John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Agrofuel Rural Energy Empowerment Act, which is designed to help American farmers better meet the economic and environmental challenges inherent in the handling and disposal of manure. The bill is also intended to spur investments in another source of much-needed renewable energy. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), American concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) generate over 335 million tons of dry matter annually. While animal manure provides important nutrients for crop production and organic matter that enhances soil properties, its improper management can pose a threat to soil, water, and air quality. Moreover, manure can negatively impact human and animal health and associated odors can decrease quality of life. Anaerobic digestion technologies can help improve the manner in which American farms manage manure, reducing water pollution, odors, and the emissions of greenhouse gases while producing energy. As our nation is seeking ways to reduce its dependence on carbon-based fuels and particularly foreign oil, we should encourage the development of anaerobic digestion technologies. The Agrofuel Rural Energy Empowerment Act would further the development of these important technologies. First, the bill would make anaerobic digestion business ventures eligible for guaranteed loans. Secondly, it would make anaerobic digestion projects eligible for monies available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The bill would be particularly beneficial to the handling of manure on the 72,500 dairy farms in the United States, nearly 2,000 of which are in my Central and Northern New York Congressional District. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join with me to enact the Agrofuel Rural Energy Empowerment Act.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by complimenting the chairman and the ranking member. I have sat on this floor for the last several hours and listened to the very impassioned debate. I think if nothing else it should underscore the fact that the committee and the subcommittee have faced some very difficult decisions. Unless you have had the opportunity, the honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee or perhaps being involved as a general Member of the House, it's difficult to understand how hard the choices are that they are forced to make year in and year out. I commend them for that. I have come today not to criticize any of the choices they have made but, rather, to offer what I believe, Mr. Chairman, is a very straightforward and relatively simple amendment. It is simply designed to maintain, not increase, not add to but maintain what is a 10-year record of level funding, a 10-year record of level funding to restore $1 million for the CASTNET program, which stands for the Clean Air Status and Trends Network, which would restore that money to allow this program to do some very important work. What is that work? It would allow the 80 monitoring stations that are maintained under CASTNET to continue operating at the level that they have, as I have said, with level funding over the past 10 years. These are monitoring stations for a very important issue associated with acid rain that operate in some 40 States, from California to Massachusetts, from Maine to Florida and many, many points in between. I think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that for all of the debate that occurs about global warming, for all the debate that occurs about what should be done, one of the critical issues we should engage upon is that of monitoring to make sure that our baseline data, our research is sufficient to make the wise decisions.

Mr. McHUGH. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Chair.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for restoring the cut that was proposed by the administration. I commend him and the gentleman from Kansas for their work.

Mr. McHUGH. I would be honored to yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from New York, Mr. Reynolds, to introduce the National Dairy Equity Act of 2007, NDEA, which is designed to establish a minimum price for fluid milk and create a market-based safety net for dairy farmers. I greatly appreciate the men and women who work the extremely hard and long hours needed to produce milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, non- fat dry milk, and yogurt. Thus, I would like to begin by noting that June is Dairy Month. It is hard to overstate how important dairy is to the United States economy, nor for that matter, how important dairy is to the economies of New York and its 23rd Congressional District, which I represent. In fact, in 2006, New York was the Nation's third largest dairy State; it accounted for about 7 percent (638,000 head) of the nation's milk cows, 6.7 percent (12.04 billion pounds) of total milk production, and 6.9 percent ($1.6 billion) of total cash receipts from milk marketing. The importance of dairy to New York's 23rd District is readily apparent when one considers that the 2002 Census of Agriculture reported there were 1,989 dairy farms with 188,305 milk cows in the 11 counties that comprise the district. I also appreciate the fact that the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, has provided about $230 million in much-needed support to New York dairy farmers over the past 5 fiscal years and I know my constituent farmers do as well. Moreover, it is critical that the 2007 Farm Bill continue to provide dairy farmers with some form of income support. While I appreciate the support provided through MILC, the NDEA is an alternative that could help to provide additional support to American farmers with greater stability and at less cost to the taxpayer. The NDEA would establish 5 Regional Dairy Marketing Areas, RDMA; the Intermountain, Midwest, Northeast, Pacific, and Southern. The Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions would automatically be included as participating regions while the Intermountain and Pacific regions would have the ability to opt into the program. In each region, a Regional Dairy Board would establish the minimum or over-order price for Class I (fluid) milk; that price would then have to be approved by farmers through a referendum. In the first year, the maximum price that a board could establish is capped at $17.50 per hundredweight (cwt.), but thereafter the price could rise based on the Consumer Price Index, CPI. Under the NDEA, when the Class I milk price in the Boston market falls below the established minimum price, processors would pay an over-order premium--the difference between the minimum price set by the applicable Regional Dairy Board and the Boston Class I price--into a national fund. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture would then distribute the monies in the fund back to the Boards according to a formula whereby each region would get back the greater of what they pay into the fund or the amount of the over-order payments a region would have generated if it had a Class I utilization rate of 50 percent. In the event of a shortfall, the Secretary would supplement the money in the fund from savings from the MILC program to ensure that the Regional Dairy Boards, and subsequently the dairy farmers themselves, would receive the full payments. The Regional Dairy Boards would be comprised of three members from each participating state in a particular region. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture would make the nominations to the Boards after receiving nominees put forward by governors or elected state agricultural commissioner after consultation with the dairy industry. Each State delegation to the Regional Dairy Boards would consist of 3 representatives, with at least 1 producer and 1 consumer. In addition to the responsibility to establish minimum prices and distribute payments to dairy farmers, the Regional Dairy Boards would have the authority to conduct supply management programs when necessary, including the development of incentive-based programs. Moreover, in order to prevent overproduction, regions in which the growth in milk production is higher than the national average would be required to reimburse the U.S. Secretary of Treasury for the cost of government dairy surplus purchases up to the amount that the region is receiving under the NDEA. It is important to note that the NDEA would not establish national pooling. Rather, it would create an equalization fund whereby processor paid funds would go to a central account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Government funds would be added to that fund and then payments would be made to the various regions according to a formula, which would permit regions with low Class I utilization to receive the same benefit as those regions with higher utilization. Also of significance, the NDEA would be entirely optional for the States and individual farmers. Thus, those states that do not wish to participate in the NDEA program could simply choose to continue to participate in the MILC program, which the NDEA would extend to 2012, and individual farmers in States participating in the new NDEA program could instead opt to merely continue receiving payments under their current MILC contract rather than under the NDEA. However, those individuals would not be eligible to extend their MILC contract beyond September 2008 and would lose all future eligibility to participate in the NDEA program. Madam Speaker, the NDEA would create a market-orientated, counter- cyclical program to help all of our Nation's dairy farmers while simultaneously saving taxpayers money. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join with me to enact this important legislation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, under the NDEA, when the Class I milk price in the Boston market falls below the established minimum price, processors would pay an over-order premium--the difference between the minimum price set by the applicable Regional Dairy Board and the Boston Class I price--into a national fund. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture would then distribute the monies in the fund back to the Boards according to a formula whereby each region would get back the greater of what they pay into the fund or the amount of the over-order payments a region would have generated if it had a Class I utilization rate of 50 percent. In the event of a shortfall, the Secretary would supplement the money in the fund from savings from the MILC program to ensure that the Regional Dairy Boards, and subsequently the dairy farmers themselves, would receive the full payments. The Regional Dairy Boards would be comprised of three members from each participating state in a particular region. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture would make the nominations to the Boards after receiving nominees put forward by governors or elected state agricultural commissioner after consultation with the dairy industry. Each state delegation to the Regional Dairy Boards would consist of three representatives, with at least one producer and one consumer. In addition to the responsibility to establish minimum prices and distribute payments to dairy farmers, the Regional Dairy Boards would have the authority to conduct supply management programs when necessary, including the development of incentive-based programs. Moreover, in order to prevent overproduction, regions in which the growth in milk production is higher than the national average would be required to reimburse the U.S. Secretary of Treasury for the cost of government dairy surplus purchases up to the amount that the region is receiving under the NDEA. It is important to note that the NDEA would not establish national pooling. Rather, it would create an equalization fund whereby processor paid funds would go to a central account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; government funds would be added to that fund and then payments would be made to the various regions according to a formula, which would permit regions with low Class I utilization to receive the same benefit as those regions with higher utilization. Also of significance, the NDEA would be entirely optional for the states and individual farmers. Thus, those states that do not wish to participate in the NDEA program could simply choose to continue to participate in the MILC program, which the NDEA would extend to 2012, and individual farmers in states participating in the new NDEA program could instead opt to merely continue receiving payments under their current MILC contract rather than under the NDEA. However, those individuals would not be eligible to extend their MILC contract beyond September 2008 and would lose all future eligibility to participate in the NDEA program. Madam Speaker, the NDEA would create a market-orientated, counter- cyclical program to help all of our Nation's dairy farmers while simultaneously saving taxpayers money. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join with me to enact this important legislation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from New York, Mr. Reynolds, to introduce the National Dairy Equity Act of 2007 (NDEA), which is designed to establish a minimum price for fluid milk and create a market-based safety net for dairy farmers. I greatly appreciate the men and women who work the extremely hard and long hours needed to produce milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, non- fat dry milk, and yogurt. Thus, I would like to begin by noting that June is Dairy Month. It is hard to overstate how important dairy is to the United States economy, nor for that matter, how important dairy is to the economies of New York and its 23rd Congressional District, which I represent. In fact, in 2006, New York was the Nation's third largest dairy state; it accounted for about 7 percent (638,000 head) of the Nation's milk cows, 6.7 percent (12.04 billion pounds) of total milk production, and 6.9 percent ($1.6 billion) of total cash receipts from milk marketing. The importance of dairy to New York's 23rd District is readily apparent when one considers that the 2002 Census of Agriculture reported there were 1,989 dairy farms with 188,305 milk cows in the 11 counties that comprise the District. I also appreciate the fact that the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) has provided about $230 million in much-needed support to New York dairy farmers over the past 5 fiscal years and I know my constituent farmers do as well. Moreover, it is critical that the 2007 Farm Bill continue to provide dairy farmers with some form of income support. While I appreciate the support provided through MILC, the NDEA is an alternative that could help to provide additional support to American farmers with greater stability and at less cost to the taxpayer. The NDEA would establish 5 Regional Dairy Marketing Areas (RDMA); the Intermountain, Midwest, Northeast, Pacific, and Southern. The Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions would automatically be included as participating regions while the Intermountain and Pacific regions would have the ability to opt into the program. In each region, a Regional Dairy Board would establish the minimum or over-order price for Class I (fluid) milk; that price would then have to be approved by farmers through a referendum. In the first year, the maximum price that a Board could establish is capped at $17.50 per hundredweight (cwt.), but thereafter the price could rise based on the Consumer Price Index (CPl).

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Producers Value-Added Investment Tax Credit Act of 2007, which is designed to give agricultural producers an incentive to invest in value-added enterprises. Through such investment, agricultural producers would not only realize a greater share of the profits generated by their products, but would also further economic development efforts, particularly in rural areas like my Central and Northern New York Congressional District. Specifically, the Agricultural Producers Value-Added Investment Tax Credit Act would provide a 50-percent tax credit, up to $30,000 annually, for producers who invest in value-added enterprises. To allow for the cyclical nature of farm incomes, this legislation would allow the tax credit to be applied over a 20-year period. In the case of a farmer-owned entity, the credit would be allocated on a pro rata basis among eligible persons holding qualified interests in the entity. Sadly, American farmers often get the smallest portion of the profit generated by the raw product they produce. As the agricultural product is transported, processed, and marketed before it arrives on the grocery shelf, several middlemen cash in on the product. By offering this tax credit, we can provide farmers and farmer-owned entities with an added incentive to produce value-added products and move toward greater financial independence. They will be able to earn more by reaching up the agricultural marketing chain to capture more of the profits their product generates. In addition, producer investment in value-added enterprises will help American farmers adapt to the challenges of marketing their products in an increasingly global economy. Finally, the Agricultural Producers Value-Added Investment Tax Credit Act would further economic development efforts in and help stem migration from rural areas. This aspect of the legislation is very important to all of my constituents as seven of the 11 counties I represent have poverty rates greater than the national rate of 12.7 percent. In addition, five of my constituent counties have experienced a decrease in their populations since 2000. Thus, it is my hope that my colleagues will join with me to enact this important legislation. It not only would help American farmers, but it would provide yet another tool in our effort to further economic opportunities and increase the quality of life in our nation's rural areas.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the State University of New York at Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh State) Lady Cardinals upon winning the 2007 NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey National Championship, their first national championship and the third won by Plattsburgh State in a team sport. On March 17, 2007, Plattsburgh State, which is located in my Congressional District, won the Division III National Championship when it defeated the Middlebury College Lady Panthers by a score of 2 to 1 at the Ronald B. Stafford Ice Arena in Plattsburgh, New York. In that game, Lindsay Brown and Shay Bywater scored goals for Plattsburgh State, Assistant Captain Danielle Blanchard and Lindsay Littman both added two assists, and goaltender Bree Doyle made 28 saves. Blanchard, Bywater, and Doyle and were all named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team and Blanchard, Assistant Captain Julie Devereux, and Doyle earned All-American accolades. Of note, Doyle, a two-time All American from Ogdensburg, New York, ended her collegiate career with the Lady Cardinals with a 50-4-3 record in 58 games and as the program's all-time leader in winning percentage (.904), goals against average (1.26), and save percentage (.936). She also is the Lady Cardinals' single season-leader in victories (23), games played (27), minutes played (1604.16), saves (520), and save percentage (.937), all of which she set during her junior year. The Lady Cardinals team also included coaches Kevin Houle and Erin O'Brien as well as the following players: Danielle Beattie, Laurie Bowler, Ainsley Brien, Elise Campbell, Amber Ellis, Tiarra Garrow, Sandra Grant, Gina Kozar, Assistant Captain Keltie Jones, Tara Kahn, Kayla McDougall, Sam Menton, Lesley Ann Mitchell, Stephanie Moberg, Captain Jessica Moreau, Claire O'Connor, Sarah Samson, Sharis Smith, and Valen Timmons. The Lady Cardinals completed the 2007 season as the first NCAA all- Divisions undefeated women's team with a record of 27-0-2 and just the fourth undefeated NCAA hockey team in history. They were ranked No. 1 in the U.S. College Hockey Online poll for the last 13 weeks, unanimous on 12 occasions, and set or tied NCAA Division III records for winning percentage (.966), home wins (18), and overall victories. Moreover, their coach, Kevin Houle, who has a 96-16-6 (.839) record in his four seasons at the helm, won the 2007 NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey Coach of the Year. Houle was also named the NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey Coach of the Year in 2006. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to have the opportunity to congratulate the Plattsburgh State Lady Cardinals ice hockey team for their accomplishments. Accordingly, I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the entire Lady Cardinals hockey team for their remarkable season.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act, which is a comprehensive measure designed to address a host of issues identified as problematic for residents and businesses in my central and northern New York district and the rest of rural America. The need for this legislation, which I have introduced in each of the past three Congresses, has been reillustrated by a recent development in my district. Specifically, on May 14, 2007, the General Motors, GM, Corporation announced that it would phase out some 500 jobs at its Powertrain plant in Massena, NY. While such an unfortunate event would have a negative impact on any community, it is especially devastating for my constituents in St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties, as GM's $31 million annual payroll served as a cornerstone to the local economy and will be difficult to replace. The GM situation in Massena particularly illustrates the need for two provisions of this legislation. First, when GM made its decision regarding the Massena Powertrain plant, the company failed to notify me or any elected officials in advance. However, under the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act, companies that employ 100 or more workers would have to provide the impacted elected officials with 60 days' advance notice of a decision to reduce its workforce or close. This notice would serve two purposes: (1) to alert these officials to the situation and the impact it will have on workers and the community; and (2) to provide these officials with the opportunity to assist in determining if State and/or Federal resources are available and can be utilized to prevent closure or layoffs and the resulting loss of employment opportunities. Secondly, the GM situation in Massena also highlights the need for a provision in the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act that would exclude from gross income up to $25,000 of any qualified severance pay. Needless to say, it is often very difficult for employees who suffer layoffs or the shutdown of their place of employment, particularly in rural areas, to find new employment that provides a comparable income. While severance pay certainly provides affected individuals with a small sense of security and is without a doubt a helping hand in a time of great need, unfortunately, the recipients often lose a third of their severance pay to taxes because they are pushed into a higher bracket. Madam Speaker, this bill is also designed to help my district and the rest of rural America develop jobs, in the wake of plant closings and otherwise. For example, the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act would establish regional skills alliances to help identify needed skills and create and implement effective training solutions. In addition, the bill would also encourage cooperation between educational institutions and entrepreneurs who have innovative ideas but cannot afford the legal and consultant fees necessary to take their ideas from the drawing board to the production line or otherwise make them a reality. To increase international cooperation in the development of economic and job opportunities, the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act would also streamline the immigration visa procedures for H1-B professional specialty workers by requiring the submission of the H1-B labor condition application to the U.S. Department of Labor at the same time as the classification petition is submitted to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. By reducing unnecessary delays in the processing of these visas, this provision would help facilitate the employment- related travel necessary for border areas like my northern New York congressional district to further its symbiotic relationship with Canada and thereby create good jobs. Finally, the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act would expand the work opportunity tax credit to include both small businesses and individuals found in communities experiencing population loss and low job growth rates such as those in central and northern New York. Approximately 100 such communities would be so designated, subsidizing some 8,000 jobs in each area. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join with me to enact this important legislation. It not only would help my Massena constituents as they face the fallout of GM's decision, it also would enhance the economic opportunities available and quality of life throughout our great Nation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise simply to say, as we have heard from previous speakers, and perhaps to state the obvious, this piece of legislation, H.R. 1585, is a strong bill. More importantly, in my judgment it is a bill that was put together in a collaborative and bipartisan manner. I want to pay my respects, my words of appreciation to the full committee Chair, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who came through this, his first trial by fire, I think, with great efficiency; as well as, of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the former chairman, now ranking member. But most importantly, I want to thank the new chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, a gentleman who I had the honor and opportunity to serve with as the ranking member when I had the opportunity to serve as Chair, Dr. Vic Snyder, who worked together again in a bipartisan manner, and in that way has produced a product which I think overall we can all support with not just a great deal of enthusiasm but a great deal of pride. All of us feel very strongly on the Personnel Subcommittee that when the Members come to the floor, it is good that they talk about the broad range of effects and benefits in this bill. But it makes us feel proud, Madam Chair, when we note that those things that the Members take most pride in and cite most often are a product of the work of the Personnel Subcommittee. The reason for that is very, very simple. The success of the United States military is today, as it has always been, not in high weapons systems, as important as they are, not in sophisticated platforms, not in all of those things that give our fighting men and women an edge, but the true edge is in the fighting men and women themselves. And this bill contains many benefits, many added advantages that they so richly deserve. It provides an increase in end strength, something we have taken up and we need to continue, is embodied in this bill. A basic pay raise that will continue the 8-year effort we have had to increase the pay of our men and women in uniform, drawing down that pay gap between the civilian and military forces, drawing it down currently under the ramp to 2012 when it will be as little as 1.5 percent, resisting so-called efficiency wedges and savings in the TRICARE and other military health care programs, saving money for those hardworking men and women protecting our interests wherever they may be, here at home, and their families. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Program that I had the honor of working with, along with Dr. Snyder, and along with the chairman and the ranking member to address those challenges that we saw so very dishearteningly at places like Walter Reed and others. All of this combined is a good bill that works on a bipartisan basis. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Hammond Central School District's Lady Red Devils of Hammond, New York, upon winning the 2007 New York State Girls Basketball Class D Championship. This was not only Hammond's first State basketball championship, it was also the first State basketball championship won by a Section X team. On March 18, 2007, the Hammond Lady Red Devils, who are from my upstate New York Congressional District, won the New York State Class D Championship when they defeated the S.S. Seward Lady Spartans by a score of 52 to 51. In that game, the Lady Red Devils worked hard to overcome the Lady Spartans' leads, which were as much as 17 points at one time and 12 points at the end of the first half. In fact, S.S. Seward led by two points with 47 seconds to play before the Lady Red Devils' Brittany Kenyon, the New York State Class D MVP, made a three point shot with 15.9 seconds left in the game to give Hammond the lead and, ultimately, the victory. The Lady Red Devils completed the 2007 season undefeated, with a record of 12 and 0. They were coached by Shawn Dack and assistant coaches Larry Hollister, Doug McQueer, and Chet Truskowski. Other team members were scorekeeper Cathy Tulley and players Whitney Atkins, Cassie Cunningham, Nicole Davidson, Aubrie Dunn, Brooke Hollister, Katlyn Hunt, Malynda Jenne, Jessica Martin, Sara Measheaw, Emily Moquin, and Sarah Sheridan. Madam Speaker, it is a great honor to represent these young ladies and to have the opportunity to recognize them for their very significant accomplishment.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding to me. Madam Chair, I would say that I want to begin by expressing my deep appreciation and great respect to the bipartisan leadership of the committee. To the distinguished ranking member who has provided such a steady hand and, certainly during his time as chair, for great guidance and leadership. And a particular tip of the hat, Madam Chair, to the current chairman. Chairman Reyes I consider to be a personal friend, and he is a man of a good heart and great leadership. I would suggest respectfully through that good heart and great leadership, this bill certainly has some positive aspects. It increases needed counterintelligence assets to protect our Nation's military secrets. As well, it initiates the movement of supplemental funding to the base budget for the better use and planning of those funds. And it establishes the requirement to develop an integrated space-based collection architect. In addition, it places limitation on the termination of the U-2 program. It also gives added emphasis on language training and additional accountability on intelligence contracting. As I said, Madam Chair, these are all very positive steps in improving our intelligence capabilities, and I commend the chairman and Members on both sides of the aisle for working together to make that happen. I have to say, regretfully, however, there is much that distresses me in this bill. Let me just cite a few examples. I am very, very concerned that the legislation before us begins to retrace the failed policies of the 1990s that were based on underfunding and overtasking of our limited intelligence resources. It inadvertently, or not, establishes politically correct restrictions on intelligence operations. Additionally, at least in my judgment, the bill does not adequately support key Intelligence Community activities that directly protect our national security. It calls for cuts to human intelligence programs which is counter to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It fails to support the Intelligence Community and our national defense by rejecting an amendment that our side offered to include important legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, even though this identical language, Madam Chair, was passed unanimously by a bipartisan vote previously last year in the House. There is no question that our Nation is locked in a struggle with radical jihadists and facing continued uncertainty and threats around the globe. As well, there is no question that before us lie critical questions. And we know what is needed right now is a well-trained, well-equipped and capable Intelligence Community. Instead, this bill unnecessarily, again in my judgment, diverts the resources of the Intelligence Community, as we have heard, to produce unnecessary legislation and initiatives. I would hope we could go back, reject this bill and begin anew to work together on a bipartisan basis to produce a better product.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman. I have deep respect for the Speaker. He is a great American, in spite of the fact he is a fan of the Boston Red Sox. But I would ask, is it appropriate under the House rules for the Speaker, as a member of the committee, to be ruling on points of order against the bill of which he is a member?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will step down, I have another point of order.

Mr. McHUGH. It is to this bill. I think the point of order speaks for itself.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the House for a member of a committee of a bill before the House to be ruling on that bill and those questions?

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my Legislative Director, Judith Brewer, for her 34 years of excellent service as a Congressional staff member and to wish her well upon her retirement. I also wish to thank her for the 26 years she served the citizens of northern New York, 14 of which were as a member of my staff. After graduating from the University of Maine cum laude with a B.A. in political science, Judi began her career in 1973 when she joined Congressman Fred B. Rooney's staff as a Staff Assistant. Five years later, she joined the House Select Committee on Aging's Subcommittee on Retirement Income and Employment, where she served as a liaison between the subcommittee chairman, older Americans, and Federal agencies. Judi next served as Projects Assistant in Congressman Harold T. Johnson's office. Judi began serving the people of northern New York in 1981 when she became a Legislative Assistant in my predecessor, Congressman David O'B. Martin's office. In that capacity, Judi developed significant expertise in policy areas of great importance to northern New York, including dairy, education, health care, and labor. When I came to Congress in 1993, I was fortunate that Judi decided to continue her excellent service to the people of northern New York as a member of my staff. For the past 14 years, they, as well as I, have been the beneficiary of Judi's compassion, dedication, expertise, kindness, humor, and professionalism. Accordingly, I profoundly thank Judi and wish her the very best as she enters retirement.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the State University of New York at Oswego (Oswego State) Lakers upon winning the 2007 NCAA Division III Men's Ice Hockey National Championship, the first national championship ever won by Oswego State in a team sport. On March 18, 2007, Oswego State, which is located in my Congressional District, won the Division III National Championship when it defeated the Middlebury Panthers by a score of 4 to 3 at Wessman Arena in Superior, Wisconsin. In that game, Ryan Scott, the Lakers' East Region Second Team All American goalie, set a Division III championship game record with 47 saves and Garren Reisweber scored two goals, including the game-winning goal 12:55 into overtime. Other Lakers who recorded points in the championship game were Trevor Gilligan, Ryan Koresky, Derrell Levy, Mark Lozzi, Brendan McLaughlin, and Peter Magagna. The Lakers team also included coaches Ed Gosek, Pete Sears, and Glenn Sisman as well as the following players: Tony DiNunzio, Brad Dormiedy, Ryan Ellis, Francois Gagnon, Chris Hyk, Jeffrey Johnstone, Tyler Laws, Tyler Lyon, Kyle McCutcheon, Neil Musselwhite, Mike Novak, Ryan Scott, C.J. Thompson, Rick Varone, Matt Whitehead, Matt Wolf, Ryan Woodward, and Rich Zalewski. The Lakers completed the 2007 season with a record of 23-3-3. Moreover, their coach, Ed Gosek, an Oswego native and former Lakers player, was named the 2007 Men's Division III Ice Hockey Coach of the Year. Mr. Speaker, it takes a tremendous amount of dedication, hard work, perseverance, and teamwork to win a national championship. Accordingly, I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the entire Lakers hockey team for its very significant accomplishment.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman both for yielding and for his very, very gracious comments, and I thank Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by giving thanks where thanks are certainly due. I want to express my particular appreciation to my chairman on the Personnel Subcommittee, a fellow I had the opportunity to work with when he was ranking member for a number of years when I had the opportunity to Chair that subcommittee, Dr. Snyder; as well as and equally so with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Skelton; and, of course, my dear friend and such a great leader from the great State of California (Mr. Hunter), for their leadership for recognizing the need to react to this, not in a bipartisan, not in a political way, but in a way that embodies the spirit of the Armed Services Committee. One reason I am so proud and have been for now going on 15 years to serve on it and that is in the interest of those incredibly brave and unselfish men and women who don the uniform of the United States of America. We owe our thanks as well, as the gentleman from Maryland suggested, to the VA Committee, Mr. Filner and Mr. Buyer, for their willingness to work together in addressing what we all recognize is a very, very serious problem. This is not a perfect bill. It does not meet the entire range of challenges and problems that we know exist, the entire range and need of problems that, frankly, have been known to many of us for many, many years, particularly the disconnect between two very well-meaning systems, that of the Department of Defense, who cares for our wounded, and later, after retirement and disability ratings, the VA department, who cares for those who follow through. Both of them tried to do the job, and they tried to do it in very distinct ways, and what we have understood now and what was demonstrated at least in part at Walter Reed is the challenges of helping those two well-meaning, independent agencies work better together. But while it is not, Mr. Chairman, a perfect bill, it is a very, very good bill, an excellent first step, a place where we can put into effect mechanisms to better ensure the quality of service and, equally important, provide a continuum of care for the brave men and women who risk their lives in defense of our freedoms, of America's freedoms. And I think we can all agree as well we owe that to them. We owe it to their families. We owe them nothing less than the best that we can possibly provide, the absolute best; and this bill takes an important step towards effecting that kind of necessary change. There will have to be things that follow. Once we hear from the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and from the DOD and Military Services' reviews and analysis, we will be in an even better position to take whatever additional actions are necessary to bring it together. But you have heard my colleagues here on the floor today speak about the important components of this bill. We have looked at the problems, we have looked at the challenges that these folks have faced, and we have tried to respond to them. Everything from hotlines to actual human hand-offs between the two systems, more case managers, more personal face-to-face responsiveness to the problems they may encounter, this bill provides it, with more to follow. I also want to add, Mr. Chairman, that without the hard work of the staff on both sides of the Armed Services Committee we would not have had this legislation. Our particular thanks to Mike Higgins, Debra Wada, John Chapla, and Jeanette James, amongst others, who took our concerns, who took our feedback and made them into the bill that we receive here today; and we owe them as well. Before I yield back, on a last note, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't once again add my words of deep appreciation to those incredible military medical professionals who through their hard work, who through their dedication are solely responsible for the best quality care. We are experiencing survival rates today coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq that we have never experienced in any theater of war in the history of this Nation, in fact, in the history of mankind, and that is because of the wonderful job that they do. This challenge has never been about them, and I want them most importantly to recognize we understand the differences of the system and, in fact, two systems that need correcting and better oversight from their valiant efforts. We all owe them our deepest appreciation. So I am proud to be associated with this bill, a bill that will take a quantitative and qualitative step forward in providing the best possible care to our wounded and fallen warriors.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very roughly, you owe me a few. Madam Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, it becomes obvious that kind of like life itself, those of us in Congress have moments of high drama and great importance, and by any measure, the date this evening and tomorrow and the days that follow and, most importantly, the vote that will attend it, is just such a moment. I would observe, Madam Speaker, in the now nearly 231 years that this great Union has endured, this House has encountered few sessions demanding greater honesty, greater selflessness, and greater wisdom than that of occasions of war. And as I said, this is such a time. But this debate really does stand alone. It is unique over the more than two centuries and three decades of our history, because from my study at no time in this Nation's history has the Congress considered the matter before us this week. The question of shall we resolve, in a nonbinding resolution, that this House disagree with a mission, duly designated by the constitutional authority vested in the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conduct of the war, that this same Congress, in an earlier session has, in fact, expressly endorsed. I have listened today with great interest. I have enormous respect for all Members on both sides of the aisle. But I have heard about how wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the appropriate way. It has not achieved the objectives that we all felt were possible, in fact, absolutely necessary at its outset. I would say, Madam Speaker, I understand that perspective; not only understand it, in many ways I strongly share that perspective. But I have to argue the fact of the matter is, for all of the good intentions we have here tonight, the negative aspect of such an action is going to far outweigh, far outweigh whatever good it might attempt to achieve. The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different than what we intend. They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not. Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal, it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote, no matter what the tally, no matter what this board shows as to green and red at the end of the day, will not shorten this conflict by a single month, not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields in which those struggles will be fought. It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is going to smile. His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to reality. As he has said: ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule.'' They keep reiterating that ``success in Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide against us.'' Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress. And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks, why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from the outset? That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result, for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such dramatic consequence. Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general, Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this, of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his leadership through the major newspapers of his time. And he observed, Apparently all my best generals had become journalists. Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some, apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week. But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact, instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war. Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently lies ahead. And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop the talking, and to begin to act. It will fully fund the needs of our troops and provide for us, the Congress, the rightful role and expedite an opportunity to review the Iraqis effort and to judge the progress of this new mission in Baghdad. These things have to be done. But this resolution, in my judgment, in my judgment, is what must decidedly not. This weekend I took the time to reread John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning work ``Profiles in Courage.'' And in those pages our martyred President spoke: ``In no other occupation but politics is it expected that a man will sacrifice honor, prestige, and his chosen career on a single issue.'' My friends, this is such a moment. I accuse nobody in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, of any kind of transgression, honorable people, good people. We will disagree, as I expect they will on this and other days, but I do plead that every Member in this House vote on this resolution, not for themselves, not for gain or posture through politics, not because of their alleged attention to public opinion, because it is right. We can do better. We must. But this resolution is not the path to that objective.