Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Absolutely.

Mr. HOBSON. No, but I will yield my extra 45 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. HOBSON. I have 2 minutes left. I yield it to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, might I ask the time left on each side.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HOBSON. I am committed to addressing any outstanding issues related to the barriers in conference, if necessary.

Mr. HOBSON. I would be happy to work with my colleague on this issue. The subcommittee recognizes support for university-based research reactors is an important part of the Federal stewardship role for the U.S. nuclear science and engineering enterprise.

Mr. HOBSON. In reply, yes, we will make that request. And should the subcommittee find the DOE's response unacceptable or not receive a response by the deadline stipulated, I commit to working in conference to direct the DOE to support university nuclear programs using core research program funding.

Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her interest in this area. She is correct; the committee fully expects DOE to fulfill its commitment, recognizing the exact amount will change because the core research funding in this bill deviates from the President's request. And this DOE funding is in addition to the $15 million the subcommittee is providing NRC to support university programs.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me thank Mr. Obey, the chairman of the committee, for his good work with us on this bill. And I want to add my support to Chairman Visclosky on doing a good job on his first bill, and I will talk about that a little bit further. This is the first Energy and Water appropriation bill that my colleague from Indiana has developed and brought to the floor. The first one, I found out, is always the hardest one, but he has done a great job and it is a good bill; and I have certainly enjoyed working with him this year in a new position for me also as the ranking member on this bill. It certainly helps to have an allocation that is $1.1 billion over the administration's request. However, I do not disagree with the major funding decision that the chairman has made in this bill. This bill is a very thoughtful approach to some very difficult issues, including investing in our Nation's water infrastructure, developing domestic energy sources with less impact on global climate, and fostering our national security through rational efforts on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons. I want to comment briefly on a couple of specific programs and projects, including several that Chairman Visclosky has just recently discussed. I fully support the increased spending for water resources infrastructure. We have chronically underinvested in this infrastructure in recent years both in this administration and, frankly, in the previous administration. And the hurricanes of 2005 taught us some very hard lessons about the consequences of such underinvestment. The Corps already has a significant backlog of construction projects, a backlog that, frankly, is only going to get larger with the next Water Resources Development Act, which we don't have the money to fund that. I'm very pleased that the chairman maintains the continuing contracts and financial management reforms for the Army Civil Works program. These reforms are critical if the Corps is to get its house in order, and if it is to make responsible use of the $5.5 billion we provide in this bill. And let me say that not fixing the Corps' problems has cost us a lot of money, because when we don't complete projects on time or don't complete parts of projects, those projects grow in cost and it makes the problem even worse. And therefore, the underfunding of this by the administration, and not just this administration, but previous administrations, has not been helpful. I generally agree with the majority's priorities for the Department of Energy. It is essential that we develop advanced energy technologies that increase our energy security by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lessening our dependence on foreign oil. However, I will caution that increased spending on these technologies is no guarantee of increased results, especially at the Department of Energy. I want to briefly talk on this subject of loan guarantees. I will state up front that I have no confidence whatsoever that the Department of Energy is capable of managing this program in a responsible manner. That said, I recognize the congressional and industry pressure in favor of loan guarantees. You may hear two complaints about our bill, that we do not provide the full administration request of $9 billion for loan guarantees, and that we did not include nuclear power plants in the $7 billion. Those criticisms miss one essential fact: that Congress already provided DOE with $4 billion for loan guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution that was not restricted to any particular energy technologies. The Department could apply all $4 billion to nuclear power plants if they so choose. But let me tell you, they don't have any expertise over there on this, and it's going to be a mess because they don't know how to handle it and they don't know how to underwrite these loans. But they're going ahead with the program because Congress is pushing them into it. Now I want to talk about nuclear weapons. I share the majority's concerns on the reliable replacement warhead. The concept of RRW has merit if it allows us to have a smaller stockpile of more reliable weapons that will not require nuclear testing. But all we have right now is a vague promise. What we need to see is a significant stockpile plan from the administration that shows how developing the RRW will actually get us to a much smaller future stockpile. Such a stockpile plan is also essential before we invest significant resources in modernizing the DOE's nuclear weapons complex. For that reason our bill does not fund RRW, and makes roughly a 10 percent reduction in the weapons account activities. We should not be spending billions to modernize a Cold War footprint of the weapons complex until the Department of Defense defines what kind of future stockpile DOE will have to support. I don't think most people are really aware of how this all works, but the Defense Department is the customer, DOE is the provider. I am aware that there are Members' and administration concerns about the effect these cuts may have on weapons facilities. I will address these concerns later in my discussions. Now let me talk about one that really gets me going. There is really only one place in this bill, and I see the chairman smiling, where I have a really significant difference of opinion with the majority, and that is funding for the MOX plant. For those Members who are not familiar with this project, let me do a little quick review. In early 2000, the United States and Russia agreed for each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-usable plutonium. Each country had a preferred technology for plutonium disposition. The U.S. wanted immobilization, and Russia wanted fast reactors. So, they reached a compromise to convert the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel to be burned in existing commercial lightwater reactors. The U.S. and Russia were supposed to proceed in parallel with their respective MOX projects. Well, guess what? The Russians are coming. Last year, Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of ROSATOM in Russia, told the chairman and myself that MOX is an obsolete and expensive technology, and Russia has no intention of building a MOX plant unless the international community pays 100 percent of the cost. If Russia has to spend any of its own money for plutonium disposition, then it will use fast reactors. He couldn't believe that we were dumb enough to still want to build a MOX plant in the United States. Well, guess what? We are going to build one because we are that dumb, I guess, because DOE and some in Congress still think we should proceed with construction of this plant. The project was sold to Congress as costing only $1 billion. That's where it started out. The latest estimate, and they haven't broken ground yet, is $4.7 billion. And that's before construction actually starts. Given DOE's dismal track record of controlling costs, the final price tag will certainly be much higher. The total set of facilities and operations that must be completed to dispose of the 34 metric tons of U.S. plutonium has an estimated life-cycle cost of $11 billion. And the project is now a mere 11 years behind schedule. So, what has been the response of this cost growth and schedule slipping and the Russian abandonment of the MOX approach? The authorizers delinked the U.S. and Russia project, meaning they want the U.S. MOX project to go forward with or without any Russian progress. The U.S. material, frankly, is not at risk. What we really wanted to do was to eliminate the 34 metric tons of the Russians. So now, what is the incentive for the Russians to go forward and eliminate theirs? So, we lost all our leverage. This is not about nonprolifieration, it's all about jobs and economic development in South Carolina. Without any competition, DOE picked the Savannah Rivers site as the place for the MOX project. Some claim that South Carolina only accepted this mission with great reluctance, and insisted on DOE building a MOX plant so that plutonium would have an assured path out of the State. Well, that argument is bogus for two reasons. First, the 34 metric tons of plutonium is not presently at Savannah River. The vast majority of it is stored at the Pantex plant in Texas. The government does not have an obligation to get this material out of South Carolina because this material isn't in South Carolina. Second, some folks assume that construction operation of the MOX plant somehow guarantees this plutonium material will leave their State. Well, it doesn't. We have testimony on the record from DOE making very clear that Yucca Mountain will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. Any material generated after that date, whether spent MOX reactor fuel or even vitrified plutonium, will remain in storage onsite until Yucca is expanded or a second repository is built. That means this plutonium material will remain in South Carolina for a long time. And during that time, they're going to be able to sue us for $100 million a year because we haven't moved it. Does this sound dumb? Does this sound like smart business? Not to this Member. I had high hopes that the Secretary of Energy had the background and skills to make a real difference at DOE, and certainly on this project he could have made a difference. But I have lost confidence in him, and it started over his unwillingness to change course on the MOX project when circumstances changed. There is plenty of blame to go around. Not only has the administration stubbornly insisted on ``staying the course'' on this troubled project, but the authorizing committees with jurisdiction have failed to exercise oversight and taken action on MOX. Even the fiscal conservatives in my own party, who were so anxious to criticize every earmark, miss the fact that this project will waste $11 billion of taxpayer dollars. I want you to know under my watch, when I was chairman of this, we gave it zero funding. And I would have liked to have done that. But I understand the pressures on the chairmen on both the committee and the subcommittee. And frankly, they have reduced the level significantly from the requested amount. I really appreciate the fact that the chairman of the full committee and Mr. Visclosky made a statement, the statement was actually by Mr. Visclosky and supported by Chairman Obey. And the chairman said, ``The MOX plant is one of only a few construction activities supported in the bill. And DOE is put on notice that the first sign of significant cost growth, schedule slip or requirements change, the committee will shut this project down.'' In future years, maybe this project will run off the rails, and I want Members to see what happens here. I offered to the administration and to others not to build this plant the way they're building it. I think it's silly to build 34 metric ton capacity and then have to tear the plant down and send it out to Utah and put it underground. What I really wanted to do, and offered to do, was build a plant that we could design up front to where we could do other types of fuels in this, rather than the weapons-grade plutonium, but nobody seems to be listening anywhere at this point. But I do appreciate the full chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee and their comments. I want to talk about the policy on earmarks. I think we've got that straightened out now. I wish it had been in this bill, but I think it's going to move forward. And I think we fail in our responsibility if we don't do oversight. I think it's good to take out both the President's earmarks and our earmarks. I did that before. Any new starts that were in the bill, I took them out when I was chairman, and I want to congratulate the chairman now for doing the same thing. We need to provide more oversight. I really get upset that the way the Corps of Engineers is done today is we get no real input into that. It's all basically done by an agency within the White House and by some people that we don't even meet with and we don't even know. They are saying what's going to go forward in somebody's community or not going forth in somebody's community; and frankly, we're here and know our communities better than somebody in some agency that we can't find. I want to just conclude by saying I am pleased that Chairman Visclosky has continued the bipartisan cooperation in this bill. I am proud to be a part of a subcommittee that focuses on getting the job done efficiently and does not let partisanship get in the way of doing the right thing for the American people. This subcommittee could not get the job done so well without exceptional staff. I want to thank Dixon Butler, Taunja Berquam, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski and Lori Maes on the majority side for their hard work and dedication. I might say, many of those people worked when I was the chairman before, and I thank the majority for keeping them, and for the good work that all of them have done. I also want to thank Chris Frabotta, our Corps detailee this year, who comes from the Corps' Wilmington District and has served in Iraq. I also want to thank Kevin Cook, Ben Nicholson and Rob Blair on our minority subcommittee staff, and Shari Davenport on the chairman's personal staff and Kenny Kraft on my staff for a great job. We have all worked together on this bill for a number of years, and we are continuing to do that. I just really want to thank my chairman, my partner on this bill. I frankly intend to be as good a partner to the chairman as he was to me when I was the chairman. And the only way we can solve some of the problems of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy is, frankly, for us to continue working together. Despite my concerns about the level of spending without congressional direction, I intend to support this bill to the full. And I encourage the other members of the committee to do so as well. Once again, I thank the chairman for his courtesy, and I look forward to working with him for a number of years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591, the Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Supplemental Appropriations Act, because, in my opinion, it sends the wrong message to our troops, our allies and the Iraqi people, who really want to take care of and control of their own country. In my opinion, this bill will tie the hands of the commanders in the field by micromanaging from Washington the military decisions that those commanders ought to be making on the ground. Further, by setting a date-certain timeline requirement for withdrawing our troops, in my opinion it will endanger U.S. personnel and give our enemies a date to wait us out. Mr. Speaker, this bill not only sends the wrong message to our troops about their efforts to bring stability to Iraq, it sends the wrong one to our allies throughout the world. In my opinion, it says that if you bloody us enough, we are going to walk away. If we walk away, our credibility is gone in the world. We will be abandoning the thousands of Iraqis who risked their lives and voted for freedom, and risk bringing dishonor to the men and women who have fought and died in this war. One thing that strikes me about the debate of this bill and the recent one on H. Res. 63, the Iraqi war resolution, is that there is little or no discussion on what the Iraqis are willing to do to bring themselves closer to taking control of their own country. Earlier this year I went on a bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While we met with U.S. troops and commanders, we also had a chance to meet with the leaders of those countries, including Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. He told us if his country had the command and control, equipment and our backing, the Iraqis could begin to take over their own security in 3 to 6 months and that we could be able to redeploy 50,000 U.S. troops at that time. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that President Maliki has the tools and resources to be successful. For those who are looking for a timely withdrawal of troops, why shouldn't we be focusing on giving him and his plan a chance, rather than setting arbitrary withdrawal deadlines? The quicker that the Iraqi people take control of their country, the quicker U.S. troops can begin to withdraw with dignity. This bill, I don't believe, moves us further in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send our own message to the leadership of this body that our troops and commanders in the field deserve a bill that will support them in their efforts to bring stability to Iraq. Finally, I am troubled by the way the new majority has restricted the debate, for even while we are encouraging the Iraqi people and their leaders to become more democratic, the House of Representatives, in my opinion, is moving in the opposite direction. During the last elections, much was made about maintaining a fair and open process in the people's House, and I shared that. Frankly, I don't think we did when we were in the majority enough on that. This bill, however, is back to even worse than that because it is being considered under conditions that are neither fair nor open. Specifically, no amendments are allowed, and no alternatives can be considered on this most important bill. Mr. Speaker, a bill with such historical importance needs to have open and fair debate. That is the way this type of bill has always been considered, I thought, before. That is what the American people were promised last fall. I, frankly, deeply regret that this is not now occurring today.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that last night when I was watching the floor debate, my colleague from Connecticut, Chris Shays, gave one of the best speeches on where we are with regard to the war in Iraq. It was a comprehensive overview of the current situation, and I agree with his views on this debate, and I would like to associate myself with his comments. I hope that my colleagues and those who are following this debate will take a moment to read his remarks. Like Mr. Shays, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This is the wrong resolution to be considering if we in Congress are supposed to be fulfilling our responsibility to provide oversight on how this war is to be conducted. Rather than debating the so-called surge, which is actually taking place, we should be debating how to put policy in place that will bring stability and ensure the security of the American people. Admittedly, the administration has made mistakes in the execution of this war. Many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, have been telling them that from the beginning. Among a number of things that we have been saying has been that they had enough troops to win the war, but they didn't have enough troops to win the peace. But we can't correct those mistakes. What we can do now is to find a strategy on how best to go forward. So the question becomes, what can we do now that gives the Iraqis the best chance to take control of their country, while also allowing our troops to return home with honor? We owe it to the parents and the families of the men and women who have fought and died in this war to not let their lives be lost in vain. That is the message that I have heard many times when I have met with those families in my district and one that many of my colleagues have also heard. Last month, I went on a bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While we met with the U.S. troops and commanders, we also had a chance to meet with the leaders of those countries, including the prime minister, al-Maliki. He told us that if his country had the command and control equipment and our backing, the Iraqis could begin to take over their own security in 3 to 6 months and that we could begin to redeploy up to 50,000 of our troops. Madam Speaker, we need to make sure that Prime Minister Maliki has the tools and resources to do just that. Frankly, the American people would be better served if that were this debate, instead of this nonbinding resolution. Our focus should be on fixing what needs to be fixed so that the Iraqi people can take control of their country's fate, like they did 2 years ago when they held their first free elections in 50 years. This action will require several steps. For example, as several of my colleagues have already mentioned, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group supports a short term surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. This is being done. The group also recommended that there be more diplomatic outreach in the region to include countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and even Iran, and this needs to be done by the administration. Further, it is imperative that our U.S. troops begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counterterrorism, force protection and controlling Iraq's borders. My colleagues, the world is watching. Our friends, our enemies are watching and waiting to see what our next move will be. A retreat from Iraq would lead to even more instability in the region and create a haven for terrorist groups who despise freedom and our way of life. What kind of message are we sending when we engage in debate that is essentially a political exercise, rather than one that is on substantive strategy on how to bring stability to the region? Madam Speaker, we cannot accept defeat, but we must insist on making the changes necessary so that the Iraqi people can take the fate of their future in their own hands. There is a phrase that has often been repeated since the war began, and that is as Iraqi forces stand up, U.S. forces can begin to stand down. Defining a workable strategy to achieve that goal should have been the focus of this week's debate, rather than this nonbinding resolution that will not bring us a step closer to stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home or achieving stability in this region of the world. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a valued member of my staff, who is retiring after 37 years of working on behalf of the constituents of Ohio's 7th Congressional District. Virginia Gano, known by most everyone as ``Ginny,'' is retiring this week from her post as the scheduler and executive assistant to me and the two previous members who held this seat. A native of Springfield, Ginny started working for former Congressman Clarence ``Bud'' Brown, Jr. after graduating from Dennison University and the Katharine Gibbs School. When Bud decided to run for governor in Ohio, former Senator Mike DeWine won the seat, and Ginny stayed on to work for him. When I came here in 1991, Ginny said that she would give me her resume, and I told her, ``Ginny, I know that when you win the 7th congressional district, you win Ginny, too. You come with the office. You don't need a resume.'' That began not only a wonderful working relationship, but a warm friendship, too. Ginny is one of the kindest and most outgoing people that you'll ever come across. She knows the people who keep the Capitol complex running--from the personnel who run the supply offices and maintenance shops to the staff members who work on the House floor and in the Speaker's Office. And she treats each and every one of them in a kind and courteous manner. As everyone who works on Capitol Hill knows, an efficient scheduler is someone who can make or break an office. And Ginny, in her own way, has made this office work. When a constituent would call the office to schedule a meeting or a tour, she always made the extra effort to be sure that their visit to Washington, D.C. was special. She's so popular giving tours, that she's now taking the grandchildren of some of the first people she gave tours to years ago through the Capitol. And, if you ever had a question about how to cut through the ``bureaucratic red tape,'' Ginny could find the answer or a way to get something done. It is those qualities that have made her invaluable to our office over the years. Beyond her official responsibilities, Ginny has been the ``den mother'' for scores of staffers over the years. If you were moving to Washington, D.C. for your first job and were looking for a place to live, you called Ginny. If you were not feeling well or if you needed a ride to the hospital, you would go see Ginny. This includes the little, but meaningful things, too. For example, if someone was having a birthday in the office and you were looking for a card to have everyone sign, you would go ask Ginny. Those are just a few of the examples of what she has done for the young people who have worked in the office. Ginny Gano has been the heart of this office and in my district for years, and she will be missed. So today, on behalf of my wife, Carolyn, and my current and former staff, I want to thank her for her service, but most of all for her friendship over the years. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Ginny Gano on her retirement from federal service as the ``first sergeant'' of Ohio's 7th Congressional District.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, we would not be in this unfortunate situation if our colleagues in the Senate had actually passed their bill. The House fulfilled its appropriation responsibilities; the other body did not. I have no problem with my majority colleague on the subcommittee, the distinguished chairman from Indiana. He has involved the minority in the process, treated us fairly, and attempted to protect our interests. Unfortunately, the ground rules established to this resolution disadvantage the House greatly in the negotiations with the Senate. The process adopted by the majority has undermined the ability of the subcommittee to negotiate a good CR and strip out Senate pork. There are a number of significant funding reductions that should have been taken in the CR that were not. Again, I have no fault with my chairman. He tried. But the Senate balked at even citing the need to protect ``important'' Senators. Let me offer a few examples. The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriation included a $50 million earmark in the DOE's science account for an indoor rain forest alongside the interstate highway in Iowa, which I opposed, and so did my ranking member at the time, now the chairman. The Department of Energy has been unable to execute this earmark because the sponsor has not produced the necessary non-Federal matching funds. Nearly $45 million remains unspent and unspendable. The House proposed to rescind this earmark, but the Senate refused to consider it. If ever there were a piece of low-hanging fruit ripe to be stripped out of the resolution, this is it. The 109th Congress had its infamous Bridge to Nowhere. The 110th Congress is now building its own legacy, starting with a $50 million ``roadside attraction'' in Iowa. In the NNSA weapons account, the House identified several sources of significant savings. The House proposed a total of $495 million of reductions from weapons activities, but the Senate again refused to accept this reduction because of perceived impact in New Mexico. The final CR contains only $94.5 million of reduction, leaving $400 million of savings untapped. In the fossil fuel account, 2006 funding in Energy included $49.7 million for oil and gas research, which is funded at discretionary spending in fiscal year 2006, but which is now mandatory by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The House proposed again, rightly, to eliminate this discretionary funding in the CR, which only duplicates the new mandatory funding. Instead, the Senate declared this account to be ``untouchable'' in the strong interest of a particular Senator in West Virginia. Given the House majority passed H.R. 6 to take away perceived windfall profits in the oil and gas industry, it is surprising that it would now allow the same industry to ``double dip'' in the CR. In summary, I would say again that the process being followed with this CR greatly disadvantages the House in our negotiations with the other body. Members should not delude themselves that we have stripped all of the pork from the CR. We have only succeeded in stripping out the House earmarks. Over in the other Chamber, it is, frankly, business as usual. We have had the opportunity to realize a half billion dollars of savings in energy and water portions of the CR and to apply those funds to other priority needs such as education, health care and law enforcement. I hope you all realize that in voting for this continuing resolution today means that you have decided that several hundred million of tax dollars will be better spent on welfare for the nuclear weapons labs than on these other pressing national needs. I encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to vote against this resolution and get rid of the pork.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the legacy of former President Gerald R. Ford. Although I never served with President Ford personally, I admire him for his record as a leader in the House of Representatives, and later for accepting one of the greatest challenges an individual can assume-- the Presidency of the United States of America. In the past couple of weeks, we have heard many historians talk about President Ford's legacy of healing our nation in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. At the time, he was sharply criticized for his decision to pardon President Richard Nixon, but now he has been lauded for moving this country forward. I think they are right. I admire him for the courage he had in making what was arguably one of the most difficult decisions a sitting president has ever made. As a Midwesterner myself, I would like to think that it was some of the values and experiences that President Ford had while growing up in Michigan that helped shape him into the courageous and good-natured leader that he later became. While President Ford played football for what we Ohio State University fans refer to as ``the team up north,'' he demonstrated his good-natured personality the day that he gave the university's 1974- commencement address. It was just a few weeks after he became president and legendary football coach Woody Hayes was still at OSU. According to a recent story in The Columbus Dispatch, he said: ``We just had our picture taken together and when that picture appears in today's Dispatch, I'm pretty sure what the caption will say,'' Ford said. ``Woody Hayes and friend.'' President Ford loved our country, and he served it with integrity, which helped restore the public's confidence in the presidency. I proudly join my colleagues in honoring him with this resolution, and expressing our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Betty Ford and her family.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our friend and colleague, Congressman Mike Oxley. When I was first elected to Congress, I really didn't know Mike, but I had heard about his prowess on the basketball court and on the golf course. But, one of the things that I have come to appreciate over the years has been the depth of knowledge and experience he has in the business and financial services sector. It is because of this that Mike has earned the respect of financial leaders in the United States and worldwide. Mike is leaving us with a legacy that includes his work on the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley bill to bring more accountability and responsibility to the corporate world. In the weeks following the 9/11 attacks, he led the swift response to target terrorist financing by working to pass a new money laundering statute. I think it's also important to mention that Mike's leadership in shaping policy over the years has reached beyond the corporate world. He has also made a significant difference in promoting personal savings and investments at the individual level. Prior to redistricting, I used to represent two counties that are now in Mike's district. While I was disappointed to lose Champaign and Logan Counties, it has given us an opportunity to work together on issues important to communities in those counties. We also worked together during the most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round on behalf of the Ohio National Guard bases located in Mansfield and Springfield. Mike and I have also had some fun over the years. In a previous campaign, he has been kidding me about my campaign radio ads. He says they made him gag because they were a bit too warm and fuzzy for his taste, but I tell him that they worked because he remembered them verbatim. But seriously, we are going to miss Mike as a friend and as a leader on business and financial issues. He and his team, including his Chief of Staff Jim Conzelman, and his long-time scheduler, Debbi Deimling, will also be greatly missed. Mike, I wish you and your wife, Pat, and Elvis all of the best as you begin this new chapter in your lives. And maybe someday, I will be good enough to play golf with you.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 2250 to pay tribute to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug for his life's work to feed the world's poor. It is because of Dr. Borlaug's success in developing high-yield and disease resistant cereal grains that billions of the world's poorest people have been fed. In 1944, Dr. Borlaug's work began when he and his research team were tasked by the Rockefeller Foundation to increase wheat production in Mexico. Through years of cross-breading thousands of wheat varieties, they were able to develop high-yield dwarf wheat that was resistant to diseases known to cause significant crop damage such as ``rust'' fungi. As a result, Mexico became self-sufficient in wheat production. Dr. Borlaug's findings came at a time when dire predictions were being made about the world's population growth and the possibility of mass starvation in poorer parts of the world. But, he continued to build on his findings from his work in Mexico and later worked with researchers in Pakistan and India to give farmers in those countries and regions high-yield dwarf wheat to increase their wheat production. The outreach was successful, and like Mexico, those countries also became self-sufficient in producing wheat. It is for this work that Dr. Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. When the board was presenting him with the honor, they made the following statement on his humanitarian contributions: ``More than any other single person of this age, [he] has helped to provide bread for a hungry world. We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace.'' In today's world, it is easy to get caught up in our everyday lives and to overlook some of the landmark achievements that have made dramatic improvements in the lives of others. In this case, one individual improved the lives of billions of people by giving them access to life-sustaining nourishment. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Borlaug's contributions to help relieve the world's poorest of hunger have saved billions of lives, and have inspired a new generation of researchers in agriculture to continue the fight against hunger. It is for these reasons that I ask my colleagues to support this bill to honor Dr. Borlaug with the Congressional Gold Medal..

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Kingston, and I thank Chairman Wolf.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his help on this. He has lived up to the discussions that we had. And I see Mr. Kingston has arrived, who wanted to make a comment on this, with Chairman Wolf's indulgence. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia on the FBI's Field Office Supervisory Term Limit Policy, commonly referred to as the Up and Out Policy. This policy would require that Supervisory Special Agents who have served 5 years to transfer to headquarters and be assigned overseas or compete for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge position. If a Supervisory Special Agent does not want to be transferred, they would be demoted at a substantial pay cut in some instances. Representative Rogers and I have been working with Chairman Wolf and the FBI on the implementation of this policy to minimize the significant financial burden it has on Special Agents, particularly those who became supervisors before this policy went into effect. Based on our discussions, we have a commitment from the FBI to seek legislation to ensure that the retirement benefits of Supervisory Special Agents who choose to step down are not negatively impacted. In addition, the FBI is committed to creating a pilot housing allowance program for employees in the D.C. metro area. This pilot program will improve the FBI's ability to attract talented agents to come to headquarters and will help agents manage the burden of living in a high-cost city and will improve morale. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of our fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill. This bill and a bridge wartime supplemental funding it carries provide essential support for the forces engaged in the global war on terrorism. At the strategic level I would like to focus on the Army's long-term readiness level, not only for the current fight, but also for the global threats we face as a Nation. The global war on terrorism is a fight for our cherished way of life. It is not a question of can we as a Nation support more; it is an essential that we cannot afford less. I would truly understand the competing and compelling demands facing this body and the Nation. As we move this bill forward through the legislative process, we must ensure that the ground forces have everything they require in a timely fashion.