Terry Everett

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank him for his commitment to work with me on the matter.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the contributions of Dr. Cameron Martindale who is retiring from Troy University on December 13. Her record of accomplishments for the university, the students and our community at large is impressive. On April 13, 2000, Dr. Martindale was named third president of Troy University Montgomery and in May 2001, she was also named vice chancellor for advancement for the Troy University System. Prior to these appointments, she served the university for more than 14 years in a number of positions including interim president, vice president for institutional advancement, and project officer for Troy's Rosa Parks Museum. In August 2003, Dr. Martindale was appointed senior vice chancellor for advancement and external relations for Troy University. At Troy, Dr. Martindale stabilized the institution's finances and, during a period of proration of State funds, was able to carry over a balance of $2 million. She totally renovated classrooms to include state-of-the-art equipment and built a new bilevel parking deck for university students and visitors. Her contributions extended, however, to more than balancing budgets and improving campus facilities. She authored the case statement for Alabama higher education for the 2000 legislative session, she led Troy's development of a new institutional strategic plan, and activated two compressed master's programs--master of science in management and master of science in public administration, and began a civil rights concentration and technical writing program. Dr. Martindale also oversaw completion and dedication of the landmark Rosa Parks Library and Museum in downtown Montgomery, which has hosted more than 70,000 visitors since December 1, 2000, and was named Alabama Event of the Year in 2001 by the Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel. An extremely active member of the Montgomery and Alabama educational, business and civic communities. Dr. Martindale has been a tremendous asset to the advancement of Troy University. I join her colleagues and many friends in wishing Dr. Martindale and her family all the best in the future.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement from the Department of the Air Force, I want to take this opportunity to honor Mrs. Helen R. Willis for 32 years of dedicated service to our country. Mrs. Willis, the daughter of an uneducated man who exuded a lot of wisdom inspired her to pursue her education and graduate from Tuskegee Institute, ``the pride of the swift, growing south.'' Since her arrival at Maxwell Air Force Base in 1975, Mrs. Willis has trained over 1,000 active duty military members to become Air Force Medical Laboratory Technicians. Her demonstrated technical expertise, proficiency and ceaseless dedication to her profession resulted in 16 ``Superb'' ratings, considered exceptional by the College of American Pathologists' standards. Mrs. Willis' determination and passion for the profession she believed in was always perfectly packaged by her charm and eloquence. She has been an inspiration to thousands and her legacy will never be forgotten. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere appreciation to Mrs. Willis for her outstanding service to Maxwell Air Force Base and our country. We wish her and her husband Dr. Edward Willis the best as Mrs. Willis transitions into a new life. Mrs. Willis is a true professional and a credit to herself and the United States Air Force.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to a man who for a generation symbolized great class and professionalism in Alabama political journalism, Bob Ingram. Alabamians statewide, and, in particular, in the political and journalism communities, were saddened to learn of the passing of Bob Ingram on October 18 at the age of 81. To all those who knew him, Bob was an unquestioned authority on State politics. He possessed a comfortable familiarity with the historical and personal side of Alabama government and the key players who shaped it going back some 6 decades. He was unequalled in his political wisdom because he was a witness to and participant in government. He covered our State through both tough and brighter times but he never lost his love for Alabama and its often colorful political figures. Bob began his career as a reporter for the Cherokee Herald in his hometown of Centre. His mother, the town librarian, instilled in him a passion for writing which not only pointed him on his way to a remarkable journalism career, but also to authoring several insightful books on the Alabama political scene. A World War II Marine Corps veteran, reporter for the Montgomery Advertiser, writer of a statewide political column for nearly 50 years, State Finance Director for Governor Albert Brewer, and respected television political commentator in central and southeast Alabama--Bob Ingram was a man of many talents, unified by his love of politics. There were no sacred cows with Bob's political commentary. That's why we trusted him. You knew his opinions were well-researched and from the heart. From Big Jim Folsom to Gordon Persons, Patterson, Wallace, Brewer, James, Hunt, Baxley, Siegelman, Riley--he knew them all. Whatever occurred in Alabama politics, you wanted to get Bob's thoughts. He also brought touches of grace, humor, and humility to his commentary--always realizing the pressures and vicissitudes of human nature in the political arena. Thank you, Bob, for your love of Alabama and her political institutions. Your indelible mark will be felt as strongly as any public servant. And that's the way we see it.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this privileged resolution to censure Representative Pete Stark (CA), offered by the Republican Leader. Like many of my colleagues, I was disgusted by the comments of the gentleman from California, Mr. Stark. Regardless of his personal feelings on the war in Iraq or any other issue before Congress, Mr. Stark's comments were distasteful and not in keeping with the traditions of the House of Representatives. His despicable statements on October 18, 2007 .about the Commander in Chief, his colleagues in Congress, and the men and women who are serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan should be condemned. Mr. Stark just doesn't get it. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform deserve to be honored and applauded in Congress-- not chided and denigrated by his senseless remarks. I found his recent actions on the floor of the House to be extremely disrespectful of our military and our Commander in Chief. We face serious challenges at home and abroad and Mr. Stark should consider the impact of these comments before opening his mouth in the future.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this attempt to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). This bill expands a good program far beyond its original intent, and opens the door to government controlled healthcare. The SCHIP program was created 10 years ago under a Republican led Congress to fill a gap of uninsured, low-income children whose families fell into a salary bracket too high to receive funds under Medicaid. This bill, however, takes this money and gives it to adults, illegal immigrants, and children whose parents are currently making up to $82,000 a year. This bill would encourage more and more children to move from private health care to health care coverage from the Federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, as many as two million children would make this shift. The Liberal spin machine has tried to frame the veto as ``anti- children'', while denying the American people the facts. This bill would cost the American people $60 billion over 5 years. This is a $35 billion increase over the current program, and is $30 billion more than the President said he would support. Even the funding sources of this bill have been hidden from the general public. This bill would add a 61 cent tax to every pack of cigarettes, which the Democrats claim will curb smoking among children. This line of thought, however, is intrinsically flawed by the fact that 22 million new smokers will be required to pay for the cost of this bill. How can anyone be anti smoking when they need the very revenue it creates to pay for the healthcare of children? In addition, in 2012, the funding for this program will all but disappear. After a 5-year campaign of signing up as many middle-class children, adults and illegal immigrants as possible, program funds will be cut by 80 percent. This will cause millions of children to be dropped from their healthcare programs, or require an even more extensive funding expansion and burden on the taxpayers. While supporters of H.R. 976 claim the bill does not allow Federal payments for illegal residents, it severely weakens Federal law to leave those individuals a gaping loophole. Existing law requires documentation proving one's citizenship in order to be covered under Medicaid and SCHIP, however, this bill would merely require a name and social security number. According to Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid of SCHIP if they claimed they were someone that they were not. Two weeks after the President vetoed the bill the Democrat Leadership has decided to play politics and gamble on the health of these children before having this override vote. This stalling tactic has done nothing but shorten the time we have until this program expires. I am proud to sustain the President's veto and I sincerely hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle care about these children enough to create a bill that everyone can stand behind, as it was when the program first began. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to override the President's veto.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the RESTORE Act, which reauthorizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance program. As a Member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply troubled that the majority has determined to handcuff the ability of the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect foreign intelligence information. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but ladies and gentleman, we are at war. We should be helping the IC in their efforts to protect Americans and fight the war on terror; this legislation needlessly ties our hands in collecting foreign intelligence information. Here are a few of the problems with this bill: No liability protection for the telecommunications companies who have responded to the IC's call for help since the 9/11 attacks; extends constitutional (4th Amendment) protections for terrorists by requiring FISA court approval to monitor individuals outside the U.S.; new and cumbersome FISA court guidelines for IC operations; Justice Department audits of IC activities and operations; onerous and duplicative reporting requirements by the DNI; and the list goes on . . . . Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the Majority has made it clear that our Intelligence agencies should be guided by the tenants of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) when monitoring terrorist activity. This policy is reckless and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 207 recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force. Sixty years ago today, the National Security Act of 1947 established what we know as the premiere Air Force in the world. Since that time, thousands of airmen have served our Nation with pride and honor, and I am proud to recognize their service today. The mission of the U.S. Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests-- to fly and fight in air, space, and cyberspace. Air Force aircraft, tankers, and cargo planes play key roles in nearly every combat operation our Nation undertakes. Additionally, their capabilities in space have become critical to air, land, and sea combat operations and are a benefit to our entire Nation. For the past 60 years, Air Force aircraft, missiles, and satellites have kept our Nation safe. While the many technologies and advancements have certainly contributed to our national defense, it is the most prized resource of the Air Force--its airmen--that truly make a difference for our Nation and the world. As a member of the Air Force Caucus, I am pleased to recognize the service of both current and former Air Force personnel on this 60th anniversary. As we consider this resolution, our Nation's airmen are serving in every corner of the world, including many in Alabama's Second Congressional District. I am proud to represent Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, home of Air University, along with the 42nd Air Base Wing, the Operations and Sustainment Support Group, the 908th Airlift Wing, the 754th Electronic Systems Group, the Air Force Logistics Management Agency, and the newest squadron in the Air Force, the 100th Fighter Squadron. The 100th Fighter Squadron is special because it was the squadron of the famed Tuskegee Airmen during World War II, and I am pleased that this squadron will call Montgomery home. Air University is a major component of Air Education and Training Command and is the Air Force's center for professional military education. Air University provides the full spectrum of Air Force education, from pre-commissioning to the highest levels of professional military education, including degree granting and professional continuing education for officers, enlisted and civilian personnel throughout their careers. Air University's Professional Military Education programs educate airmen on the capabilities of air and space power and its role in national security. These programs focus on the knowledge and abilities needed to develop, employ, command, and support air and space power at the highest levels. Additionally, Air University conducts research in air and space power, education, leadership, and management and contributes to the development and testing of Air Force doctrine, concepts and strategy. This year the Air Force also celebrates the 25th birthday of Air Force Space Command. As Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am privileged to work with some of the finest in the Air Force on a set of programs that I believe will only become more important to our future security. Our world is becoming increasingly dependent on assets and platforms in space, and America's Air Force is meeting the challenges of the 21st Century security environment. During the cold war, Air Force U-2 reconnaissance aircraft kept us safe by keeping watch on the Soviets. I am proud to note that I served as an Intelligence Analyst supporting this platform from 1955-1959 in West Germany. These aircraft performed a number of critically important missions and made a vital contribution to our National defense. Air and missile crews manning nuclear bombers and ICBMs provided our Nation with a powerful strategic deterrent. These capabilities were a major component of our ``Peace Through Strength'' policy that enabled the United States to win the cold war, and I think it is appropriate for Congress to recognize the dedicated service of countless numbers of airmen who protected our Nation during this time. As the Air Force ushers in its next 60 years, we can be assured it will be postured to meet new challenges in air, space, and cyberspace. As a member of the Air Force Caucus, I am proud to provide for the needs of current and future force. Although the service is the youngest of the branches of our Armed Forces, there is no question that the Air Force has made, is making, and will continue to make an extraordinary contribution to our nation's defense. As a nation, we are indebted to the Air Force for its commitment and sacrifice. I congratulate Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, and the entire Air Force team for 60 years of dedicated service and defense of our freedom.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 2007 farm bill. The budget resolution that we were forced to work with was woefully inadequate for production agriculture. Moreover, the Ways and Means Committee, regardless of what the chairman says, included a tax increase on companies to pay for this bill. I have great concerns for Southeast peanut producers, who grow almost 85 percent of all peanuts grown in this Nation. They are the number one losers in this bill. There is included, in the manager's amendment, an important new initiative that will not only help all peanut producers address rising input costs, but will ensure greater yields and better stewardship of the land through enhanced crop rotation. But the $10 million annually allocated for this program is not enough to ensure this program is successful. The ``Farm Bill'' is called the farm bill for one reason--to address agricultural needs of our farmers and ranchers. However, the bill before us seems to forget the farmer and rural America--specifically at a time when many of them are facing difficult times. I understand the financial constraints that we had to work on this bill. But in light of those constraints, significant funding increases were given to conservation and nutrition programs at the expense of production agrculture. Additionally, I oppose the last minute developments that have occurred to attach a provision to increase taxes to pay for some of these increases. I strongly oppose these actions, they should not be in the Farm Bill, and overall it will hurt Americans. I am also concerned over how this additional funding is being allocated. Specifically, $1.6 billion was specified for specialty crops--most of this money going to California--a state that is ranked 10th nationally in receiving federal subsidies. Additionally, $150 million was set aside in the bill for air pollution in California. Secondly, conservation funding receives a $1.35 billion increase in funding. A significant amount of that money has been set aside for specific watersheds. In particular, the Chesapeake Bay Region is receiving $400 million alone for conservation programs for this watershed. Historically, the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds specified in the bill have received billions of dollars in the past for these efforts and should not be given special preference in this bill. Chesapeake Bay has received over $700 million annually for conservation programs addressing the watershed. Why do they need preference throughout the program when the rest of the nation is also addressing similar issues? I am specifically concerned over the preference being given to several watersheds under the new Regional Water Enhancement Program. I was pleased that this new program was included in the bill--it is an issue very close and dear to my heart. I have been working on this legislation for several years and I am pleased that much of the language of my Farm Reservoir Act has been included in this program. This program will provide cost-share assistance to agricultural producers for projects like the construction of on-site reservoirs. It upsets me that specific watersheds were given priority consideration under this program. Fortunately, an amendment during full mark-up was included to limit these watersheds in receiving no more than half of the funding. However, I believe that the Regional Water Enhancement Program should not be a place for ``earmarks'' but open to all regions of the country--all who are dealing with water issues that are important to their region. For my part of the country, farmers in the Southeast are facing a devastating drought and farmers are faced with the loss of most--if not all--of their crops. Many ranchers are being forced to sell their herds since they have no feed for them. This program would help many of these farmers to build farm reservoirs that will help farmers during these difficult times and could help save many of their crops--a savings to taxpayers in the future in crop insurance and disaster payments. Some would try and argue that my state is guilty of also receiving large subsidies that I have just spoken against. Many of you may be surprised to know that Alabama is in the bottom half of the nation in receiving federal subsidies--27th out of 50. I like to also point out that 72 percent of all farmers and ranchers in Alabama do not collect government subsidies. These are the same farmers and ranchers that are struggling with severe drought conditions and are hoping for some federal assistance to help them get through these difficult times--whether through disaster payments or federal programs like the Regional Water Enhancement Act. However, a permanent disaster payment was not incorporated in this bill because there was not enough money. All of the programs in the Farm Bill are important but to receive such a drastic increase while producers are struggling does not seem right. Claiming there is no money to include a permanent disaster payment program for farmers who face significant financial loss of crops due to natural disasters like hurricanes, drought, wild fires, disease, pests and tornadoes--is wrong! I look forward to continually working with the Chairman and Ranking Member to address many of these concerns as we move forward.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, during consideration of the Labor/HHS/ Education Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3043), I incorrectly voted no on the Pence Amendment. During the rapidity of voting on the series of 13 amendments to this bill, I mistakenly voted against Congressman Pence's amendment that would have prohibited funds in the bill from funding the Planned Parenthood Federation of America or any of its affiliates. It was my full intention to vote for this amendment, as I have been and continue to be a strong advocate of pro-life issues and legislation. My voting record makes it apparently clear that I have never wavered in my support of pro-life legislation. In closing, I fully support Congressman Pence's amendment to H.R. 3043, and I will continue to vote in favor of pro-life legislation as I have done throughout my 14 years in Congress.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I thank my good friend Mr. Hunter for yielding to me and thank him for his work and leadership on this legislation. And I would be remiss if I didn't thank the chairman of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1585, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), on her first mark as chairman. She has been cooperative and straightforward, and that I appreciate. The effort has resulted in a product where we agree on far more than we disagree. This subcommittee tackles complex and often partisan issues, such as ballistic missile defense and nuclear weapons policy. This year's process has been further complicated due to the fact that our subcommittee allocation was cut by over $1 billion from the administration's request. In the area of missile defense, the bill continues a policy set forth by this committee last year that places a priority on near-term missile defense capabilities. The bill increases the request for Patriot PAC-3 by $11.8 million to buy four additional interceptors and adds $78 million to the President's request for Aegis ballistic missile defense and fully funds the request for THAAD. The measure also contains a reduction in funding for the proposed Third Site in Europe. I understand the chairman's rationale and her concern about moving forward without formal agreements with the host nations in place. However, I am pleased that my amendment was accepted during the full committee markup, which encourages DOD to seek a reprogramming request in the event that we reach agreements with the host nations in fiscal year 2008. While I support most of the provisions in this legislation, like many on my side of the aisle, I remain concerned about the $776 million top- line cut levied on the Missile Defense Agency, especially when progress is being made in so many areas of these programs. Now is not the time to have a further reduction in funding or slow down the development and fielding of these missile defense elements that are critical to our Nation's defense and the protection of our deployed forces and allies. In the time since last year's bill, we have seen a clear demonstration of the threat to our Nation, including North Korea's test of several short-range missiles and a longer-range Taepo-Dong-2 missile; Iran's continued development and test of short- and medium- range ballistic missiles; North Korea's nuclear test; and Iran's effort to continue uranium enrichment in the face of international criticism. I understand the need to focus on near-term capabilities, but as we move the bill forward, we need to work together to identify the right balance between investments in our near-term systems and our future capabilities. In the area of space, the legislation contains a provision I strongly support which places a priority on protecting our space assets and increases funding for space situational awareness and operationally responsive space capabilities. Consistent with previous bipartisan efforts to improve space acquisition, H.R. 1585 continues its emphasis on program execution. The bill reflects a measured approach to space acquisition that overlaps new modernization programs with continuing legacy programs. H.R. 1585 fully funds Transformational Satellite, or TSAT, which has made significant progress in measuring and maturing critical technologies and following GAO's knowledge-based approach. It also supports Space Radar. Though the program details are classified, I believe Space Radar's all-weather, day-and-night, 24/7 surveillance and reconnaissance capability is vital for the protection of our forces and supporting intelligence users. The measure reflects a bipartisan agreement on the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, particularly on RRW, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. RRW has the potential to increase the reliability, safety, and security of our nuclear weapons stockpile and reduce the likelihood of testing. RRW funding is reduced but maintained at a level to allow NNSA to take a measured, knowledge-based approach by focusing on detailed design and cost estimates. This is a good bill. We agree on more than we disagree, and I would urge Members on my side to support the bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chair, you know, you can attack this a number of ways. Basically what the proponents of this amendment say is that they simply don't like missile defense. I would like to go to where the gentleman from New Jersey and the chairman of the committee went. There have been 27 successful kills; ground-based missile defense, 5 of 8; Aegis, 8 of 10; THAAD, 3 of 4; Predator, PAC-3, 11 of 14. A key theme of our bill is we should not proceed with some missile defense programs without robust testing, but testing and systems engineering are always the first to go when cuts are levied on programs. How can you test without money? I think that is a point of their amendment. They know you can't test without money, and they are against testing and against the missile defense system. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member, and I thank the chairman for the work they have done on this bill. And for many years, the chairman of the committee and I have worked closely together. But, regretfully, I rise today in opposition to the Intelligence Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2008, H.R. 2082. Actions taken in the bill regarding human operations, the irresponsible use of our intelligence professionals and the short-sighted steps to critical space systems justify a ``no'' vote on this legislation. The bill slashes funding to HUMINT, or Human Operations, one of our most important intelligence collection functions in the global war on terrorism. Regardless of your position on the war, we cannot cut a primary intelligence function that is critical to protecting our troops in combat. Like many, I have visited the front line, and we owe our brave American military the support they need to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also note that the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has stated that HUMINT is his number one priority. Remarkably, rather than focus on national security, this bill places an emphasis on global warming. In the middle of a war which has our intelligence community overloaded with real-world intelligence missions, this intelligence authorization bill carves out scarce intelligence resources for an environmental matter that should be the purview of another committee. Madam Chairman, we have already had 13 Federal agencies looking at the effects of climate change. The administration has requested nearly $7.4 billion this year for climate change-related activities. Since 2001 the Federal Government has devoted $37 billion for climate change- related activities. We are in the middle of a war against radical jihadists, and the terrorist plot of the radical Islamists at Fort Dix earlier this week should be a sobering reminder for all of us. It is wrong and misguided for Congress to overburden our highly skilled intelligence professionals by shouldering them with this unnecessary science project. Lastly, this measure gives our strategic threat little attention. While engaging in the global war on terror, the strategic threat has grown. Having the ability to peer into areas that would cause us harm is vital to advanced warning, known as ``Persistent Stare.'' We need to pay more attention to the architecture of ``stare'' and ``persistence''; yet this bill provides inadequate resources. For example, substantial funds have been added to a space-based infrared program, SBIRS, that cannot be wisely used. In fact, if these additional funds were obligated, the program would be sent into procurement before it is ready, likely to cause schedule delays and cost overruns. This funding add was poorly conceived and would cause the Defense Department to literally bite off more than it can chew. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Representatives Robert Aderholt, Jo Bonner, Mike Rogers, and Jim Marshall, to assist American farmers in dealing with drought conditions and enable them to increase their farm productivity. The need for on-the-farm drought management has become increasingly evident as farmers and the government struggle to keep ahead of the effects of Mother Nature. The drought conditions for the 2005 and 2006 crop years underscored the devastating toll natural disasters have on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. The current approach of providing ad hoc disaster assistance is inadequate and does not give farmers the certainty they need. The Farm Reservoir Act would provide cost-share assistance to agricultural producers for the construction of small reservoirs on their farms. By combining sound planning with the right resources, agricultural producers can reduce the impact droughts have on their operations. Small on-farm storage reservoirs are an economical way to save water for summer use. The collection and storage of surface water during the off-season, when rainfall and stream levels are typically high, can make irrigation possible in areas where direct pumping from streams, lakes, or wells during the growing season is not feasible. Because these reservoirs are small, the engineering and construction cost per acre-foot are less than big on-stream reservoirs. Additionally, they are more acceptable from an environmental perspective, because they are off-stream and do not block streams or disturb riverine habitats. In addition to protecting our Nation's farmers from the costly effects of drought, enhancing their irrigation capacity will allow our farmers to expand production to more acres and increase the productivity of existing acres. Cost-share assistance to construct small, environmentally-friendly, reservoirs located on the farm will provide us with the tools necessary to grow additional bio-fuel crops; which will allow us to wean ourselves from foreign oil. This will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the availability of the cleaner burning fuels these crops produce.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I introduced legislation today, along with my Alabama colleagues Reps. Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Bud Cramer, and Mike Rogers, to enable America's farmers to better manage the risk to their livelihoods in times of severe weather and skyrocketing energy costs. The Farm Risk Management Act (FARM Act) would create risk management accounts, using both USDA and individual farmer contributions, to reduce the financial impact of disasters on the agriculture community. The FARM Act would allow farmers to insure their income by creating a whole-farm risk management program based on total revenues from all their farming activities. This is a departure from the current crop insurance program, which provides coverage based on a specific commodity. The new risk management account goes beyond the scope of current crop insurance by allowing farmers to withdraw funds from their accounts to help offset any unforeseen farm expense including high energy or fertilizer costs. With my new proposal, a farmer would deposit money into the new risk management account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would then match the farmer's contribution in this tax-deferred, interest-bearing account, rather than subsidizing a portion of the crop insurance premium for the farmer as is done presently. As a result, farmers would effectively be self- insured. More and more, we are seeing farmers lose their farms due to the unfortunate combination of increasingly harsh weather, rising operational costs and a Federal crop insurance program that is too expensive to help many cover their losses. Recent Farm Bill hearings and subsequent meetings I have had with farmers in the Southeast have led me to the conclusion that current crop insurance programs are not working. The present system is too expensive, leaving many farmers exposed to uncontrollable risks. It also allows room for fraud which only serves to drive up program costs for everyone. There is an urgent need for significant crop insurance reform that will offer hard-working farmers the tools they need to manage the unique risks involved in agricultural production. This approach of individual risk management accounts could address many of the problems associated with the current crop insurance system and save the Federal government money by alleviating the future need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Most importantly, it will give farmers struggling against natural forces beyond their control greater flexibility to make a living while performing the vital task of putting food on America's table.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a veteran myself, this is an issue that I find of the utmost importance. Following the public exposure of the problems at Walter Reed Hospital, it has become clear that changes are needed in order to provide our soldiers the level of healthcare they deserve. With a growing number of servicemembers in need of medical attention, it is imperative that there is an adequate amount of staff at our military hospitals. By enforcing a minimum ratio of caretakers to servicemembers, this legislation will ensure that every soldier gets the personal attention that they need. In addition, service members will be assigned medical care case managers that would help them and their families deal with the administrative process involved with their care. This type of personalized care and assistance will help our wounded warriors with their recovery, and make an easier transition back into the field or civilian life. Having spent years on the House Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen first hand the need for improved lines of communication between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the current system, there is no designated process by which military personnel become veterans; or for their medical and service records to move from one department to the other. This measure will streamline the transfer process by transmitting members' dismissal forms electronically to the correct agencies. Another great concern of mine comes from the inconsistencies between the two departments' disability ratings systems. When given a different rating of disability as a member of the military than as a civilian, disparities are bound to arise in what benefits can be expected. Creating a single, standardized rating system will help ensure that both our military personnel and our veterans receive the best care that our government can provide. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation; and I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote for this important bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation today, along with my colleagues Mike Rogers and Jim Marshall, calling for a Federal study of the Chattahoochee Trace region of Alabama and Georgia to evaluate the feasibility of designating the corridor as a National Heritage Area. The Chattahoochee Trace corridor is an 18-county region covering southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia. This proposal would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the Trace, to determine its suitability as a National Heritage Area. In Alabama, the study would specifically examine seven counties--Chambers, Lee, Russell, Barbour, Dale, Henry and Houston Counties. The designation of the Chattahoochee Trace as a National Heritage Area would be the final piece in the Historic Chattahoochee Commission's corridor development plan wich will enable us to initiate new and innovative projects to help invigorate the economies of member counties. The 18 county bi-state Chattahoochee Trace region meets all criteria outlined by the National Park Service to qualify for National Heritage Area status. During 37 years of work, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission has clearly demonstrated that this area has a unique collection of natural, historic and cultural resources that are distinctive aspects of American history worthy of recognition, conservation and interpretation. Furthermore, the Commission has demonstrated its capabilities to organize regional partnerships to help manage and promote the resources along the lower Chattahoochee River corridor. It is also a well-known fact that the Chattahoochee Trace region provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities for area residents and visitors. Ongoing efforts to conserve natural, cultural, historic, and scenic assets in the region will only be eranced by National Heritage Area designation. National Heritage Areas are significant geographical, cultural and historical sites, a designated by Congress. In contrast to National Parks, National Heritage Areas are not federally owned or managed, but remain maintained and controlled by local entities. Communities designated as a National Heritage Areas are eligible for federal funding to be used for promoting tourism and conservation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, a combat veteran from Vietnam and a great American. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to my ranking member and chairman, and to the service of all men and women who are serving in the Armed Forces and those who have prior service, many who serve in this distinguished body. And thank goodness. I say thank goodness, because I find that in this body we have too few people who have ever worn a uniform, but we have an awful lot of opinions about how to wear a uniform. We have heard from many of these Members on both sides of the aisle. Some served in Vietnam, some in the first gulf war, and some in the war that we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cite their firsthand experience in serving our country as justification for why they believe we cannot afford to lose the war or why we should not support the Commander in Chief's reinforcement proposal or, in some cases, why we should bring the troops home immediately and cut off funding. Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member in this Chamber who has served our country with honor and distinction. Each of them brings a different perspective to the debate. However, today I would like to bring another perspective to the debate, and it is that of Army pilot Keith Yoakum from Coffee Springs, Alabama, in my district. Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was killed February 2 in Iraq when the Apache helicopter he was flying was forced to land during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While his death is a tragedy, his family is taking comfort in the fact that Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was doing what he loved, defending the country that he loved. This Army aviator was proud of what he was doing in Iraq, and told his father that there was no other place he would rather be until the war was over. Much of his pride came from his ability to protect our guys on the ground using his Apache helicopter who were executing the dangerous missions of ridding the neighborhoods of those who wanted to kill his fellow troops as well as innocent Iraqis. However, equally as important was Keith Yoakum's belief that he was making a difference in this fight to make this world a better place for his daughters to live. Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum is not alone in his belief. The hundreds of soldiers that I have visited with share his view of this war. Whether it was during a solemn sendoff of our brave men and women or an emotional welcome home ceremony, the soldiers I talk to believe in this mission and that we must prevail in this war. They recognize the dire consequences if we don't succeed in Iraq. If we withdraw prematurely, the terrorists will have an unchecked sanctuary from which they can launch attacks to kill more innocent Americans, similar to what existed in Afghanistan prior to our toppling the Taliban regime in Operation Enduring Freedom. To abandon our fight against the terrorists is to have failed to learn the lessons of 9/11 and to revert to a policy that allowed two decades of escalating violence. That policy resulted in the death of thousands of Americans, as was so well documented by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we defeat this enemy, whose sole desire is to kill Americans anywhere, in any way they can. Today the theater is Iraq. But if we retreat from this war, as those on the other side of the aisle have advocated, then we will fight them in the cities and in the towns. Either way, this war will be fought. Mr. Speaker, I have a guest essay from my hometown newspaper, the Dothan Eagle, from a war veteran by the name of Wayne Wood, and I would like this complete essay entered into the Record after I speak. But first I want to quote a couple of things from it. This is, as I said, from a former combat veteran, Wayne Wood. ``As I watch the current debate over the war in Iraq, I remember sitting in the day room at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, with my buddies and watching the collapse of South Vietnam and Saigon in 1975. I was thinking of, and I know my buddies were thinking of, all the guys we knew who'd gone over to fight for the Vietnamese who didn't come back. We cursed the ARVN soldiers as cowards because they would not stand and fight for their country. We were angry that the sacrifice of these good--no, great--Americans was in vain. ``It was only years later that I learned, to my dismay, that it wasn't the ARVN who betrayed my fellow soldiers' blood, it was their very own elected representatives in Congress who voted to cut funding for the defense of the Republic of South Vietnam. ``We are being told the Iraqi situation is unwinnable. We were told that we had lost the war in Vietnam. ``After Tet in 1968, Walter Cronkite, `the most trusted man in America,' went on the air and said so. Americans said, `If Walter says we've lost, it must be so.' ``Now, our media, and others, some in this body, ``tell us the same thing. We are being told of how hopeless the situation is in Iraq. What about the American people? What are the American people supposed to think? ``But the picture I got from former students who have served in Iraq tells another story. They are frustrated that the good things that are happening in Iraq aren't being shown, that the people only see the bad. There's a genuine fear that they won't be allowed to finish the job. Their sacrifice would be in vain. ``From a distance, the situation as shown looks grim. But as a soldier who has seen war up close, I know war is a grim business. I remember the words of Marine General Julian Smith, speaking of the Battle of Tarawa in World War II: `We were losing, until we won.' '' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wood has a number of other examples here, and that is the reason I will include the letter for the Record. No Comparison Between Vietnam and Iraq Wars (By Wayne Wood) As I watch the current debate over the war in Iraq, I remember sitting in the day room at Fort Sill, Okla., with my buddies and watching the collapse of South Vietnam and Saigon in 1975. I was thinking of, and I know my buddies were thinking of, all the guys we knew who'd gone over to fight for the Vietnamese who didn't come back. We cursed the ARVN soldiers as cowards because they would not stand and fight for their country. We were angry that the sacrifice of all those good--no, great--Americans was in vain. It was only years later that I learned, to my dismay, that it wasn't the ARVN who betrayed my fellow soldiers' blood, it was their very own elected representatives in Congress who voted to cut funding for the defense of the Republic of South Vietnam. We are being told the Iraq situation is unwinnable. We were told we had lost the war in Vietnam. After TET in 1968, Walter Cronkite, ``the most trusted man in America,'' went on the air and said so. Americans said, ``If Walter Cronkite says we've lost, it must be so.'' Now, our media tells us the same thing. We are being told of how hopeless the situation is in Iraq. What are the American people supposed to think? But the picture I get from former students who have served Iraq tells another story. They are frustrated that the good things they see happening in Iraq aren't being shown, that the people only see the bad. There's a genuine fear they won't be allowed to finish the job. Their sacrifice would be in vain. From a distance, the situation as shown looks grim. But, as a soldier who has seen war up close, I know war is a grim business. I remember the words of Marine Gen. Julian Smith, speaking of the Battle of Tarawa in World War II: ``We were losing until we won!'' Yes, I get saddened when I read the casualty reports and see the pictures of the dead in the Army Times. No one knows better than a soldier that if a nation goes to war, it owes it to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fight to win so their sacrifice isn't wasted. I think of my own son in uniform. I can only pray for him and be proud that he has ``stepped up to the plate'' to serve his country, particularly in time of war. Today, politicians and pundits just know we are losing in Iraq. Walter Cronkite and others just knew we'd lost the war in Vietnam after TET. If only we had known that Ho Chi Minh and General Giap didn't know they'd won. They were about ready to throw in the towel after TET until the anti-war people in America told them otherwise. Well, we left Vietnam and millions of people died in Southeast Asia in the turmoil caused by the power vacuum. Who can tell what might happen if we withdraw from Southwest Asia. In 1975 it didn't matter to most of America. The deaths were far away and the Viet Cong couldn't cross the ocean to attack us. Nor did they care to. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury today. We fight an enemy who will stop at nothing to destroy us and our way of life. If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home and it won't be millions of Cambodians or Vietnamese dying in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, it will be Americans in the streets of our cities. Can we afford to be so smug in our knowledge? We may not like the president. We may not like war. We may not like this war or the way it has been conducted. But now that we're in it, this is one war we cannot afford to lose. In one thing I heartily agree with U.S. Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry: America can certainly not afford another Vietnam in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, if we are not going to cut funding from this war, then bring up Congressman Sam Johnson's amendment that says we will neither cut nor restrict funding for this war. I ask my colleagues to stand with Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum and the thousands of other soldiers who believe in their mission and want to see it through to completion, and vote against this resolution. It can only do harm to our troops and bring aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, my friend from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, the Democrats' nonbinding resolution that does nothing to improve the outcome of the war, but does much to hurt the war against terrorism. The resolution claims they support the troops. However, regardless of what the previous speaker said, they refuse to protect the money our troops must have while they are in harm's way. If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military. But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans. Making Iraq a secure place is difficult because of deep-seated religious and ethnic divisions. This is highlighted by the murderous acts of Saddam's dictatorship that killed so many thousands. In addition, al Qaeda and local terrorists along with hostile foreign governments, including Iran, have both encouraged and funded the current violence in the hopes that Iraq will not follow the path to democracy. They must not be allowed to succeed. Any American lives lost in the defense of our Nation is one too many. Yet we must not turn from our task of defeating terrorism before the job is done. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and intends to reinforce American troop strength by 21,000 soldiers to help Iraq's new government finally control violence and restore order. While I believe the decision to increase troop strength in Iraq could have been made much sooner and in greater numbers, it today presents the only viable option to bringing order to the country and laying the foundation for Iraqi Government control of that nation's security. Iraq's government is taking new steps to control the violence from all ethnic groups and made it clear that our abandoning them at this stage would guarantee failure for democracy in Iraq. And it would ensure a tremendous setback in America's battle to deny terrorism a foothold and give them more chances to continue to kill Americans. Pulling back now with no viable plan to stabilize Iraq would be a disastrous action. This sentiment was expressed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NIE is the intelligence community's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and is designed to help us develop policies to protect U.S. national security interests. Specifically, this report states: ``Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.'' In addition, it goes on to say: ``If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.'' While America must not be in Iraq indefinitely, we should not leave without ensuring that the terrorists that are there are put down. To do otherwise would be terribly shortsighted and would ultimately embolden our terrorist enemies who have made no secret of their desire to continue to kill Americans. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, I have monitored the developments in the war on terrorism, including those in Iraq. I met with President Bush in the White House to discuss the military mission in Iraq shortly after he outlined his strategy for Iraq in early January. We explored what would happen in Iraq, the Middle East, and America if we withdrew from the fight before Iraq's democratic government is strong enough to maintain the peace. Our conclusion was that Iraq would become a sanctuary for terrorists and a base from which they could launch future attacks against Americans. Some Members have tried to claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. That is the only way they can justify this nonbinding resolution, and that is pure nonsense. We have the greatest military on the face of the Earth, one that no other military dare stand before lest they be destroyed. The only thing that can defeat us is the lack of will. And may God help us if we lose the will to defend this great Nation against terrorism.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today, along with my colleagues Reps. Jo Bonner and Mike Rogers, to assist American farmers in dealing with drought conditions and enable them to increase their farm productivity. The need for on-the-farm drought management has become increasingly evident as farmers and the government struggle to keep ahead of the effects of Mother Nature. In recent years, droughts have had a costly impact on agricultural producers throughout the country, and the current drought conditions for the 2005 and 2006 crop years dramatically underscore the devastating toll these natural disasters have on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Ad hoc government disaster assistance is often slow and inadequate, and frankly, a better use of tax dollars would be to help farmers take steps to minimize the impact of drought on their crop before the disaster strikes. The Farm Reservoir Act would provide cost-share assistance to agriculture producers for the construction of reservoirs on their farms. For many farmers, pumping water from streams, lakes and wells during the growing season is not an option. However, by collecting and storing surface water in reservoirs during the off-season, when rainfall and stream levels are typically high, farmers can attain an effective source of irrigation. As population growth places more demand on water resources, we will need new sources of irrigation water. On- farm irrigation storage, which is made possible by my legislation, has the potential to greatly expand agricultural irrigation capacity and make farming more productive. Under the Farm Reservoir Act, cost share assistance would be provided through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to assist farmers with the construction of reservoirs. The maximum amount of cost share assistance is 50 percent of the cost of the reservoir. In order to qualify, a project must meet EQIP eligibility requirements and be deemed eligible based on its cost- effectiveness. The producer must maintain agricultural production on the land for at least 5 years.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much. We are going to miss Mr. Hefley. We still have some unfinished business between us that I am going to hold him to. I want to recognize also the gentleman from California, my long-time friend, the chairman of the committee. I do not think in the 14 years I have been here that I have had the privilege to serve with anyone who has the patience that he has had. He has a great skill in leading this committee, and he mentioned earlier in his opening remarks about the fact that this committee works so hard, and it does. The members take very seriously what they are doing. I had the great privilege, along with Mr. McHugh, of being the first Members of Congress into Baghdad after we invaded, and I just appreciate his outstanding leadership and his dedication to the fighting men and women of our country. And also the gentleman from Missouri, who has the same type dedication, and who knows that he is welcome back to Dauphin, Alabama, any time he wants to. It has only been about 40 years since he has been there. I do support the conference committee, the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5122. It supports the administration's objectives, while significantly improving the budget request. Moreover, our national security investment must continue to develop transformation capabilities of future systems, and this conference report does that. Finally, let me also say that my subcommittee, the one that I head, Strategic Forces, simply would not have been able to work like it did in a very bipartisan manner if it had not been for my good friend, Mr. Reyes of California. Much of what we have been able to do has been on a bipartisan basis, as he had mentioned earlier, on very complex, contentious issues, perhaps some of the most contentious issues in the committee. We were able to reach a consensus that would serve the best interests of the Nation and of our fighting troops, and I again thank him for his efforts as well as the other committee members who oftentimes had different views. But we all came together. We also have an outstanding staff who has to study these very complex issues to see if we can't come to an accord that is in the best interest of the Nation. So, again, I recommend supporting the final version of this bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 994, commemorating the cowardly September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Many Americans think the war on terror we are fighting began on September 11, 2001. However, 9/11 was just the deadliest attack in a war that began over 25 years ago. For the first 20 years, we allowed terrorists to fight this war on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let terrorists continue to kill Americans and kill Americans and kill Americans. Under the leadership of President Bush, and with the support of this Republican- led Congress, we took the fight to the terrorists. In Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom removed the oppressive Taliban regime that ruled the Afghan people with brutality. In Iraq, we continue to make progress after a series of historic elections in which millions of Iraqis defied the threats of terrorism and voted to establish a national assembly. While much remains to be done in Iraq, it is important that we continue to remain there against those who want to cast Iraq into a civil war. Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on terror. We have significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by capturing and killing many of their leaders and associates. Despite these successes, the terrorists remain committed to launching another attack. It is not a question of if, but rather when. As we mark the anniversary of these attacks, we must remain resolute to fight and win this war against terror. Mr. Speaker, this war on terror must be fought. We can do it in the streets of our own towns, or we can fight the terrorists wherever they are. Either way, it has to be done. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, it is more important than ever that our military have the best technologies available in their weapon systems and equipment. The tremendous strides that have been made in the area of technology have allowed us to do more with less. With a smaller force, it becomes imperative to provide the best technology and the best capabilities to our warfighters. Our front line systems require cutting edge technologies to preserve the maximum advantage over our adversaries. It is important that we remain mindful of this as we look to the KC-135 Tanker replacement aircraft the Air Force is scheduled to purchase. We would be ill advised to disregard the technologies available in the aircraft being offered, as this aircraft will be in our inventory for decades. This KC-X competition involves an older aircraft and a newer one. Old technology built today is still old, and offers little in the competitive environment. Retrofitting add-on technologies into older aircrafts' cockpits and elsewhere are costly modifications that offer only a partial solution to acquiring the best available aircraft. Instead, the Air Force should consider the value of buying the latest, proven generation of commercial aircraft with modem technology already integrated into the platform. In closing, I believe we must procure the most advanced technology available for this aircraft to both accomplish the mission and to ensure the highest level of performance over its service life. The Air Force has a clear opportunity to procure the most advanced aircraft for the KC-X and our warfighters deserve no less.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I introduced legislation yesterday, along with my Alabama colleagues Representatives Jo Bonner and Mike Rogers, to enable America's farmers to better manage the risk to their livelihoods in times of severe weather and skyrocketing energy costs. The Farm Risk Management Act (FARM Act) would create risk management accounts, using both USDA and individual farmer contributions, to reduce the financial impact of disasters on the agriculture community. The FARM Act would allow farmers to insure their income by creating a whole-farm risk management program based on total revenues from all their farming activities. This is a departure from the current crop insurance program, which provides coverage based on a specific commodity. The new risk management account goes beyond the scope of current crop insurance by allowing farmers to withdraw funds from their accounts to help offset any unforeseen farm expense including high energy or fertilizer costs. With my new proposal, a farmer would deposit money into the new risk management account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would then match the farmer's contribution in this tax- deferred, interest bearing account, rather than subsidizing a portion of the crop insurance premium for the farmer as is done presently. As a result, farmers would effectively be self insured. More and more, we are seeing farmers lose their farms due to the unfortunate combination of increasingly harsh weather, rising operational costs and a Federal crop insurance program that is too expensive to help many cover their losses. Recent Farm Bill hearings and subsequent meetings I have had with farmers in the Southeast have led me to the conclusion that current crop insurance programs are not working. The present system is too expensive, leaving many farmers exposed to uncontrollable risks. It also allows room for fraud which only serves to drive up program costs for everyone. There is an urgent need for significant crop insurance reform that will offer hardworking farmers the tools they need to manage the unique risks involved in agricultural production. With the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization, we have a chance to address this critical issue, and I am offering this legislation to advance debate. This approach of individual risk management accounts could address many of the problems associated with the current crop insurance system and save the Federal Government money by alleviating the future need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Most importantly, it will give farmers struggling against natural forces beyond their control greater flexibility to make a living while performing the vital task of putting food on America's table.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker. I was unable to vote on Rollcall Vote No. 357 H. Res. 895, a resolution that expresses, support for intelligence programs and condemns the unauthorized leaking of classified information. However, had I been present, I would have voted aye. Mr. Speaker, leaking classified information is a serious matter. It can expose both our intelligence gathering capabilities and operations. Moreover, divulging sensitive information, regardless of intent, can have grave implications for not only our national security but also our men and women in uniform currently serving in harms way. It is not up to the New York Times or any other media outlet to decide when a highly classified program tied to our national security should be made public. Mr. Speaker, we are at war. Unauthorized public disclosure of classified programs being used to win this global war on terror jeopardizes our national security. It is my hope that in the future, those in government with knowledge of classified programs and news media organizations treat sensitive information appropriately.