Thelma Drake

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. I would like to thank Mr. Smith, the chairman of the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats Subcommittee, and Mr. Thornberry, the ranking member, for their support and for working in a collaborative way to quickly bring this resolution to the floor. I rise today to honor the brave men and women of the United States Special Operations Command. The Second Congressional District of Virginia is home to Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek and Dam Neck and is home to Naval Special Warfare Group TWO and Naval Special Warfare Group FOUR, as well as Naval Special Warfare Development Group. The fine sailors, airmen, soldiers, marines and civilians of the command hold a special place in my heart, as they do for many of my colleagues on the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee and on the Armed Services Committee. This resolution is both proper and timely, as the 20th year anniversary of the establishment of the United States Special Operations Command in Tampa was this past Monday, April 15. Since that time, SOCOM has been involved across the globe as the ``tip of the spear,'' providing for our Nation's security across the continuum of conflict. On September 20, 2001, in preparing this country for the war on terror, President Bush said, ``Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success.'' Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, SOCOM has been leading the way in the war on terrorism and in promoting peace and security around the globe by conducting the full range of special operations missions. We are here today to honor those men and women who operate with little recognition, the ones whose successes remain unnoticed by the world at large. We face an enemy vastly different from the one 20 years ago. Our enemy hides in the shadows, within society, and it is no longer bound by convention. As my colleagues know, I have on many occasions come to this floor to talk about the mainstream media and their seemingly unwillingness to address the positives regarding our military and their achievements throughout the war on terror. As little as the American people hear about the successes of our conventional forces, they hear less about the successes of our special operations forces. That is why this resolution is timely and important. The men and women of SOCOM are there, every day, with little or no logistical support, building relationships and providing security in some of the most remote places across the globe. Mr. Speaker, we honor all those who wear the uniform. But today, I believe it is important that we honor those patriotic men and women that comprise our special operations community. U.S. SOCOM's vision sums this up: To be the premier team of special warrior, thoroughly prepared, properly equipped and highly motivated at the right place, at the right time, facing the right adversary, leading the global war on terrorism, accomplishing the strategic objectives of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize our next speaker, I would like to take a moment and extend my deepest sympathies and support to the grieving Virginia Tech family. This week we witnessed a tragedy of overwhelming proportions that has destroyed the lives of many innocent victims. While the consequences are devastating, I was inspired by the ability of students, alumni, faculty, family and neighbors to come together, driven by a sense of community and compassion, to support others in their time of need. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a further statement for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 186th Anniversary of Greek Independence Day. After nearly four centuries of occupation by the Ottoman Empire, Greece declared her independence on March 25, 1821. This was not only a victory for the people of Greece but it was a victory for democracy. Ancient Greece was the cradle of democracy, free thought, and free will. Our Founding Fathers modeled our nation's first laws after the teachings of such influential Greek scholars as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Greece's liberation in 1821 ensured that these democratic ideals would survive for perpetuity. Today, we honor the ancient Greek influence on our country and we celebrate the mutual respect and beneficial relationship between our two nations. In every war in the 20th century, our countries fought side by side because we both understood the importance of spreading freedom throughout the world. Because of our common history, shared values and commitment to democratic principles, the friendship between the U.S. and Greece will continue to grow. I am proud to be able to honor Greece today as she celebrates 186 years of renewed freedom and I look forward to working with this spirited nation in the years to come.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including outpatient residence Building 18. Despite Walter Reed's status on the BRAC list, there is no excuse for offering anything but world-class patient care to our returning wounded warriors. According to the BRAC Commission, Bethesda Naval Medical will take on the important mission currently handled by Walter Reed in 2011. Yet, only 5 weeks ago, the majority decided to take away $3 billion from the BRAC account that is needed to allow them to build the facilities to take on this overwhelming responsibility. I have asked the question then, and 5 weeks later have yet to have an answer, where is the money for BRAC and when will the money be restored for patient care for our men and women returning from battle?

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic week in Iraq. They have passed a new budget for 2007, an overwhelming majority of the Iraq Council of Representatives voted in favor of the $41.1 billion budget that will aid Iraq with rebuilding, security, and move them forward to be more self-sufficient. We should celebrate this achievement as evidence that we are making progress in Iraq, and we should allow the new strategy a chance to work. The 2007 Iraq budget represents a 21 percent increase over the 2006 budget. Over $10 billion will be dedicated to reconstruction efforts and capital investment projects this year, and over $7 billion will be used to provide security to protect Iraq from insurgents that continue to work against the cause of freedom. This is great news from Iraq. We are making progress. I applaud the dedication to fiscal responsibility in Iraq and urge my colleagues to celebrate the success stories like this one in Iraq.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Congressman Johnson, for your service to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, the past few years have been increasingly difficult ones for the American people, for our military families, and, most importantly, for our servicemembers in harm's way. Our troops have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. Their sacrifices are unimaginable to many of us here on this floor. Through it all, the only thing that they have asked is for our support through our words, through our prayers, and, most importantly, through our actions. During my two visits to Iraq, the question that I encountered from servicemembers was, What are they saying back home? They watch C-SPAN, and I know with certainty that they are watching us right now. The resolution that we are discussing today is nonbinding and, therefore, merely symbolic within the Beltway. The driving force behind it has more to do with the situation in Washington than it does the situation in Baghdad. Yet, half a world away this resolution will have demoralizing effects for those men and women who we have asked to go into battle. It is important for the American people watching this debate to know that this plan is currently under way. The Second Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division moved into Baghdad nearly a month ago. The Fourth Brigade of the First Infantry Division is deploying this month, with three more brigades set to arrive soon. That means that we are not here today to discuss whether or not the troops will go, we are discussing what message the troops will hear from us when they get there. Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the current situation in Iraq. Last April, I witnessed the election of the Iraqi Prime Minister. Since that time, the Iraqis have failed to make acceptable progress, stabilizing their nation, and strengthening their democratic institutions. Many of us have concerns about the plan. Will Prime Minister Maliki live up to the commitments that he made in November? Does this plan get the most out of the 21 trained and equipped Iraqi battalions deployed outside of Baghdad? These are reasonable questions, and ones I believe that are within the scope of Congress to discuss and resolve. I appreciate debate, and the American people appreciate debate. But it is important to remember that the American people have sent us here to solve problems. Unfortunately, this resolution makes no attempt to solve the problems in Iraq. If Congress believes that the President's plan can be improved on, then Congress has the responsibility to work with the Commander in Chief to ensure that the Iraqis are meeting stringent benchmarks and are living up to their commitments. This resolution is best defined by what it lacks. This resolution fails to include the proposal for a bipartisan panel tasked with outlining rigorous benchmarks and making sure they are met so that our troops may return home in victory. This resolution fails to specifically protect the funding that our troops need to execute the mission. This resolution fails to condemn the terrorists and insurgents who target both our troops and Iraqis, and, most importantly, it fails to reiterate that victory should always be the goal. We were told this week would provide an opportunity for every Member to go on the record, yet the majority has not allowed a Republican alternative that would protect funding for the troops. How do the American people know where their Representatives in Washington stand on funding for our troops when the majority will not allow that to be? The American people are anxious, but they want progress, not defeat. They want to see their elected officials working together to ensure success on behalf of our troops. Simply inserting a sentence, saying you support the troops, is not enough when your actions say otherwise. The consequences of retreat would be dire. This is understood by our allies as well as our regional partners who have spoken up against withdrawal. According to the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, it would result in an immediate increase in sectarian violence and genocide and has the potential to destabilize the entire region. For decades, the instability in the Middle East has repeatedly resulted in the deaths of American citizens and servicemembers, in places as far apart as Beirut and Yemen, New York City, and the Pentagon. A retreat at this point in time could, down the road, necessitate our troops returning to an Iraq that is much more dangerous than the one they left. I truly believe that the United States has the most formidable military in the world, not solely because of our technological and tactical advantages, but because our men and women in uniform fight in the name of a free and Democratic people. They fight on behalf of freedom for all, knowing they have the full support and confidence of the American people. When we take that support away, we strip our troops of the greatest weapon in the fight against tyranny. I ask my colleagues not to vote for this resolution, but to once again work together.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for that and thank him for his commitment to telling America how important it is that we keep our tax cuts that are in place and the very positive results that have taken place from the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those are real savings that are helping Americans today. At the end of 2006, that tax relief that Americans got to keep in their pockets was valued at $1.1 trillion. That is a lot of money for families, for small businesses. You mentioned my experience as a Realtor. I want to tell you, when I was new in the real estate business, I couldn't figure out how to put more time in the day, how do I do all the things that I needed to do. It took me just a while to realize there is no more time in the day, and there are only seven days in the week, and the only answer for me was to hire other people to do the things that I didn't have the time to do. What that meant for me in my little real estate business was I became an employer. All of a sudden I was paying payroll taxes on employees, as well as paying double for myself as a self-employed individual in the real estate industry. At the end of each year, when I would look at a really good year and sell a lot of real estate, I would say, I am really not making any money for as hard as I am working because so much is going to the Federal Treasury in the way of taxes. So I appreciate that in 2001, when the tax cuts were put into place that we reduced those income tax rates to Americans. I think a lot of people don't realize that today we have a 10 percent tax rate for our lowest payers, down from 15 percent. That is slated to expire in 2011 if we don't act then and keep that in place. Our other rates dropped by 3 to 4 points, not the full 5 points for our lowest- income Americans. I have heard you talking in here tonight about your children. I have two children and I have four grandchildren. When I was ran for office, because it was something I felt I needed to do, but not something that had always been a goal of mine, the way I made myself do that every day is I took a picture of my granddaughter, who was then under 2 years old, taped it to the dash of my car, and every time I got in the car I said, Caity, I am doing this for you. I stand here today now as a Member of Congress and say Caity, and the other three, because there are three more now, I am doing this for you. Because if we want to leave our children the America that we have enjoyed, we have got to make sure that our tax policy supports our economy, that it grows our revenues and it allows Americans to be the ones to decide how they are spending their money. One of the big changes in growing revenues for our country, of course, is the capital gains tax, which has been reduced from 25 percent to 15 percent. As a Realtor, before coming to Congress, I can't tell you how many times I would hear from people, I can't sell that rental property because I can't pay that capital gains tax. But in 2003, when that was dropped by 10 percent, that made a lot of difference for people, and people were allowed to take assets and free them up and not be looking at such an overburden of taxes in order to do that. We have talked about it. Congressman Kingston has mentioned President Kennedy. I wrote a quote of his down that I thought I would share tonight with America. This is from President Kennedy. He said: ``An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.'' That is the from the 1960s. Here we are in 2007 still having the same discussion and still trying to point out to America that when you keep your own money, that you spend it, you save it, you create jobs, you create wealth for yourself. We have heard a lot about taxing the wealthy and how we should do more of that. But what people don't realize is by allowing people to grow their own wealth, we do raise taxes on the wealthy. They have actually risen 39 percent. Our income taxes are up 8.8 percent on personal income tax, while corporate income taxes are now up 22.2 percent. What better way is there to raise revenue than allowing people to be successful and spend their own money the way they see fit? I am dismayed by two actions that were taken by this Congress in the very early days. There is a three-fifths majority that is needed to raise taxes. However, by a simple majority vote of this body, we now have a simple majority vote that is able to waive that. America needs to watch what this body does, and they need to hold us accountable. The other thing that this Congress did in those early hours is pass something that is called PAYGO. It sounds very good, and Virginia is actually a pay-as-you-go State. We are not allowed to have a deficit in our budget. So it sounds good to everyone, until you stop and realize what it means. What that means is when these taxes are ready to begin expiring, that in order to keep them in place, that other taxes either have to be raised or spending cuts have to take place to offset them. That doesn't take into consideration at all the positive impact we have seen of reducing taxes. It only looks at things on the surface. It is like the philosophy that is out there that if we are bringing in a lot of money today with tax policy, let's raise it just a little bit and we will get more. It is actually the opposite that takes place. I believe our responsibility is to grow our economy. Our responsibility is to have a tax policy that grows revenues for us and makes sure that we have the economy and the future for our children and our grandchildren. I thank you for letting me join you today.

Mrs. DRAKE. A three-fifths vote in order to raise taxes.

Mrs. DRAKE. What the rules that were changed were is that by a simple majority vote you can waive that three-fifths vote. I have not seen that written anywhere. Everyone that I have told about this back at home is shocked. Their eyes get big. I think they felt safe to think it would take a three-fifths supermajority vote to raise taxes in America, and they are very distressed to hear it. That is why I wanted to mention it tonight, because so few people know that that took place in the opening of this session in our House rules. I think that is unfair, and I think America should know it, and I think America should watch what we do.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to lend my support for House Concurrent Resolution 5--supporting the designation of ``Hire a Veteran Week.'' In each and every generation, a class of men and women stand out amongst their peers for their courage, their dedication and their patriotism. They have willfully defended our Nation and our principles when they were threatened, all the while reminding us about what is good about our Nation through their compassion and their citizenship. Although they have accomplished great things while in uniform, I support this measure not for what they have done to protect our past, but for what they are capable of doing to build our future. Our veterans have gained the kind of working skills and on-the-job training that is beyond comparison. They possess the qualities that any employer would find desirable: dedication, commitment and honor. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 5 and help bring attention to this worthy endeavor.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle that they support our troops. Yet, this CR removes $3 billion from our troops and their families. I offered an amendment to fix this and they refused.

Mrs. DRAKE. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mrs. DRAKE. Well, the article that I am reading, not just information that I have, is a continuing resolution released Monday night axes more than half of the money the Pentagon needs to meet its base realignment.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for recognizing me tonight, and I would like to apologize for being late for your hour. But as I was coming over here today, I was connected by my office to a constituent who is serving in Iraq right now. I stood out in that hallway just beyond those doors and had a conversation with him with much better reception than I usually get on a local call from my cell phone. So it was absolutely remarkable, and I just wanted to share with you a little bit of what he said. First of all, he is a contracting officer working with our reconstruction teams. I asked him, because we often hear that we are not employing Iraqis, that these are all major companies that are doing this work. He was quite surprised that I asked that question. He said that we have an ``Iraqi First'' program, and all jobs are offered first to Iraqi companies and to Iraqis, and if they can't perform that job, then other companies from other countries are brought in. They are completely screened. He even has an Iraqi who works with him on staff. I asked if he had a message for us tonight. And the answer was that he asked us not to forget them. I think that brings up the issue you just mentioned, Mr. Price, that what just happened today on the House floor. And what we know and the Department of Defense is now putting out information that there was a $3 billion reduction in the funds that have been appropriated in the bills that both of these bodies had passed for 2007. Not for those but for the military construction, the bills that the House had passed and had not been passed by the Senate. So we heard on the floor here today that that was not a reduction. It was actually an increase. That is not the way that this is being viewed, and it is not the impact that it would have on people who are serving today. But Mr. Price and Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that there is no one in America, no one in Congress that wants America to be at war. There is no President that wants to be a war President. And I have said to people if I believed this war we are engaged in was about democracy in Iraq or about a people who have fought each other for centuries, I would oppose this war, too. But it is a war about our civilization with an enemy who has vowed to kill us and to end our way of life, an enemy who has attacked us and who works and plots constantly to attack us again. I truly believe if Americans just had the facts that they would make the right decision. My constituent said it very clearly. He said we cannot let this enemy win. And every Iraqi that I have ever talked with, this is something America never hears and I think if they did hear it, it would make a difference, but from President Talabani on down, whether they are Iraqis I have met when I have been on trips there or Iraqis here, they all say, ``we are grateful to America for our freedom.'' And we, as Americans, never get to hear that. The real question is what are our options? To let this enemy win and to say that they defeated the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Iraq? What would that do to us? What would that do to our allies, and who would ever believe us again? And if we were to make that decision and to allow this enemy to win and pull our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqis are ready to govern and secure themselves, the real question is how will we manage the cost of this defeat? How will we manage the murder of all those Iraqis who have joined in the freedom of Iraq, the person who was working for my constituent right now, those who have served in government, in the police, in the Iraqi security forces? Thank you for yielding. I know you have a lot to talk about, and I appreciate the work that you are doing on the floor.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would meet with her to discuss how peace can finally be brought to the Middle East. I am pleased to hear of this three-way meeting and believe a meaningful resolution is long overdue. Since the year 2000, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to act unilaterally in the name of peace; only to have their enemies respond with more acts of violence. In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, only to be followed by Hezbollah and its missiles. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, only to be replaced by the militant wing of the Hamas party. These are just two examples of the terrorism the Israeli people have experienced over time. Madam Speaker, there will be no peace in the Middle East so long as these terrorist organizations insist on the destruction of Israel. There will be no peace, until Hamas agrees to curtail acts of violence and aggression and show that they are willing to work toward a two- state solution. More importantly, there will be no peace in the Middle East until the world community speaks out against terrorism with one voice. And, when a world leader sways from this commitment, we take one step back. Madam Speaker, we took one step back from reaching peace in the Middle East when former President Jimmy Carter published his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In his book, Mr. Carter puts the onus for Middle East peace on Israel, stating that it is Israel who is keeping peace from occurring in the Middle East. I strongly disagree with this analysis. I was recently contacted by one of my constituents in Virginia Beach about this book. Rabbi Israel Zoberman, the founding rabbi and spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim, wrote: How disappointing that the distinguished author of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter, who served as the 38th President of the United States, has written a book that fails to promote the very goal of peace which he is no doubt committed to. In fact, the title bluntly suggests along with the very essence of the narrative that Israel's policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is the core obstacle to the elusive peace. President Carter thus fails as the honest broker he proudly was when sponsoring the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. The mere suggestion of practiced apartheid by Israel is inflammatory enough in alluding to South Africa's overthrown policy. Thus, the book's title with the word ``apartheid'' in it and the cover's photo of the controversial security barrier, which are surely designed for sales' purposes, are irresponsible . . . To speak of Hezbollah and Hamas as if they were representing freedom fighters only seeking to remove Israel from the occupied territories is unfortunately not so. The means employed by the terrorists disregard civilian lives by using their own women and children as human shields. Madam Speaker, in August 2005, I had the privilege of visiting Israel. It was truly a life-changing experience which helped put into perspective the crisis facing this generation of Israelis. Every generation is confronted with a moment of truth. We are at that moment now. Our duty as responsible statesmen and world leaders is to promote dialogue and action so that all families, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian can live without fear.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Portsmouth, Virginia, for the grand opening of a new complex that serves formerly homeless people. This is the first complex in the Nation that is financed and supported by more than one city. This complex will serve over 60 adults from our region who formerly lived in shelters, under bridges or on the street. Congratulations to these three cities who worked regionally and who worked together to address the very basic human need for shelter and providing other comprehensive services such as job counseling, mental health, substance abuse and drug-abuse treatment as well. Congratulations to them, and we hope other regions of the country will follow their example, and they will be a great model for our Nation.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. The Medicare prescription drug insurance program continues to exceed expectations. The current private sector approach has resulted in more choices available to Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously keeping costs below previous projections. The majority of seniors are satisfied with the program and are saving on average $1,200 a year. Seniors are able to choose a prescription drug plan that meets their needs. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that requiring the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices with the manufacturer will not result in any savings to the Federal Treasury or the taxpayer. When asked, seniors support lower drug prices; but when told that means less choice of available drug or pharmacy, they disagree. Seniors across America want their doctors, not the Federal Government, to choose the most effective drugs.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 895) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents, as amended.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the bill under consideration.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Senate 895, introduced by Senator Pete Domenici, strengthens the Bureau of Reclamation rural water supply program to ensure that new projects are cost effective and efficient. The bill also gives water users access to a loan guarantee program aimed at strengthening water delivery infrastructure while improving the process to transfer many Federal projects to local entities. At this point, I include in the Record an exchange of letters with Chairman Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill, and thank him for his cooperation in scheduling it. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, December 6, 2006. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Resources wishes to schedule for floor consideration S. 895, a bill authored by Senator Pete Domenici to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents. This bill was passed by the Senate on November 16, 2005, by unanimous consent and referred exclusively to the Committee on Resources. The House companion measure is H.R. 4418. Based on discussions with the Parliamentarian, it appears that the definition of ``rural water supply project'' contained in the bill is broad enough to encompass drinking water facilities of the type which are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a program under your committee's jurisdiction. While this is not the intended focus of the bill, and the Bureau of Reclamation, the implementing agency for the program under the bill, does not normally deal with drinking water projects, I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce would have a jurisdictional interest in the bill as written. Therefore, I ask you not to seek a sequential referral of the bill so that it may be considered by the House of Representatives before we adjourn the 109th Congress later this week. This agreement in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In the very unlikely event a conference committee is convened on S. 895, I would support your request to have the Committee on Energy and Commerce represented on that conference. In addition, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response you might have in the Congressional Record when the bill is debated. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for all your cooperation and assistance during our mutual times as chairmen. I look forward to bringing S. 895 to the floor soon. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I have no other additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.