Terry Everett

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act provides important guidelines to ensure the integrity of elections, yet the legislation before us chooses to reauthorize this Act with 30 year old information. I simply cannot vote to sentence Alabama to an additional 25 years under the foot of the Justice Department without just cause. I am disappointed that the House chose not to update the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it reauthorized the measure. The whole debate was cast as either you're for the Voting Rights Act or you're not. There was no attention paid to the fact that the Act's formulas are out of date and place the Act itself at risk of constitutional challenge. As a result, states like Alabama continue to be punished for wrongs committed 40 years ago and the same criteria will remain in effect for another 25 years, through 2032. Furthermore, I also oppose the Voting Rights Act's mandate that States provide bilingual ballots to non-English speaking voters. This provision serves only to impede the assimilation of non-English speakers into our society. The Voting Rights Act remains locked in a time-warp reflecting the voting realities of 1964, not 2006. The very constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act may be in question. The Supreme Court found more than 30 years ago that the Act's formula, which is based on the 1964, 1968 and 1972 presidential election voting data, was constitutional because it is was temporary and narrowly tailored to address a specific problem. Thirty years have since passed calling into question the basis of this ruling. ``I supported an amendment to update the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are required to obtain Federal ``pre-clearance'' before changing voting procedures,'' said Everett. ``The formula would be updated to reflect voting participation in the most recent three presidential elections as a basis for Federal pre-clearance instead of decades old data.'' I also voted for an amendment to strike the provision in the Voting Rights Act requiring States to provide bilingual ballots. It must be stated that efforts to reform the Voting Rights Act are not designed to weaken its effectiveness in protecting minority voting rights. These rights will continue to be protected. Reforming the Voting Rights Act is necessary to ensure that it reflects our current society. Alabama has made tremendous progress in the area of voter participation due in large part to the Voting Rights Act. Out of the 50 States, it is second only to Mississippi in the total number of African Americans holding public office. As recently as 2004, African Americans and Caucasians in Alabama were registered to vote in equal numbers. Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act remains focused on a core group of southern States which have long complied with its Federal mandate. Modernizing the Voting Rights Act would enable Alabama and other southern states to be properly evaluated on recent voter participation data. It also would help identify recent voter registration problems in other areas of the country that are currently hidden due to the antiquated formulas of the Voting Rights Act. The provisions of the Voting Rights Act don't actually expire until 2007. Accordingly, Congress has time to go back to the drawing board and create legislation that would actually update and strengthen the Voting Rights Act. Modernizing the Voting Rights Act both serves the public interest and protects the constitutionality of the law.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, in November 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the former radical Islamic leader, seized power in Iran, riding the slogan, ``Death to America.'' Just 4 months after his rise to power, it became evident that agents of radical Islam would stop at nothing to kill Americans. This doctrine of hatred resulted in terrorists killing over 600 people prior to 9/11. My colleagues, my chairman has mentioned this, Congresswoman Wilson mentioned part of this, and I wish everyone who got up here would go over this list. In April 1983, 63 people died at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans. In October 1983, 241 died at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans. In February 1993, six people were killed at the World Trade Center. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans. In June 1996, 19 American servicemen died after a truck bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans. In August 1998, 224 died at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans. In October 2000, 17 died on the USS Cole in Yemen. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans. If some people continue to preach cut and run from this war, then they will continue to kill Americans, kill Americans and kill Americans. The global war on terrorism must be fought. We can do it on the streets of our hometowns, or we can take the war to the terrorists. Either way, it has to be done; and personally, I prefer doing it over in Iraq rather than in New York or Washington, D.C. or San Francisco. For the first 20 years, we allowed the terrorists to fight this war on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let the terrorists continue to kill innocent Americans. Under the leadership of the Bush administration, and with the support of this Republican-led Congress, we took the fight to the terrorists, wherever they may be. Mr. Speaker, right now their choice is Iraq. It is the central front in the war on terror. In fact, Osama bin Laden has said he believes the war going on in Iraq is nothing short of the Third World War. The importance of Iraq in achieving al Qaeda's objectives of killing Americans is clearly spelled out in a 2005 letter from Ayman al- Zawahiri, bin Laden's closest advisor, to Musab al Zarqawi, the man tapped by bin Laden to head al Qaeda operations in Iraq. He said that getting the U.S. out of Iraq is critical if they are to turn Iraq into a permanent base of recruitment, training and operations just like the one they had in Afghanistan. This is why it is imperative that we stay the course and ensure that the democratically elected government can take hold. A democratic Iraq will be the death of al Qaeda, and those aren't my words Mr. Speaker, they are the words of Zarqawi. Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on terror, highlighted by the recent death of Zarqawi. We have significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by denying them a safe haven in Afghanistan and capturing or killing many of their leaders and associates. We have also built an unprecedented international coalition to combat and prevent terrorist financing and dismantle terrorist support networks. Mr. Speaker, America is safer, but we are not yet secure. The enemy we are fighting is determined and serious about its desire to kill Americans. We can not allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorist activity. A free and democratic Iraq is absolutely essential to fighting the terrorist threat and building long-term peace and stability in the region. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. EVERETT

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

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

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The amendment would strike a much needed provision that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the manuals which govern the water distribution rights of Alabama, Florida and Georgia regarding the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin. This matter is still in Federal court, and the court's decision to revise the manuals is opposed by both the Governors of Alabama and Florida. In addition, such an action would create severe distress in Alabama's waterways, harming both navigation and power production. In light of the ongoing Federal litigation, it is inappropriate for the courts to proceed with such revision of the manuals at this time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EVERETT. I thank the chairman, and Mr. Kingston has adequately explained the situation that we are in. This handling and storage fee is absolutely critical for the peanut farmers in these very small rural towns that we all represent. One thing that might be noted is that in the last farm bill, which I had the privilege of being the subcommittee chairman that wrote this peanut title, this was put in there to help the farmers and the shellers transition into a more market-based program. The problem that we have gotten into is because I believe that the USDA has not followed the word and/or spirit of the peanut title, in that they have kept these peanuts, we have had about 2 or 3 years of great peanut crops, and they have kept these peanuts in loan. That has not created a market that we intended to create. They have not moved these peanuts out of loan, which we fully intended for them to do. They have to understand if it is a budget thing, it is either pay now or pay later. But the longer they keep them in there, the less those peanuts are going to be worth and they will go out to people for almost nothing. So I appreciate Mr. Kingston for putting this language in there, and I further appreciate the chairman. I understand my full committee chairman on the authorizing side is trying to protect the committee's privileges, and also my friend from Texas, Mr. Bonilla, I appreciate the words that he had concerning this issue and, hopefully, we can do something in conference about it.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently a concern about VA health care policy regarding certain anesthesia providers was brought to my attention. The VA is currently reviewing regulations to allow anesthesiologist assistants, also known as AAs, to provide care at VA medical facilities. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage the VA to continue to move forward to officially recognize AAs as anesthesia providers at VA medical facilities. AAs are a small but important contingent of mid- level anesthesia providers, who will be a welcome addition to the anesthesia care team at VA hospitals. In fact, the VA approved AAs to serve at VA facilities in February of 2004. It approved them in February of 2004. But because of bureaucrat delays, AAs are not recognized in the Veterans Health Administration's official provider handbook, not allowing them to practice. Mr. Chairman, more than 2 years has passed since the decision was made to include AAs as VA anesthesia providers, yet the program is still on hold. If new specific qualification standards for AAs are needed, then the VA should say so and finalize the regulatory process. In light of potential provider shortages at veterans medical facilities, veterans deserve to have every qualified caregiver as a resource. Anything else is a disservice to our veterans. I know the chairman of the subcommittee is aware of this situation, and I look forward to working with him to have to help get the VA off the dime.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have known Gen. Hayden for years and believe he is the most qualified candidate in the country for this critical position. To further illustrate this point, I would like to call your attention to a recent editorial by retired Gen. Charles Boyd that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on May 11 which makes a convincing case for the Hayden nomination. Mr. Speaker, Gen. Boyd served 35 years in the Air Force. As a combat pilot in Vietnam, he was shot down on his 105th mission and survived 2,488 days as a prisoner of war. The only POW from that war to achieve the four-star rank, General Boyd's final military assignment was as deputy commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe. Prior to this assignment, Gen. Boyd was the commander of Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, in my congressional district. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a copy of Gen. Boyd's editorial. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2006] A Hayden Symphony at the CIA (By Charles G. Boyd) Our political disagreements are often obtuse for the simple reason that it is difficult to discern motives. Do disputants put the interests of the country ahead of partisan and personal concerns? Moreover, disagreements about intelligence issues are doubly hard to parse, since--despite leaks and rampant gossip--most of what goes on inside the Central Intelligence Agency remains opaque even to high-paid journalists and other Washington sophisticates. And so, amid partisan positioning and an imposing ignorance, is the scene set for the already dismaying dispute over the president's nomination of Michael Hayden to be CIA director. The arguments (to use a generous term) being made against Gen. Hayden are so without merit or even serious content that one cannot help but suspect partisan stratagems at work. Of these, three are most common. First, the contention that Michael Hayden is a kind of intelligence technocrat, knowledgeable only in signal intelligence, is pure canard. A liberal-arts man, Gen. Hayden has a masters degree in history, and was the broad-based senior intelligence official for the Air Force and the U.S. European Command before entering the technical domain of the National Security Agency. He worked on the National Security Council staff, in the U.N. Command and U.S. Forces Korea, and in these positions was a senior level consumer of intelligence as well as an earlier producer of it. Those who make such accusations do not know him or, more broadly, what they are talking about. Some complain, secondly, that Gen. Hayden was somehow complicit in the domestic eavesdropping undertaken by the NSA at the president's direction. Gen. Hayden's sin in this case seems to stem from his calm and rational defense of an embattled president's heretofore secret program. No legal infractions attended anyone's behavior in what was, and remains, a policy response to a clear and present threat. Moreover, if Gen. Hayden had objected--having been assured by the attorney general, the Department of Justice, the White House counsel and the NSA general counsel that the program was legal--his position would have been unprofessional and ill-advised. Third, there is the objection that Gen. Hayden is, well, a general--a military man--as if that automatically disqualifies him for the job. Since the National Security Act of 1947 created the CIA, four military officers have held the director's job--plus two more who directed the postwar predecessor to the CIA. So there is ample precedent for Gen. Hayden's nomination. But the complaint here is not so much about precedent as the presumption that Gen. Hayden would docilely do the bidding of the bureaucratic imperium represented by the present secretary of defense. To believe this is to ignore his professional history. Gen. Hayden was the only high-ranking active-duty general to testify against Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's desires as the National Intelligence Directorate was debated by Congress in 2004. He did so, he believed, in the interests of a more rational template for oversight, and control of those intelligence agencies now under the Defense Department whose customers are multidepartmental. Gen. Hayden was a man of convictions with the courage to defend them when he was a lieutenant colonel, and has lost neither of those characteristics as he ascended into the senior ranks of his profession. Most important, the best guarantee against coercion of the CIA director by any cabinet-level official--or president--may be stated in one word: professionalism. And Michael Hayden, as I have observed for nearly 20 years, is a professional par excellence. Those who wish to harm the president seem intent on using Gen. Hayden as a bank shot into the Oval Office. This is a great shame, and stands to be an important missed opportunity, for the confirmation process--were it to focus truly on the national interest--could do a great deal of good at this time of tumult in the intelligence community. There has been, for a long time, a tendency on the part of some presidents to select CIA directors who were amateurs in the craft. Their political or ideological leanings have sometimes been a more important factor in their appointment than their knowledge and capabilities in the arcane world of intelligence. With those chosen for such reasons comes a weakened ability to resist pressure to marshal intelligence in ways tailored to support the policy objectives of a president: pressure to give the president what he wants rather than what he needs. It is fair, I believe, to claim that the intelligence failures of recent years were a long time in the making, and that they were failures not so much of the institution but of a flawed intelligence leadership selection process. ``Amateur'' is not, by definition, a swear word; we have had, on occasion, some very talented non-professional directors of Central Intelligence. But there is no substitute for the professional knowledge and ethos at the top that legitimate and protect the intelligence function from a host of political pressures and insinuations. Gen. Hayden's confirmation hearings should, first of all, result in his confirmation. But beyond that, the hearings could do the country an important service if they were to consider a more thoroughgoing reform--modeling the key intelligence positions in the U.S. government on that of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, or of the Joint Chiefs, whose term does not run parallel to that of the president, and whose professional credentials are critical elements in his selection. More than anything else the Congress can do, such a reform would help restore the professionalism that is crucial to the intelligence function in a democracy. That would be no bank shot, but a slam-dunk for national security.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. In the case of the Conecuh National Forest in Alabama, the amendment could leave areas designated as potential old growth subject to increased fire and insect risk. Our revised forest plan identifies 60,000 acres as potential old growth sites. Half of these acres in this designation are suitable for harvest. Half of them are not designated as suitable. So this amendment would prohibit the application of H.R. 4200 in these areas. In our forests, scenic river designations, cultural areas, and scenic areas are all considered unsuitable for timber production; yet harvest may be allowed to provide certain habitats, demonstrate cultural heritage or provide vistas. This amendment would leave these areas untouched by restoration efforts. This situation could damage the very trees it is allegedly intended to save. Again, this is why this bill provides flexibility while requiring compliance with forest plans. This amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in the committee, and it should be defeated on a bipartisan basis on the floor today. This is not a good amendment.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it would have a great negative impact on national security by severely curtailing or terminating programs that protect our country against rogue nations. Simply put, now is not the time to gut our missile defense programs by slashing the Missile Defense Agency's budget in half, given the threats posed by such countries as North Korea and Iran. This amendment would freeze in place both ground-based and the Aegis midcourse defense capabilities prior to finishing what we started with the Fort Greeley, Alaska, GMD installation. We have had tremendous success with the Aegis program. Six of the seven last intercept tests have been hits. Why in the world would you stop this now? In addition, this amendment would kill the Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor boost phase defense programs, just when both promises are approaching significant milestones in 2008. General Cartwright, Commander of STRATCOM, has repeatedly told me how important it is to stay the course with the Airborne Laser Programs, whose directed energy capability is of a critical importance to the Department of Defense. This amendment would kill the ABL program after more than $3 billion has been invested. It would be a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money not to go ahead and follow through with the ABL program to see how well it works. The amendment cites the Congressional Budget Office report on long- term implications of current defense plans and alternatives. Let me repeat, ``and alternatives.'' The evolutionary alternative in this CBO report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement by CBO of cutting MDA programs. This report simply looked at the impact of future defense budgets, of alternative options to meet hypothetical, hypothetical spending targets. The CBO, and this was confirmed this today by my staff, does not endorse or support this proposal. It was merely another option as part of funding a ``what if'' drill, an academic situation, if you will. This amendment could drastically cut the budget of our missile defense. While we all understand the missile defense architecture is complicated and costly, long term, it is crucial in today's world if we will continue our primary national defense into the future. There will never be a time to cut investments in our Nation's protection. That is what this does. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friends on the other side, let me say that the gentleman is probably not aware of a missile which was deployed before it was finally finished, which the Israelis used. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) who is on the Intel Committee and also on the Strategic Forces Committee that handles missile defense. (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter. I would also like to say that under his leadership we certainly have produced one of the most bipartisan bills in one of the areas that is most important to our national defense, and I appreciate his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate Mr. Skelton, my friend who is ranking member. And also let me say that we had an extremely bipartisan markup in my subcommittee, and this subcommittee handles some of the most controversial, contentious, complex issues in the defense industry. We could not have had such a bipartisan markup had it not been for my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is my ranking member of that subcommittee. So it was an extremely good markup, and as we have seen now, that markup was followed by the full committee markup where the bill passed 61-1. I want to say a few things about the bill. The need for providing support to ongoing operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism have appropriately been the focus of much of the committee's work this year. It is also important to examine our Nation's strategic posture and our ability to maintain a strong national defense, capable of projecting a powerful and diversified global force. I am proud that our bill provides investments in the Nation's long- term need for transforming the Nation's capabilities of our strategic forces, and I am also proud that near-term benefits for our Armed Forces deployed around the world protecting our Nation at home is included in this bill. In the Missile Defense Agency, the bill before you adds $140 million to transition the Army's PAC-2 Patriot missile equipment to the PAC-3 configuration and funds upgrades to the Aegis ballistic defense system. These recommendations shift funds from longer term and less well- defined projects to near-term priorities. In the area of military space, the bill makes adjustments to the budget request to address concerns about whether space program funds are executable in the year 2007. The bill also includes a provision to establish a Department of Defense Office of Operational Responsive Space to focus and advance the Nation's ability to provide on-demand space capabilities to global military operations. Within the atomic energy defense activities, the bill funds the Department of Energy programs at the budget request. The bill also includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a plan for the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex and authorizes funds for infrastructure upgrades. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that I frankly had gotten tired of seeing come before the subcommittee, and that is the Mixed Oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication facilities and the agreements that we were trying to have with the Russians. The mark includes information that would uphold the nonproliferation objectives of the committee to begin disposition of weapons grade plutonium in the U.S. The problem is that we do not see any movement among the Russians. For a couple of years now we have been faced with this. I have become frankly a little tired of seeing it come before the Congress when we have seen no movement from the Russians to do away with their plutonium nor to reach any agreement with us to do so. So an amendment was offered by Mr. Wilson. I asked the staff to look at a way that we can do this. There is an amendment offered by Mr. Wilson to delink the U.S. disposition of its plutonium from that of the Russians. That is also included in the mark. The bill also adds $40 million to other nuclear nonproliferation programs and $50 million to environmental cleanup activities. Mr. Chairman, the committee's report addresses administrative objectives, unfunded military requirements, and Member priorities. This is a good bill, as I said earlier. We simply could not have gotten this bill through the committee without the strong help from my good friend, Mr. Reyes from Texas, and also from the members of the committee, both the minority members and the majority members, who really worked hard, as I said, on some of the most complex, controversial issues that are included in the entire defense bill. So I would ask Members to take a strong look at this bill. Much like the subcommittee, it passed out of the full committee on a 61-1 vote. It is a bipartisan bill. Finally, let me just simply say that much of this was achieved by the extremely hard work in my subcommittee by both staffs on the minority and the majority side. I urge this bill to be passed. It is a very good bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to declare my support for H.R. 5107, a House measure offered by U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Florida, to designate the United States Post Office at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, Florida the ``Earl D. Hutto Post Office.'' Congressman Earl Hutto proudly served Florida's first district from 1979 to 1995. He was a strong voice for his district on the House Armed Services Committee where he rose to the position of chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. During Democrat and Republican administrations, he was an effective and reliable advocate for our military men and women and a credit to the U.S. House. Earl and I go way back and it turns out we have a lot in common. In addition to having served in the House together, we both hail from a media background. He chose broadcasting and I worked for 30 years in print journalism. But even more unique is the fact that he and I both come from the tiny Dale County, Alabama town of Midland City. As remarkable as it may sound, and we did not realize it until we both came to Congress, but Earl and I even lived in the same Midland City house at different times. I have missed Earl's presence here in the House since his well deserved retirement and I was pleased to speak at a ceremony honoring him last year at his alma mater, Troy University, in my district. I wish Earl and his wife Nancy all the best as they continue to enjoy life back in Pensacola. This House and the people have not forgotten their contributions to our country.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's greatest military heroes, Michael J. ``Mike'' Novosel, who passed away on April 2 at the age of 83 at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC. Mike Novosel was a remarkable man who ranked among the best who ever donned a military uniform. I'm proud to point out that he spent much of his life in southeast Alabama where he had a monumental impact on the mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker. Born in Pennsylvania in 1922, Novosel joined the U.S. Army Air Corps when he was 19. His training eventually took him to Maxwell Air Force Base where he qualified to fly the B-29 Superfortress. In 1945, he flew four Pacific combat missions with the 58th Bombardment Wing during the final days of World War II. But he did not stop there. Novosel commanded a B-29 as part of a fly-over during the Japanese surrender ceremony. His military career then led him to command the 99th Bombardment Squadron in the Pacific where he served until 1947 when he returned to the United States as a B-29 test pilot and then joined the Air Force Reserve. Soon after, he was called back to active duty at the Air Command and Staff School during the Korean war. But this was all just the beginning for Novosel. During the Vietnam war, then Lieutenant Colonel Novosel volunteered for duty in the Air Force Reserve. However, he was turned down because of his age. So, he traded his blue suit for the uniform of a U.S. Army warrant officer, and instead of piloting B-29's, took the stick of a Bell UH-1 Huey. As a ``dust-off' helicopter pilot, Novosel served two tours in Vietnam, totaling 2,543 missions airlifting 5,600 medical evacuees. Amazingly, one of the men he rescued was his own son, who, ironically, later rescued him. In one rescue mission, Novosel braved tremendous enemy fire to rescue no less than 29 men. His bravery resulted in his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. He returned stateside to instruct the Army's Golden Knights parachute team at Fort Bragg and later he taught at the Warrant Officer Career College at Fort Rucker. In 1985, Novosel was the last World War II pilot still flying. Fort Rucker named its main street ``Novosel Avenue'' for him, and after retirement Novosel remained in Enterprise, AL, where he was an active member of the community until his death. Mr. Speaker, CWO4 Mike Novosel will rightfully be buried in Arlington National Cemetery alongside America's other great heroes. We can all be proud of his exemplary record, and I extend my condolences to his family.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I do rise in support of the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2007. Chairman Hoekstra is to be congratulated and commended for his efforts in drafting this important legislation to meet the intelligence needs of the country. There are many great things in this bill for the warfighter and for the intelligence community; however, I would like to focus on a very important reconnaissance and surveillance program, the U-2. Recently, a program budget decision was released by the Air Force to retire the U-2 by 2011. This transition flight plan would replace the U-2 with the Global Hawk UAV that is not yet capable of taking on this mission. This plan is premature, and after further review it appears that the Air Force now shares my concerns. The bill before us prevents the retirement of the U-2 unless the Secretary of Defense can certify that there will be no loss of intelligence collection capabilities. Just to make a point, I am associated with the U-2 all the way back to the 1950s when it made its first flight. It has been upgraded continuously over the years with a large variety of mature intelligence collection sensors. The U-2 is, in fact, the force behind our long- range stand-off intelligence capabilities today. The last U-2 left the production line in 1989. Its airframe is engineered for 75,000 hours. The U-2 provides critical multisensor intelligence through all phases of conflict, including peacetime, the war on terror, low-intensity conflict, and high-scale hostilities. The U-2 has even provided photographs to FEMA in support of the Hurricane Katrina and other national disasters. The U-2's modular payload design allows the aircraft to be reconfigured to perform various missions and can perform them until 2050 at the rate we are now using them. Mr. Chairman, intelligence is the first line of defense and necessary for the security of the Nation. Our warfighters, to be successful on the battlefield, have to have this intelligence. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and again I congratulate the chairman and our ranking member for us being able to get this bill to the floor. In particular, I'd like to focus on a very important Reconnaissance and Surveillance Program: the U-2. Recently, a Program Budget Decision was released by the Air Force to retire the U-2 by 2011. This ``transition flight plan'' would replace the U-2 with the Global Hawk UAV that is not yet capable of taking on this mission. This plan is premature, and after further review, it appears the Air Force now shares some of my concerns. The bill before us prevents the retirement of the U-2 unless the Secretary of Defense can certify that there will be no loss of intelligence collection capabilities. Just to make a point about the capability of the U-2, although the origins of the aircraft go back to the 1950s, it has been upgraded continuously over the years with a large variety of mature intelligence collection sensors. The U-2 is, in fact, the force behind our long- range, stand-off intelligence capabilities today. The last U-2 left the production line only in 1989. Its airframe is engineered for 75,000 hours, yet our fleet of operational aircraft averages only 10,000 hours. The U-2 provides critical multi-sensor intelligence through all phases of conflict, including peacetime, the war on terror, low-intensity conflict and large-scale hostilities. The U-2 has even provided photographs to FEMA in support of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. The U-2's modular payload design allows the aircraft to be reconfigured to perform various missions, and can perform them until 2050 at the rate we are using them today. The Bill rightly directs that the Secretary of Defense must certify that there will be no loss of intelligence capabilities in transitioning from the U-2 to the Global Hawk, and that the collection capabilities reach parity, before a final decision is made. This will help ensure that the ``persistent stare'' goal in the Quadrennial Defense Review is met. Mr. Chairman, intelligence ``is'' the first line of defense and necessary for the security of this Nation, and for our war fighters to be successful on the battlefield. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's greatest military heroes, Michael J. ``Mike'' Novosel, who passed away on April 2 at the age of 83 at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC. Mike Novosel was a remarkable man who ranked among the best who ever donned a military uniform. I'm proud to point out that he spent much of his life in southeast Alabama where he had a monumental impact on the mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker. Born in Pennsylvania in 1922, Novosel joined the U.S. Army Air Force when he was 19. His training eventually took him to Maxwell Air Force Base where he qualified to fly the B-29 Superfortress. In 1945, he flew four Pacific combat missions with the 58th Bombardment Wing during the final days of World War II. But he did not stop there. Novosel commanded a B-29 as part of a fly-over during the Japanese surrender ceremony. His military career then led him to command the 99th Bombardment Squadron in the Pacific where he served until 1947 when he returned to the United States as a B-29 test pilot and then joined the Air Force Reserve. Soon after, he was called back to active duty at the Air Command and Staff School during the Korean War. But this was all just the beginning for Novosel. During the Vietnam War, then Lt. Col. Novosel volunteered for duty in the Air Force Reserve. However, he was turned down because of his age. So, he traded his blue suit for the uniform of a U.S. Army warrant officer, and instead of piloting B-29's, took the stick of a Bell UH-l Huey. As a ``dust-off'' helicopter pilot, Novosel served two tours in Vietnam, totaling 2,543 missions airlifting 5,600 medical evacuees. Amazingly, one of the men he rescued was his own son, who, ironically, later rescued him. In one rescue mission, Novosel braved tremendous enemy fire to rescue no less than 29 men. His bravery resulted in his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. He returned stateside to instruct the Army's Golden Knights parachute team at Fort Bragg and later he taught the Warrant Officer Career College at Fort Rucker. In 1985, Novosel was the last World War II pilot still flying. Fort Rucker named its main street ``Novosel Avenue'' for him, and after retirement Novosel remained in Enterprise, Alabama where he was an active member of the community until his death. Mr. Speaker, Chief Warrant Officer Four Mike Novosel will rightfully be buried in Arlington National Cemetery alongside America's other great heroes. We can all be proud of his exemplary record, and I extend my condolences to his family.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the service and the memory of Army Sergeant Troy Jenkins of Repton, Alabama in my congressional district. He lost his life in defense of freedom on April 24, 2003. Sgt. Jenkins loved his country, serving in both the Marine Corps and the Army. He studied Arabic and trained to be a paratrooper. His service took him to Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of the 101st Airborne Division, he was standing patrol in Baghdad when a cluster bomb exploded, taking his life. Sgt. Jenkins was known at home and among his comrades for his bravery. He demonstrated it when he put his own life in harm's way to protect others from the cluster bomb. He was remembered by his fellow soldiers as a friend and a hero; all of America can be proud of his service and his dedication to duty. I would also like to commend Sgt. Jenkins' mother, Connie Gibson, for her efforts to honor the bravery and service of her son and all others who have lost their lives defending our great country. She has reached out to local veterans and their families to bring our community together to pay tribute to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for America. On the third anniversary of the loss of Sgt. Jenkins, I send my condolences out to his family, including his wife, Amanda, and sons, Tristan and Brandon. The thoughts and prayers of America are with you.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor Study Act, a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor in Alabama and Georgia. The Historic Chattahoochee Compact was signed into law in 1978, and it established the Historic Chattahoochee Commission to promote historic preservation and tourism in the Chattahoochee Valley. Since this time, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission has been involved in a heritage tourism program in eighteen Alabama and Georgia counties along the lower Chattahoochee River. Because of their exemplary work, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has cited the Historic Chattahoochee Commission as a national model for heritage corridor development. The designation of this corridor is the final piece in the commission's development plan. It would enable them to initiate new and innovative projects to invigorate the economies of the member counties since they would be eligible to receive funding for publications and marketing for tourism, historic preservation, environmental education, outdoor recreation, and small business development. In addition to aiding historic preservation, this effort will also enhance economic development in this region. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.