Expressing sympathy to the victims, families, and friends of the tragic act of violence at the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 2009.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe in the country. Though the size of the Lumbee Tribe does not disqualify it from consideration for recognition, it does demand, nonetheless, that Congress exercise great caution. And I will point that out later on in my remarks.

Madam Speaker, a fundamental principle of Indian law is that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition. The BIA process might have its problems, but at least it has a clear set of standards that a petitioner must meet.

We in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining that the Lumbee Tribe warrants recognition. Legislative proposals to recognize the Lumbee has surfaced numerous times over the last century, yet none were enacted. No new information has come to light to justify passing that legislation today. Moreover, the committee applied no visible standard for determining why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere.

The lack of transparent standards in H.R. 31 leads to a major issue: the tribe size and the cost of providing services to it. Two years ago when we considered the same legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that recognizing the Lumbees would cost taxpayers $480 million over 5 years based on an enrollment of about 40,000 members. Today, CBO advises that the bill is going to cost $786 million over 5 years based on a tribal enrollment of 54,000.

$786 million, Madam Speaker, is an enormous sum and it could force the BIA and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation.

A recent news article in the North Carolina paper indicates the tribal rolls are closed because of the concerns over the size of the tribe. The implication is that the tribal rolls will be reopened again after Congress passes this bill. As I said earlier, the size of the tribe is not an issue here. What is at issue is the kind of enrollment standards the tribe applies because taxpayers and other tribes want to know what the cost implications will be down the road.

Let me restate a few points that I made when the Committee on Natural Resources marked up this measure, because the objections and the concerns that I raised then have not been resolved today.

First, the Obama administration testified in support of H.R. 31, reversing the stance of the previous administration. In the committee hearing on the

bill, the Department's witness did not explain how the administration came to the conclusion that the Lumbees warrant Federal recognition. When I asked the witness who was at the Department who made the decision, his reply was, The political leadership.

The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is the top political leader there. I would note since the day he took office, Secretary Salazar has repeatedly stressed that his decisions will be based on the law and sound science. For example, an Interior news release quotes him as saying: ``My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision making, high ethical standards, and respect to scientific integrity.'' Again, this is from a news release that was sent out by the Department.

We are debating a bill about tribal recognition and the Department of the Interior is supposed to base its recognition decisions based on the research of the professional historians, anthropologists, and genealogists employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

So in this new leadership at Interior, how did this new leadership at Interior and the administration arrive at support of H.R. 31? Was it because of the professional opinion of those career social scientists? Was there openness in this decisionmaking? I think the answer is no. The Department has not provided the committee with any data supporting its conclusion that the Lumbee met the same basic criteria as other tribes the Secretary has recognized.

While there are a number of other concerns with H.R. 31, let me highlight one more which is extremely important. While the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority to recognize a tribe, the Congress must respect some reasonable limits on the exercise of this authority. To do otherwise undermines the whole notion of tribal recognition and thereby dishonors all validly recognized tribes. With this in mind, the House today should, at a minimum, ensure that a tribe being formally recognized descends from a known historic tribe.

H.R. 31 fails this test. The legislation limits the Secretary to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the Tribe's constitution.''

The tribe has testified that its members are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. At a minimum, the Secretary should verify that every member of the tribe descends from such historic tribes. Such verification has not been done, and it is not required under H.R. 31. It could have been done if the amendment filed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) were made in order by the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee chose not to make his amendment in order.

His amendment would have required the Secretary to evaluate the Lumbee recognition petition using the Bureau of Indian Affairs' seven mandatory criteria. One of the criteria requires a petitioner to show that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe.

H.R. 31, again, Madam Speaker, does not impose a reasonable standard that justifies the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit amends the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the Cheraw and coastal North Carolina tribes. I don't believe this is unreasonable, and I say that because the preamble contained in H.R. 31 states that, ``the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw.''

At the same time, section 3 of the legislation limits the Secretary's role in verifying the Lumbee tribal rolls only to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the tribe's constitution.''

Thus, Madam Speaker, nothing in H.R. 31 requires the Secretary or any third party to verify that individuals enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the historic Cheraw and coastal North Carolina Indians.

Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations, as has been mentioned several times today, one of the seven mandatory requirements that must be met to be recognized by the Secretary as a tribe is that: ``The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.'' These regulations list a wide variety of evidence that can be used to meet this requirement.

The Rules Committee, as I have mentioned and as Mr. McHenry mentioned, would not make Mr. Shuler of North Carolina's amendment in order that would have required the Lumbees to meet all seven of the BIA criteria, including the one quoted above, to obtain Federal recognition.

This motion requires the Secretary to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe meet the equivalent of just one of the seven criteria that are applied to the other petitioners seeking recognition through the BIA process.

I believe, Madam Speaker, this is reasonable because there have been some concerns about the tribe's enrollment.

Today, the tribe claims 54,000 members, and the CBO says the cost would be $786 million over 5 years. This is an increase from just 2 years ago when they were told that there were 40,000 tribal members. Moreover, it appears the tribe is keeping its rolls closed until Congress passes this bill.

It is fair to have the Secretary verify the base rolls the tribe uses to establish membership. This verification requirement does not cancel the tribe's recognition; it merely provides a means of verifying the base rolls, something the BIA should do if the Lumbees had gone through the regulatory process.

Thus, a motion to recommit merely ensures the House has taken extra care to ensure the decision to extend recognition to the Lumbee is appropriate, because a wrong decision, a wrong decision, Madam Speaker, could have an adverse impact on all tribes.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 490, I call up the bill (H.R. 31) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let me begin by saying that this measure, which would extend Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, is more than a century overdue. When 240 of us voted for Federal recognition during the 102nd Congress, that should have resolved the question of Lumbee status. When we voted again in favor of similar legislation in the 103rd Congress, that certainly should have meant that the United States had finally taken a stand and done the right

thing by acknowledging a trust relationship with the Lumbee Tribe, but it was not to be. Last Congress, the Lumbee Tribe Recognition Act passed the House of Representatives with 256 votes but, unfortunately, this legislation stalled in the Senate.

So here we are again today, over 115 years after the Lumbee first sought Federal recognition, still attempting to clarify their status.

The history and struggle of the Lumbee Tribe to obtain Federal acknowledgment has been well documented. When Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956, it simultaneously recognized and terminated the Lumbee Tribe by acknowledging their status as an Indian tribe by denying them Federal service. That act was passed during the era of Federal Indian policy known as the Termination Era. If you examine the results of the Termination Acts of the 1950s, you would see how detrimental that misguided policy was to the terminated tribes. Through it all, the Lumbee Tribe has managed to maintain their sense of community and provide some services to their citizens.

This is a testament to the fact that the Lumbees have a functioning government worthy of Federal acknowledgment. Yet the Lumbee people still do not have the government-to-government relationship they deserve. At no time has the Department of the Interior ever opposed Federal recognition for this tribe based on the belief that the Lumbees are not entitled to such status. Indeed, the Department has repeatedly concluded that the Lumbee Tribe descends from similar speaking tribes.

Several studies undertaken by the Department have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community which has been historically located on the Lumbee River in North Carolina.

During President Obama's campaign, he pledged his full support for recognition of the Lumbee people. At the Natural Resources hearing this year, the administration testified in support of H.R. 31 stating: ``There are rare circumstances when Congress should intervene and recognize a tribal group. And the case of Lumbee Indians is one such case.''

During this debate, we may hear a number of canards against Lumbee recognition but not one will be a legitimate reason to deny recognition. One such relates to the different names given the Lumbee Tribe. Although the State of North Carolina has recognized the tribe for over 100 years, it has done so under various names. Other than the Lumbee Tribe, North Carolina is responsible for the various names that it imposed upon the tribe. It was not until the tribe pressured the State that the tribe was authorized to conduct a referendum to choose their own name. When it did so in 1951, it chose the name Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. This is the only name ever selected by the tribe, and it is this name by which Congress, in 1956, recognized the Lumbees.

Some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill, and I want to note that the cost of this bill is for discretionary programs only. There is no mandatory spending. Any actual costs to this bill are subject to appropriations.

To address claims that the tribe was only interested in Federal recognition so that they may conduct gaming, the tribe supported an outright gaming prohibition which has been included in this bill. The gaming prohibition precludes the Lumbee Tribe from engaging in, licensing, or regulating gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any other Federal law.

Finally, some may argue that the Lumbees should not be allowed to bypass administrative process established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and should be allowed to go through the administrative process. I can assure you extending Federal recognition to a tribe at this time is not something new, nor does it bypass administrative process. If a tribe has been terminated by the Federal Government, they are ineligible for the administrative process.

Because we, the Congress, terminated the Lumbees in 1956, it is solely our responsibility to restore their status.

In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mike McIntyre, for his dedication to this issue. Over the years, he has acted in a professional and respectful manner in his tireless efforts, his superb leadership. This bill has garnered 185 cosponsors. Mr. McIntyre's dedication to the Lumbee people is most admirable, and I'm sure they recognize and salute him for that dedication.

I would also like to commend the Lumbee Tribe for being extremely patient with Congress as we have failed to clarify their status for far too long.

In the face of adversity, their determination and sheer stamina has served as testament to their belief in who they are as a people. They have endured rejection by Congress, hostility by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and have even been snubbed in their quest by neighboring Indian tribes unwilling to have the Lumbee recognized the Congress as they were.

All the Lumbee want is the respect of being acknowledged for who they are--an American Indian tribe.

Let us join this effort to grant the Lumbee the recognition they have so long deserved. It is up to us to do the right thing by extending Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 31.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm most delighted to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), lead sponsor of this legislation, and, again, commend him for his tremendous leadership.

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Wow. Madam Speaker, it certainly has been a torturous and long path for the Lumbee Indian Tribe. This is but yet another stake that is attempted to be driven in their heart.

It is long established policy in this country for Indian tribes to determine their own membership, their own roll. This motion to recommit would single out the Lumbee Tribe as the only tribe in America that would be subject to this new requirement. It's discriminatory. It's ugly. It deserves to be defeated.

I want to make something very clear before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina. This is not something new that we're doing today, granting Federal recognition to an Indian tribe. There are 561 federally recognized Indian tribes according to the GAO. Of those, 530 were recognized by the Congress of the United States. That would be this body. That's 530 of 561. And none were recognized under the criteria that's being offered in this motion to recommit.

I yield the balance of my time in opposition to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Madam Speaker, if I have time left, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 31, the proposed bill to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.

First, I want to commend the gentleman and my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for his leadership and tremendous work that he has done to move this bill through committee that is now before us.

I also want to commend Chairman Rahall and our ranking member, Mr. Hastings, and my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for their agreement to bringing this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, it has been more than 120 years since the Lumbees first attempted Federal recognition since 1888. More than a century has passed since they first started this labyrinth known as Federal recognition process. Since then, the Lumbee themselves have been subjected to such demeaning vetting process, including having the size of their teeth measured and their blood tested to see how much Indian they were.

Since 1888, the Lumbees have submitted all documentation they have to prove their existence. After more than 100 years' worth of documentation and witness testimony, the Lumbees have fully exhausted the Federal recognition process but to no avail.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that the policy of the United States has been terribly inconsistent with regard to the original inhabitants of this land, the first Americans. Our first policy was to do battle with them, kill them. The prevailing opinion at the time was epitomized by General Philip Sheridan in 1869 when he said: ``The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.''

Our next policy was that of assimilation. During this period, the United States tried to make Indians part of American mainstream. And then in the 1950s and the early 1960s, this country's policy was termination, termination meaning Indian tribes were no longer in existence.

Then there was the policy of reinstatement. Since 1978, the tribes now have to seek recognition from the Federal Government, and doing so by a series of administrative regulations that have caused tremendous hardship for the tribes seeking to be recognized by the Federal Government.

Throughout this entire period, the Lumbees were seeking recognition.

While Congress recognized the Lumbee Indians in the 1956 Act, the Lumbees were still deprived of critical services and benefits that were available to other Indian tribes. Since then, the Lumbees have felt like they were second-class citizens. And I agree.

Madam Speaker, it is public record that the Interior Department has found the Lumbee petition for recognition wanting. Apparently, the Lumbees didn't keep sufficient written records of their existence for the period supposedly encompassing roughly from 1760 to 1850 to convince the Department of the Interior. I guess the Department thinks that any group of people who don't have a paper trail to prove their existence aren't worthy of Federal recognition.

While I know it's true that the Bureau of Indian Affairs exists only to create a paper trail, I cannot help but think the Lumbee case is a perfect example of a bureaucratic process run amok.

Madam Speaker, there comes a time when the process for process' sake loses its value. While it might be procedurally nice for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior to provide a timely review of each group that seeks recognition, sometimes justice requires otherwise. The cost of continuing the acknowledgment process in the case of the Lumbees, for me at least, is just simply too high. And I believe that this is one of the principal roles that Congress has to play.

The time has come for this institution to take action. By our own inaction, Congress will continue to defer to a Federal recognition process that, in the case of the Lumbees, has failed miserably, a Federal recognition process that is also in greater need of reform. And I have introduced legislation to have Congress change the process.

Today, we are considering H.R. 31, a bill to grant Lumbees Federal recognition. After reviewing this bill, there's nothing in here that threatens the economic stream of other federally recognized tribes. Indeed, H.R. 31 contains prohibition of gaming activities.

Madam Speaker, further inaction would lead to more time lost for the Lumbees. For over 100 years, the Lumbees are still seeking recognition. And just prior to the introduction of this bill, we have had to recognize six tribes from Virginia after they waited for 400 years. Does this suggest that the poor Lumbees are to wait for another 300 years, Madam Speaker? I say not.

The time has come to give the Lumbees Federal recognition. I urge my colleagues and Members of this House, do pass H.R. 31 and give the Lumbee Indians at last the recognition they so dearly deserve.

I just want to note for the record, as much as I respect my dear friend, the gentleman from Washington, I remember distinctly we had a hearing on this very issue, and the gentleman who wrote the regulations, the seven criteria that were outlined in terms of what these poor tribes had to go through, admitted before this committee, our committee, even he would not have been able to seek recognition if this is the way the bureaucratic maze had to be conducted on how to recognize an Indian tribe.

So I say this to my good friend from the State of Washington, we are setting precedent here to the effect that we have already recognized all other tribes, the six that we just recognized 30 minutes ago. There was no requirement they had to go back to one of the separate criteria in order to be recognized.

This is the prerogative of the Congress. The Congress can pass this legislation to give recognition to this tribe. And I say this with all due respect to my good friend from Washington.

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

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a tragedy our Nation experienced on Monday, May 11, 2009, at the combat stress clinic in Camp Liberty, Iraq, when a soldier reportedly killed five innocent American servicemen and wounded three others.

The shooting resulted in the tragic loss of Navy Commander Charles K. Springle, Army Major Matthew P. Houseal, Army Sergeant Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, Army Specialist Jacob D. Barton, and a native of my district

and Maryland's Eastern Shore, Specialist Michael E. Yates.

This resolution expresses heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of this tragic act, and it conveys Congress' ongoing deep gratitude for all of the brave members of our Armed Forces who have risked their lives in the service of our Nation. This resolution also recognizes the important work of medical professionals and staff who provide essential mental health services to servicemen and women at Camp Liberty and at other clinics both in theater and at home.

Now is the time to give increased attention to the mental health challenges faced by the courageous members of our Armed Forces, especially given our Nation's protracted military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our servicemen and -women and their families make extreme sacrifices each day in order to keep our Nation safe. Honoring our commitment to those who serve our Nation means not only offering first-class medical care for physical injuries but also in providing first-class mental health services.

Congress must commit to focusing on both the mental and physical well-being of the Nation's active military as well as of its veterans, and it must commit to supporting the policies, resources, and funding necessary to successfully combat the mental and physical health care challenges that they may confront.

As a result of this tragic accident, Maryland's Eastern Shore lost a native son in Specialist Michael Yates of Federalsburg. Growing up on the Eastern Shore, Michael was an avid hunter and fisherman. Like many of my constituents, he held a deep love for his country and a desire to serve in the defense of freedom. At the young age of 17, Michael joined the Army. He was then sent to Fort Knox, Germany and then to Iraq where he served as a cavalry scout. Michael had recently returned to Federalsburg where he was able to visit with family and friends one last time before returning to Iraq and ultimately to the counseling center at Camp Liberty.

It was here that a fellow soldier, whom Michael had described to his stepfather as a ``fairly decent guy who had some major issues,'' reportedly shot and killed Michael.

We must make soldiers' and veterans' mental health a priority and heed Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation to support funding for traumatic brain injury and psychological health exams for our servicemen and -women.

We owe this to Specialist Yates, to Commander Springle, to Major Houseal, to Sergeant Bueno-Galdos, and to Specialist Barton, as well as to the friends and families of those involved in this tragic event.

We owe this to each and every brave soldier and their families who make sacrifices daily and face the intense stress that comes with the defense of our Nation.

House Resolution 471 was introduced along with fellow colleagues who lost constituents in this incident honoring their service and recognizing mental health issues among servicemen and veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution in honor of the those who lost their lives and all who serve in our Armed Forces.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

This resolution, H. Res. 471, is a resolution that deserves all of our support. The legislation expresses our sympathies to the five victims and their countless friends and families of the violent acts that took place at Camp Liberty in Iraq in May. Many of us have been there many times.

These are senseless deaths. In a book that just came out 2 months ago, Joshua Cooper Ramo, ``The Age of the Unthinkable,'' wrote, Our old way of war is increasingly useless. It is senseless to aspire to periods of peace on Earth during the lifetime of anyone who reads the book unless we begin to change how, where, and why we do fight.

These deaths took place at a very particular spot at Camp Liberty, and both the gentlewoman and the gentleman who spoke of the names and places where these five soldiers came from are on the Record.

One of these soldiers, one of these brave men, came from the city I have lived in all my life. Army Sergeant Christian Bueno-Galdos was 25 years old. I honor, and we all honor, his sacrifice and his service. It exemplifies the deep sense of commitment that so many immigrants have for America. He was the youngest of four. He was born in Peru, and came here when he was 7 years old. He and his family settled in a gray house in a neighborhood I grew up in--Paterson, New Jersey. It was just across the street from the county road department in south Paterson.

He attended high school at Passaic County Tech. After graduating, he considered studying premed but instead decided to serve his country and joined the U.S. Army Reserves. It was in this service to his Nation that Sergeant Bueno-Galdos became a citizen of the United States of America. He went into the service before he was a citizen. His dedication and love for this country was so great, he voluntarily signed up for a second tour of duty. How many times have we heard this?

Then, on May 11, Sergeant Bueno-Galdos tragically lost his life, and Paterson and New Jersey and the United States lost a fine citizen. His parents first considered laying him to rest in their home country of Peru. But upon reflection of their son's love of America and commitment to this great Nation, Sergeant Bueno-Galdos was laid to rest in New Jersey with full military honors.

So we extend our deepest sympathies and heartfelt gratitude to his surviving wife Greisyn, his mother Eugenia, his father Carlos, and his three siblings.

Sergeant Bueno-Galdos was a courageous soldier, a loving husband, a son, a brother, a fine American citizen. He will be greatly missed but never forgotten in Paterson. We have already erected a monument on Memorial Day for him.

But my friends, today something else happened. We promoted from Lieutenant Colonel, Mike Jaffee, who is now a full Colonel in the Air Force. Dr. Jaffee is a neurologist, psychologist. He's a leader in the Department of Defense to respond to traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. Isn't it ironic that these killings took place in

a stress area where American soldiers were trying to help those in need?

Twenty percent of those who have fought, who have been on the front lines, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, have posttraumatic stress disorder. Most are misdiagnosed, most are undiagnosed, and the stigma is slowly peeling away. They need our help. Their families need our help.

So not only did we go into a war unprepared, but we did little for those who put their lives on the front line while we, supposedly gray men, decided where they would go and when they would return and how many times they would return to the battlefield. We are fools, to say the least.

We need to think about what's going on. These brave men and women have taken the entire burden while we act as if nothing happens. These senseless deaths will not be forgotten.

I ask all of us to vote for this legislation and remember their families

God bless America. Thank you.