Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a group of individuals--heroes--who are receiving the recognition and honor they deserve for their service to our country. Operation Recognition is operated by the Riverside County Office of Education with assistance from the Riverside County Department of Veterans' Services. The program awards high school diplomas to veterans who missed completing high school due to military service in World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or due to internment in WWII Japanese-American relocation camps. A recognition ceremony will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, for the following individuals who received their high school diplomas through Operation Recognition: David Gregory Aguilera, Benjamin Alcala, Walter Morton Anderson, John Angelo Jr., Ronnie D. Archer, William Armstrong, Luis Velos Aviles Sr., Herb Bacon, Thomas Louis Baier, David H. Bartash, Paul W. Bennett, Ronald C. Bissey, Alec Carson Boatman, David A. Bravo, William A. Bray, Aaron E. Bulin, James Elroy Butler, Robert Lee Chaffin, Arthur Charton, Israel Chavez, Gordon Michael Cody, Doyle L. Conklin, Ezra L. Craycraft, Donald Edward Davis, Moses F. Diaz, Howard Ellis, Scott Leslie Faust, John P. Flanagan, Frederick Lopez, Frank Garces, Benjamin Garcia, Robert George Greene, Patrick Roy Guaydacan, Gordon LeRoy Hall, Charles R. Hansen, Allen Hartley, William R. Haskin, Jimmy L. Henry, Arthur F. Hill, Ramon D. Holguin, Jerome Stephen Huggins, Barney M. Jensen, William Johnson, William L. Klaasen, Robert L. Knechtel, Edward Knight, Lonnie L. Lambeth, Joseph A. Landry, George Jefferson Lawrence Jr., Richard S. Leivas, August J. Liberino, Thomas John Martin, William Maycock Sr., Walter Maykulsky, Ray George McClintock, Eleuterio E. Medina, Forrest Leroy Mitchell, Frank R. Montejano, Curtis L. Murphy, William J. Murray, Jack I. Odell, Donald E. Pechous, Donald Edward Pedersen, Donald R. Phillips, Jerome Kern Pittman, John T.R. Pollock, John Puz, Walter S. Pynn, Gilberto Ramos, Rex Lee Reed, Richard M. Rego, Russell William Reichert, Alexander ``A'' Reyes, Raymond F. Reyes, William Leonard Robey, Juan M. Rodriguez, Luis Alfredo Rosado, Leo Marty Schlocker, Ernest George Schrader, Donald Clifford Secory, Robert Lewis Smith, Cecil T. Spires, Ronald Stiff, Steve P. Stone, John W. Swanson, Thomas Joseph Tarpai, Anthony R. Travers, David Scott VanNyhuis, Ralph Watkins, Michael L. Weir, Alvin Wilkiewicz, Donald Wohlt and Saturnino James Zabala. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to all the above recipients for their service and sacrifice. I salute all the above individuals and congratulate them on receiving their high school diploma.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, for the hard work that she has put into all these water bills and for her desire to make sure that areas such as southern California have water for the future. The South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act is a relatively modest yet important step toward meeting the long-term water needs for the West. Water recycling is an approach that more and more communities are tapping to meet local and regional water demand. To address the continued growth of water users, communities are truly maximizing the use of every drop of water. The South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act authorizes two water reclamation projects in the South Orange County portion of my district. South Orange County relies heavily on imported water from sources such as the Colorado River and the Bay Delta in northern California. Water reclamation projects and other steps which reduce demand for imported water benefit all regional water uses. The first project outlined in this legislation is the San Juan Capistrano recycled water system, which would enable the City of San Juan Capistrano to provide recycled water to users throughout the city and its neighboring communities. To meet the local demand, the City has developed a project that includes the construction of a water treatment facility as well as transmission infrastructure. I want to thank the San Juan Capistrano Mayor Sam Allevato and the rest of the city council for their dedication to this important project. The second part of this project is the San Clemente Reclaimed Water Project, which would expand San Clemente's reclaimed water infrastructure by doubling its production capability. When completed, San Clemente's recycled water project will reduce the city's demand of domestic water by 3,300 acre feet of water per year. I applaud San Clemente Mayor Jim Dahl and the entire city council for their entire commitment to water recycling. Again, I want to thank my good friend Grace Napolitano, our chairwoman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, for her leadership and support of my legislation. I know she shares my belief that water recycling is an important tool in addressing growing water needs in the west. Mr. Speaker, I think it is crucial that we recognize and assist communities that are working to reduce their reliance on imported water, and I urge all colleagues to support the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Santa Ana, California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week, as for many of us, I first heard about Juanita's illness. That is surprising because there is a group of us on both sides of the aisle that fly back and forth to California every week. I know there is a lot of talk about partisanship nowadays, but we have a pretty close group. Many times we sit next to each other on the airplane, and we talk about parents and children and golf or whatever. And Juanita was always a delight to be with, always had a positive attitude, always someone you looked forward to seeing. I was deeply saddened to hear of Juanita's sudden passing. I was sitting at home writing a note to her this weekend; and, unfortunately, that note can't be delivered. But I hope she is listening right now as we state our condolences to her family and to her friends. It has certainly been an honor for me to have worked with her for the last 11 years that she served in Congress. She was a faithful representative of her district. I worked with her specifically on the C-17 factory in Long Beach, California, where they make the great C-17 aircraft, and she was a champion for that. She worked for the employees that worked at that plant to make sure that the aircraft which is doing a wonderful job for our country continues to be manufactured in Long Beach, California. As a matter of fact, the last conversation I had with her was about what we can do to keep that going. There are no words I can use to convey the sense of loss when a colleague passes. She was a champion, and a champion for California. Our delegation will miss her very much. We will miss her smile. I join all of my colleagues in supporting this bereavement resolution and extend my sympathies to her families and friends. Juanita Millender-McDonald was a patriot who faithfully served her country. Her contributions and commitment will not be forgotten. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. CALVERT. I would close, Madam Speaker, by saying that we heard many great stories about Juanita and remembrances of her life, and we have lost a great friend, a great champion for our home State of California, and a great champion for our country. And as we mourn her loss, our condolences are shared with her family. Godspeed, Juanita. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, as my final speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who has also had a difficult week. He lost his brother this week, and our condolences are with him, also.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 988, I rise today to pay tribute to First Lieutenant Todd Bryant. The legislation would designate a post office in my district as the ``Lieutenant Todd Bryant Post Office.'' Todd was born on January 14, 1980, in Long Beach, California. Todd came from a military family and his desire and determination to join the military was nothing short of resolute. He enlisted in the Army Reserve and completed Basic Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma before his senior year of high school. In the fall of 1997, Todd came to my office seeking a nomination to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the following March, Todd accepted an Appointment to West Point. I was proud to nominate this ambitious young man who I knew would distinguish himself throughout his military service, just as he had done throughout his whole life. Todd interned in my district office before his senior year at West Point and graduated with a degree in Political Science on June 1, 2002. He would often joke that he was going to run for my congressional seat some day--I have no doubt he would have succeeded. After graduation, Todd attended the Armor Officer's Basic Course at Fort Knox, Kentucky, graduating in December 2002. On August 30, 2003, Todd and Jenifer Reardon were married in Pennsylvania, 9 days before shipping out with his unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On Friday, October 31, 2003, Todd was killed by an improvised explosive device as his Humvee traveled on a road between Fallujah and Baghdad. He was 23 years old. I ask you to support H.R. 988 to honor the service and sacrifice of Lieutenant Bryant. The naming of the post office in Rubidoux would be a fitting tribute to him, and the sacrifice of his wife and loving family. First Lieutenant Bryant was a true patriot and a brave young man, and our community feels his loss immensely.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the majority party's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. I returned from Iraq last week where I met with our troops. The one question I was asked repeatedly was, ``Why doesn't Congress support us?'' I told them that I do support them. Unfortunately, this bill does not. Right now, we have the A-Team in Iraq and they are producing results. I saw it firsthand: Sunnis working with Shia and the United States Marine Corps in the al-Anbar province. Sunnis looking forward to the next elections. An oil distribution plan that is on the brink of completion. The majority supplemental bill is simply defeat on the installment plan. How can Congress convey our support for the troops in Iraq and at the same time pass a bill which pulls the rug from the very people we claim to support? Plain and simple, this supplemental as written by the majority is a blueprint for defeat. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass a clean supplemental bill that provides support to those who are fighting and dying. We owe them that much.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 545--the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007. As a cofounder and co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I am keenly aware of the threat that is our Nation's meth epidemic. Methamphetamine has devastating societal costs. It is the source of violent crimes against people and property; increased suicide rates; heightened risks of hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS; increased need for more foster care placements for children of users; and environmental impacts from manufacturing facilities. This highly addictive drug is a killer that shows no deference to region, race or ethnicity--it preys on all mankind. Unfortunately, meth use thrives in some communities more than others. Native Americans suffer from higher than average rates of drug use as found in a recent NIH study. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 1.7 percent of Native Americans used meth in 2004--a per capita rate more than double that of Whites--the largest user population. It is imperative that we assist our Native American communities and that is exactly what this bill does. A year ago the President signed into law the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as part of the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill. The bill was a true bipartisan, bicameral effort that has provided comprehensive measures to address our Nation's methamphetamine problem. However, the bill did not specify that Native Americans would be eligible for funding within the three grant programs authorized and mentioned by my colleagues. H.R. 545 ensures that Native Americans will have access to the grant funds. I urge unanimous support for this commonsense legislation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record an Editorial from the Wall Street Journal regarding the Iraq Resolution, H. Con. Res. 63. [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2007] Awaiting the Dishonor Roll Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history. On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002. The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to ``support'' the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their ``bravery,'' while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to ``protect'' the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal. As for how ``the troops'' themselves feel, we refer readers to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: ``People are dying here. You know what I'm saying. . . You may [say] `oh we support the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What they's [sic] here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for.'' Added another soldier: ``If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in vain.'' In other words, the troops themselves realize that the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply immoral. All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed--whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable. We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: ``How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don't have the poiitical courage to help end. Instead, they'll pass this ``non-binding resolution,'' to be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site described yesterday as ``a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.'' In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr. Murtha's ``goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field.'' So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will ``slow-bleed'' the troops with ``readiness'' restrictions or limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but impossible to deploy. These will be attached to appropriations bills that will also purport to ``support the troops.'' ``There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk. All of this is something that House Republicans should keep in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha ``slow- bleed'' strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However ``non-binding,'' this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember. History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution offered by the majority expressing the disapproval of President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. This resolution, in my opinion, is nothing but politics. Opposition to a plan is not a plan. This resolution is using our service men and women in a debate that does not address policy. If this was an earnest debate about the administration's proposal, then the majority would have offered a bill that answers two pertinent questions: What is success, and how do we achieve it? Instead, we stand here debating a bill that opposes sending reinforcements to Iraq. There are no amendments allowed, and there is certainly no plan offered in this bill. In fact, this debate is incredibly ironic since many of those on the other side of the aisle were calling for more troops not too long ago. Once again, the debate was not about success, but about opposition to the administration's vision. Let us talk about policy. First, nostalgic thoughts and longing for the times before the U.S. entered Iraq are not useful nor can they be used as a vision for the future. We are in this war. We must win. Anything less than an honest discussion on how to proceed forward is a disservice to this Nation and to our military. Second, if our policy is to support a stable Iraq, then we must employ a strategy to achieve that goal. The President and our military commanders have stated that in order to fulfill that policy objective, Baghdad must be secured. In order to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi security forces need more American troops to reinforce their operations. President Bush agreed to this on the condition that the Iraqis lead the fight and that the Iraq Government take more responsibility for securing their country. If the majority party disagrees with this policy objective and the strategy to achieve it, then I ask them, what is their policy objective, and how do they plan to achieve it? I have yet to hear a consensus from my friends on the other side of the aisle on what they believe our policy should be. They certainly cannot suggest that this resolution even faintly resembles a plan or vision for a successful resolution to the current conflict. I will tell you what the debate is. It is a sound bite. It is a quick and easy way to feed the defeatists in this country. More than anything it is a disappointment. The majority would rather score political points than have a real discussion on the most important question of this generation, how to win the war against our enemies and keep our country safe. We should be asking ourselves, what would failure in the Middle East mean? Our enemies have stated that they believe that Western Civilization is rotten to the core. Unless we get out of the Middle East entirely and convert to Islam, we will always be their enemy. In chapter 2 of the 9/11 report, the authors answer what the terrorists want from America: ``To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture.'' Al Qaeda is closely watching Iraq, sending fighters and weapons and doing most everything in its power to bring about an American retreat. If we leave Iraq before it is secure, what will that do to our enemy, an enemy who has already stated that they seek to destroy us not for being in Iraq but for being in the Middle East and for being non- Muslim? An American failure would bolster al Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in the world. It would give them a reason to believe that they can win and that it could give them confidence so they could surely breach our shores one day. It would let them believe that their plan, a plan to destroy Western culture for its godlessness, is correct. As 9/11 taught us, warfare is no longer limited to the enemies within our region. Geographic boundaries and long distances do not keep us safe. An enemy encouraged by a retreat in Iraq will be close to our heels. That is exactly why we must stay and confront our enemies. So how is this enemy, who is at a military and financial disadvantage, seeking to win? They simply studied a little American history. Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have referenced the Vietnam conflict in forming their strategy to defeat us. Many in this body often rush to compare this conflict with Vietnam, and in one respect it is very similar: both enemies understood the way to victory was through American politicians. If they can weaken the American political will, they knew they could achieve victory. The majority often invokes the number of our war dead as the reason to leave or the fact that this conflict has gone longer than our involvement in World War II. These arguments play right into the hands of the enemy and their propaganda machine. What people don't seem to understand is that we cannot fall into the trap of comparisons, or we risk losing sight of what our men and women in the Armed Forces need from us: they need our support. They need a coherent policy and strategy that does not make politics the long pole in the tent. Courage to do the right thing is not always easy. I will not abandon those who have fought and given their lives in this conflict. I will not abandon the Iraqis who long for peace. Instead, I support the President's call for more troops. I believe it is the right thing to do. It is illogical to say you support the troops that are there, but not the reinforcements that they need. In closing, I would like to remember those who have lost their lives to the acts of terrorism: The Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombing in 1983; the bombing of Pan Am 103, 1988; the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in Argentina in 1994; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia 1996; the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in the year 2000; the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, September 11, 2001; the Madrid train bombings, March 11, 2004; the London bombings, July 7, 2005. Do not doubt that if they were given the chance, our enemies would come in this Chamber tonight and kill us all. This resolution is not a solution. It is nothing but doubt, fear, and weakness. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and stand up for victory.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hall and Mr. Wu as the lead sponsors of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Act of 2007. Mr. Speaker, we were very close to sending this legislation to the President for signature at the end of the last Congress, so I greatly appreciate the chairman keeping this issue at the forefront of this Congress and for steering the bill quickly through the Science and Technology Committee at the start of the 110. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the committee's majority and minority staffs who have diligently worked together and with the Senate over the last few years to develop and revise this legislation. As a founder and cochairman of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I know the meth epidemic in our country shows no deference to district or party line. This is an issue everyone can agree is wreaking havoc on communities across our Nation. As mentioned by my colleagues, H.R. 365 focused its efforts on procedures and standards needed to decontaminate a site where a methamphetamine lab is found so our communities can more thoroughly remediate these sites. The creation of voluntary health-based remediation guidelines for former meth labs, created by the Environmental Protection Agency, will protect and ensure the health of our citizens and the surrounding environment. This is a distressing issue with many, and certainly my area of Riverside, California, and, quite frankly, most of America has been all too familiar. Meth poses significant environmental threats as its production leaves, as mentioned, 5 to 6 pounds of toxic waste per pound of methamphetamine developed. The Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that more than 68 percent of all meth labs are located in ordinary homes in rural and residential areas. State and local agencies need all of the resources and tools that we can provide them to remediate the contamination that remains after meth labs are dismantled so that innocent families are not in danger. Although we are all aware that more needs to be done to win the fight against this devastating drug, I am convinced that H.R. 365 will be an important step and will be welcomed by our communities. So I thank Chairman Gordon for his good work, and I encourage all of my colleagues to pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, if I had been present earlier today, Friday, January 19, 2007, I would have voted as follows on today's recorded vote: rollcall No. 42, ``yea''--H.R. 475--House Page Board Revision Act of 2007.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to my leave of absence, I am submitting for the Record how I would have voted if I had been present earlier today. I would have voted as follows on today's recorded votes: Rollcall No. 34, ``yea''--Motion to Adjourn; Rollcall No. 35, ``no''--Ordering the Previous Question; Rollcall No. 36, ``no''-- Agreeing to H. Res. 66, Rollcall No. 37, ``no''--On Consideration of H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 38, ``yea''--Motion to Recommit H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 39, ``no''--Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair; Rollcall No. 40, ``no''--Final Passage of H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 41, ``yea''--Adoption of H. Res. 62--Congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers.