic leader, seized power in Iran, riding the slogan, ``Death to America.'' Just 4 months after his rise to power, it became evident that agents of radical Islam would stop at nothing to kill Americans. This doctrine of hatred resulted in terrorists killing over 600 people prior to 9/11.

My colleagues, my chairman has mentioned this, Congresswoman Wilson mentioned part of this, and I wish everyone who got up here would go over this list.

In April 1983, 63 people died at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.

In October 1983, 241 died at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.

In February 1993, six people were killed at the World Trade Center. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.

In June 1996, 19 American servicemen died after a truck bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.

In August 1998, 224 died at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.

In October 2000, 17 died on the USS Cole in Yemen. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.

If some people continue to preach cut and run from this war, then they will continue to kill Americans, kill Americans and kill Americans. The global war on terrorism must be fought. We can do it on the streets of our hometowns, or we can take the war to the terrorists. Either way, it has to be done; and personally, I prefer doing it over in Iraq rather than in New York or Washington, D.C. or San Francisco.

For the first 20 years, we allowed the terrorists to fight this war on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let the terrorists continue to kill innocent Americans. Under the leadership of the Bush administration, and with the support of this Republican-led Congress, we took the fight to the terrorists, wherever they may be.

Mr. Speaker, right now their choice is Iraq. It is the central front in the war on terror. In fact, Osama bin Laden has said he believes the war going on in Iraq is nothing short of the Third World War. The importance of Iraq in achieving al Qaeda's objectives of killing Americans is clearly spelled out in a 2005 letter from Ayman al- Zawahiri, bin Laden's closest advisor, to Musab al Zarqawi, the man tapped by bin Laden to head al Qaeda operations in Iraq. He said that getting the U.S. out of Iraq is critical if they are to turn Iraq into a permanent base of recruitment, training and operations just like the one they had in Afghanistan.

This is why it is imperative that we stay the course and ensure that the democratically elected government can take hold. A democratic Iraq will be the death of al Qaeda, and those aren't my words Mr. Speaker, they are the words of Zarqawi.

Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on terror, highlighted by the recent death of Zarqawi. We have significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by denying them a safe haven in Afghanistan and capturing or killing many of their leaders and associates. We have also built an unprecedented international coalition to combat and prevent terrorist financing and dismantle terrorist support networks.

Mr. Speaker, America is safer, but we are not yet secure. The enemy we are fighting is determined and serious about its desire to kill Americans. We can not allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorist activity.

A free and democratic Iraq is absolutely essential to fighting the terrorist threat and building long-term peace and stability in the region. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.