C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), former chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin has been a Member of the House Committee on Appropriations longer than anyone else on that committee. Help me out. If the provision in the appropriations bill busts the budget and this bill that we talk about today has the identical effect and it does not bust the budget, can the gentleman explain to me how that works?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for the good work that he does and the strong support he is giving us on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing said earlier on, that nothing is getting done, that the national defense bill is not working and this is not happening and that is not happening on national defense. The national defense appropriations bill has been passed by the House, has been passed by the Senate, has gone to conference; and, as a matter of fact, it has been filed and we would be considering it right this minute if it had not been for the fact we are having to deal with this issue. As we deal with this issue, we are spending a lot of time; and that is okay, because the issue is extremely important. But I have to keep asking myself over and over again, and I can usually come up with the answer: What is the difference in doing it on the appropriations bill or doing it on a freestanding bill? The effect is the same. The chairman who is going to raise the point of order on the appropriations bill is the author of this bill, so I have a hard time understanding what the problem is. I do not know if there is a good answer to that. But no matter how we do it, it is going to have the same effect. If we do not do it, we are going to have many people who are looking forward to having decent housing for their military families that are not going to get it any time soon. That is the big issue. Now, when it was suggested that someone was shooting Santa Claus, I said that earlier in debate. I said, let us not have these kids in Iraq and Afghanistan who are planning to have their families in decent housing, let us not let them think Santa Claus is going to be shot today. Let us not be the Grinch that stole Christmas. Let us do what we have to do; let us do what is right. If we are going to do it later, why not do it now, while the vehicle is before us? There are a lot of questions that I really cannot get answers to in my own mind.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The appropriations bill is a must-pass bill. It will pass eventually. I cannot say when. We are going to pass it. I cannot say when it might get final passage, considering the other body has to deal with it; but the appropriations bill has to pass as all appropriations bills have to pass, or the government shuts down. We have not let that happen for a long time, and we are not going to let it happen now; but it is a shame that we have to use, as the gentleman from Missouri said, the round robin way to get to this when we could have had it done and over with and on the way to the Senate if we would have just passed this bill the way that the committee wrote it with the bipartisan support of everybody involved, except the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a very warm thanks to the gentleman from California for bringing this bill to the floor. He is a devoted patriot and devoted to the men and women who serve in our military, and he has proved that so many times. What he does today by expediting the consideration of this bill, the military folks I think will appreciate him and express that appreciation in many ways. The gentleman from Missouri again is absolutely correct. This is a total bipartisan effort not only on the part of the committees but the House, the administration, the President, the Department of Defense. Everybody. It is really a shame that we have to ask the gentleman from California to bring this bill up basically out of order. But since there is the threat of not allowing the appropriations bill to include this issue on military family housing, this is the only other way to get to it. But here is the problem. This bill will pass today with a big vote, but that is the end of it. It is never going to pass. It is never going to become law. We are never going to see it anywhere. The appropriate way to do this is on that appropriations bill that we were talking about all morning and that we will come back to later this afternoon. That is the right way to do it and get it done.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one very important part of this debate that we have not gotten to: Most Members of the House support this provision for family housing. The President of the United States supports this provision for family housing. The members of our military who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places support this provision for family housing. But if we do not pass the rule, if we shoot the rule down, then nothing happens, including family housing. If, in fact, the rule passes and we get to the bill, maybe we can prevail upon everyone not to raise that point of order so that they do not appear to be the Grinch that stole Christmas from our military families.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would announce to my colleagues, especially on the Committee on Appropriations, that I intend to vote for this rule. But there is one part of the rule that I do not like. I wish that the rule would have protected language relative to military housing. I am really proud of the Committee on Appropriations and the Congress, because we have done an awful lot for the members of our military services, as we should; and there is a lot more that needs to be done. There are some 24,000 military families anxiously awaiting for this bill to pass so that they can get in line to receive one of those new housing projects. Some of our military families live in great housing that has been produced through this public-private venture system and at a very low cost to the government, I might say. For every dollar it costs the government, there is $11 of private money invested, and these kids have great places to live. But there are at least 24,000 of our servicemen today who still do not have a decent place to live, and that is what this bill seeks to create and to fix housing for them. The amendment that is in question does not appropriate any money. I do not see why the budget chairman is so exercised. We did not appropriate any additional money. The amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and by the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), was strictly to raise the limit on the amount of money the government could enter into with the contractors. We did not appropriate a single additional dollar; and we did not need to, because of the great way this program works. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget also said, why do this? It has already been done. That is not true. It has not been done. The authorizing committee would like to do it, but they face the same budgetary constraints that we face--not dollars, not money being spent by the Federal Government, just to raise the limit on the amount of money that the Federal Government can enter into contracts with private contractors. It was suggested that we should have made changes in the budget process, and I agree with that. Let me tell you what one of the changes ought to be: the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget is basing his position on scoring by CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. I would like to base mine on OMB, the Office of Management and Budget. OMB likes this provision, and they say that it is not going to cost any more money. The Administration in their Statement of Administration Policy, and the President, strongly support the provision that we are talking about. They say OMB would not score any additional cost to this provision because it does not increase the amount of budget authority available to the Department of Defense. So, yes, we need budget process reform. We need to have the people that are scoring our appropriations bills reading from the same page. You cannot have CBO scoring something one way and OMB scoring it another way. That is one of the process changes that we need to make and that we will offer at a later date. Mr. Speaker, this is important to our kids that serve in the military. As I said, we have done a lot for them, and we sent them to war. Most of the people that are concerned about this budget situation voted to send them to war. And when you go to the hospitals, as I do on a regular basis, to visit the kids, they want to get better, they want to get back to the fight, but they also want to know, if someone is taking care of their family. Are they going to live in decent housing? Are they going to have enough money to buy food for the kids, and things like this. We owe these kids decent places to live. If we are going to send them to war, we owe them a quality of life that is better than so many of them are living today. So we have a lot of work to do. The Committee on Appropriations, I believe, has made a great step forward in this bill by adding this language to allow the Department of Defense to increase the amount of authority that they would give to the private-public venture that provides housing for our military families. There is a lot more that we have to do for these kids. They are paying a lot. The sacrifice is great, the separation from family, the facing of an enemy that is not even known in most cases, the problems they are facing in trying to secure America and our interests against terrorism and the terrorists who would threaten our very way of life. We owe them a lot more than we are doing for them now. military housing privatization The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was started in 1996. This program has successfully converted, 62,000 units and I have seen most of them. The program is extremely popular with military families who are clamoring to get out of the rat traps and into new homes. The program is extremely fiscally conservative. Every $1 of federal money leverages $11 of private investment. The provision in the Military Construction bill enhances the privatization program. Without it, the Department of Defense will have to forgo the creation of 24,000 additional homes. This provision simply raises the cap on the amount the Federal Government can contribute to the program. It does not appropriate one single additional dime for the program. The administration strongly supports this provision. Let me read from the Statement of Administration Policy on the bill. I quote, ``The administration strongly supports the provision that would increase the military housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.35 billion. This increase will improve the quality of life of our military families.'' OMB estimates that if this cap is not lifted the program will shut down in November of this year. For 6 years CBO scored this provision the same as OMB. For some reason, this year they have changed their position. Their explanation is long and exceedingly complex. OMB disagrees totally with this interpretation. If there ever is a case to be made for directed scorekeeping, this is it. I am extremely disappointed that this provision was not protected by the rule and will probably be struck by a point of order. It has been said we will fix it later--why wait--now is better than later. Fact Sheet Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) began in 1996. As of February 2004, DOD privatized over 55,000 units through 27 projects--the current plan is for 171,000 units, probably more. DOD projects that it will privatize over 43,000 units in FY 2005. Of these, DOD estimates that 24,000 units are threatened by the cap. Affected installations include Fort Drum (2,272 units), Fort Bliss (2,752 units), Eglin AFB (2,155 units), McGuire AFB/Fort Dix (2,592 units). DOD estimates that about half of current housing inventory is still inadequate (too small, inferior to current design standards, etc.). Secretary of Defense has established goal of eliminating inadequate housing inventory by 2007 (with exception of four Air Force installations by 2008 and Air Force overseas by 2009). This goal is impossible without MHPI. Average ratio of private to Federal dollars is 11:1. Privatization is undertaken only where housing market and life cycle analysis indicate that it is the best option. DOD will still rely primarily on existing housing market to meet service members' needs. The least we can do is give our military servicemen a nice place to live, for them and their families.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman for having produced an excellent bill with limited funds available; and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member, for his partnership in making this a very good bill. It is a good bill. We are focusing on one part of the bill, and I think that is appropriate. We should focus on that one part of the bill, but all of the items included in this appropriations bill for military construction are needed. They are cost effective and they are very good projects. But the one that we are vitally concerned about today, the one that we fear might have a point of order raised against it, is the military family housing issue. I have not found anybody, Mr. Chairman, that is opposed to doing what we want to do. We want to provide decent housing for the members of our military and their families. We do not want a soldier or a Marine to be in Iraq or Afghanistan and have in the back of his mind that his family is living in a rat-trap condition back home. That soldier, that Marine, has to be paying full attention to the mission and to accomplishing the mission, and also to providing some protection for himself or herself while they do this mission. Congress needs to be totally supportive of the troops; and Congress has done a really good job. I am proud to say that we have identified, just during this year alone, many areas where the government is not taking proper care of military members and their families, and we are fixing them. And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to do that. We need to fix these issues. We need to provide what our troops need and we need to protect them while they are doing it. And we need to have their families have a quality of life while they are out fighting that war. They do not need to be worried about what conditions the folks are living in back home. The reason we need to do this is because this Congress voted to send them to the war. Now, maybe everybody did not vote for it, but most of us did, and we have an obligation to the men and women who protect this Nation and protect our national interests, wherever they might be, and who are on the front line in the war against terrorism and the threats of terrorists. A world that is controlled by terrorists or their threats of violence is not acceptable, and I do not know of anyone who would disagree with that except the terrorists. This Congress has stepped up to the plate before, and we need to step up to the plate today. I am not exactly sure what the issue is on military family housing. Everybody is for it, but there are some who want to strike it from this bill and do it at a later time. What I cannot understand is, if we are going to do it at a later time, why not do it now? There may be some other bills that could solve this same problem, but this bill is here and fixes it today. Some other bill that might solve this problem of family housing for the military, but it may not have to pass. This bill has to pass. Before this Congress can leave its business, this bill and all of the other appropriations bills have to pass. That is an interesting point. A lot of folks do not understand that. Appropriations bills have to pass because if they do not, the government shuts down. Now, who wants to shut down the government? I do not know of anybody who wants to shut down the government. There may be some. But this bill has to pass, and that is why we ought to solve the problem of military housing for families in this bill today, while we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Now, there is a scoring issue. We have had many bills come to the floor where the Committee on the Budget could have raised points of order--issues like the farm bill that exceeded the budget resolution; like the Medicare reform bill, where costs far exceeded the estimate; and this afternoon we are going to consider a highway program that exceeds the authorizing committee allocation by $400 million. And I have heard nothing about raising points of order on those bills. I have not heard anyone from the Committee on the Budget state a concern about those bills. No points of order were raised against the farm bill or against the Medicare reform bill. It is my understanding that none are going to be raised against the highway bill today. That may change now that we put a little pressure on the issue, but as of this morning that was not intended. But, for years, OMB and CBO have scored the military housing program the same way, 6 years. But for some reason, all of a sudden, CBO decided to score it differently. I do not know why. Maybe there is some good reason, but if there is, I do not know what it is. I want to take just a couple of minutes to read what the President of the United States thinks about this provision in the appropriations bill. He supports this very strongly, as do most of the Members of this House and the Senate, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chiefs of the services. They all support it. But you know who really supports it? The military troops who are defending our Nation support this because it gives their families some quality of life. I am quoting now from the letter from the Administration. ``The administration strongly supports the provision that would increase the military housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.35 billion. This increase will help improve the quality of life of our military families. Furthermore, without this increase, the current limit would be reached by November of 2004 and the program would be over. OMB would not score any additional costs to this provision because it does not increase the amount of budget authority available to the Department of Defense.'' And it goes on for about five more sentences expressing strong support for this provision and, expressing no concern whatsoever for the scoring. I just think that it is so important to those Americans serving in our military, doing whatever they are asked to do, going wherever they are asked to go, making whatever sacrifice they must make. If we cannot today, in this bill that must pass, take care of their concerns for the way their families have to live, shame on us. But I would tell you that of the 435 Members of this House, I will bet if this was put to an up or down vote, there probably would not be five votes against it. It is just too bad that a procedural situation, that is not even consistent, can derail this extremely important issue. Let us not shoot Santa Claus on the floor of the House today.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment includes a legislative prohibition on the obligation of funds. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to say to the author of this amendment that I understand his interest and I think it is a good-faith effort, but I just cannot agree with it. I think the gentleman would agree, that one of the only stabilizing factors in the very unstable Middle East is the relationship that the United States has, on behalf of Israel, with President Mubarak and the nation of Egypt. Any change to the Egyptian military assistance account, I believe, would seriously undermine that strong U.S.-Egypt partnership that started in 1979 at the Camp David Accords and continues to be one of the foundations for achieving our own foreign policy goals in the Middle East. Members know that U.S. military aid to Egypt is a cornerstone of the Camp David Accords. The Administration is opposed to an amendment that would modify our commitment to the parties as contained in that agreement. This commitment is the foundation of our efforts to promote peace in the region, to combat terrorism, and to advance interoperability with the Egyptian military. In addition, this reduction in military assistance could lead to the cancellation of approximately $2.2 billion in total contract value. These contracts all go towards the purchase of United States products. Our military assistance to Egypt has contributed to regional stability in an area that had previously been the scene of military conflict against Israel. This calming of tensions has enabled us to develop a strategic partnership with Egypt that has contributed to a broad range of U.S. objectives in the region, including the global War on Terrorism, the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq, and, more recently, the efforts to stop the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan. Egypt has also taken a critical initiative to work with Israel to support the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip through the reorganization and training of the Palestinian security services. On a bilateral military-to-military level, our assistance has helped to modernize the Egyptian military, thereby creating a defensive force that is interoperable with and capable of supporting, U.S. security goals in the region. We also continue to train Egyptian military officers through the IMET Program and to conduct joint exercises, thereby ensuring that our militaries both understand and support each other at critical moments. This Egyptian capacity has enabled the Egyptian military to participate in international peacekeeping operations, to help us successfully prosecute Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, to enable our craft to safely transit the Suez Canal, to enable our planes to traverse Egyptian air space, and to provide our tankers with invaluable accession to Egyptian facilities. This amendment would undermine this relationship, and I would hope that the Members would join the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Appropriations in opposing this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and what the subcommittee has done on this bill, which tends to be controversial on occasion. The markup in subcommittee and full committee, led by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) went extremely well, which was a little unusual because the bill does tend to attract some interesting debate on occasion. The gentlemen worked in partnership to bring a good bill. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) stated earlier, the 302(b) allocation was a little lean, but all of the 302(b) allocations were a little lean this year. They did a good job and produced a good bill with a lean 302(b) allocation. And I want to take a minute to give a status report. As of today, the Committee on Appropriations has marked up 10 of the 13 bills in subcommittee, 7 of the 13 bills in the full committee. This will be the fifth bill passed through the floor, and the legislative branch will be passed on tomorrow. That means that we are moving very quickly considering we got off to a very late start since we did not get the deeming budget resolution until May 19. The committee has worked very effectively and worked pretty much on a bipartisan basis, and all of the members have been contributors to the work effort. We are moving the bills with pretty good votes on the floor. Again, I just wanted to give this brief status report and again say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) what great leaders they are and what great leadership they have provided the subcommittee and the full committee as they brought this bill to this point where we will pass this bill and send it to the other body today.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to rise in opposition to this amendment, because of its sponsor. I know that his heart is in the right place. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is an outstanding chairman of the Committee on Small Business. I know that he has worked very hard for the strength of small businesses because he understands, as most of us do, that without all of our small businesses in America, we would not have any big businesses because the big businesses rely on small businesses in order to get the job done. But the sponsors of the amendment are of the opinion that there is no money or that the 7(a) loan program needs more money. In this bill, if I remember correctly, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) provides $12.5 billion in loan guarantees for this program. So we have not forgotten this program in the appropriations bill. The amendment does not really add money to the loan program anyway. It adds money to the SBA administrative account and, therefore, will not even be spent on the loan program as the drafters intend. At the same time, and this is my larger concern, the amendment cuts not only other SBA administrative functions, hurting the agency that oversees the loan programs, but it also reduces programs in the Department of Justice, impacting homeland security initiatives, by $60 million. The impact of this would be devastating on the war on terrorism. For example, the cuts include the office that oversees Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications which are vital to the war on terrorism and which are vital to keep track of terrorists who may try to enter this country. I believe that there are more prudent ways to address the gentleman's issue. Again, I would like to compliment him for his strong commitment, not only as a Member of the House, but as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and for his support of small businesses because, again I will repeat, that small businesses are important to this Nation and are important to our economy. Small businesses create many of the jobs that Americans hold and draw paychecks from. Without our very successful number of small businesses, the large businesses in America would find it very difficult to function because they do rely on small businesses. So, all in all, I do not think this money is certainly not needed for the loan program. But it would not be invested in the loan program anyway. But what it does is take money away from homeland security programs in the Department of Justice, and I just think that is a mistake.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to first compliment Chairman Hobson for having done an outstanding job in preparing this bill along with his ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). One can tell from the way the markups in the subcommittee and the full committee went that they obviously did their work very effectively and have produced a really good bill. I wanted to take just a couple of minutes to give the Members a bit of a status report on where we are with appropriations and what they can expect in the next couple of weeks. For example, from the time we received the President's budget request in February until we received the deeming resolution on the budget on May 19, the Committee on Appropriations and our 13 subcommittees held nearly 300 oversight hearings that were very lengthy and very thorough. Since May 19 when the budget was deemed, there have been 16 legislative days. In those 16 legislative days, the committee marked up eight bills in subcommittee and seven bills in full committee. When we pass this bill today, we will have passed four bills in the House and sent them to the other body. When we reconvene the week after next, we will mark up two more bills in subcommittee, the District of Columbia and Military Construction bills. We will also consider Military Construction and Foreign Operations in the full committee. So we are preparing a queue of bills to move through the House. We expect to consider the Commerce-State- Justice and the Legislative Branch appropriations bills in the House the very same week that we return and are doing the other markups. We also expect to appoint conferees on the Defense bill, which the House and Senate have passed. We are now preparing to go to conference on that bill. While the House is in the Fourth of July District Work Period, our staffs will be doing the preparation for the conference on the Defense bill. We plan to have that conference report completed and on the way to the President's desk before the August District Work Period begins. The Appropriations Committee will report all 13 bills from full committee before the beginning of the August District Work Period, and the House will probably complete work on as many as 11 of those bills. There are only 14 legislative days remaining before the summer recess in August, so we have to expedite the consideration of these bills. But the Appropriations Committee, once we had the deeming resolution on the budget, has been going full speed. We hope to pass this bill quickly today and be on our way.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Commander Bruce D. Clemons who leaves his active duty assignment with the United States Navy this month after seven years of service to our Nation and to the U.S. House of Representatives. Dr. Clemons' last assignment in the Navy was as the Senior Medical Officer at the Office of the Attending Physician here in the United States Capitol. In that position, he has provided invaluable medical assistance to my colleagues and me in the House and Senate, to the members of our staffs, and to the hundreds of thousands of visitors. All who came into contact with Dr. Clemons will agree that he served with an unmatched level of commitment and professionalism. This dedication to duty and service yielded many honors for Dr. Clemons. These include the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medical, the Navy Unit Commendation, and the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star. Perhaps the honor that best reflects his medical ability and coolness under pressure is the U.S. Public Health Service Crisis Response Award that he recently received for his work in responding to the Anthrax bioterrorism attacks on the United States Capitol. His immediate actions in the face of grave, unknown danger prevented the potential loss of life and serious illness for those exposed to the deadly Anthrax spores. In addition to providing medical care, he helped develop a comprehensive plan to deal with the crisis both in the short and long-term, and he calmly provided valuable information to members and staff who were or may have been exposed to these toxins. Mr. Speaker, Bruce Clemons has been an outstanding sailor, doctor, and friend. My colleagues in the House appreciate his service to the Navy and to the United States Congress. We will greatly miss Bruce and want to wish him and his wife Catherine and their two children Abigail and William all the best as they continue Bruce's medical career in central Virginia.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding Naval Officer, Commander Chris Rhoden, to recognize his service to our Nation and the Navy as he leaves the Pentagon to pursue his first love, commanding a Naval ship. On behalf of my colleagues in the House and on the Appropriations Committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his distinguished and dedicated service. It was through his assignment with the Navy's Appropriations Liaison office that I first came to know Commander Rhoden. In this capacity, he served as an invaluable liaison for the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to me, the members of my committee, and our staff. In addition to providing timely and accurate information on budget matters, Commander Rhoden also has escorted me and other Members of Congress on several occasions as we traveled both home and abroad to review military operations and confirm the health and welfare of our troops. He provided special insight on matters of national security, naval shipbuilding, and the direct relationship between the two. His candor, intelligence, and steadfast devotion to duty, was always very much appreciated and he was an invaluable asset to me during deliberations regarding funding programs for our armed forces. His perspective on the needs of the Nation with respect to our sea services provided me with the clarity and detail I needed to make important decisions regarding appropriations for the Department of Defense. In addition to the respect I have for the work Commander Rhoden did in representing the Navy, I also thank him for the calm demeanor and sense of humor he shared with us all. Chris has become a mentor and friend to me and to my family, and for that I will always be grateful. It is this same sense of purpose and professionalism that I am confident will make Commander Rhoden a tremendous role model for those who serve under his command. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Commander Rhoden for his distinguished service to our nation. My wife Beverly and I have the highest respect for those who serve in uniform, and I appreciate and honor all the men and women who have served, and continue to serve, in defense of freedom. Recalling our national anthem, to our veterans and Armed Forces, I say, we would not be ``the land of the free'' were we not also the ``home of the brave.'' Mr. Speaker, My colleagues and I want to express our thanks and appreciation for the special contribution Commander Rhoden has made to the United States Navy. We wish him and his family continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``Fair winds and Following seas'' as he closes out his service to the Congress and continues toward the pinnacle of Naval service, command at sea of a United States warship.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant. Scott Lilly has spent 31 years serving the House of Representatives. Scott's career in Congress started in 1973, coincidentally, the same year I was appointed to the Appropriations Committee. While he has held many distinguished positions during his long tenure in the House, most of his time was spent working in some capacity for the House Appropriations Committee. Scott started and ended his career working for my friend and Ranking Member, David Obey. He had a brief tenure as the Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee and has spent the last nine years as director of the minority staff of the committee. Scott is an unapologetic liberal and we have vigorous debates and differences in our committee. But Scott never allowed a political dispute to become personal. We could have a knock-down drag-out fight in committee and after it was over Scott and the staff from both sides of aisle would retire to the Committee's appointed space and enjoy an adult beverage. There was never any lingering ill will or hard feelings. Scott is a consummate professional. His knowledge and expertise of appropriations matters is rivaled by few. He is a shrewd floor tactician and legislative strategist. Scott will now be able to spend more time in the academic world, a world where he is able draw on his great intellect and wealth of Congressional experience. Our loss is his student's gain. Every class he teaches will be enriched by his thoughtful consideration of complex political and policy questions. Scott will be sorely missed. I can say with confidence that he will not miss our long markups, our late night conferences and the marathon sessions on the floor. He is a great patriot, a great public servant and a great appropriator. I wish him all the success in his future endeavors.