Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Boyd of Florida for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The amendment would strike a much needed provision that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the manuals which govern the water distribution rights of Alabama, Florida and Georgia regarding the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin. This matter is still in Federal court, and the court's decision to revise the manuals is opposed by both the Governors of Alabama and Florida.

In addition, such an action would create severe distress in Alabama's waterways, harming both navigation and power production. In light of the ongoing Federal litigation, it is inappropriate for the courts to proceed with such revision of the manuals at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, how much time does that give me?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) to close our arguments.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman, and Mr. Kingston has adequately explained the situation that we are in. This handling and storage fee is absolutely critical for the peanut farmers in these very small rural towns that we all represent.

One thing that might be noted is that in the last farm bill, which I had the privilege of being the subcommittee chairman that wrote this peanut title, this was put in there to help the farmers and the shellers transition into a more market-based program. The problem that we have gotten into is because I believe that the USDA has not followed the word and/or spirit of the peanut title, in that they have kept these peanuts, we have had about 2 or 3 years of great peanut crops, and they have kept these peanuts in loan. That has not created a market that we intended to create. They have not moved these peanuts out of loan, which we fully intended for them to do.

They have to understand if it is a budget thing, it is either pay now or pay later. But the longer they keep them in there, the less those peanuts are going to be worth and they will go out to people for almost nothing.

So I appreciate Mr. Kingston for putting this language in there, and I further appreciate the chairman. I understand my full committee chairman on the authorizing side is trying to protect the committee's privileges, and also my friend from Texas, Mr. Bonilla, I appreciate the words that he had concerning this issue and, hopefully, we can do something in conference about it.

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

Mr. Chairman, recently a concern about VA health care policy regarding certain anesthesia providers was brought to my attention. The VA is currently reviewing regulations to allow anesthesiologist assistants, also known as AAs, to provide care at VA medical facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage the VA to continue to move forward to officially recognize AAs as anesthesia providers at VA medical facilities. AAs are a small but important contingent of mid- level anesthesia providers, who will be a welcome addition to the anesthesia care team at VA hospitals. In fact, the VA approved AAs to serve at VA facilities in February of 2004. It approved them in February of 2004. But because of bureaucrat delays, AAs are not recognized in the Veterans Health Administration's official provider handbook, not allowing them to practice.

Mr. Chairman, more than 2 years has passed since the decision was made to include AAs as VA anesthesia providers, yet the program is still on hold. If new specific qualification standards for AAs are needed, then the VA should say so and finalize the regulatory process. In light of potential provider shortages at veterans medical facilities, veterans deserve to have every qualified caregiver as a resource. Anything else is a disservice to our veterans.

I know the chairman of the subcommittee is aware of this situation, and I look forward to working with him to have to help get the VA off the dime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have known Gen. Hayden for years and believe he is the most qualified candidate in the country for this critical position.

To further illustrate this point, I would like to call your attention to a recent editorial by retired Gen. Charles Boyd that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on May 11 which makes a convincing case for the Hayden nomination.

Mr. Speaker, Gen. Boyd served 35 years in the Air Force. As a combat pilot in Vietnam, he was shot down on his 105th mission and survived 2,488 days as a prisoner of war. The only POW from that war to achieve the four-star rank, General Boyd's final military assignment was as deputy commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe. Prior to this assignment, Gen. Boyd was the commander of Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, in my congressional district.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a copy of Gen. Boyd's editorial.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2006]

A Hayden Symphony at the CIA

(By Charles G. Boyd)

Our political disagreements are often obtuse for the simple

reason that it is difficult to discern motives. Do disputants

put the interests of the country ahead of partisan and

personal concerns? Moreover, disagreements about intelligence

issues are doubly hard to parse, since--despite leaks and

rampant gossip--most of what goes on inside the Central

Intelligence Agency remains opaque even to high-paid

journalists and other Washington sophisticates. And so, amid

partisan positioning and an imposing ignorance, is the scene

set for the already dismaying dispute over the president's

nomination of Michael Hayden to be CIA director.

The arguments (to use a generous term) being made against

Gen. Hayden are so without merit or even serious content that

one cannot help but suspect partisan stratagems at work. Of

these, three are most common.

First, the contention that Michael Hayden is a kind of

intelligence technocrat, knowledgeable only in signal

intelligence, is pure canard. A liberal-arts man, Gen. Hayden

has a masters degree in history, and was the broad-based

senior intelligence official for the Air Force and the U.S.

European Command before entering the technical domain of the

National Security Agency. He worked on the National Security

Council staff, in the U.N. Command and U.S. Forces Korea, and

in these positions was a senior level consumer of

intelligence as well as an earlier producer of it. Those who

make such accusations do not know him or, more broadly, what

they are talking about.

Some complain, secondly, that Gen. Hayden was somehow

complicit in the domestic eavesdropping undertaken by the NSA

at the president's direction. Gen. Hayden's sin in this case

seems to stem from his calm and rational defense of an

embattled president's heretofore secret program. No legal

infractions attended anyone's behavior in what was, and

remains, a policy response to a clear and present threat.

Moreover, if Gen. Hayden had objected--having been assured by

the attorney general, the Department of Justice, the White

House counsel and the NSA general counsel that the program

was legal--his position would have been unprofessional and

ill-advised.

Third, there is the objection that Gen. Hayden is, well, a

general--a military man--as if that automatically

disqualifies him for the job. Since the National Security Act

of 1947 created the CIA, four military officers have held the

director's job--plus two more who directed the postwar

predecessor to the CIA. So there is ample precedent for Gen.

Hayden's nomination. But the complaint here is not so much

about precedent as the presumption that Gen. Hayden would

docilely do the bidding of the bureaucratic imperium

represented by the present secretary of defense. To

believe this is to ignore his professional history.

Gen. Hayden was the only high-ranking active-duty general

to testify against Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's desires as the

National Intelligence Directorate was debated by Congress in

2004. He did so, he believed, in the interests of a more

rational template for oversight, and control of those

intelligence agencies now under the Defense Department whose

customers are multidepartmental. Gen. Hayden was a man of

convictions with the courage to defend them when he was a

lieutenant colonel, and has lost neither of those

characteristics as he ascended into the senior ranks of his

profession.

Most important, the best guarantee against coercion of the

CIA director by any cabinet-level official--or president--may

be stated in one word: professionalism. And Michael Hayden,

as I have observed for nearly 20 years, is a professional par

excellence.

Those who wish to harm the president seem intent on using

Gen. Hayden as a bank shot into the Oval Office. This is a

great shame, and stands to be an important missed

opportunity, for the confirmation process--were it to focus

truly on the national interest--could do a great deal of good

at this time of tumult in the intelligence community.

There has been, for a long time, a tendency on the part of

some presidents to select CIA directors who were amateurs in

the craft. Their political or ideological leanings have

sometimes been a more important factor in their appointment

than their knowledge and capabilities in the arcane world of

intelligence. With those chosen for such reasons comes a

weakened ability to resist pressure to marshal intelligence

in ways tailored to support the policy objectives of a

president: pressure to give the president what he wants

rather than what he needs. It is fair, I believe, to claim

that the intelligence failures of recent years were a long

time in the making, and that they were failures not so much

of the institution but of a flawed intelligence leadership

selection process.

``Amateur'' is not, by definition, a swear word; we have

had, on occasion, some very talented non-professional

directors of Central Intelligence. But there is no substitute

for the professional knowledge and ethos at the top that

legitimate and protect the intelligence function from a host

of political pressures and insinuations.

Gen. Hayden's confirmation hearings should, first of all,

result in his confirmation. But beyond that, the hearings

could do the country an important service if they were to

consider a more thoroughgoing reform--modeling the key

intelligence positions in the U.S. government on that of the

chairman of the Federal Reserve, or of the Joint Chiefs,

whose term does not run parallel to that of the president,

and whose professional credentials are critical elements in

his selection. More than anything else the Congress can do,

such a reform would help restore the professionalism that is

crucial to the intelligence function in a democracy. That

would be no bank shot, but a slam-dunk for national security.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. In the case of the Conecuh National Forest in Alabama, the amendment could leave areas designated as potential old growth subject to increased fire and insect risk.

Our revised forest plan identifies 60,000 acres as potential old growth sites. Half of these acres in this designation are suitable for harvest. Half of them are not designated as suitable. So this amendment would prohibit the application of H.R. 4200 in these areas.

In our forests, scenic river designations, cultural areas, and scenic areas are all considered unsuitable for timber production; yet harvest may be allowed to provide certain habitats, demonstrate cultural heritage or provide vistas.

This amendment would leave these areas untouched by restoration efforts. This situation could damage the very trees it is allegedly intended to save. Again, this is why this bill provides flexibility while requiring compliance with forest plans.

This amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in the committee, and it should be defeated on a bipartisan basis on the floor today. This is not a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it would have a great negative impact on national security by severely curtailing or terminating programs that protect our country against rogue nations.

Simply put, now is not the time to gut our missile defense programs by slashing the Missile Defense Agency's budget in half, given the threats posed by such countries as North Korea and Iran.

This amendment would freeze in place both ground-based and the Aegis midcourse defense capabilities prior to finishing what we started with the Fort Greeley, Alaska, GMD installation. We have had tremendous success with the Aegis program. Six of the seven last intercept tests have been hits. Why in the world would you stop this now?

In addition, this amendment would kill the Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor boost phase defense programs, just when both promises are approaching significant milestones in 2008.

General Cartwright, Commander of STRATCOM, has repeatedly told me how important it is to stay the course with the Airborne Laser Programs, whose directed energy capability is of a critical importance to the Department of Defense. This amendment would kill the ABL program after more than $3 billion has been invested. It would be a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money not to go ahead and follow through with the ABL program to see how well it works.

The amendment cites the Congressional Budget Office report on long- term implications of current defense plans and alternatives. Let me repeat, ``and alternatives.'' The evolutionary alternative in this CBO report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement by CBO of cutting MDA programs. This report simply looked at the impact of future defense budgets, of alternative options to meet hypothetical, hypothetical spending targets. The CBO, and this was confirmed this today by my staff, does not endorse or support this proposal. It was merely another option as part of funding a ``what if'' drill, an academic situation, if you will.

This amendment could drastically cut the budget of our missile defense. While we all understand the missile defense architecture is complicated and costly, long term, it is crucial in today's world if we will continue our primary national defense into the future.

There will never be a time to cut investments in our Nation's protection. That is what this does. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friends on the other side, let me say that the gentleman is probably not aware of a missile which was deployed before it was finally finished, which the Israelis used.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) who is on the Intel Committee and also on the Strategic Forces Committee that handles missile defense.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me now yield any time remaining to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is also very knowledgable about missile defense and also on the Intel Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter. I would also like to say that under his leadership we certainly have produced one of the most bipartisan bills in one of the areas that is most important to our national defense, and I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate Mr. Skelton, my friend who is ranking member. And also let me say that we had an extremely bipartisan markup in my subcommittee, and this subcommittee handles some of the most controversial, contentious, complex issues in the defense industry. We could not have had such a bipartisan markup had it not been for my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is my ranking member of that subcommittee.

So it was an extremely good markup, and as we have seen now, that markup was followed by the full committee markup where the bill passed 61-1.

I want to say a few things about the bill. The need for providing support to ongoing operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism have appropriately been the focus of much of the committee's work this year. It is also important to examine our Nation's strategic posture and our ability to maintain a strong national defense, capable of projecting a powerful and diversified global force.

I am proud that our bill provides investments in the Nation's long- term need for transforming the Nation's capabilities of our strategic forces, and I am also proud that near-term benefits for our Armed Forces deployed around the world protecting our Nation at home is included in this bill.

In the Missile Defense Agency, the bill before you adds $140 million to transition the Army's PAC-2 Patriot missile equipment to the PAC-3 configuration and funds upgrades to the Aegis ballistic defense system. These recommendations shift funds from longer term and less well- defined projects to near-term priorities.

In the area of military space, the bill makes adjustments to the budget request to address concerns about whether space program funds are executable in the year 2007. The bill also includes a provision to establish a Department of Defense Office of Operational Responsive Space to focus and advance the Nation's ability to provide on-demand space capabilities to global military operations.

Within the atomic energy defense activities, the bill funds the Department of Energy programs at the budget request. The bill also includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a plan for the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex and authorizes funds for infrastructure upgrades.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that I frankly had gotten tired of seeing come before the subcommittee, and that is the Mixed Oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication facilities and the agreements that we were trying to have with the Russians. The mark includes information that would uphold the nonproliferation objectives of the committee to begin disposition of weapons grade plutonium in the U.S. The problem is that we do not see any movement among the Russians. For a couple of years now we have been faced with this. I have become frankly a little tired of seeing it come before the Congress when we have seen no movement from the Russians to do away with their plutonium nor to reach any agreement with us to do so.

So an amendment was offered by Mr. Wilson. I asked the staff to look at a way that we can do this. There is an amendment offered by Mr. Wilson to delink the U.S. disposition of its plutonium from that of the Russians. That is also included in the mark.

The bill also adds $40 million to other nuclear nonproliferation programs and $50 million to environmental cleanup activities.

Mr. Chairman, the committee's report addresses administrative objectives, unfunded military requirements, and Member priorities. This is a good bill, as I said earlier. We simply could not have gotten this bill through the committee without the strong help from my good friend, Mr. Reyes from Texas, and also from the members of the committee, both the minority members and the majority members, who really worked hard, as I said, on some of the most complex, controversial issues that are included in the entire defense bill.

So I would ask Members to take a strong look at this bill. Much like the subcommittee, it passed out of the full committee on a 61-1 vote. It is a bipartisan bill.

Finally, let me just simply say that much of this was achieved by the extremely hard work in my subcommittee by both staffs on the minority and the majority side.

I urge this bill to be passed. It is a very good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to declare my support for H.R. 5107, a House measure offered by U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Florida, to designate the United States Post Office at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, Florida the ``Earl D. Hutto Post Office.''

Congressman Earl Hutto proudly served Florida's first district from 1979 to 1995. He was a strong voice for his district on the House Armed Services Committee where he rose to the position of chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. During Democrat and Republican administrations, he was an effective and reliable advocate for our military men and women and a credit to the U.S. House.

Earl and I go way back and it turns out we have a lot in common. In addition to having served in the House together, we both hail from a media background. He chose broadcasting and I worked for 30 years in print journalism. But even more unique is the fact that he and I both come from the tiny Dale County, Alabama town of Midland City. As remarkable as it may sound, and we did not realize it until we both came to Congress, but Earl and I even lived in the same Midland City house at different times.

I have missed Earl's presence here in the House since his well deserved retirement and I was pleased to speak at a ceremony honoring him last year at his alma mater, Troy University, in my district.

I wish Earl and his wife Nancy all the best as they continue to enjoy life back in Pensacola. This House and the people have not forgotten their contributions to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's greatest military heroes, Michael J. ``Mike'' Novosel, who

passed away on April 2 at the age of 83 at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC.

Mike Novosel was a remarkable man who ranked among the best who ever donned a military uniform. I'm proud to point out that he spent much of his life in southeast Alabama where he had a monumental impact on the mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker.

Born in Pennsylvania in 1922, Novosel joined the U.S. Army Air Corps when he was 19. His training eventually took him to Maxwell Air Force Base where he qualified to fly the B-29 Superfortress. In 1945, he flew four Pacific combat missions with the 58th Bombardment Wing during the final days of World War II. But he did not stop there. Novosel commanded a B-29 as part of a fly-over during the Japanese surrender ceremony. His military career then led him to command the 99th Bombardment Squadron in the Pacific where he served until 1947 when he returned to the United States as a B-29 test pilot and then joined the Air Force Reserve. Soon after, he was called back to active duty at the Air Command and Staff School during the Korean war. But this was all just the beginning for Novosel.

During the Vietnam war, then Lieutenant Colonel Novosel volunteered for duty in the Air Force Reserve. However, he was turned down because of his age. So, he traded his blue suit for the uniform of a U.S. Army warrant officer, and instead of piloting B-29's, took the stick of a Bell UH-1 Huey. As a ``dust-off' helicopter pilot, Novosel served two tours in Vietnam, totaling 2,543 missions airlifting 5,600 medical evacuees. Amazingly, one of the men he rescued was his own son, who, ironically, later rescued him. In one rescue mission, Novosel braved tremendous enemy fire to rescue no less than 29 men.

His bravery resulted in his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. He returned stateside to instruct the Army's Golden Knights parachute team at Fort Bragg and later he taught at the Warrant Officer Career College at Fort Rucker. In 1985, Novosel was the last World War II pilot still flying. Fort Rucker named its main street ``Novosel Avenue'' for him, and after retirement Novosel remained in Enterprise, AL, where he was an active member of the community until his death.

Mr. Speaker, CWO4 Mike Novosel will rightfully be buried in Arlington National Cemetery alongside America's other great heroes. We can all be proud of his exemplary record, and I extend my condolences to his family.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I do rise in support of the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2007. Chairman Hoekstra is to be congratulated and commended for his efforts in drafting this important legislation to meet the intelligence needs of the country.

There are many great things in this bill for the warfighter and for the intelligence community; however, I would like to focus on a very important reconnaissance and surveillance program, the U-2. Recently, a program budget decision was released by the Air Force to retire the U-2 by 2011. This transition flight plan would replace the U-2 with the Global Hawk UAV that is not yet capable of taking on this mission. This plan is premature, and after further review it appears that the Air Force now shares my concerns. The bill before us prevents the retirement of the U-2 unless the Secretary of Defense can certify that there will be no loss of intelligence collection capabilities.

Just to make a point, I am associated with the U-2 all the way back to the 1950s when it made its first flight. It has been upgraded continuously over the years with a large variety of mature intelligence collection sensors. The U-2 is, in fact, the force behind our long- range stand-off intelligence capabilities today.

The last U-2 left the production line in 1989. Its airframe is engineered for 75,000 hours. The U-2 provides critical multisensor intelligence through all phases of conflict, including peacetime, the war on terror, low-intensity conflict, and high-scale hostilities. The U-2 has even provided photographs to FEMA in support of the Hurricane Katrina and other national disasters. The U-2's modular payload design allows the aircraft to be reconfigured to perform various missions and can perform them until 2050 at the rate we are now using them.

Mr. Chairman, intelligence is the first line of defense and necessary for the security of the Nation. Our warfighters, to be successful on the battlefield, have to have this intelligence. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and again I congratulate the chairman and our ranking member for us being able to get this bill to the floor.

In particular, I'd like to focus on a very important Reconnaissance and Surveillance Program: the U-2.

Recently, a Program Budget Decision was released by the Air Force to retire the U-2 by 2011. This ``transition flight plan'' would replace the U-2 with the Global Hawk UAV that is not yet capable of taking on this mission. This plan is premature, and after further review, it appears the Air Force now shares some of my concerns. The bill before us prevents the retirement of the U-2 unless the Secretary of Defense can certify that there will be no loss of intelligence collection capabilities.

Just to make a point about the capability of the U-2, although the origins of the aircraft go back to the 1950s, it has been upgraded continuously over the years with a large variety of mature intelligence collection sensors. The U-2 is, in fact, the force behind our long- range, stand-off intelligence capabilities today.

The last U-2 left the production line only in 1989. Its airframe is engineered for 75,000 hours, yet our fleet of operational aircraft averages only 10,000 hours. The U-2 provides critical multi-sensor intelligence through all phases of conflict, including peacetime, the war on terror, low-intensity conflict and large-scale hostilities. The U-2 has even provided photographs to FEMA in support of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. The U-2's modular payload design allows the aircraft to be reconfigured to perform various missions, and can perform them until 2050 at the rate we are using them today.

The Bill rightly directs that the Secretary of Defense must certify that there will be no loss of intelligence capabilities in transitioning from the U-2 to the Global Hawk, and that the collection capabilities reach parity, before a final decision is made. This will help ensure that the ``persistent stare'' goal in the Quadrennial Defense Review is met.

Mr. Chairman, intelligence ``is'' the first line of defense and necessary for the security of this Nation, and for our war fighters to be successful on the battlefield. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's greatest military heroes, Michael J. ``Mike'' Novosel, who passed away on April 2 at the age of 83 at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC.

Mike Novosel was a remarkable man who ranked among the best who ever donned a military uniform. I'm proud to point out that he spent much of his life in southeast Alabama where he had a monumental impact on the mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker.

Born in Pennsylvania in 1922, Novosel joined the U.S. Army Air Force when he was 19. His training eventually took him to Maxwell Air Force Base where he qualified to fly the B-29 Superfortress. In 1945, he flew four Pacific combat missions with the 58th Bombardment Wing during the final days of World War II. But he did not stop there. Novosel commanded a B-29 as part of a fly-over during the Japanese surrender ceremony. His military career then led him to command the 99th Bombardment Squadron in the Pacific where he served until 1947 when he returned to the United States as a B-29 test pilot and then joined the Air Force Reserve. Soon after, he was called back to active duty at the Air Command and Staff School during the Korean War. But this was all just the beginning for Novosel.

During the Vietnam War, then Lt. Col. Novosel volunteered for duty in the Air Force Reserve. However, he was turned down because of his age. So, he traded his blue suit for the uniform of a U.S. Army warrant officer, and instead of piloting B-29's, took the stick of a Bell UH-l Huey. As a ``dust-off'' helicopter pilot, Novosel served two tours in Vietnam, totaling 2,543 missions airlifting 5,600 medical evacuees. Amazingly, one of the men he rescued was his own son, who, ironically, later rescued him. In one rescue mission, Novosel braved tremendous enemy fire to rescue no less than 29 men.

His bravery resulted in his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. He returned stateside to instruct the Army's Golden Knights parachute team at Fort Bragg and later he taught the Warrant Officer Career College at Fort Rucker. In 1985, Novosel was the last World War II pilot still flying. Fort Rucker named its main street ``Novosel Avenue'' for him, and after retirement Novosel remained in Enterprise, Alabama where he was an active member of the community until his death.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Warrant Officer Four Mike Novosel will rightfully be buried in Arlington National Cemetery alongside America's other great heroes. We can all be proud of his exemplary record, and I extend my condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the service and the memory of Army Sergeant Troy Jenkins of Repton, Alabama in my congressional district. He lost his life in defense of freedom on April 24, 2003.

Sgt. Jenkins loved his country, serving in both the Marine Corps and the Army. He studied Arabic and trained to be a paratrooper. His service took him to Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of the 101st Airborne Division, he was standing patrol in Baghdad when a cluster bomb exploded, taking his life.

Sgt. Jenkins was known at home and among his comrades for his bravery. He demonstrated it when he put his own life in harm's way to protect others from the cluster bomb. He was remembered by his fellow soldiers as a friend and a hero; all of America can be proud of his service and his dedication to duty.

I would also like to commend Sgt. Jenkins' mother, Connie Gibson, for her efforts to honor the bravery and service of her son and all others who have lost their lives defending our great country. She has reached out to local veterans and their families to bring our community together to pay tribute to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for America.

On the third anniversary of the loss of Sgt. Jenkins, I send my condolences out to his family, including his wife, Amanda, and sons, Tristan and Brandon. The thoughts and prayers of America are with you.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor Study Act, a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor in Alabama and Georgia.

The Historic Chattahoochee Compact was signed into law in 1978, and it established the Historic Chattahoochee Commission to promote historic preservation and tourism in the Chattahoochee Valley. Since this time, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission has been involved in a heritage tourism program in eighteen Alabama and Georgia counties along the lower Chattahoochee River. Because of their exemplary work, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has cited the Historic Chattahoochee Commission as a national model for heritage corridor development.

The designation of this corridor is the final piece in the commission's development plan. It would enable them to initiate new and innovative projects to invigorate the economies of the member counties since they would be eligible to receive funding for publications and marketing for tourism, historic preservation, environmental education, outdoor recreation, and small business development. In addition to aiding historic preservation, this effort will also enhance economic development in this region.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the job that he has done and the ranking member for the job he has done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by recognizing the gentleman from California, our Chairman, an old-time friend of mine and I think probably the most patient chairman I have ever served with in my years in Congress. His skill in leading this committee has been outstanding.

And we also have the contributions of the gentleman from Missouri. Someone I admire very much and who has good memories of the town I was born in and now live--Dothan, AL.

I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1815). This legislation supports the administration's objective while making significant improvements to the budget request. Moreover, our national security investment must continue the development of transformational capabilities of future systems, and this conference report meets that goal.

In the area of military space, the Department of Defense has embraced the benefits space provides to our warfighter. Unfortunately, the DOD has experienced significant acquisition problems on several high- priority programs. I look forward to working with the DOD to correct areas of concern and ensure their success for the future.

Within the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy, the bill funds the National Nuclear Security Administration at $9.2 billion. The conference report includes legislation establishing the objectives of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, a program that enjoys bipartisan support to ensure our nuclear stockpile remains reliable, safe and secure.

The Conferees have funded defense environmental cleanup activities at $6.2 billion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas for his contribution, and the remainder of my subcommittee Members on both sides of the aisle, and their staff. I think we faced some of the most difficult policy decisions in the House Armed Services Committee and I want to express my appreciation for their hard work in protecting this Nation's security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the long service of a distinguished Conecuh County citizen who has contributed to the education of many in Southeast Alabama. Mrs. Edith A. Gray, who turned 95 this year, is truly an inspiration of community service.

A native of Galveston, Texas, Mrs. Gray received her educational training in 1940 at Tuskegee Institute. Already teaching even before she obtained her B.S. degree, Mrs. Gray dedicated over four decades of her life to educating others at Conecuh County Training School.

Gray went on to develop one of the largest and most successful home economics programs in the State of Alabama. She founded the New Homemakers of America (NHA) organization in Conecuh County and the Mother-Daughter-Father-Son organization as a means of bringing families together.

Her insightful programs brought together families to teach them in their own homes a variety of skills from sewing, cooking, decorating, child care, and preserving homegrown foods.

I am pleased to note that due to Mrs. Edith A. Gray's exemplary service she will be honored on December 12 with the office ribbon cutting of the Edith A. Gray Library and Technology Center at Reid State Technical College in Evergreen, Alabama. She is certainly worth of this honor and I extend my personal congratulations to her and her family.