Frank Kratovil

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3619 because I believe it is our duty to ensure the Coast Guard has top-notch facilities and infrastructure in order to effectively play its part in keeping America safe. My amendment requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to conduct a national study on the facility infrastructure requirements needed to fulfill the Coast Guard's prescribed mission and capabilities. This amendment is needed to assess the prevalence and effects of the Coast Guard operating out of temporary facilities and buildings. In Maryland's First District, my district, as an example, the Coast Guard is operating out of a double-wide temporary trailer shared with NOAA operations in Oxford, Maryland. The Oxford Coast Guard does not own its own pier and must lease space from a commercial pier nearly 1 mile away from the temporary trailer. This temporary arrangement could be, obviously, affecting operations and mission capability. My amendment requires a report to Congress that must include an assessment of any shortfalls in facility infrastructure, including the extent of the use of temporary trailers, an inventory of the number and type of new facilities needed to meet the service's mission, and a plan for how the Commandant of the Coast Guard will develop the appropriate facility infrastructure, including timelines, budgets, and additional legislative authority the Commandant determines is required to implement the plan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a commonsense means towards ensuring those entrusted with protecting our coasts and shorelines are being given the right tools and facilities to do so effectively. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL. The gentleman will yield.

Mr. KRATOVIL. I will yield.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee for their leadership. I appreciate and also thank the other side of the aisle for their support and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1771, the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education and Ecosystem Enhancement Act, and also, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1053, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2009, which I believe is next up on the calendar. Both bills will protect the beauty and utility of the Chesapeake Bay for future generations while building the economic base of districts like Maryland's First District, my district, whose local economies are dependent on the health of the Chesapeake Bay. By reauthorizing much-needed funding, the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education and Ecosystem Enhancement Act will allow NOAA's Chesapeake Bay office to continue to play a vital role in the management and restoration of the bay. Additionally, H.R. 1771 will formally authorize NOAA's Bay Watershed Education and Training, B-WET, program that you heard Congressman Sarbanes discuss. Since first being established in 2002, this program has provided critical assistance for hands-on watershed education for thousands of students and teachers. When educators are given the necessary tools to engage their students, the curriculum can foster a lifelong understanding about the importance of the bay and create future generations of stewards committed to its health and beauty. In the short term, the bill will expand the technical assistance that NOAA can offer watermen who practice emerging aquaculture techniques. Many watermen have found success with aquaculture that has led to an increase in both the clam and oyster populations. This bill will build on these successes, keeping the seafood industry viable and protecting the overall ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay. Support of the legislation will help ensure the vitality of our natural resources throughout the bay in the long term, and I thank again my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Sarbanes, for introducing this bill. Similarly, H.R. 1053, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act, is legislation that will protect one of our national treasures and North America's largest estuary while applying financial responsibility and accountability practices to the funds that we appropriate to do so, and I want to thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership on this. As Congressman Sarbanes said, he's been a leader on a number of issues related to the bay, and I congratulate him on it. This legislation institutes performance-based measures to ensure that dollars spent on restoration activities are producing results. Every dollar we spend on the bay is money well spent, but not if we fail to track these dollars in order to determine best practices and eliminate waste and duplicity. The bill would require the adoption of two methods: crosscut budgeting by the Office of Management and Budget; and adaptive management by the Environmental Protection Agency. These initiatives will provide a comprehensive accounting of all bay restoration activities and would be available to everyone, including Congress. By sharing this information, stakeholders can make better-informed funding decisions. Adaptive management will provide a means to evaluate the success and efficiency of bay restoration programs. It will increase coordination, reduce overlap, and improve decisionmaking. Financial responsibility is a theme we should apply to every dollar we spend, and that includes protection of the bay. We aren't doing future generations any favors if we protect the health of the Chesapeake Bay but, at the same time, neglect to protect the health of our economy as a whole. And again, I want to congratulate and thank Congressman Wittman from Virginia for introducing the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of both H.R. 1771 and H.R. 1053.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 965, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act offered by my friend and colleague from Maryland, Representative John Sarbanes. This act is vital to the residents of Maryland's First Congressional District and all those who rely on a healthy Chesapeake Bay for commercial, recreational and historical purposes. The act provides grants to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife sanctuaries, historic sites, museum and water trails. A network has been developed that ties sites together that provide meaningful experiences and fosters citizen stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, not only by those who have the good fortune to live within its watershed, but all who come to visit or are able to benefit economically from it. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the District of Columbia and over 1,500 miles of established and developing water trails, many of which are located in my district, within the boundaries of Maryland's First Congressional District. From Sandy Point State Park on Maryland's western shore, traversing the Bay Bridge to the schooner Sultana in Chestertown, the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County, down the lower shore to the Smith Island Center and the Tawes Museum in Crisfield, network destinations literally dot the landscape of the First Congressional District with historical, environmental and cultural landmarks. The ultimate goal of this network is to create an atmosphere of natural, cultural, historical and recreational sites throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. Residents and visitors are able to visit these places to learn about the bay's diverse stories, experience its history and enjoy its natural beauty. Whether it is a family paddling a water trail, riding on a ferry or driving a scenic tour route, each and every visitor will hopefully develop a greater sense of appreciation for our Nation's largest estuary. For these reasons, I support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you again to Mr. Sarbanes for sponsoring the bill.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you all for being here. And it's so nice hearing my very articulate colleagues talk about this. Mr. Boccieri, thank you for bringing us together once again to talk about this. You know, you have mentioned a number of Presidential candidates in the last election that talked about the significance of cap-and-trade and talked about the significance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But I think, you know, it's important that we give some additional historical perspective to this debate. You mentioned that what we are doing now is failing us. But it's been failing us for 40 years. We have been talking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil for the last 40 years. We've been talking about the significant impact this has on us in terms of our national security. We've been talking about the need to move towards renewable energy and renewable fuel and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and yet, we haven't done anything really substantial until now. Every President since Richard Nixon has advocated the need for our energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised we could achieve it within 6 years. Gerald Ford said we can do it in 10 years. And Jimmy Carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to achieve it. And yet, once again, as years have gone by, we haven't had the political will to do what needed to be done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And getting back to some of the comments that Mr. Perriello made about the political part of it, you know, the bottom line is, at some point we do have to put politics aside and recognize that we are here for a reason. We are here to represent the best interests of the people of this country and not to represent necessarily simply our political parties. And you are right to say that these initiatives came, many of these ideas, cap-and-trade, came from the other side of the aisle. And yet, when we pushed that forward, we got very little support from the other side of the aisle. Now, we did have some courageous Republicans in the House who voted with us. I think there were probably seven or eight who voted with us, but the bottom line is that we have been talking about this for years, and it was time that we did something about it, and I'm happy to be here with those of you who were willing to do what needed to be done to move us towards a better future for this country. With that, I'll yield back.

Mr. KRATOVIL. You're absolutely right. There was a lot of talk in the bill about climate change, and that was certainly a significant part of it. But the bottom line is, what was more important to me in terms of voting for this is exactly what you said, national security and creating American jobs. And the energy bill clearly presents an incredible opportunity to spur innovation and create new jobs in this country, and that was one of the big reasons that I supported it. Also, I want to go back to something Mr. Perriello said about the fluctuation in prices. Again, the irony in this country is that oftentimes we are faced with a crisis and we deal with whatever that crisis is but we never deal with the underlying issue that causes the crisis. And you were talking about the gas prices. A year ago, when the gas prices were $4 a gallon, the entire population in America was saying, My gosh. What is going on? What are we going to do about this? It's outrageous that we're paying $4 a gallon. It's outrageous that we're sending money overseas to the people that seek to destroy us. What are we going to do about it? And then a year later, people in this Chamber have apparently--on the other side of the aisle, apparently forgotten. Well, my answer to that is we should never forget that if we were paying $4 a gallon for gas last year, we could be paying $4 a gallon tomorrow. That has not changed unless we take responsibility and do what we should have done 40 years ago and started making an effort to have energy independence and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn't get angry. We should get even and do what we need to do as Americans to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the statutory PAYGO legislation passed by the House yesterday. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are certainly correct that this legislation is not perfect. Of course, I'm finding in my first seven months here in Congress that no legislation we pass in this House is perfect. Such is the nature of legislating and the compromise that comes with it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, in my view, are incorrect in that this legislation is not a positive step in restoring us to the financial discipline that led us to the large surpluses in the 1990s. Statutory PAYGO holds the Federal Government to the simple, but important, principles that American families demand of themselves: you cannot spend money that you do not have, and when one part of your budget expands, another must tighten. The passage of statutory PAYGO proves the House of Representatives can learn a lesson from the families we represent by ensuring that both new tax and entitlement legislation alike is paid for. The large deficits we inherited as a result of the borrow-and-spend policies of the past have put pressure on funding for education, clean energy and other important investments. Our national priorities will no longer be held hostage to our lack of self-restraint when it comes to spending. We must balance short-term deficit spending in order to pursue effective economic recovery with a commitment to restoring financial discipline in the long term. This begins with yesterday's commitment to statutory PAYGO.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Let me thank the gentleman from New York for, first of all, leading us in this discussion this evening on such an important topic and, of course, my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri, for passion. I want to follow up on just a couple of things that you had mentioned, Mr. Boccieri, talking about this issue from a historical perspective. You know, so many times in this country we talk about for years and years the things we need to do, and yet when push comes to shove, we don't always have the political courage to do what needs to be done. You were speaking about discussions you had with your father. You know, every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has advocated the need for energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised it could be achieved within 6 years. Gerald Ford promised it could be done in 10 years. And Jimmy Carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to achieve it. And yet, here we are, in 2009, and for the first time really we have made steps, really aggressive proactive steps in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I want to read you something that President Nixon said at the State of the Union address in 1973. Looking at the year 1974, which lies before us, there are 10 key areas in which landmark accomplishments are possible this year in America. If we make these our national agenda, this is what we will achieve in 1974. We will break the back of the energy crisis. We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to meet America's energy needs from America's own resources. That was Nixon in 1973. Gerald Ford, in 1975, said, I am proposing a program which will begin to restore our country's surplus capacity in total energy. In this way we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming nations. We must develop our energy technology and resources so that the United States has the ability to supply a significant share of the energy needs of the Free World by the end of this century. President Ford, in 1975. So, looking at it from a historical perspective, we have talked about this for years and years because Presidents in the past have recognized, and Congresses in the past have recognized, that it is essential for our own national security that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In 1970, our oil imports have grown from nearly 24 percent in 1970, to nearly 70 percent of our total consumption now. Last year alone, the United States spent $475 billion on foreign oil. Needless to say, as Mr. Boccieri mentioned, and as you mentioned, much of this funding benefits nations that support terrorism or, at the very least, anti-American political extremism. How long should we continue to provide dollars to nations that seek to destroy us? And so, although this bill focused also on the issue of climate change, for me, and I'm sure for many other Members, this issue had more to do with, from my standpoint, an issue of national security, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and doing what we should have been doing back in the 1970s and moving our country forward. Now, let me say something about our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Objections have been raised with a number of bills that have come before this Congress, and arguments that we are moving too quickly. Some of those arguments I've agreed with. But the key in moving this Nation forward is not simply to have people that stand in the way of making progress. Regardless of arguments that they make, if we were to give as much time as our opponents on the other side of the aisle would allow, many of them would still object to moving this country forward. So we need to find a reasonable balance between some of the objections that are made in terms of process and yet, at the same time, make sure that we are not simply standing in the way of progress simply as a result of being in opposition for whatever we do to move this country forward. And with that, I'll yield back to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Tonko, thank you for your comments. I want to follow up on something you said. You were talking about misstatements that were made in terms of the costs. I want to go back to that in a minute. You know, one of the misconceptions that you hear when you're back in your districts and elsewhere across the country and that was played up nationally is that, you know, the status quo is acceptable, that Congress doesn't need to take any action, that we're good where we are, and that, at this time, we don't need to do anything. Of course, that is not accurate. As you folks know, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, meaning that the EPA today, without congressional action, could take action on their own to reduce greenhouse gases without any of the protections that were provided under the bill that we passed here in the House. So the argument that Congress could sit back and do nothing is clearly inaccurate simply based on the Supreme Court case in 2007 that demonstrated otherwise. So that ship, in a sense, has sailed. Congress had an obligation to do it, not simply because of the Supreme Court case, but as we're talking about here, obviously we needed to do it in terms of national security and in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, Mr. McMahon, as you pointed out so clearly and also you, Mr. Tonko, in terms of moving us forward in these new green energy jobs that we need. In terms of the cost issue that you raised, that is the best example of how in a national debate statements are made that are so clearly factually inaccurate. As you folks know, I spent 14 years as a prosecutor, and my life and profession were governed by facts. When you see a misstatement like that in terms of facts, it's somewhat overwhelming, particularly, as you said, in the study that was cited by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The author of that study that was cited came out publicly and said that he was being cited inaccurately and that that was not what he said. The interesting thing is, in looking at it in terms of energy efficiency, not only, arguably, will it not cost our constituents more, but arguably, it will cost them less because of the energy-efficiency savings that will result from that bill. In Maryland, as an example, the study that you cited, Mr. McMahon, indicates that Marylanders could arguably save $8 per month as opposed to the arguments that they're going to pay $3,900 more. So the facts that have been given are oftentimes inaccurate. As you go around and as you're having this discussion with people on whether we should have the policies that were included in that bill, it's interesting from a Maryland perspective, because I heard quite frequently people saying, You know, Mr. Kratovil, we don't want cap- and-trade. Well, in Maryland, we've had cap-and-trade since 2007. Maryland has participated in a regional greenhouse gas initiative since 2007, so we already had that. Again, the interesting thing is, in terms of the Federal standards that were set in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, in Maryland, it's 25 percent. So, in many ways, in Maryland, the argument wasn't so much whether or not we should have these policies; the question was whether or not we should have these policies nationally so that we're all playing by the same rules. So many of the facts that have been given are inaccurate. As I said, it is incredible when you think about the fact that, for the last 40 years, there has been a recognition among Presidents that, in terms of national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ronald Reagan: The best answer, while conservation is worthy in itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy. 1981, Ronald Reagan. President George H.W. Bush, October 25, 1991: When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy--reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment and promoting economic growth. Arguably, this bill does all three. Yet, despite that recognition dating back to Nixon, despite the fact, as Mr. Boccieri has correctly pointed out, that every major Republican Presidential candidate acknowledged the need for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and despite the fact, as was mentioned, that Senator McCain specifically promoted cap-and-trade, when we take the vote in the House, we only have a few brave Republicans who are willing to cross party lines. Now, why is that? In my view, despite arguments that are made in terms of process, despite arguments that are made somewhat substantively related to the bills, the bottom line is, ultimately, the votes that are being taken on major issues facing this country are still predominantly based on politics and are not based on what is in the best interest of this country. As we talked about after this vote, were we to have the vote tomorrow, I would make it again. It was a vote that was very important to this country. It is a vote that will move this country forward, and we need to do what we're doing tonight to convince the people of this country that we were right, as I think we were. With that, I will yield back.

Mr. KRATOVIL. I think Mr. Boccieri is younger than I. You certainly look younger.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Since this will likely be my last round here as we go through this, let me thank the three of you for the courage to take the vote that you took on this bill. And as I mentioned in the last few discussions that I have had, I do think that it's important in moving our country forward that we do have people in this House that are willing to make difficult choices and to take difficult votes that ultimately are the best for this country even at times when it's politically difficult to do so. So I thank you for the courage to do that. You know, people forget that just last year when we were running for office we had $4-a-gallon gas, and people were looking at Congress and saying, What are you doing about $4 in gas? And I mentioned when that was going on that what we do oftentimes in this country is we deal with the crisis but we don't always deal with the underlying issue that led to the crisis. And so now as the gas prices have dropped, many have forgotten what we were facing just a year ago. Many have moved on. And yet my view is we should not forget the position we were in 1 year ago because we could, at any time in the future, be again paying $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon for gas as long as we are held hostage by those that control our energy. And until we make a decision, as we did in this vote, to move forward towards renewable energy, renewable fuel and ending our dependence on foreign oil, we could, at any moment, face the same situation we faced last year. And none of us as Americans should forget the anger that we had last summer when we were doing that. Many have forgotten. We should not forget that. We should deal with the underlying issue that led to the energy crisis that we faced last year, and that is reducing our dependence on foreign oil, moving towards renewable energy, and making positive steps in terms of our own national security.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, the First Congressional District of Maryland is defined by a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay and the surrounding watershed. During the winter the wetlands and surrounding habitat of the bay are home to a significant population of migratory waterfowl, including American black ducks, mallards, canvasbacks and Canada geese. However, too many of these birds and their habitats are at risk. Protecting these birds is vital because they play an integral role in the ecosystems across the country and serve as invaluable harbingers of environmental change. Protecting their habitats is also imperative to our constituents, who consider themselves passionate outdoorsmen and -women. Part of our culture and heritage on Maryland's Eastern Shore and elsewhere in the country includes activities such as bird-watching, hunting, hiking, kayaking and fishing. In fact, according to a 2006 survey conducted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1.6 million individuals participate in hunting and wildlife-watching activities across the State of Maryland, leading to a total of nearly $844 million in economic activity within the region. Waterfowl hunting alone was responsible for 726 jobs and nearly $10 million in State and Federal tax revenue in Maryland. Needless to say, birds in Maryland have a significant recreational, economic and ecological impact. However, for us to have an environment and wildlife that future generations can enjoy, it is essential that we support effective habitat conservation. Joint ventures are effective, voluntary, public- private partnerships designed to protect, restore, enhance and manage migratory bird populations, their habitats and ecosystems. I was pleased to introduce H.R. 2188, as has already been mentioned by my colleague, along with colleagues Henry Brown of South Carolina, Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia. The legislation establishes a voluntary joint venture program, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service in coordination with other Federal agencies and the States to develop, implement and support cooperative and effective conservation strategies that promote sustainable bird populations, encourage stakeholder and government partnerships, implement science-driven, landscape-level bird conservation strategies and coordinate related conservation activities. Joint ventures have already leveraged funds and science-based data to protect, restore or enhance over 13 million acres of habitat across this country. Joint ventures falling under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan have invested $4.5 billion to conserve 15.7 million acres of waterfowl habitat. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, of which Maryland is a member, focuses on bird habitat in the Atlantic Flyway. The efforts of this joint venture have positively impacted over 280,000 acres across Maryland. Joint ventures successfully coordinate the activities of various stakeholders to protect migratory birds and conserve their habitats. Joint ventures, in sum, are an exemplary model that enjoy strong bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation on behalf of all of their constituents who seek to preserve and enjoy both these migratory birds and their habitats.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment to H.R. 2647. Two specific amendments that I offered are included in this package. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these efforts. The first modifies the congressionally mandated Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. The amendment requires a comprehensive assessment that improves our understanding of the role being played by our coalition partners in Afghanistan. My amendment requires that the report include any specifics on existing agreements with NATO countries as well as non-NATO troop contributing nations regarding the following: mutually agreed upon goals, strategies to achieve those goals, resource and force requirements, and commitments of support regarding troop and resource levels. It also requires a listing of the unfulfilled commitments of coalition partners, as well as the location and staffing requirements of each provincial reconstruction team led by a nation other than the United States. The second amendment I offered allows defense facilities to receive financial incentives for implementing energy management policies. Current law permits installations to receive financial incentives for implementing energy management measures only from an electric utility, not from a third-party energy management provider. Andrews Air Force Base, as an example, was poised to accept $300,000 in financial incentives for reducing their usage, but was advised that they had no authority to accept the incentive from an entity other than a utility. My amendment would give defense facilities the authority to accept these financial incentives from third-party energy management providers.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 259) expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of Representatives for the acts of heroism and military achievement by the members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the June 6, 1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending them for leadership and valor in an operation that helped bring an end to World War II, as amended.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 259 recognizing June 6 as the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the massive amphibious landing on the beaches of Normandy, France, beginning the initial assault of Operation Overlord, and the eventual victory for Allied Forces of World War II. I rise not only to recognize a day whose historical significance cannot be overstated, but to express gratitude and appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces who served in defense of freedom that day, and throughout the campaign. Before Operation Overlord, the German Army occupied France, giving the Nazi government unrestricted access to the raw materials and industrial capacity of Western Europe. Hailed as a crusade in Europe by Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower, this successful undertaking forced Germany into a two-front war, subsequently beginning the liberation of France and contributing to the downfall of the Nazi regime. Approximately 31,000 members of the United States Armed Forces joined the Allied troops on D-day, the largest single amphibious assault in world history. Allied and American soldiers stormed onto five landing fields, secured only 24 hours prior, through airborne operations designed to slow the enemy's ability to launch counterattacks while sufficient forces gathered along the beachhead. American troops suffered an estimated 5,400 of the 9,400 Allied casualties that day, and their immeasurable sacrifice will never be forgotten. I would like to make special note of the 29th Infantry Division, which drew part of its ranks from Maryland's Eastern Shore. On D-day, the 29th division was the only National Guard division to land on the beaches of Normandy. Throughout the campaign, they spent 242 days in combat throughout Normandy, northern France, the Rhineland, and Central Europe, earning four Distinguished Unit Citations in the process. House Resolution 259 is our small way of commending the United States Armed Forces for their leadership and valor in a mission that defined the beginning of the end of World War II. Today, I ask the Members of this House to join me in supporting this resolution, thereby expressing our appreciation and gratitude for the members of the United States Armed Forces involved with D-day operations. We must always remember to honor the sacrifices made by our fellow countrymen so that others around the world may continue to know the gift of freedom. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back her time. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 471) expressing sympathy to the victims, families, and friends of the tragic act of violence at the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 2009, as amended.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. KRATOVIL. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a tragedy our Nation experienced on Monday, May 11, 2009, at the combat stress clinic in Camp Liberty, Iraq, when a soldier reportedly killed five innocent American servicemen and wounded three others. The shooting resulted in the tragic loss of Navy Commander Charles K. Springle, Army Major Matthew P. Houseal, Army Sergeant Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, Army Specialist Jacob D. Barton, and a native of my district and Maryland's Eastern Shore, Specialist Michael E. Yates. This resolution expresses heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of this tragic act, and it conveys Congress' ongoing deep gratitude for all of the brave members of our Armed Forces who have risked their lives in the service of our Nation. This resolution also recognizes the important work of medical professionals and staff who provide essential mental health services to servicemen and women at Camp Liberty and at other clinics both in theater and at home. Now is the time to give increased attention to the mental health challenges faced by the courageous members of our Armed Forces, especially given our Nation's protracted military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our servicemen and -women and their families make extreme sacrifices each day in order to keep our Nation safe. Honoring our commitment to those who serve our Nation means not only offering first-class medical care for physical injuries but also in providing first-class mental health services. Congress must commit to focusing on both the mental and physical well-being of the Nation's active military as well as of its veterans, and it must commit to supporting the policies, resources, and funding necessary to successfully combat the mental and physical health care challenges that they may confront. As a result of this tragic accident, Maryland's Eastern Shore lost a native son in Specialist Michael Yates of Federalsburg. Growing up on the Eastern Shore, Michael was an avid hunter and fisherman. Like many of my constituents, he held a deep love for his country and a desire to serve in the defense of freedom. At the young age of 17, Michael joined the Army. He was then sent to Fort Knox, Germany and then to Iraq where he served as a cavalry scout. Michael had recently returned to Federalsburg where he was able to visit with family and friends one last time before returning to Iraq and ultimately to the counseling center at Camp Liberty. It was here that a fellow soldier, whom Michael had described to his stepfather as a ``fairly decent guy who had some major issues,'' reportedly shot and killed Michael. We must make soldiers' and veterans' mental health a priority and heed Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation to support funding for traumatic brain injury and psychological health exams for our servicemen and -women. We owe this to Specialist Yates, to Commander Springle, to Major Houseal, to Sergeant Bueno-Galdos, and to Specialist Barton, as well as to the friends and families of those involved in this tragic event. We owe this to each and every brave soldier and their families who make sacrifices daily and face the intense stress that comes with the defense of our Nation. House Resolution 471 was introduced along with fellow colleagues who lost constituents in this incident honoring their service and recognizing mental health issues among servicemen and veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution in honor of the those who lost their lives and all who serve in our Armed Forces. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KRATOVIL. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), as much time as he may consume.