C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, as he has announced that he intends to withdraw it because of a previous agreement. I take this time to advise the chairman of the subcommittee that under the unanimous consent agreement, a number of amendments were listed. I advise the chairman that some of those amendments will not be offered. Other amendments we will be able to accept. Others will go to a vote, and there are several that will be subject to a point of order. But in order to facilitate the evening and allow the House to conclude action on this bill, I just took this time to state that. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking member on the Military Construction Subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I say to the gentleman I certainly agree with what it is that he's attempting to do, but it is subject to a point of order. But I can assure the gentleman that during the conference that we will address this very important issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding the time to me. I rise in strong support of the legislation to provide relief in response to the tragedy surrounding the collapse of Interstate 35W Bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. The people in my area of Florida remember this type of grief, and we share the grief of the people of Minnesota. It was during a violent storm at 7:38 a.m. the morning of May 9, 1980, that a freighter, the Summit Venture, slammed into the Sunshine Skyway Bridge which spans Tampa Bay to connect my district to Manatee County in the south, across Tampa Bay. Thirty-five people in their vehicles fell more than 1,200 feet into the waters of Tampa Bay that morning, fell to their deaths. The Sunshine Skyway is a Florida landmark. The scenes of the mangled bridge missing 1,260 feet of the center span of the southbound lanes of the bridge was a daily reminder of the tragedy, and we remember, and we remember for the people of Minnesota. Only two people survived the accident in Florida, one whose car skidded to a halt at the bridge's edge and the other who survived his pick-up truck's fall into the water and swam to safety. For 7 years, the damaged span stood as a constant reminder. Congress, however, began the healing process very shortly after that tragedy, as we do today for the Minnesota tragedy. I thank and compliment and commend Chairman Oberstar and Mr. Mica, my good friend and colleague from Florida, who worked so hard on all of these issues and for moving this legislation quickly in a bipartisan way to bring support for the people of Minnesota. The House responded to my request for funding to help rebuild the Sunshine Skyway Bridge quickly in the same type of fashion. So, as I said, we remember and we share the grief that you suffer today because we went through it back in 1980; and this Member stands ready to help in any way that we can to not only pass this authorization bill but to pass the appropriations that go along with it. I thank my friend, Mr. Mica, for yielding the time to me. He is an outstanding leader in our delegation; and he does, I think, an exceptional job for all of us.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of children and older Americans this afternoon because I have supported and initiated many legislative efforts in this House to provide health care benefits to both groups. Yet I must oppose this legislation today because the process under which we are considering it is a disservice to young and old alike. We have before us a major expansion of a Federal entitlement program, a $54 billion tax increase, and the largest cut in the history of the Medicare program under a procedure that allows no member--Republican or Democrat--to offer an amendment to improve this bill. This is the people's House, and yet only a handful of our 435 members have had a chance to write this legislation. Two major committees--Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--had primary jurisdiction over this matter, but the Energy and Commerce Committee did not even hold public hearings on this important issue. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established with my support in 1997 through a bipartisan effort of this Congress. It has been an unqualified success in providing life-saving medical care to children throughout our Nation. The SCHIP program in Florida now covers children in families with annual incomes of up to 200 percent of the poverty level. In the 10th Congressional District I have the privilege to represent, 21,779 families, or 34 percent of all families with children under the age of 18, are already eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. While we could have extended the current, very successful program and modified it to make some program improvements in the coverage of those children who have no insurance, those who wrote this legislation seek to expand the program to include children who come from families that already have health insurance. Children from families with incomes as high as $82,000 could become eligible for health care benefits. And the authors of this legislation pay for this new coverage by cutting Medicare benefits upon which thousands of seniors in my district rely on for their health care needs. It is estimated that these cuts total upwards of $194 billion over the next 10 years. This would cut funding for the 42,843 seniors in my district who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Program. This legislation cuts payments for seniors' hospital and inpatient care by $2.7 billion. This legislation cuts payments for seniors' inpatient rehabilitation services by $6.6 billion. This legislation cuts payments for seniors' skilled nursing facilities by $6.5 billion. This legislation cuts payments for seniors' home health care services by $7.2 billion. This legislation cuts payments for those of all ages with End Stage Renal Disease by $3.6 billion. This legislation would impede the mobility of seniors by making them wait a full month to receive Medicare coverage for a motorized wheelchair. And this legislation would reduce the amount of time seniors can receive Medicare coverage of home oxygen equipment from 36 to 13 months. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. My wife Beverly and I have spent countless hours there with children and their families, as well as with their doctors and medical staff. You can be sure we understand the special needs of children, particularly those without health insurance coverage. The program we established 10 years ago was a major improvement in expanding the health care options of children. It also provided important reassurance for their parents. There is no doubt that we could have improved this legislation by working together. Republicans and Democrats alike support providing health care coverage for children and seniors. Instead, this reauthorization of what was a major bipartisan health care initiative has been rewritten with the input and ideas of just a select few members without the opportunity of amendment by all the members of this House. In fact, the last changes to this legislation were made at 3 this morning. Those changes even wrote into this bill specific program carve outs for 36 hospitals identified by name or location. None are in Florida. How were those hospitals selected? Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing health care for young or old alike we should work together in a bipartisan manner to create the best program possible. The best ideas do not reside in just one committee or one political party. We should all have the opportunity to contribute to this legislation, to debate amendments, and to vote on those amendments. A majority of members, not a majority party, should determine what is best for the American people. While I will vote against this legislation today in large part because of the procedure under which it is being considered and my concern about the negative impact it will have on older Americans, it is my hope that when it returns from the Senate and a conference between the House and Senate, it will be something that I can support, that the majority of my colleagues can support, and most importantly that Americans of all ages can support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of the introducer of this amendment. I understand his arguments. I should. We have talked about them at least twice a week for the last 3 or 4 years. I agree with a lot of his argument, but the problem is that this amendment wouldn't solve most of those problems. It really isn't directed at those problems. In the outer continental shelf, there are vast areas of the outer continental shelf that are available for drilling for oil and for gas. But in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, there are some very environmentally sensitive areas that have been protected by this Congress since 1983. This amendment would undo those protections. In recent years, something very important has come about, and this is the military mission line. The Defense Department, the Air Force and the military who exercise and train in areas of the Gulf of Mexico tell us that east of the military mission line it would be disastrous for their training if we allowed drilling for oil or for gas. Congress spent a lot of time this last year on this very subject, and Mr. Peterson was part of the effort to come to a compromise. We came to a compromise finally. It wasn't easy. Mr. Peterson didn't really like the compromise, and I give him credit for standing up for that, but he agreed to it. Now, this amendment would undo the compromise that Congress worked so hard on last year. This amendment is not going to solve the problems that the introducer of this amendment suggests exists today, problems that we are all pretty much aware of. But this amendment could be a disaster for environmentally sensitive areas of the Gulf of Mexico and certainly would cause the degradation of necessary military training east of the military mission line in the Gulf of Mexico. So I think that while Mr. Peterson is very passionate, and he certainly understands the issue of natural gas, and the benefits of natural gas, I don't think that he really understands the need to protect certain areas from drilling for oil and for natural gas. So I would hope that the Congress would once again step up to the plate on this issue, defeat this amendment, and let's get on with this good bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman yielding me the time. This amendment is aimed at the military mission line in the Gulf of Mexico. The only place that has a larger area of Outer Continental Shelf in the moratorium. Where the military mission line runs through the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Moran spoke earlier of the flights that are training around Oceana in Virginia. I will speak to the training areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are used very, very effectively by the United States Air Force to train pilots in some of the newest, highest-technical aircraft that we have. That is what this amendment is about. It goes to violate the military mission line that we agreed on last year. I don't get offended very often, but I am a little offended by this, for this reason: many of us in this Chamber voted for that bill last year, and we voted for it because it protected the military mission line in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the environmentally sensitive areas. We voted for it because it provided a permanent solution to this issue of moratorium. Now if the Peterson amendment passes, it hasn't been very permanent. By the way, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Abercrombie, who is one of the architects of this agreement, agreed to this, and so we agreed to it as well because we thought that having a permanent solution was a good idea. But now this amendment goes back on the agreement. That does offend me somewhat. When I make an agreement, I keep it, and most everybody in this House Chamber, when they make an agreement, they keep it. But these two Peterson amendments violate the agreement that brought most of us to vote for this bill last year. Just one more point: if anybody thinks that drilling another well, and there are vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf still available for drilling for oil and for gas, if anybody thinks another oil well in The Gulf of Mexico is going to bring down the price of gasoline, drive up to your gas station. Mr. Peterson himself mentioned the fact that no matter what the supply would be, that the Wall Street traders control the price. What are you paying for a gallon of gasoline today? A lot more than we ought to be paying. One more well, two more wells, 10 more wells aren't going to make a difference in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I want to say that I am very, very proud to be working with Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wicker as a member of this very important subcommittee. The Department of Veterans Affairs is going to have much more responsibility as the months go by, probably more than they realize. One of the reasons is that military medicine has gotten so much better. Medicines are better, medical techniques are better, the ability to evacuate a wounded soldier from the battlefield is much better, and we have intensive care units on our aircraft today so better medical care can be provided to the wounded soldier, marine, and the wounded heroes. Because of that many of our heroes are living today who would have died in previous wars and previous battles. But also because of that some of them are hurt worse than normal, and the Veterans' Administration is going to eventually have the responsibility once these heroes leave their military medical facilities at Walter Reed or at Bethesda or some of the other military hospitals. One of the things that this bill does, and it does a lot of good stuff, and I'm strongly in support of this bill, it increases funding for the Inspector General for the Department of Veterans Affairs. And I know that oftentimes we think that the Inspector General just looks at dollars and figures and decides if the money is being spent or accounted for. The Inspector General from the Department of Veterans Affairs does a really great job, not only in doing that, checking the dollars, but also in checking for fraud. And it is amazing how much fraud the IG has uncovered in the last couple of years, costing upwards of hundred of millions of dollars to the taxpayer, and taking it away from the veteran who needs it and the hospitals and the medical professionals who need this money to care for the veterans. But also, another part of their responsibility is the care that the veteran receives in the VA hospitals. They look at this very closely, and if and when the medical care in the hospital is not appropriate and not proper, they report this to the proper authorities. The investment that Chairman Edwards has made in the Inspector General's Office in this bill will pay us back many, many times over in what they recover than we have invested. So this is a good bill. If you wanted me to pick out something that I didn't like about it, I'm sure that I could. But the part that relates to the Department of Veterans Affairs, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, after 20 years of dedicated service, Patricia A. Coppo is retiring from her life-saving work with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). As you know, the NMDP allows medical miracles to occur every day as the program recruits adult donors and umbilical cord blood units to provide stem cell transplantations for patients with life-threatening blood disorders. Pat, who retires as the Chief Operating Officer of the NMDP, has been with the program since its inception. With a small earmarked appropriation from the United States Navy, the NMDP began in 1987 with four staff members in a cramped room in a Red Cross office in St. Paul, Minnesota. They had a vision and a mission and with the support and guidance of Congress and the Navy began their work to save lives one at a time. Pat started as a bone marrow search coordinator and worked with transplant centers to try to find donors for their patients from several donor registries that had developed through the work of patients and their families, blood centers and transplant hospitals. It was almost a needle in a haystack approach to saving lives. With the guidance and support of my colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee and in this House, these individual registries came together to form the beginnings of the NMDP. No one then could have conceived of the program that has developed since. As of April of 2007, over 6.5 million donors have joined the Registry and over 28,000 patients have received a second chance at life through bone marrow, stem cell or cord blood transplantation. Madam Speaker, over these past 20 years, Pat has helped the NMDP save lives through cellular transplantation therapy by providing guidance for the organization, leadership for the staff and stewardship of the NMDP's resources. She has made a profound impact on the organization and staff with her passion for our mission, dedication to the staff, incredible work ethic, sense of humor and ability to adapt, change and grow with the NMDP. She will leave a legacy of important and lasting relationships with a network of over 450 organizations that partner to provide cellular transplant therapies. The NMDP will miss her but she leaves the program in a great position to continue its life-saving work. As a result of legislation adopted by Congress in December 2005, the NMDP has been entrusted to operate the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The size of the registry will increase, the science of transplantation will advance, and we will continue to develop more services to support patients and families as they cope with a life-threatening disease. Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Pat for her dedication to the program and the patients we serve. She has made a difference in the lives of thousands of patients and families and for that, they and we will be forever grateful. In closing let me wish Pat all the best as she closes one very long and important chapter in her life and embarks upon a new and yet unchartered journey.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to report to my colleagues that the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, which I have the privilege to represent, has just been awarded The Joint Commission's Gold Seal of Approval for meeting rigorous national standards for health care quality and safety. This award in particular honors the staff, volunteers, and management team at Bay Pines for its Behavioral Health Care, Home Care, Long Term Care and Hospital programs. The Joint Commission is the Nation's oldest and largest health care standards-setting and accrediting body. The Gold Seal is the result of The Commission's unannounced, on-site evaluation of Bay Pines from April 10th to the 13th. Following my remarks, I will include for the benefit of my colleagues more information about this award and the standards to which its recipients are held. Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Wallace M. Hopkins, the Director of the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, the doctors, the nurses, and the volunteers at Bay Pines who are dedicated to caring for our Nation's veterans in a way befitting their brave and selfless service to our Nation and to the cause of freedom. Bay Pines VA Healthcare System Awarded Accreditation From the Joint Commission By demonstrating compliance with The Joint Commission's national standards for health care quality and safety, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System has earned the Joint Commission's Gold Seal of ApprovalTM for its Behavioral Health Care, Home Care, Long Term Care and Hospital programs. ``We sought accreditation for our organization because we want to demonstrate our commitment to safety and quality care,'' says Wallace M. Hopkins, FACHE, Director. ``We view obtaining Joint Commission accreditation as another step toward achieving excellence.'' ``Above all, the national standards are intended to stimulate continuous, systematic and organization-wide improvement in an organization's performance and the outcomes of care,'' says Darlene Christiansen, executive director, Hospital Accreditation Program, Joint Commission. ``The community should be proud that Bay Pines VA Healthcare System is focusing on the most challenging goal--to continuously raise quality and safety to higher levels.'' Hopkins spoke of his pride in a staff whose members ask what needs to be done to be accredited by The Joint Commission. ``In addition, they appreciate the educational aspect of the survey and the opportunity to interact with the team of surveyors.'' The Joint Commission conducted an unannounced, on-site evaluation of Bay Pines VA Healthcare System on April 10-13, 2007. The accreditation award recognizes Bay Pines VA Healthcare System's dedication to complying with the Joint Commission's state-of-the-art standards on a continuous basis. Founded in 1951, The Joint Commission seeks to continuously improve the safety and quality of care provided to the public through the provision of health care accreditation and related services that support performance improvement in health care organizations. The Joint Commission evaluates and accredits nearly 15,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States, including more than 8,000 hospitals and home care organizations, and more than 6,800 other health care organizations that provide long term care, assisted living, behavioral health care, laboratory and ambulatory care services. The Joint Commission also accredits health plans, integrated delivery networks, and other managed care entities. In addition, The Joint Commission provides certification of disease-specific care programs, primary stroke centers, and health care staffing services. An independent, not-for-profit organization, The Joint Commission is the nation's oldest and largest standards- setting and accrediting body in health care.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding the time. And I rise in very strong support of the warfighting supplemental. Mr. Murtha and I have worked together very closely to make sure that the numbers were what our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guardsmen were what they needed as they continue this battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. The suggestions that I have seen today in the media that this political group lost or this political group won, I don't believe either one, any of those. The victory goes to the members of our military who are going to have the funding that they need to make sure that they have the equipment that they need and whatever else that they need. Something else that it does, it proves that the Constitution is good. It proves that, by legislators working together along with the executive branch of government, that we can come to a solution. Mr. Murtha and I strongly support the dollars. We did disagree, and there was no secret about that, on the language that he had originally inserted. But we all worked that out. And during our many conversations, we both agreed, and we both knew that we had to come to an agreement, not only here in the House and in the Senate, but with the White House. And that's what we've done. And I think this is a good package, and I hope that for those who might be wavering and thinking that they're not going to vote for this warfighting supplemental, think about that, because it is a good package, and it's one that I strongly support. And I commend leadership on both sides for having been able to come to this agreement and this compromise on a very good piece of legislation. I'm not sure if that's going to be amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 2, but whichever amendment it is, I hope that all of us will vote for it and support it sincerely and aggressively.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I didn't intend to speak on this until I read the bill, and I didn't have much chance to read the bill because it didn't go through any committee, and it was only introduced last night. But this bill is an illusion. It is not what it is proposed to be. It is one of those situations where you giveth on one hand, and you take away with the other hand. I am looking specifically at subsection (e). After saying that we have to remove our troops out of Iraq within so many days, subsection (e) says, ``the Secretary of Defense may retain''--in other words, keep troops in Iraq--``for the purpose of providing security for the embassy, the U.S. embassy''; we do that now. And ``other United States diplomatic missions in Iraq''; other diplomatic missions in Iraq; we do that now. ``Protecting American citizens''; we do that now. ``Including members of the Armed Services serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions''; we do that now. Listen to this one: ``engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations''. My goodness, that is what we are doing now. ``Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.'' That is what we are doing now. ``And may retain in Iraq members of the Army Corps of Engineers and Defense contractors engaged in reconstruction projects in Iraq.'' We are doing that now. Subsection (h) on page 4. ``Prohibition on the use of funds to further deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq.'' The funds may not be obligated or expended to further deploy units or members of the Armed Forces to Iraq, including through participation in any multinational force, except as provided under subsection (e), which is the subsection that I just referred to. And then it goes to subsection (i), assistance to Iraqi security forces. ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing financial assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces or multinational forces providing security or training in Iraq.'' We do that now. You have to get out of Iraq, but you are allowed to stay to do all of these things that we are already doing. Vote yes if you want to. Vote no if you want to. That is not up to me. But I just wanted to point out the fact that, if you think this bill gets you out of Iraq, think again. Read subsection (e), because it doesn't accomplish what we are told that it does. So I say again, this is an illusion. It gives with one hand, but it takes away with the other.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to make the point as strongly as I can that I want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and anyplace else in the world where they are in harm's way as soon as we can possibly do it without risking the security of our own Nation and the security of our own people. Mr. Murtha and I have been partners in this business for many, many years, and he and I have both stood by the bedside of too many wounded troops and have attended too many funerals, and we want this over. As a matter of fact, the legislation before us, the appropriations part of this defense bill is a good package. Mr. Murtha and I met prior to him submitting this to the full Appropriations Committee and we agreed. Basically I told Mr. Murtha that these are about the same numbers that I would have recommended if I were still the chairman. But we did agree to disagree on the issue of the restrictive language on the conduct of the battlefield. My memory takes me back, as we discuss this legislation now, to October of 1983, where terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut. The Marines there on a peacekeeping mission and 241 of our troops were killed. In February of 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, as Chairman Lewis noted in his comments. Six lives were lost. In June of 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our airmen were being housed, was bombed. Nineteen American lives were lost. August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists again. Two hundred fifty-nine lives were lost. October of 2000, the USS Cole off the shore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists. Again, 17 American lives lost, and almost every crewman on the ship injured. But all this time nothing happened except a lot of rhetoric. Well, we talked a lot. We were going to hunt them down. And you can run, but you can't hide. But finally, after September 11, the people of America were so incensed by what they saw with the airplanes flying into the two World Trade Centers, the airplane flying into the ground in Pennsylvania, in or near Mr. Murtha's district, and the airplane flying into the Pentagon right across the river, killing some 3,000 innocent people. The people of America were incensed. They demanded action. The President of the United States promised action, and the Congress provided action. And subsequently, our troops are in Afghanistan and are in Iraq. And it is essential that we provide whatever they need to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they are carrying out the mission. But now, what about leaving today or tomorrow or March or July, as some of these restrictions provide? One of our great successes was Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, we attacked Saddam Hussein's armies successfully, and we annihilated, basically, his army. At least they ran away. They ran for cover. They surrendered. A lot of them lost the battle because the United States was aggressive and our coalition partners. But here's where we made a mistake. Once we had Saddam's armies defeated, we left. We left before there was anything else there to provide a reasonable, logical government for the people of Iraq. And what happened? Saddam responded in a vicious attack upon his own Iraqi citizens to continue the genocide that he began in earlier years. After we left from Desert Storm, he killed thousands of Shia Iraqis. What General Petraeus and our American troops are trying to do is to give the Iraqi government that has been elected by the people, Constitution approved by the people, a parliament elected under the new Constitution by the people; General Petraeus said that the Iraqi security forces were growing in number, were growing in capability. Even the Sunnis are starting to join up with these security forces in Iraq to show a Sunni-Shia coming together. Not much, but a little bit. But to let this government exist so that we didn't have another situation where we left, we didn't leave anybody in charge, and the bad guys took over again.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, Tomorrow we will honor nine World War II U.S. Army Air Forces members here at the United States Capitol with Distinguished Flying Crosses for actions during a mission attacking oil refineries near Ploesti, Romania, more than 60 years ago. The nine heroic service members to be honored are 1LT James E. J atho, 1LT Edward L. McNally, 2LT George N. Croft, 2LT Theodore D. Bell, TSGT. Jay T. Fish, TSGT. William A. Magill, SSGT Frank G. Celuck, SSGT Robert D. Speed, and SSGT Daniel P. Toomey. The nine medal recipients were members of a B-24 Liberator crew assigned to the 779th Bomb Squadron, 464th Bomber Group, 15th Air Force, who flew the mission July 15, 1944. The crew took off from Pantanella, Italy, to take part in what was to become the heaviest day of bombing of the oil refineries near Ploesti, Romania. Enroute to the target, the crew encountered heavy anti-aircraft fire, severely damaging the plane and causing the loss of one engine. Despite a damaged plane, pilots Jatho and Croft managed to hold the course. Navigator Bell successfully plotted the flight path while Engineer Fish powered the engines to reach the target. Gunners Celuck, Speed and Toomey courageously manned their gun positions battling through to the target. In heavy smoke, Bombardier McNally armed each bomb and successfully released the payload over the Uniera Sperantza oil refinery. After dropping the payload, the crew's plane began losing speed and altitude and lost contact with the rest of their squadron. Over the Adriatic Sea, Radio Operator Magill was able to successfully dial in the Pantanella base homing signal while Engineer Fish got enough power from the remaining three engines in order for Navigator Bell and pilots Jatho and Croft to successfully guide the crew and damaged plane to their base at Pantanella without further damage to the plane or injuries to the crew. The next day, the crew took part in a raid on Weiner Neusdorf, Austria, during which their plane was shot down. TSgt Magill was killed in action and the rest of the crew was taken as prisoners of war for the remainder of World War II. Today we honor the three living members of the crew: 1LT Edward L. McNally of Stone Mountain, GA; TSgt Jay T. Fish of Englewood, FL; and SSgt Robert D. Speed of Mobile, AL. Six of the honorees will receive the medal posthumously, and be represented by family members. Receiving the award for 1LT James E. Jatho, his son, Mr. Jim Jatho of Augusta, GA; for 2LT Theodore D. Bell, his widow, Mrs. Jean Bell of Evanston, IL; for 2LT George N. Croft, his widow, Mrs. Lorraine Croft of Kenai, AK; for TSgt William A. Magill, his niece, Ms. Patricia Thornburg of Belleville, MI; for SSgt Frank G. Celuck, his daughter, Ms. Mary Ellen McConnell ofMonroeville, PA; for SSgt Daniel P. Toomey, his daughter, Ms. Eileen Gorman of Dedham, MA. Madam Speaker, Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley will officiate today over the presentation of the Distinguished Flying Cross to these World War II heroes. Special words of thanks are due to General Moseley for his personal review of this matter over the past year since I first raised the story of this crew with him. He took a personal interest in this matter and he and his staff put in many long hours to document the story of this mission and verify the crew's eligibility for one of our Nation's highest military honors. Thank you, General Moseley, for allowing us to honor these nine brave men and express deep appreciation for their outstanding and selfless service to our country. The ceremony will be held tomorrow at 4 p.m. in 2118 Rayburn House Office Building. All are welcome to come and say thank you to these men who sacrificed so much in the defense of freedom and liberty.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. We have been discussing this now for days here in the House, but I want to tell you that I am opposed to this resolution, because it doesn't do anything. I want to see our troops home, and I want to see our troops safe. I would venture to say that, with the exception of, maybe, Mr. Murtha, I have seen and visited more wounded troops, soldiers and Marines at our military hospitals than anybody in this Chamber; and I don't want them to be in harm's way any longer. The problem is, I have strong recollections of September 11; and even before September 11, I remember the bombing of the USS Cole where our military, our sailors were killed and wounded. I remember the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I remember the bombings of the Khobar Towers, where American airmen were housed in Saudi Arabia. I remember the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. I remember the hostages taken by terrorists and held for 444 days in Iran. I remember all of that, but what I remember, that I will never, ever get out of my mind, is September 11, being on the highway immediately next to the Pentagon when the airplane hit the Pentagon and killed many of our friends and colleagues. I remember going to Ground Zero just a few days after September 11 to deliver satellite telephones to the police and the firefighters because their existing communications didn't work due to all of the confusion, because of the disruption to the communications lines. I remember the smoke was still rising, the dust was still flying. I remember the American people demanded that something be done. They were tired of us being subjected to terrorist attacks, Americans being killed, and nothing being done about it. The American people demanded that something be done, and they demanded through our Congress that something be done. The President was under this pressure and demanded that something be done. Congress debated then and two-thirds of the Members who were here at the time voted to give the President legal, lawful authority to do whatever had to be done. This Congress should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to eliminate the terrorist threat. I don't care whether it is in Iraq, whether it is in Afghanistan, whether it is in Somalia, whether it is in Mogadishu, wherever it is, we have got to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism and from terrorist attacks; and we need to support our troops who are out there on the front line making sure that we at home are being protected. Now these soldiers have been promised by the Commander in Chief that they are going to have some reinforcements, that they are going to have some help to fight this fight, the aggressive fight that is now finally taking place. The Maliki government was finally pressured to allow us to attack the targets that were real targets, to allow us to attack whether they were politically harmful to the Maliki government or not. What about the soldiers in the field who were expecting that they would get some reinforcements and that maybe, with those reinforcements, they might get an extra night's sleep? What about the soldier who had hoped that reinforcements would allow him or her to sit down to a hot lunch, rather than having to grab an MRE and eat that MRE on the run? What about the soldiers in the field who hoped that reinforcements would allow them to find time to read their mail or send a letter to their loved ones back home? Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. If this House is serious about Congress bringing home our troops, then do it right. This resolution doesn't bring any troops home. It doesn't provide any safety or security for our troops. It doesn't provide anything to help with the mission in the global war on terror. If you want to do it right, bring a resolution out here to the floor that does it right, that brings them home, that stops whatever it is that we are doing there in Iraq. But, if you know anything about what our military troops are doing, you know that once you get into a battle, once you get into a fight, it is easy to get into a war. You can almost slip into it without recognizing you are getting into it. But once you are in the fight, getting out is not easy. Once you are in the battle, you have several options. You win or you lose or you surrender or you retreat or you negotiate. Who do we negotiate with? Negotiating would be nice if we could end this by negotiations. Who do you negotiate with? You can't even find Bin Laden, if, in fact, he is alive. The problem here is, once you get into the fight, which we did with the support of the American people and with the support of this Congress, once you get into the fight, it is just not that easy to get out of it unless you win or you lose. Winning is better than losing.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the funding recommendations for accounts under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. The House approved the conference report on the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007 on September 26th, 2006 by a vote of 394 to 22, and the President signed the bill into law on September 29th. However, several important accounts that were previously within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life have been transferred back to the Defense Subcommittee, and therefore are addressed in this continuing resolution. Two of the most important of these are the Basic Allowance of Housing for our active duty members of the military, and the Defense Health Program. I am pleased this continuing resolution provides the minimum funding level necessary for both these activities. This legislation provides an increase of $500 million for Basic Allowance for House above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and an increase of $1.2 billion for the Defense Health Program. However, we need to recognize that both programs will need additional funds during the rest of this fiscal year. Rates for Basic Allowance for Housing were increased late last year following the normal survey of market housing rates. This has created a shortfall of $1.4 billion. In addition, due to inflationary increases in health care costs and an Administration proposal for an increase in insurance co-payments that was not approved by the Congress, the Defense Health Program faces an additional shortfall of at least $700 million. We must address these funding shortfalls later this year. Our highest priority in the Defense budget should be for the well-being of our military personnel, and I know my Subcommittee chairman shares my concerns. This continuing resolution is just a first step toward meeting that responsibility in fiscal year 2007.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude debate this afternoon on H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, I want to include for the benefit of my colleagues today's editorial from my hometown newspaper The St. Petersburg Times that warns the House to be careful with the passage of this legislation. In Rx: dose of reality, the editors say ``that Democrats should walk away from this fight. House Democrats may think they can heal the Medicare drug program in one easy congressional dose, but their Senate counterparts are wise to take more time. Seniors have had enough of empty political promises already. They deserve affordable coverage.'' Indeed, I support making prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans, and in particular older Americans who are enrolled in the Medicare Part D program. If this legislation did that, I would be the first to support it. But as the editorial I have cited as well as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found in analyzing H.R. 4, this bill will result in no meaningful savings to consumers or to taxpayers. Following my remarks, I will include a letter from the Congressional Budget Office dated January 10, 2007 which says that H.R. 4 would have a ``negligible effect'' on federal spending and drug prices because the federal government would not have the authority required to negotiate lower drug prices. The primary reason the Congressional Budget Office found is that ``without the authority to establish a formulary, we believe that the Secretary would not be able to encourage the use of particular drugs by Part D beneficiaries, and as a result would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in his negotiations with drug manufacturers.'' If, in fact, this legislation had given the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to limit the availability of certain prescription drugs or even broad classes of prescription drugs, I also would have opposed it. Doctors should determine the best medicine for their patients, not Congress or the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. Speaker, there may have been a way to amend this legislation to solve some of these problems so we could have achieved the goal of lower drug prices while at the same time not limiting the range of covered drugs. However, under the procedures we consider this legislation today, there is no opportunity to amend this bill. We only have the option of voting yes or no. Given that option, I believe the best vote today is against H.R. 4 with the hope that we can reject this bill and send it back to the committee with the goal of fixing some of the flaws identified by The St. Petersburg Times and the Congressional Budget Office. [From the St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 12. 2007] Rx: Dose of Reality Democrats who thing they've found a simple fix for the nation's costly, convoluted Medicare prescription plan need to be careful. They are entering a pharmaceutical quagmire full of restrictive formularies, big-ticket coverage gaps and institutional resistance. The fight is a worthy one, and the precipitous veto threat by President Bush only underscores the stakes. But Democrats won't win with campaign rhetoric. The bill set to move through the U.S. House today provides little more than an edict that the secretary of health and human services ``shall negotiate'' lower drug prices, as though the government itself is the one buying. Unfortunately, drugs are bought and dispensed under the 2003 Medicare law by a maze of some 1,875 private drug plans. The Democratic plan is, at best, incomplete. The current law does, absurdly, outlaw any negotiation of drug prices, which has the principal effect of fattening pharmaceutical bank accounts. But the kind of savings the Department of Veterans Affairs has been able to negotiate for its prescription drugs is not merely the result of its collective bargaining power. The VA, which filled some 120-million prescriptions last year, also restricts the kinds of medicines that are available to patients. As James R. Lang, former president of Anthem Prescription Management, told the New York Times: ``For this proposal to work, the government would have to take over price negotiations. It would have to take over formularies. You cannot do one without the other. There's no leverage.'' Democrats are not being honest about the tradeoffs, and the possible need for some restrictive formularies to help reduce costs. They are also offering a misleading pledge to eliminate the so-called ``doughnut hole.'' To save money, Republicans created a peculiar gap in coverage that nabbed as many as 4-million seniors last year. Under the coverage gap, Medicare recipients pay 100 percent of drug costs each year after the total has reached $2,400 until they pay an additional $3,850 out of pocket. During the midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among the prominent Democrats promising that the savings from lower drug prices would be plowed back into the program. ``We will use that money to fill the doughnut hole,'' she said at one campaign stop, ``so that seniors will have affordability, they will have reliability, and will not be caught in this trap of the doughnut hole.'' The Congressional Budget Office has projected, however, that eliminating the coverage gap would cost roughly $450- billion over 10 years. Few, if any, Democrats are now claiming those new costs can be offset purely by savings from price negotiation. An estimate of drug price reductions prepared by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., pegged the 10- year savings at roughly $96-billion. The point here isn't that Democrats should walk away from this fight. The current Medicare prescription plan is indeed incomplete, needlessly complex and indefensibly profitable to the pharmaceutical industry. But the plan is also in effect and generally well-received by many seniors. Problems of this magnitude won't be fixed just by ordering a Bush administration bureaucrat to negotiate. House Democrats may think they can heal the Medicare drug plan in one easy congressional dose, but their Senate counterparts are wise to take more time. Seniors have had enough empty political promises already. They deserve affordable coverage.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. William F. Felice, a professor of Political Science at Eckerd College, who has been named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Dr. Felice was honored here in Washington on November 16th along with professors of the year from 43 states, It is my privilege to represent Eckerd College, a St. Petersburg, Florida college led by its President Donald R. Eastman III, which emphasizes quality undergraduate education. Dr. Felice is one of many outstanding members of the Eckerd faculty. Motivating students in his international relations classes is Dr. Felice's principal goal as a professor. He is highly successful as since 1995 when he joined the Eckerd faculty, he has been awarded some of the college's highest honors by his students and his peers. He received the John M. Bevan Teaching Excellence and Campus Leadership Award in 2005. The students voted him the Professor of the Year in 2003 and the faculty voted him the Robert A. Staub Distinguished Teacher of the Year in 1999. This latest honor though is not his first national recognition, as he earned the 1999 American Political Science Association (APSA) Outstanding Teacher in Political Science Award from APSA and Phi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society. Mr. Speaker, following my remarks I would like to include for the benefit of my colleagues a profile of Dr. Felice published by Eckerd College. Clearly he has found a way to inspire his students to study more about the world around them and I commend him for this great honor and for the personal energy and enthusiasm he brings to the classroom. ``My primary pedagogical method is to teach international relations in a Socratic style, constantly questioning and interacting with the students in the class. I strive to motivate students to understand the importance of international relations by my example. With conviction and passion, I try to show students how central these issues are, both to my own personal intellectual journey and to world affairs.''--William F. Felice William F. Felice, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at Eckerd College, has been named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the prestigious Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The U.S. Professors of the Year Program, administered by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), is the only national initiative specifically designed to recognize excellence in undergraduate teaching and mentoring. Professor Felice was recognized on November 16, 2006 in a Washington, D.C. awards ceremony along with professors from 43 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam. The following day, also in Washington, Florida Congressman C.W. Bill Young extended personal congratulations to Professor Felice. ``It is a fitting tribute to Professor Felice to be recognized as the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year,'' said Eckerd College President Donald R. Eastman III. ``Professor Felice epitomizes what is one of Eckerd College's greatest strengths in the academic program: the mentoring relationship between the professor and student. Professor Felice, who exudes passion in his teaching about human rights and social justice, motivates students to find the courage to address issues of poverty and despair with a sense of hope that their efforts will make a difference in this world.'' ``Not only has Prof. Felice distinguished himself as a truly outstanding teacher whose impact on students is profound,'' said Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty Lloyd W. Chapin, ``he has contributed substantially to building an extraordinary undergraduate International Relation and Global Affair Program that offers students unique opportunities to study both here and abroad. They study at the United Nations in New York City and in Geneva, Switzerland, and complete domestic and international service learning projects. Highly respected also for his curricular leadership, he coordinated our capstone senior course, Quest for Meaning, from 2004-2006 earning rave reviews from the interdisciplinary team of twenty faculty who participate in the course. ``Repeatedly, students tell me stories of the transformative effect that Professor Felice has had on their intellectual and ethical lives.'' how two former students remember professor felice Professor Felice's courses have included Ethics and International Relations, Introduction to International Relations, Quest for Meaning, International Political Economy, Geneva and International Cooperation, Human Rights and International Law. ``Dr. Felice inspires and motivates his students in many ways, but one of his greatest gifts as a teacher is his ability to teach about empathy toward the poverty-stricken and oppressed in our local community and on a global scale.'' --Kathleen Deegan, B.A., Eckerd College, 2003 ``One professor in particular sticks out in my mind as a humble hero whose passion and enthusiasm for life and education infuse his teaching with boundless energy, encourage his colleagues to aspire to higher levels of learning and teaching and inspire his students in ways admired by many and replicated by few. Though I honestly believe that Professor Felice could easily have led a life of fame, world travel and excitement as a politician or an international affairs consultant, I am selfishly grateful that he chose to dedicate so much of his time to teaching and I hope that he realizes just how great an impact he has made in that role.'' --Taryn Fielder, B.A., summa cum laude, Eckerd College, 1999; J.D., Harvard Law School, 2002 Teaching Awards Professor Felice joined the Eckerd College faculty in 1995. Since then Professor Felice has received Eckerd College's John M. Bevan Teaching Excellence and Campus Leadership Award (2005), and he has been recognized by the students as Professor of the Year (2003) and by the faculty as the Robert A. Staub Distinguished Teacher of the Year (1999). In 1999, Professor Felice received the APSA Outstanding Teaching in Political Science Award, presented by the American Political Science Association (APSA) and Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society. Professor Felice earned his B.A. in History from the University of Washington; his M.S. in Political Economy from Goddard College; and his Ph.D. in Political Science/ International Relations from New York University. Prior to joining Eckerd College, he taught at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. Scholarship and Publications Professor Felice has published two books that are highly regarded by scholars in the field, Taking Suffering Seriously (1996) and The Global New Deal (2003). In The Global New Deal, Professor Felice wrote, ``There is nothing preordained by either the structure of the international system of states or the economic system of the market that makes economic and social human rights a dream. They are not a utopian fantasy. They can be achieved. The question is: Do we have the courage to walk the path?'' He has also published numerous articles and academic papers which address international issues and human rights, including, ``Human Rights Disparities between Europe and the United States: Conflicting Approaches to Poverty Prevention and the Alleviation of Suffering,'' (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2006) and ``The UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination,'' (Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, February 2002). Professor Felice serves on the editorial board of the journal Human Rights and Human Welfare. Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs During the 2004-05 academic year, in collaboration with the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (CCEIA), Professor Felice led a four-part lecture series, ``America and the World: Ethical Dimensions to Power.'' The series inspired a booklet distributed nationally, Ethical Dimensions to American Foreign Policy: A Study Guide to the Four Freedoms. From 1999-2005, he served as a CCEIA Trustee. Engaging the Community in Conversation In the 2006-07 Col. Christian L. and Edna M. March International Relations Lecture Series, which is also part of the Presidential Events Series, Professor Felice coordinates the program on ``The Ethics of Economic Globalization.'' Invited speakers this year include Peter Singer, Jagdish Bhagwati, Micheline Ishay and Gita Sen. At The Studio@620 in downtown St. Petersburg, Professor Felice serves as co- facilitator of the 620 Round Tables on Social Justic, co- sponsored by Eckerd College.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I understand his interest in this bill, but I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to this bill. If it were simply a bill requiring that the congressional initiatives be identified, I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, the Defense Subcommittee identifies all congressional earmarks, if you would like to use that term, in the report that we publish along with the bill itself. But here is what offends me about this bill. This bill would say to the Department of Defense, you have to look at all the initiatives by the Congress and then issue a report card and the report card would say it gets an A, it gets a B, a C, a D, an E or an F. I don't want the Pentagon having to spend all that time grading the work that we in the Congress do. I have cited the Constitution many times, and I am going to do it again today. Article I, Section 9, Chairman Hunter referred to it generally. It says: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' Not made by budget requests from the White House but made by law. There is another part of that sentence that people tend to ignore. It says: ``and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' And we do that and the administration does it . . . sometimes. Read this Constitution from cover to cover. You will not find anything in this Constitution that says Congress can only appropriate money that has been requested by the President. Nothing in here says that. Article I, Section 9, however, says the President cannot spend any money that has not been appropriated by law. This is not a good bill. It flies in the face of the Constitution, and it adds burdens to the Defense Department to grade us on a report card for the work that we do. One final point. Chairman Hunter mentioned the $20 billion that we added for reset. That was part of a $70 billion so-called bridge fund for the war in Iraq. This Congress, this House of Representatives, your Appropriations Committee asked and asked and asked over and over again from the Department of Defense, ``What do you want in this $70 billion?''. To this day we are waiting for a formal answer. So Congress had to take the initiative and determine by dealing with the services themselves what was needed in that $70 billion bridge fund, and we did it and we did a good job at it. This bill is not a good bill. I hope you will vote ``no.''

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to four of our Florida colleagues who will depart at the end of this 109th Congress. Clay Shaw, Mike Bilirakis, Jim Davis, and Katherine Harris have all served our great state and our great Nation with passion and with pride. They have all left their own individual mark on this House as an institution, and I know they will be missed by all of our colleagues. Mike Bilirakis was my immediate neighbor as he represents the Ninth Congressional District of Florida just to my north. There is no member more beloved by his constituents than Mike Bilirakis as they respect him as a man of character and integrity. Mike was not a member who scheduled press conferences or spoke often on the House floor. He did his work behind the scenes and was tenacious when seeing matters through to their conclusion. You only need to look at his efforts to provide concurrent receipt payments for our Nation's veterans who retired from military service with a disability. After more than a decade, his legislation was signed into law to solve this terrible inequity for so many veterans. Likewise, he fought tirelessly for veterans with spinal cord injuries to expand the spinal cord treatment unit at the Haley VA Hospital. This is how he worked on the many other issues that were of special interest to him including health care, Medicare, seniors issues, or medical research. He took his work as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health seriously and spent considerable time on the many legislative matters that fell within their jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, Mike Bilirakis is a patriot and statesman and we will miss the quiet grace with which he and his wife Evelyn served the people of Florida. For me, I will especially miss him as a friend and confidant. They are a special couple who I wish all the best in their retirement years. And I know it is with great pride that they will watch as their son Gus is sworn-in next month to establish a new legacy of service in this House. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to pay tribute to Clay Shaw, the Chairman of our Florida delegation. He has done outstanding work over the past few years in keeping the 25 members of our delegation communicating and focusing on the needs of our large and growing state. Clay also has a distinguished record of legislative success in this House. He chaired three Subcommittees of the Ways and Means Committee, leaving behind an indelible stamp of success in many divergent areas. It was under his chairmanship that we passed and enacted sweeping welfare reform. He was a voice of reason as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee as the Congress and our Nation has wrestled with the best approach to sure up the financial integrity of the Social Security Trust Funds. And in his latest assignment, he has advanced the issues of global trade and competitiveness as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee. He has also been an unquestioned champion for our environment as he has been a leader in the restoration of the Everglades, the renourishment of Florida's beautiful beaches, and in fighting to prevent drilling for oil off Florida's coastline. Mr. Speaker, in addition to his legislative successes, Clay is also a personal inspiration as he and Emilie have worked together to represent our Nation, our state, and the 22nd district of Florida with great energy and integrity. Even two battles with lung cancer never slowed Clay's drive to serve in this House as he never missed a step. Our colleagues from Florida, those who served with him on the Ways and Means Committee, and all those who have come to know him over the past 26 years will miss Clay and his easygoing yet thoughtful manner. Mr. Speaker, Katherine Harris is one of our delegation's most junior members but quickly established herself as one of the hardest working members of this House. She has devoted her career to public service, having been elected to serve Florida as a State Senator, Secretary of State, and member of the House for the past four years representing the people of the 13th Congressional District. Among her many legislative accomplishments in that short period of time were bills to create more affordable housing opportunities, to provide funding for a veterans cemetery in Sarasota, to restore equity in disability payments for veterans, and to spur free trade. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Katherine for her service here and to wish her all the best in her future endeavors. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Jim Davis, my colleague from the 11th District of Florida whom I share the City of St. Petersburg with and who has proudly represented the people of the Tampa Bay area for 10 years. From his first days in office, Jim has always kept his focus on fiscal responsibility through his work on the Budget Committee. He also established himself as a leader on education issues, particularly in the recruitment in response to severe shortages in Florida and throughout the Nation. As much as I will remember Jim for his legislative work, I will always remember the care with which he balanced his work here with his passion to spend time with his wife Peggy and their sons Peter and William. Jim found a way to manage the hectic schedule of the House with the need to be with his young sons as they have grown during his five terms here. Mr. Speaker, the Florida Congressional Delegation has always worked well together in the best interests of the people of Florida. We may have had differences of opinion on national legislation, but we put those differences aside to work on Florida issues. With the departure of Clay Shaw, Mike Bilirakis, Katherine Harris, and Jim Davis, we lose four Members who have devoted themselves to this House and to our State. We will miss their service and their friendship but we will continue to carry on their commitment to serve with honor and distinction. In closing, I join with all my colleagues who will follow me this evening in wishing each of these Members the very best as they leave the people's House.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute as it marks its 20th anniversary of work to treat patients with cancer and to conduct cutting edge research into the causes and cures of this terrible disease. The Center was established through the vision and tireless work of H. Lee Moffitt, then a member of the Florida House of Representatives. As a cancer survivor himself, he recognized the unmet need for cancer treatment and research in the Tampa Bay area and the entire state of Florida. Five years of hard work by Lee Moffitt to secure the funding for the center led to its groundbreaking in 1983 and the first patient walked through its doors three-and-a-half years later. That patient, David Sheppard, is alive today as a result of the care he received at Moffitt in October 1986. Today, a staff of more than 3,400 people continues to save lives every day and supports research that one day will unlock the mystery of this disease. They are led by Dr. William S. Dalton, the CEO and Center Director, and Dr. W. Jack Pledger, the Deputy Center Director, who oversee a world class team that collaborates on research projects with facilities all across the world. They receive invaluable support from the Board of Directors and its Chairman Senator Connie Mack and the Board of Advisors and its Chairman Sam Donaldson. Moffitt's stated mission is ``To be the leader in scientific discovery and translation into compassionate care, cures, and prevention of cancer for our community and the world.'' The center does that by offering 14 patient care programs in a facility designated a prestigious Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute. The center, now almost five times the size of the original facility, also houses state-of-the-art labs that allow researchers to delve into the science of cancer, right down to the genomic level. As a result, the doctors and staff are learning to treat cancer on a patient-by- patient basis by determining the best course of treatment for each patient based on their genetic makeup. The H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute is not only a superb medical resource for the community I represent, but it is truly a national and international asset in our ongoing war on cancer. Following my remarks, I would like to include for the benefit of my colleagues, a recent column by Ernest Hooper of The St. Petersburg Times which talks about the early days at Moffitt and the life-changing experience of its first patient David Sheppard. Mr. Speaker, The Moffitt Cancer Center is an outstanding example of a public and private partnership that serves all of mankind. Its staff battles cancer and saves lives every day and for that thousands of cancer survivors are eternally grateful. Thousands if not millions more will one day also benefit from the ongoing research activities there as they identify new cures and one day preventative medicine that will fight the scourge of cancer. [From the St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 30, 2006] 20 Good Years of Moffitt (By Ernest Hooper) The restless night is still fresh in David Sheppard's mind. The difficulties of his rare bone marrow blood disease grew more intense. His doctors had scheduled him for admission to the hospital that afternoon, but because he became more ill overnight, they told him to rush over that morning. They didn't send him to just any hospital, however. They sent him to a bright, new treatment facility. It seemed more like a mall, Sheppard said. It didn't have any antiseptic, medicinal odors. ``It was this big, beautiful place,'' Sheppard recalled Friday. ``It was nice to have this nice, new facility.'' That's how Sheppard, husband, father and Wharton High assistant principal, became the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute's first patient on Oct. 27, 1986. Sheppard and Julie Y. Djeu, Moffitt's first researcher, were scheduled to join employees in a 20th anniversary celebration Saturday night at Saddlebrook Resort. The center's first physician, Dr. Richard Karl, was not able to attend, but recognizing some of the center's firsts was a neat way to commemorate the anniversary. For Sheppard, it was an opportunity to show his appreciation. He raves about the helpful and kind Moffitt staff. ``I'm very grateful that they were there 20 years, ago,'' he said. ``A lot of people have received good treatment there. I was just the first one to walk through the door.'' Sheppard, who graduated from King High, told Moffitt officials he ``wouldn't be here today without the lifesaving care I got that very first day.'' He actually continued to get treatment from a Moffitt oncologist and hematologist after that first visit. In a sense, he gives back as a 13-year school district veteran. Sheppard is pleased to help shepherd the lives of our young people. Over the years, he's even dealt with some students who were facing their own battles with cancer. Sheppard said he doesn't necessarily offer any specific counsel or share his story, but he certainly listens with a sympathetic ear. ``I had done some tutoring and I just decided to stick with it,'' Sheppard said. ``I also was looking at options for careers that I might be able to handle because of my disease. I couldn't consider being a Navy pilot or a firefighter.'' Maybe he didn't turn into a Top Gun fighter, but Sheppard still is flying high. After all, if it wasn't for Moffitt, he might not be celebrating turning 37 today. Happy Birthday, David Sheppard. Happy Birthday, Moffitt. That's all I'm saying.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Paul de la Garza, a hard charging newspaper reporter for The St. Petersburg Times with a generous heart of gold who died on October 29, 2006. Many of our colleagues worked with Paul as he reported on stories affecting our national security and the health care of our country's veterans. Paul was an outstanding investigative reporter who mined his many sources to effect necessary changes in the way in which we deliver medical care at our Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. He also spent time earlier this summer in Iraq as he did extensive reporting on the war there and the role U.S. Central Command plays in managing our troops on the ground. Paul was more than a reporter though. He was first and foremost an outstanding husband to his wife Georgia and a loving father to his two children Monica, 12, and Carlos, 11, both of whom he adopted from Mexico. His is the story of the American dream, growing up poor in a small Texas town. He worked 40 hour weeks as a fourth grader to help out his family. Later he delivered newspapers and waited tables to put himself through college at the University of Texas. He was a reporter with the Associated Press and Chicago Tribune before becoming a regular on the front pages of The St. Petersburg Times as a reporter in the Washington and Tampa bureaus. Following my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include tributes to Paul from The St. Petersburg Times, The Tampa Tribune and The Chicago Tribune. They speak to Paul's success as a reporter but more importantly his compassion and love for his family, his friends, and for those most in need of help. Mr. Speaker, I knew Paul de la Garza as a reporter, but I will forever miss him as a very special friend who always kept life's priorities in order. My prayers go out to Paul's family, especially to Georgia, Monica and Carlos, as they deal with the loss of a great man, a great husband and a great father. [From the St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 30, 2006] Passionate Reporter ``Never Met A Stranger'' Paul de la Garza, a hard-driving St. Petersburg Times reporter whose passion for the big story was matched by love of family, died Sunday (Oct. 29, 2006) after an apparent heart attack. Mr. de la Garza, 44, who had survived a heart attack 2 years ago, collapsed at his Davis Islands home about 10 a.m. after complaining of chest pains. He was taken by ambulance to Tampa General Hospital, where he died about 1 p.m. As a journalist, Mr. de la Garza was widely respected for mining sources and breaking big stories, most recently about VA hospitals and the Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base. ``He was a driving investigative reporter. This is very shocking,'' said U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, a frequent source for Mr. de la Garza, sometimes dinner companion and occasional target. ``He was very respected by the folks I know. They trusted him.'' Young's wife, Beverly, recalled tears running down de la Garza's face, as she led him through VA wards full of wounded soldiers. ``Paul is really compassionate. He really cares,'' she said Sunday. ``He's the most wonderful Democrat I ever knew. I can't believe this has happened to him and Georgia and the kids. This is wrong.'' Texas upbringing Mr. de la Garza was born in Port Isabel, Texas, near Brownsville, one of six children. His father was a shrimper and his heritage was Mexican, though he sometimes pointed out that some ancestors lived in Texas before the United States annexed it. His given name was Jesus Pablo, but friends called him Jesus only when they wanted to annoy him. By fourth grade, he was working 40 hours a week, collecting bait for fishermen, his wife, Georgia, said. He waited tables and worked at the school newspaper to earn his way through the University of Texas. Then he worked his way up the ranks of the Associated Press, with stints in Chicago, Southern Illinois and Newark, N.J. Mike Konrad, now Hernando Times editor, was managing editor of the Southern Illinoisan, in Carbondale, when Mr. de la Garza was posted there for the AP. ``This was a guy who could work sources like nobody I've ever seen in my life,'' Konrad recalled. ``Within weeks of getting there, he was getting stories our reporters were missing, just because he had met so many people. And there was nobody in the world who would not talk to Paul.'' Sometimes, boldness and charm was all it took. As the Chicago Tribune's Mexico City bureau chief, Mr. de la Garza interviewed Latin American presidents and rebel leaders alike. On assignment in Cuba, he ran into Milton Berle and asked him for a cigar-smoking lesson. ``I still have the cigar box that Milton Berle signed for him,'' said Georgia de la Garza. ``They smoked Cohibas together.'' Once, when Mr. de la Garza was vacationing in New Orleans, a limousine driver pointed out Fats Domino's house. Mr. de la Garza jumped out with a video camera and talked his way in, where Domino's band was practicing for a Jazz Fest performance. Fats, himself, stayed in back of the house. ``Paul never met a stranger,'' recalled Times colleague Tom Scherberger, who witnessed the scene. ``He introduces himself and we are hanging out with Fats Domino's band. Finally, one of the band politely says that Fats won't come out until we leave. Only later, did we discover that Paul had pushed the button wrong on the camera and we never got any video.'' Mr. de la Garza first worked at the Times from 1992 through 1994, where he covered Tampa police news, wrote a column, and helped edit the Tampa section. Then he worked for the Chicago Tribune for six years, both in Mexico City and in Chicago, where he was a reporter and assignments editor. He returned to the Times in 2000, in part, because he and his wife wanted a more stable environment for two orphans they had adopted in Mexico City--Monica, now 12, and Carlos, 11. ``The two things he cared the most about were his family and his work,'' said John Dunn, longtime friend and Tampa General spokesman. ``Just about every conversation we had sitting over pints were about Georgia and the kids. ``No matter how bad a day he had, that put him in good spirits.'' It wasn't just the children. The de la Garza house often was opened to extended family. When Georgia's brother died, they took in her niece. When Paul's father had a stroke, they took in his parents. During his second stint at the Times, Mr. de la Garza covered the Pentagon, the military and veterans affairs. Last summer, he wrote a detailed, insider's look at Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, as he toured Afghanistan and Iraq. ``This is a heartbreaking loss. He really went after stories because they would make a difference in the lives of goodhearted folks,'' said Paul Tash, Times editor, chairman and CEO. ``He had so much to offer both as a father and husband and also as a reporter.'' Cancer survivor In 2001, Mr. de la Garza was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease and underwent extensive cancer treatments. After 2 years with no recurrence, he and his wife rented a B&B in his beloved New Orleans and celebrated with about 40 friends from around the country. One photograph shows him in a colorful hat, a Jazz Fest scarf around his neck and sunglasses. ``Paul the journalist was very different than Paul, the regular guy,'' recalled Sandra Gadsden, the Neighborhood Times editor. ``The journalist was a stickler for detail. He would hang on every sentence. Paul the man was just a fun-loving laid- back guy.'' Mr. de la Garza is survived by his wife; daughter Monica and son Carlos: mother, Jesusa de la Garza and sister Via Camacho, both of Austin, Texas, and brothers Eduardo of Houston and Alberto of Galveston, Texas. Funeral services have not been set.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1037, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on H.R. 5631 which makes appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. The agreement provides $377.6 billion for the United States military. In addition, $70 billion is provided in the so-called bridge fund for the operations of the war against terror. Finally, $200 million is included in emergency funding to help the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service combat wildfires. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also carries a continuing resolution which will fund other activities of the government through November 17. It is a totally clean CR, and it merely establishes the date. The House passed the defense bill on June 20 by a vote of 407-19. The other body completed its action on its version of the bill on September 7. By September 21, only 2 weeks after the Senate approval, we resolved conference and present a good conference report. There was some difficulty about the total number, the top line, the 302(b) allocation, and I want to compliment the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Lewis, for having stuck to his guns. We were able to get that top number up to the House number and this bill reflects very closely the bill as passed by the House. I will say that a statement has been prepared in writing of the highlights of this legislation. I would advise the Members that there were no new earmarks, no new Member projects added in conference, and that in the bridge fund there are no Member projects whatsoever. It is a good conference report. It was agreed to unanimously by the conferees of both parties in both the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. This agreement provides $377.6 billion for the United States military. In addition, $70 billion is provided in the so-called ``Bridge Fund''. Finally, $200 million is included in emergency funding to help the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service combat wildfires. This conference report also carries a continuing resolution, which will fund other activities of the government through November 17th. The House passed the Defense appropriations bill on June 20th by a vote of 407 to 19. However, the Senate did not complete action on its version until September 7th. We reached a conference agreement on Thursday, September 21st, only two weeks after final approval by the Senate, despite having to resolve some major funding differences. The centerpiece of this legislation is the funding for the Global War on Terror contained in title IX. This includes $17.1 billion to fully cover the fiscal year 2007 reset needs of the United States Army, and $5.8 billion to do the same for the Marine Corps. The reset funding in this conference agreement will enable deploying units to have all the equipment they require to face the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, returning units can be reset and trained in order to be at full readiness for any future deployment. We owe it to our troops to ensure they have all the equipment they need to perform their missions. This funding keeps that commitment. In addition, the conference agreement provides operating expenses for the services to conduct the Global War on Terror for the first half of fiscal year 2007. Finally, we provide funding for 10 additional C-17 aircraft in the Bridge Fund, for a total of 22 in this conference report. Within the base bill, the conference agreement maintains the two littoral combat ships provided for the Navy in the House bill but eliminated by the Senate, as well one T-AKE ammunition ship. We have reluctantly agreed to the proposal of the Administration and the Senate to incrementally fund the two lead ships of the DDG-1000 destroyer series, formerly DD(X). However, we expect them to stay within the total funding envelop for both ships, which is currently projected at $6,582,200,000. In the future, I do not believe Congress should entertain any funding above this level. The conference agreement also includes $2.7 billion to fully fund the procurement of 20 F-22A fighter aircraft, and $687 million for advance procurement of 20 aircraft in fiscal year 2008. The Senate bill had eliminated procurement funding for the Joint Strike Fighter program. However, in the conference agreement we were able to restore full funding for 2 production aircraft and advance procurement for 12 additional aircraft in fiscal year 2008. Including research and development costs, the conference agreement contains $4.3 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter program, making it the largest single program in the Department of Defense. We also responded to the emerging threat posed by North Korea and Iran by providing $9.4 billion for ballistic missile defense, an increase of $1.6 billion over fiscal year 2006. This includes funds to begin the establishment in Europe of a third ground-based interceptor site. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other important programs addressed in this conference report. Let me just conclude by stating that this bill provides essential funding for the war fighter in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world as we wage the Global War on Terror. Every member of the conference committee signed the conference report. It deserves the strong support of the House. I urge its adoption. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26SE06.006 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the vice chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5631.