Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I have one more at this time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I concur with everything the gentleman from Tennessee just said. Mr. Cohen and I do enjoy working together on a bipartisan basis on a great many issues. Today this bill, H. Res. 14, attempts to begin, if you will, a downpayment on thanking the men and women of the Border Patrol and of ICE and other portions of Homeland Security for their tireless efforts to defend America, and particularly on an issue that I find very personal, that of human smuggling. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I wrote the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California expressing my concern after learning from a reporter that U.S. attorneys had refused to prosecute an alien smuggler apprehended while transporting a car loaded with undocumented immigrants. The smuggler, Mr. Antonio Amparo-Lopez, had attempted to escape the arresting Border Patrol agents and, upon his recapture, the Border Patrol learned that this smuggler had 21 known aliases, had been arrested and deported more than 20 times without ever having been prosecuted once. Mr. Speaker, this is what the Border Patrol once faced, is something that the Border Patrol no longer faces, and we would hope, on a bipartisan basis, would no longer face. As I dug deeper into this, I learned that this was, in fact, at that time a common problem, and that Border Patrol agents had been forced to accept the reality that no matter how many times they did their job, often with people with large amounts of drugs, often with people who they knew were guilty of more heinous crimes, and, in fact, sometimes when they knew that people who perhaps had abandoned the human beings they were trafficking in to die in the desert, they could not take action. On a bipartisan basis, I want to recognize the men and women of the Border Patrol for their willingness to do this job with personal danger, having had rocks pummeled at them, having been shot at. The men and women of the Border Patrol and their allied agencies do what we ask them to do even when we do not fully support them. The San Diego Border Patrol sector chief even told the House subcommittee in a hearing how the failure to prosecute the foot soldiers in alien smuggling organizations had created an opportunity in which ``what would happen then, we would apprehend people that were guiding people across the country, many times at risk. And without meeting prosecution guidelines, they were simply voluntarily return back to Mexico where they could continue to conduct their illicit activity. There is no level of consequences.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to say that is no longer the case. I join with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to say, human smuggling, whether illegal immigrants or in fact victims of kidnapping around the world for purposes of prostitution, cannot be tolerated. We must have a zero- tolerance policy, and we must support the men and women that protect our borders and our interior. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her statement.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker. It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as I recognize the former chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his bipartisan work on coming to an agreement between our two bills that I believe led to the suspension today on the Senate bill. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support H.R. 1107, a bill proposed by the Office of Law Revision Counsel to update, improve, and for clarification of title 41 of the U.S. Code. Mr. Speaker, this, as the other speaker said, is, in fact, a very technical correction. The minority fully supports it, believes it is necessary. It passed on March 14 out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously on a voice vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, in an extension of remarks on the House floor regarding H.R. 105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, I stated that Members need to think of the future of this Nation, rise above their own self-interests, and advocate for the removal of all earmarks from all present and future appropriations bills until we get the federal deficit under control. It is a shame that the Speaker and the Democratic leadership have not been willing to take the initiative and do this on their own. The Democratic leadership has made no significant effort to perform real earmark reform during this economic crisis. Rather than eliminating costly earmarks, and excess spending, under the leadership of President Obama, the Speaker and Democrats push to implement the largest budget in our nation's history; a $3.55 trillion budget that will dramatically increase the deficit and likely bankrupt our children's children. The American people are asking that the member's of this body lead us out of this crisis, but it is apparent that the President and the majority leadership can do nothing more than throw money at the wrong problems and tax and lambast those that can create the right solutions. The majority leadership needs to understand that unbridled government spending is not the answer to this crisis, and that earmarks continue to be a problem that plagues this body and not a solution. Since being reelected to Congress last November, I have not made any earmark project requests. The projects that were included in H.R. 1105 were not done so at my behest in this Congress. As I stated before, I am highly disappointed that, faced with the enormity of the current federal deficit and the unprecedented amount of federal spending that has occurred, the House and Senate majority leadership and Appropriators did not take the opportunity to start showing fiscal restraint by removing Congressional Earmarks from the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Had I been approached by the appropriations committee prior to the passage of this bill, I would have asked for the removal of the listed projects. This bill is another example of a missed opportunity to begin the real reform that the American public truly seeks. Members must realize that we have an obligation to the public to work to eliminate earmarks from future appropriations bills until we get deficit spending under control. Below are two requests that were made in the 110th Congress that the Democratic majority decided to include in this spending bill. While they are projects of merit, I did not seek out support for their inclusion in this Congress. Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources Rancho California Water District $50,000 The bill included funding through the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for the Rancho California Water District, which will provide for additional recycled water reuse of 16,000 acre feet (AF) per year by converting water district's west side agriculture area to recycled water systems (1 AF equates to approximately 326,000 gallons or enough water to supply two families for one year). It will also increase use of annual seasonal storage in Vail Lake reservoir by 10,000 AF per year by constructing 48-inch pipeline to transport raw water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to store in Vail Lake. It will also convert majority of agricultural delivery system from treated water potable system to recycled and raw water non-potable system by building delivery system for raw water relieving 5,000 AF/year of treated water demands

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Temecula Post Office. In 1859, at its establishment, it became only one of seven post offices in California south of the Tehachapi Mountains. John Butterfield, an experienced stagecoach company owner was awarded a contract to deliver mail between St. Louis, Missouri and San Francisco, California. There was a time consideration in the contract requiring that each trip be completed in 25 days. On September 16, 1858, Mr. Butterfield began the first east to west journey and it was completed in 23 days and 23 hours. Six months after the passage of the first Butterfield Stage through Temecula, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Louis A. Rouen as the first Temecula Postmaster on April 22, 1859. Rouen served at the Magee store, near what is now Margarita Road and the Temecula Parkway. This was the first of the fourteen post office sites that have been used in the collection and distribution of Temecula's mail; the post office location changed frequently during the ensuing decades. It was located in several places including private residences, the Wolf Store, the Machado Stores, the train station, the Palomar and the Temecula Hotels, Hall's Cafe, Security Pacific Bank and the two sites operating today. During its journey to and from Temecula, mail may have been in ships, planes, 18 wheelers, golf carts and many other conveyances including the last mule train delivery used in the United States. Mail Service in Temecula has been a significant part of the community for a century and a half. It is sometimes little appreciated except by those who serve. Following September 11, 2001 the Postal Service ran a series of reminders in magazines, papers and on television that summarize what they do for the citizens of Temecula and our Nation. ``We are mothers and fathers. And sons and daughters who every day go about our lives with duty, honor and pride. And neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor winds of change, nor a nation challenged, will stay us from our appointed rounds. Ever.'' Still standing today, the Temecula Post Office is a monument to the faithful and dedicated work of the men and women who have served the community for 150 years.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, in closing, this is a good bill. As the previous speakers have said, we were able to fix a number of ills, including what was mentioned by the gentlelady from the District of Columbia. What I'm sad about is that we didn't begin to make a down payment on some other important areas; certainly, most among them, our uniform services. We took the benefit of putting military personnel on to a Roth IRA without looking into whether we could do something for them. Mr. Speaker, there's no question in this body that our men and women in uniform that are not able to retire in 20 years will leave the military only with whatever they happen to put into their Thrift Savings Plan. They're basically finding themselves encouraged to save on what is one of the smallest salaries that anyone could imagine for a particular private, corporal or sergeant. And yet, we will not even make the 3 percent match we make for ourselves here in Congress. So I certainly would hope that, in the foreseeable future, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, as we're doing here today, can see fit to make a bipartisan down payment for our men and women in uniform to allow their Thrift Savings Plan to have at least some match, which today it doesn't have, and leaves them often with no retirement when they leave the military. With that, I want to thank the chairman for the markup on this bill, which was done in a very cordial fashion, pre-agreed and worked out so that it could be done efficiently and we could get the best possible bill to the floor. I yield back.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I have to say it is not the front end of this bill that anyone should object to. The part we are seeing here today is excellent. But as Chairman Lynch said, and said quite rightfully, it is calculated that this piece of legislation will save net approximately $2.2 billion for better or worse on the backs of our retirees. It is a short-term savings, Mr. Speaker. It is not, in fact, a long- term savings. Any time you do collect money now but don't collect it later, it is going to eventually catch up. So for the short period of time in which this $2.2 billion is generated, it certainly would have been appropriate for all of us to be able to use this money in the committee for the Federal workforce. And the part that upsets me is that we are neither returning it to the taxpayers in the form of less deficit, nor are we using it for structural changes for the Federal workforce, whether uniform military or civilian. That is the only problem. Again, what this bill does, it does well. What this bill eventually does is, in fact, fund a pet project of the former chairman, Mr. Waxman, for tobacco programs, something that has certainly been funded very well, funded on the backs of plenty of other programs. Candidly, I don't believe that this is the best use of the money at a time we are running trillions in deficits. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I'll do a very short close, if you want to reserve your time to close.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Chairman Towns for the hard work they put into this bill. I am here today to say this is a good bill on the front end. I am sad to say this is a bad bill on the back end. What this bill does, which was worked out on a very bipartisan basis with all speaking here today, is in fact it does recognize that modern retirement plans should have as many options as possible, and certainly adding the Roth IRA option for some Federal workers is extremely good. Additionally, the advantages for the military and military commanders to be able to look at their individual needs of their services and allow for different opting in and out patterns of course makes sense, and I appreciate Chairman Towns' willingness to work on that fix during the markup. The majority in our committee and the minority in our committee found this to be a very bipartisan issue to work on, and I appreciate the fact that this is good for the troops and on paper saves money. However, I have to say, the back end of this bill, sponsored by Members of the majority not speaking yet here today, is nothing but a piggy bank for other projects, for special interest projects. The fact that this is a tobacco bill begs the question of: If we were to free up 2 or 3 or more billion dollars from a military budget in outlying years, why would this be a reason, when we have trillions of dollars of deficits, to spend money? I think the majority knows it is not. In fact, the idea that you on paper save money by members of the government opting out of pre-tax contributions in favor of the Roth IRA post-tax contribution and thus creating additional tax revenue, at a time when we have a deficit at the highest in our history, says not one penny ever saved will in fact go to deficit reduction under this majority. So, will I vote for this bill? Of course, I will. It does a lot of good things for our Federal workers. The fact, though, that the provision for family smoking prevention is not funded through the ordinary course of revenue but rather through this scheme that, depending upon how many workers choose Roth IRAs, may or may not produce the money that is about to be spent, I find wrong and I find misguided. As the chairman said, there were a number of things we did for the military. There is more that we should do. Only the U.S. military is eligible for TSP but receives no match. It is very clear that, in a modern military, one in which only about one in four serve until retirement on active duty, the TSP is all the military takes with them when they leave. That famous 20-year retirement does not vest in 5 years the way it does with the majority and the minority, all of us as Members of Congress; in fact, it takes 18\1/2\ years to lock in a military retirement and 20 years to appreciate it. Clearly, the military does not enjoy what we in Congress enjoy, which is TSP, with a match, and a 5-year vesting schedule so that we can take our retirement plan with us whenever we leave, in as few years as 5. I do once again thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle that worked hard on the front ends of this bill. I believe it has merit and should be positively received and voted for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to vote for this bill because of all the good things it does. I also urge my colleagues to continue to look at what we owe our Federal workforce, and particularly as previous speakers have said, our uniform men and women. Men and women in uniform enter the service voluntarily. Four years, 6 years, 8 years later, they often leave. As a matter of fact, with the up-or-out program, many of them are not promoted and must leave. Therefore, they leave the military service with less than 20 years. Therefore, they have nothing. They have their GI Bill, but they have no retirement. Only, only in the Federal uniform services do we treat people that way. The President served 1 day, and he was eligible for his lifetime benefit. I don't begrudge the President hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the rest of his life or any of the previous Presidents. But it is amazing to me that the President vests as soon as he is sworn in. Members of Congress fully vest after just 5 years; and yet, we are looking at our men and women in uniform being shot at, being injured, often being forced into early retirement or early leaving of the service with 10 or 20 or 30 percent disability, just enough they can't really do the job they came in to do, but not enough to get, if you will, a handsome retirement. They then enter the workforce later in life, and they enter with instead of a head start, with an impairment. This $2.2 billion was only about one-tenth of what it would have taken to provide matching TSP funds for our men and women in uniform. Certainly, it is even a fraction of what it would take to give them a defined benefit plan, even close to what we here in Congress get. But certainly, as we pass this piece of legislation today as a downpayment for reform, we need to begin looking at what it is going to take to provide our men and women in uniform equal justice with the rest of the Federal workforce. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Workforce, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. There's no words that can express how disappointed I was to see that the notable bottom of the funding once again went to Government Oversight and Reform. When Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, they dramatically reduced the size of Government Oversight. The following Congress, they did a 48 percent increase, which essentially put it back close to where it was. But not quite. After that time, increases under Republicans have been paltry--in some cases, negative. President Obama told us it was going to be different, Speaker Pelosi told us it was going to be different. They both said oversight was important. Now I come from a manufacturing background, and I understand what quality control is. Quality control is not in fact asking the worker if they did a good job. It's somebody independently checking, and when they find mistakes, failures, imperfections, design flaws, pointing them out and giving those on the line the opportunity to repair or to change in a way that gives real quality. There's only one committee in the Congress that has that task. It's not Energy and Commerce--the most-funded committee; it's not Financial Services--one of the other most-funded committees. It's not even the Rules Committee. It is in fact Government Oversight and Reform. With over 3,200 GAO individuals and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent there; with $800 billion in the stimulus package and one IG with a $450 million budget; with a $7 billion, and soon to be more, TARP, with virtually no rules and real questions about how much has already been lost, the very idea that, after President Obama includes in his inaugural address oversight, accountability, to defund that committee effectively by flatlining once again--something that, I must admit, I can see the record, and it's been done under both types of administrations, under both Congresses--clearly makes the statement that is the antithesis of what was claimed. There will be not be transparency in the Obama administration if in fact Government Oversight isn't properly funded to do its job. Now when I came with Chairman Towns before the committee, Chairman Towns made the request for the dollars. I didn't. Although I felt his request was modest and reasonable. I added while I was there the request for 30 more slots. Not more money, but more personnel. Because I was confident that America's volunteerism would include people wanting to come to our committees for just a stipend if we could give them a slot--an authorized-to-work-here position--and that we would find people within a limited budget. We'd be able to work within the small increase that Chairman Towns asked for. We didn't get those additional slots. And, notably, we are the only committee I can find that effectively asked for more and didn't get it. I'm sad to see that, because I think it is in fact an accountability of Speaker Pelosi for not keeping President Obama's promise and commitment to the American people. I appreciate the chairman of this committee doing what he can within the funds, but I realize he does not make the actual decision. He clearly couldn't be making this decision unless he made a decision that oversight was not important. And I don't believe he did. So someone, somewhere in this Congress has decided that oversight is in fact not important. That accountability of this bureaucracy--not of this President, as some would have you believe--but of the bureaucracy that we, the Congress, have created and maintained and fund at $3.8 trillion, and growing, is in fact what we're charged to do. The very idea that chairmen of other committees will in fact do their legislation and then check their legislation flies in the face of experience. It takes a second set of eyes and a second set of hands that have no prejudice toward the original creation of the law. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind people that Oversight has no fundamental jurisdiction that is by any means broad. We don't. We take care of the post offices and we oversee Federal workers. What we do is research into waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. We are highly limited by the lack of personnel and the lack of dollars to do it over a $3-plus trillion market and countless billions of dollars that have already been wasted under the last administration and continue to be wasted under this administration. I join with Chairman Towns in believing that you could have done better, you should have done better. It's not too late. Please consider doing better.

Mr. ISSA. There was one thing in the previous statement that I have to take some umbrage over. I only know about the minority of Government Reform. We returned $32,000, slightly less. Now, we returned it not because we couldn't use it, but because every committee has the reality that you can't spend the last penny. Also, because you are not allowed to go over. So the fact is we fully spent ours. I don't know if that $700,000 statement that is made includes our $32,000 or not. I don't even know if it is accurate. My understanding is that number can't even be asserted, really, yet, because in fact there is still spending going on. I would hope that the committee would make available the returns of all the other committees, because I rather doubt that Chairman Waxman failed to use his money. I can tell you that Ranking Member Tom Davis would have loved to have been able to do more investigation, more independent work than we already did. In closing, I would just mention that we have added in the last two Congresses over $4 million just for global warming, the junket committee. We clearly have enough money. I ask you to reconsider.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Majority has unilaterally elected to forgo Oversight and Government Reform Committee consideration of this legislation, which will affect the billions of dollars disbursed under the troubled asset relief program (TARP). Despite the Majority's pledge of openness and transparency, they have chosen to discharge this legislation from our Committee and deny the Members of our Committee, and the citizens they represent, a voice in this important legislation. The TARP suffers from a serious lack of transparency and accountability. As of February 6th of this year, the Treasury Department has committed $300 billion in taxpayer funds to our nation's financial institutions in the form of preferred shares and warrants, loans and insurance against losses. While the Treasury Department currently monitors aggregate monthly levels of some banking activities, it does not require any recipient of TARP funds to disclose the details of any individual transaction that the recipient would not have entered into but for the receipt of TARP money. In other words, we do not know whether $300 billion of taxpayer money has changed anyone's behavior. As a result, neither the Treasury Department, nor Congress, nor the general public truly knows the outcome achieved by the injection of taxpayer funds. Given the magnitude of the TARP program and the critical importance of focused oversight of this program, avoiding consideration of this legislation in an open, bipartisan process, goes against our shared desire to bring transparency to this massive expenditure of taxpayer funds. The House received this legislation on February 9, 2009. Since that time, the Oversight Committee has had the benefit of hearings, testimony, policy developments, and institutional action, all of which could improve this legislation. For example, at our hearing on March 11, ``Peeling Back the TARP: Exposing Treasury's Failure to Monitor the Ways Financial Institutions are Using Taxpayer Funds Provided under the Troubled Assets Relief Program'', Special Inspector General Barofsky agreed with the need for greater transparency in the TARP program, and Democrats and Republicans had suggestions that could have improved this bill. For example, if given the opportunity, I would have offered an amendment to this legislation to deliver true transparency in the TARP program, by requiring all data disclosed by TARP recipients to be disclosed in a standard, consistent, and structured format. This is essential to ensure transparency and accountability for TARP funds. Without this amendment, TARP recipients will be able to continue reporting data on how they have used taxpayer money received under TARP in any data format they choose, obscuring important information. During a hearing before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, Mr. Kucinich and I pressed the SIGTARP on his ability to sift through the survey responses he has received from TARP recipients. We pointed out to him that merely relying on ``narrative responses'' in a non-standard format from banks would not deliver the kind of transparency and accountability the American people demand. Rather, we have to insist on access to the raw data in order to achieve complete transparency. Mr. Barofsky said that he doesn't have the resources to sift through such data. I agree. However, putting the data in a standardized and machine-readable format would allow investors, regulators, and the public to use innovative technology solutions to sift through these mountains of data. In addition, I would have offered an amendment to this legislation that would increase the SIGTARP's hiring flexibility so that he would have sufficient latitude to hire the qualified experts he needs. These changes would have enabled SIGTARP to more effectively executive its responsibilities in oversight of the program. Unfortunately, due to the Majority's stifling of debate on this legislation, we will not have the chance to discuss these important ideas. One conclusion we have learned from the rush to legislate on the TARP, the stimulus bill, appropriations bills, and various bailouts, is that citizens want expedient, but well considered, solutions before we act. Unfortunately, yet again, it appears that transparency, oversight, and Member participation have taken a back seat to political expediency.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, a good bill is, in fact, not necessarily the democratic process at work. I am disappointed that the majority chose to forego oversight committee responsibilities on this TARP IG. In an exchange of letters with the chairman, whom I respect a great deal, we have failed to reconcile that. Although this piece of legislation arrived in the House on February 9, it never got a hearing or a markup in the committee of primary jurisdiction on all of the IGs. This is not a bad piece of legislation, Madam Speaker. It could be better. It would be better if the majority did not choose to, in their own words, say that there was not time to consider these other items. Madam Speaker, something cannot arrive from the Senate on February 9 and yet have to be passed on March 25 because there was no time. We have had far greater time than we had to do it wrong in the TARP. The speakers on both sides of the aisle have made the very valid point that ``ready, shoot aim'' was the mistake of the TARP. I don't believe that this will be an impossible situation. What I do believe is that the democratic process here in the House has been violated once again. Perfectly good, by their own statement, amendments were suggested by the Republican minority on the Financial Services Committee. Yet they were rejected, not based on their merit but based on that it would have taken more time. They would have had to send it back to the Senate. The Senate would have had to have a deliberative process. Madam Speaker, we are not allowed here in the House to speak ill of the Senate--of the other body--or of the President and the Vice President, but I think we certainly can speak that, if we can be told there is not time to get it right, the Senate should be asked, couldn't they, in fact, be given the time--a day or two or three--to look at amendments that we have considered and that have been rejected on time. I know that is not going to happen. I know that this bill will pass either unanimously or with substantial approval, but this is yet another example of a body who has not recognized that a crisis is not an excuse to move legislation, no matter how well-intended, prematurely or as less than what it should be. I enjoy working with the chairman of the committee. I believe he is a good man who wants to increase transparency and oversight. I believe we have missed an opportunity here today to do that little bit better that we both promised to do when we were elevated to these positions. So, Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. I will vote for this bill because it is more good than bad, but it could have been better.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to the United States Marine Corps are exceptional. Our country has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent to keep this country free and safe. United States Marine Colonel Christopher E. O'Connor is one of these individuals. On April 2, 2009, a retirement ceremony honoring Col. O'Connor will be held in Miramar, California. As a thirty year service veteran, Col. O'Connor deserves our thanks and gratitude as we honor him for his distinguished career. Following his commission through the NROTC Program at the University of Rochester and his education at the Communications and Electronics School at MCAGCC Twenty-nine Palms, Col. O'Connor has served in many capacities over the years. The Marine Air Support Squadron where he served as an Air Support Control Officer in the Direct Air Support Center (DASC), the Aviation Department's action officer in the Aviation Logistics Branch of the Department of Aviation at Marine Headquarters, and operations officer of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing Aviation Support Element Kaneohe are just three of many assignments Col. O'Connor has been entrusted with. Receiving his wings in 1985, Col. O'Connor became a CH-53 helicopter pilot and transferred to Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463. Col. O'Connor would leave HMH 463 to deploy to the Philippines but later return as Commanding Officer of the squadron from October 1997 to May 1999 in Kaneohe, Hawaii. In August 2006, Col. O'Connor assumed the position of Commanding Officer of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Not only does he supervise over 3,000 Marines, Sailors and Civilian Marines with an operating budget of over $217 million but he is also responsible for Air Station assets of over $2 billion. Col. O'Connor's tireless passion for service has contributed to the betterment of this country. His decorations include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with gold star, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and Navy Achievement Medal. I am proud to call Chris a fellow community member, American and friend. I know that many citizens and servicemen are grateful for his service and salute him as he ends his term.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say from the ``O'Issas'' to the ``Obamas,'' everyone is an Irishman here today. I'm sure there isn't anyone who isn't Irish here today. Perhaps a few with orange but most with green. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.